Comparison of multilevel low-grade techniques versus three-column osteotomies in adult spinal deformity surgery: does harmonious correction matter?

OBJECTIVE

Recent debate has arisen between whether to use a three-column osteotomy (3CO) or multilevel low-grade (MLG) techniques to treat severe sagittal malalignment in adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery. The goal of this study was to compare the outcomes of 3CO and MLG techniques performed in corrective surgeries for ASD.

METHODS

ASD patients who had a baseline PI-LL > 30° and 2-year follow-up data were included. Patients underwent either 3CO or MLG (thoracolumbar posterior column osteotomies at ≥ 3 levels or anterior lumbar interbody fusion at ≥ 3 levels with no 3CO). The segmental utility ratio was used to assess relative segmental correction (segmental correction divided by overall correction in lordosis divided by the number of thoracolumbar interventions [interbody fusion, thoracolumbar posterior column osteotomies, and 3CO]). The paired t-test was used to assess lordotic distribution by differences in lordosis between adjacent lumbar disc spaces (e.g., L1-2 to L2-3). Multivariate analysis, controlling for age, sex, BMI, osteoporosis, baseline pelvic incidence, and T1 pelvic angle, was used to evaluate the complication rates and radiographic and patient-reported outcomes between the groups.

RESULTS

A total of 93 patients were included, 53% of whom underwent MLG and 47% of whom underwent 3CO. The MLG group had a lower BMI (p < 0.05). MLG patients received fewer previous fusions than 3CO patients (31% vs 80%, p < 0.001). MLG patients had 24% less blood loss but a 22% longer operative time (565 vs 419 minutes, p = 0.008). Using adjusted analysis, the 3CO group had greater segmental and relative correction at each level (segmental utility ratio mean 69% for 3CO vs 23% for MLG, p < 0.001). However, the 3CO group had lordotic differences between two adjacent lumbar disc pairs (range -0.5° to 9.0°, p = 0.009), while MLG was more harmonious (range 2.2°-6.5°, p > 0.4). MLG patients were more likely to undergo realignment to age-adjusted standards (OR 5.6, 95% CI 1.2-46.4; p = 0.033). MLG patients were less likely to develop neurological complications or undergo reoperation (OR 0.4, 95% CI 0.1-0.9; p = 0.041). Adjusted analysis revealed that MLG patients more often met a substantial clinical benefit in the Oswestry Disability Index score (OR 5.3, 95% CI 1.1-26.8; p = 0.043).

CONCLUSIONS

MLG techniques showed better utility in lumbar distribution and age-adjusted global correction while minimizing neurological complications and reoperation rates by 2 years postoperatively. In selected instances, these techniques may offer the spine deformity surgeon a safer alternative when correcting severe adult spinal deformity.

Are We Focused on the Wrong Early Postoperative Quality Metrics? Optimal Realignment Outweighs Perioperative Risk in Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery

BACKGROUND

While reimbursement is centered on 90-day outcomes, many patients may still achieve optimal, long-term outcomes following adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery despite transient short-term complications.

OBJECTIVE

Compare long-term clinical success and cost-utility between patients achieving optimal realignment and suboptimally aligned peers.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Retrospective cohort study of a prospectively collected multicenter database.

METHODS

ASD patients with two-year (2Y) data included. Groups were propensity score matched (PSM) for age, frailty, body mass index (BMI), Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), and baseline deformity. Optimal radiographic criteria are defined as meeting low deformity in all three (Scoliosis Research Society) SRS-Schwab parameters or being proportioned in Global Alignment and Proportionality (GAP). Cost-per-QALY was calculated for each time point. Multivariable logistic regression analysis and ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) adjusting for baseline disability and deformity (pelvic incidence (PI), pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis (PI-LL)) were used to determine the significance of surgical details, complications, clinical outcomes, and cost-utility.

RESULTS

A total of 930 patients were considered. Following PSM, 253 "optimal" (O) and 253 "not optimal" (NO) patients were assessed. The O group underwent more invasive procedures and had more levels fused. Analysis of complications by two years showed that the O group suffered less overall major (38% vs. 52%, p = 0.021) and major mechanical complications (12% vs. 22%, p = 0.002), and less reoperations (23% vs. 33%, p = 0.008). Adjusted analysis revealed O patients more often met MCID (minimal clinically important difference) in SF-36 PCS, SRS-22 Pain, and Appearance. Cost-utility-adjusted analysis determined that the O group generated better cost-utility by one year and maintained lower overall cost and costs per QALY (both p < 0.001) at two years.

CONCLUSIONS

Fewer late complications (mechanical and reoperations) are seen in optimally aligned patients, leading to better long-term cost-utility overall. Therefore, the current focus on avoiding short-term complications may be counterproductive, as achieving optimal surgical correction is critical for long-term success.