Quality metrics in adult spinal deformity surgery over the last decade: a combined analysis of the largest prospective multicenter data sets

Sagittal realignment: surgical restoration of the global alignment and proportion score parameters: a subgroup analysis. What are the consequences of failing to realign?

INTRODUCTION

The Global Alignment and Proportion (GAP) score incorporates three domains directly modified with surgery (relative pelvic version-RPV, relative lumbar lordosis-RLL, lumbar distribution index-LDI) and one indirectly restored (relative spinopelvic alignment-RSA). We analyzed our surgical realignment performance and the consequences of domain-specific realignment failure on mechanical complications and PROMs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From an adult spinal deformity prospective multicenter database, we selected patients: fused to pelvis, upper instrumented vertebra at or above L1, and 2 years of follow-up. Descriptive, univariate and multivariate analyses were employed.

RESULTS

The sample included 333 patients. RLL-6w showed the highest success rate (58.3% aligned), but 16.5% of patients were classified in the "Severe hypolordosis" and "Hyperlordosis" subgroups. RPV-6w was the most challenging to realign, with 51.6% moderate or severe retroversion. Regarding RSA-6w, 21.9% had severe positive malalignment. Correct alignment of RPV-6w (p = 0.025) and RSA-6w (p = 0.002) proved to be protective factors against the development of mechanical complications. Severe pelvic retroversion (p = 0.026) and severe positive malalignment (p = 0.007) were risk factors for mechanical complications. RSA-6w "Severe positive malalignment" was associated with less improvement in PROMs: ∆ODI (8.83 vs 17.2; p = 0.011), ∆SRS-22 total (0.54 vs 0.87; p = 0.007), and ∆SF-36PCS (3.47 vs 7.76; p = 0.04); MCID for ODI (37.0 vs 55.5%; p = 0.023), and SRS-22 (40.8 vs 60.1%; p = 0.015); and PASS for ODI (17.6 vs 31.7%; p = 0.047).

CONCLUSIONS

RPV was the most underperformed modifiable parameter. Severe pelvic retroversion and severe positive malalignment influenced the occurrence of mechanical complications. Severe positive malalignment affected PROMs improvement.

Decompression Alone in the Setting of Adult Degenerative Lumbar Scoliosis and Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.OBJECTIVESSurgical decompression alone for patients with neurogenic leg pain in the setting of degenerative lumbar scoliosis (DLS) and stenosis is commonly performed, however, there is no summary of evidence for outcomes.

METHODS

A systematic search of English language medical literature databases was performed for studies describing outcomes of decompression alone in DLS, defined as Cobb angle >10˚, and 2-year minimum follow-up. Three outcomes were examined: 1) Cobb angle progression, 2) reoperation rate, and 3) ODI and overall satisfaction. Data were pooled and weighted averages were calculated to summarize available evidence.

RESULTS

Across 15 studies included in the final analysis, 586 patients were examined. Average preoperative and postoperative Cobb angles were 17.6˚ (Range: 12.7 - 25˚) and 18.0 (range 14.1 - 25˚), respectively. Average change in Cobb angle was an increase of 1.8˚. Overall rate of reoperation ranged from 3 to 33% with an average of 9.7%. Average ODI before surgery, after surgery, and change in scores were 56.4%, 27.2%, and an improvement of 29% respectively. Average from 8 studies that reported patient satisfaction was 71.2%.

CONCLUSIONS

Current literature on decompression alone in the setting of DLS is sparse and is not high quality, limited to patients with small magnitude of lumbar coronal Cobb angle, and heterogenous in the type of procedure performed. Based on available evidence, select patients with DLS who undergo decompression alone had minimal progression of Cobb angle, relatively low reoperation rate, and favorable patient-reported outcomes.

Does the use of postoperative brace help preventing mechanical complications following adult deformity surgery?

PURPOSE

There is scarce information regarding the effectiveness of postoperative braces in decreasing mechanical complications and reinterventions following adult deformity surgery.

METHODS

Retrospective matched cohort study from a prospective adult deformity multicenter database. We selected operated patients, fused to the pelvis, > 6 instrumented levels, and minimum 2 year follow-up. Three hundred and eighty patients were separated into two groups (Brace-3 months TLSO-vs No Brace) and then matched controlling for age, gender and frailty. We studied demographic, intraoperative, and postoperative spinopelvic parameters. Both groups were compared regarding complications and reinterventions in the first 2 postoperative years, using univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

We finally analyzed 359 matched patients, mean age of 65.3 ± 8.9 years, frailty-index (0.43 ± 0.15), and mostly females (84%). 224 patients wore a postoperative brace (B) and 135 didn't (NoB). They showed no difference in intraoperative variables and postoperative spinopelvic alignment. They differed (P < 0.05) in: Pelvic incidence (B:58° ± 13 vs NoB:54.5° ± 13); BMI (B:25.8 ± 4 vs NoB:27.4 ± 5); upper instrumented vertebra (B:81.7% T8-L1 vs NoB:72.6% T8-L1), and the use of multiple rods (B:47.3% vs NoB:18.5%). Univariate analysis showed a higher rate of mechanical complications and reinterventions when not using a brace. As well as higher NRS-back and leg pain at 6 weeks. However, multivariate analysis selected the use of multiple rods as the only independent factor protecting against mechanical complications (OR: 0.38; CI 95% 0.22-0.64) and reinterventions (OR: 0.41; CI 95% 0.216-0.783).

CONCLUSION

After controlling for potential confounders, our study could not identify the protective effect of postoperative braces preventing mechanical complications and reinterventions in the first two postoperative years.

Alterations of gait kinematics depend on the deformity type in the setting of adult spinal deformity

PURPOSE

To evaluate 3D kinematic alterations during gait in Adult Spinal Deformity (ASD) subjects with different deformity presentations.

METHODS

One hundred nineteen primary ASD (51 ± 19y, 90F), age and sex-matched to 60 controls, underwent 3D gait analysis with subsequent calculation of 3D lower limb, trunk and segmental spine kinematics as well as the gait deviation index (GDI). ASD were classified into three groups: 51 with sagittal malalignment (ASD-Sag: SVA > 50 mm, PT > 25°, and/or PI-LL > 10°), 28 with only frontal deformity (ASD-Front: Cobb > 20°) and 40 with only hyperkyphosis (ASD-HyperTK: TK > 60°). Kinematics were compared between groups.

RESULTS

ASD-Sag had a decreased pelvic mobility compared to controls with a decreased ROM of hips (38 vs. 45°) and knees (51 vs. 61°). Furthermore, ASD-Sag exhibited a decreased walking speed (0.8 vs. 1.2 m/s) and GDI (80 vs. 95, all p < 0.05) making them more prone to falls. ASD-HyperTK showed similar patterns but in a less pronounced way. ASD-Front had normal walking patterns. GDI, knee flex/extension and walking speed were significantly associated with SVA and PT (r = 0.30-0.65).

CONCLUSION

Sagittal spinal malalignment seems to be the driver of gait alterations in ASD. Patients with higher GT, SVA, PT or PI-LL tended to walk slower, with shorter steps in order to maintain stability with a limited flexibility in the pelvis, hips and knees. These changes were found to a lesser extent in ASD with only hyperkyphosis but not in those with only frontal deformity. 3D gait analysis is an objective tool to evaluate functionality in ASD patients depending on their type of spinal deformity.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE I

Diagnostic: individual cross-sectional studies with consistently applied reference standard and blinding.

Mid- and Long-Term Comparison Analysis of Two Approaches for the Treatment of Level III or Higher Lenke-Silva Adult Degenerative Scoliosis: Radical or Limited Surgery?

Objective

As the population in general is living longer, less invasive adult degenerative scoliosis (ADS) surgery that balances risks and benefits requires long‐term clinical outcomes to determine its strengths and weaknesses. We design a retrospective study to compare the postoperative mid‐ and long‐term outcomes in terms of efficacy, surgical complications, and reoperation rate of patients with ADS treated with two different surgical approaches (long‐segment complete reconstruction or short‐segment limited intervention).

Methods

In this retrospective study, 78 patients with ADS (Lenke–Silva levels III or higher), who accepted surgical treatment at our hospital between June 2012 and June 2019 were included. These patients were assigned to the long‐segment radical group (complete decompression with deformity correction involves ≥3 segments) and the short‐segment limited group (symptomatic segment decompression involves <3 segments). In addition, general information such as age, gender, fixed segment number, efficacy, radiographic parameters, and reoperation rate of patients in the two groups were compared and analyzed.

Results

There were no significant differences between the two groups with regard to gender, follow‐up time, long‐term surgical complications and reoperation rate (P > 0.05). The mean age of patients in the long‐segment strategy group was 57.1 ± 7.9 years, with a mean number of fixed segments of 7.9 ± 2.4. The mean age of patients in the short‐segment strategy group was 60.8 ± 8.4 years, with a mean number of fixed segments of 1.4 ± 0.5. At the final follow‐up visit, the long‐segment radical group showed better results than the short‐segment limited group with regard to coronal Cobb angle, lumbar lordosis angle and sagittal balance (P < 0.05). The long‐segment strategy group had a higher implant‐related complication rate (P = 0.010); the adjacent segment‐related complication in the two groups showed no significant difference (P = 0.068).

Conclusion

Considering the risk, rehabilitation pathway and costs of long‐segment radical surgery, short‐segment limited intervention is a better strategy for patients who cannot tolerate the long‐segment surgery, improving symptoms and maintaining efficacy in the mid‐ and long‐term, and not increasing the reoperation rate.

PRESENTATION OF THE MULTICENTRIC COLLECTION SPINE SURGERY DATABASE

ABSTRACT Objectives: To present the Spine Surgery Database developed by the Brazilian Spine Study Group and the methodology involved in its creation, in addition to presenting initial informationabout the use of the database. Methods: Description of the steps for selecting the questionnaires and variables to be included in the database, initial expansion of the use of the database tophysicians close to the BSSG, a brief exploration of quality control and methods for the inclusion ofnew centers, and training on the database, in addition to a brief descriptionof some of the data included in the database. Results: Currently, the database includes 428 patients who already underwent spine surgery and 9 collection centers with at least one patient collected. Conclusion: The Brazilian Spine Study Group’s Multicentric Collection Database is a viable tool that allows patients from different sourcesto be included within a common flow. Level of Evidence V; Expert opinion.