Proximal junctional failure in primary thoracolumbar fusion/fixation to the sacrum/pelvis for adult symptomatic lumbar scoliosis: long-term follow-up of a prospective multicenter cohort of 160 patients

Early Experience with Prone Lateral Interbody Fusion in Deformity Correction: A Single-Institution Experience

Background/Objectives: Lateral spine surgery offers effective minimally invasive deformity correction, but traditional approaches often involve separate anterior, lateral, and posterior procedures. The prone lateral technique streamlines this process by allowing single-position access for lateral and posterior surgery, potentially benefiting from the lordosing effect of prone positioning. While previous studies have compared prone lateral to direct lateral for adult degenerative diseases, this retrospective review focuses on the outcomes of adult deformity patients undergoing prone lateral interbody fusion. Methods: Ten adult patients underwent single-position prone lateral surgery for spine deformity correction, with a mean follow-up of 18 months. Results: Results showed significant improvements: sagittal vertical axis decreased by 2.4 cm, lumbar lordosis increased by 9.1°, pelvic tilt improved by 3.3°, segmental lordosis across the fusion construct increased by 12.2°, and coronal Cobb angle improved by 6.3°. These benefits remained consistent over the follow-up period. Correlational analysis showed a positive association between improvements in PROs and SVA and SL. When compared to hybrid approaches, prone lateral yielded greater improvements in SVA. Conclusions: Prone lateral surgery demonstrated favorable outcomes with reasonable perioperative risks. However, further research comparing this technique with standard minimally invasive lateral approaches, hybrid, and open approaches is warranted for a comprehensive evaluation.

Three-column osteotomy in long constructs has lower rates of proximal junctional kyphosis and better restoration of lumbar lordosis than anterior column realignment

PURPOSE

Three-column osteotomies (TCOs) and minimally invasive techniques such as anterior column realignment (ACR) are powerful tools used to restore lumbar lordosis and sagittal alignment. We aimed to appraise the differences in construct and global spinal stability between TCOs and ACRs in long constructs.

METHODS

We identified consecutive patients who underwent a long construct lumbar or thoracolumbar fusion between January 2016 and November 2021. "Long construct" was any construct where the uppermost instrumented vertebra (UIV) was L2 or higher and the lowermost instrumented vertebra (LIV) was in the sacrum or ileum.

RESULTS

We identified 69 patients; 14 (20.3%) developed PJK throughout follow-up (mean 838 days). Female patients were less likely to suffer PJK (p = 0.009). TCO was more associated with open (versus minimally invasive) screw/rod placement, greater number of levels, higher UIV, greater rate of instrumentation to the ilium, and posterior (versus anterior) L5-S1 interbody placement versus the ACR cohort (p < 0.001, p < 0.001, p < 0.001, p < 0.001, p = 0.005, respectively). Patients who developed PJK were more likely to have undergone ACR (12 (32.4%) versus 2 (6.3%, p = 0.007)). The TCO cohort had better improvement of lumbar lordosis despite similar preoperative measurements (ACR: 16.8 ± 3.78°, TCO: 23.0 ± 5.02°, p = 0.046). Pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis mismatch had greater improvement after TCO (ACR: 14.8 ± 4.02°, TCO: 21.5 ± 5.10°, p = 0.042). By multivariate analysis, ACR increased odds of PJK by 6.1-times (95% confidence interval: 1.20-31.2, p = 0.29).

CONCLUSION

In patients with long constructs who undergo ACR or TCO, we experienced a 20% rate of PJK. TCO decreased PJK 6.1-times compared to ACR. TCO demonstrated greater improvement of some spinopelvic parameters.

Patient Optimization for the Prevention of Proximal Junctional Kyphosis

Proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK) and proximal junctional failure (PJF) are well-recognized challenges of surgery for adult spinal deformity (ASD). Multiple risk factors have been identified for PJK/PJF, including osteoporosis, frailty, neurodegenerative disease, obesity, and smoking. Several surgical techniques to mitigate risk of PJK/PJF have been identified; however, patient optimization is also critical. This review summarizes the data behind these 5 risk factors (osteoporosis, frailty, neurodegenerative disease, obesity, and smoking) and details the related recommendations for patients undergoing surgery for ASD.

How Good Are Surgeons at Achieving Their Preoperative Goal Sagittal Alignment Following Adult Deformity Surgery?

STUDY DESIGN

Multicenter, prospective cohort.

OBJECTIVES

Malalignment following adult spine deformity (ASD) surgery can impact outcomes and increase mechanical complications. We assess whether preoperative goals for sagittal alignment following ASD surgery are achieved.

METHODS

ASD patients were prospectively enrolled based on 3 criteria: deformity severity (PI-LL ≥25°, TPA ≥30°, SVA ≥15 cm, TCobb≥70° or TLCobb≥50°), procedure complexity (≥12 levels fused, 3-CO or ACR) and/or age (>65 and ≥7 levels fused). The surgeon documented sagittal alignment goals prior to surgery. Goals were compared with achieved alignment on first follow-up standing radiographs.

RESULTS

The 266 enrolled patients had a mean age of 61.0 years (SD = 14.6) and 68% were women. Mean instrumented levels was 13.6 (SD = 3.8), and 23.2% had a 3-CO. Mean (SD) offsets (achieved-goal) were: SVA = -8.5 mm (45.6 mm), PI-LL = -4.6° (14.6°), TK = 7.2° (14.7°), reflecting tendencies to undercorrect SVA and PI-LL and increase TK. Goals were achieved for SVA, PI-LL, and TK in 74.4%, 71.4%, and 68.8% of patients, respectively, and was achieved for all 3 parameters in 37.2% of patients. Three factors were independently associated with achievement of all 3 alignment goals: use of PACs/equivalent for surgical planning (P < .001), lower baseline GCA (P = .009), and surgery not including a 3-CO (P = .037).

CONCLUSIONS

Surgeons failed to achieve goal alignment of each sagittal parameter in ∼25-30% of ASD patients. Goal alignment for all 3 parameters was only achieved in 37.2% of patients. Those at greatest risk were patients with more severe deformity. Advancements are needed to enable more consistent translation of preoperative alignment goals to the operating room.