Peter G Passias1, Alexandra Soroceanu2, Sun Yang2, Frank Schwab2, Christopher Ames3, Anthony Boniello2, Justin Smith4, Christopher Shaffrey5, Oheneba Boachie-Adjei6, Gregory Mundis7, Douglas Burton8, Eric Klineberg3, Robert Hart9, D Kojo Hamilton10, Daniel M Sciubba11, Shay Bess12, Virginie Lafage2. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, NYU Hospital for Joint Diseases, New York, NY Peter.Passias@nyumc.org. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, NYU Hospital for Joint Diseases, New York, NY. 3. Department of Neurosurgery, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California. 4. Department of Neurological Surgery, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois. 5. Department of Neurosurgery, University of Virginia Medical Center, Charlottesville, Virginia. 6. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY. 7. San Diego Center for Spinal Disorders, La Jolla, California. 8. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The University of Kansas Hospital, Kansas City, Kansas. 9. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon. 10. University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 11. Department of Pediatric Neurological Surgery, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland. 12. Colorado Orthopaedic & Spine Surgery, Denver, Colorado.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The surgical procedure to treat adult spinal deformity is challenging, with high rates of complications, including revision procedures performed to repair instrumentation failure or unplanned surgical complications. This study quantifies the incidence of, identifies predictors for, and determines health-related quality-of-life changes associated with revision procedures to treat adult spinal deformity. METHODS: We analyzed a multicenter database of patients who underwent a surgical procedure for adult spinal deformity, which was defined as having an age of eighteen years or older and scoliosis of ≥20°, sagittal vertical axis of ≥5 cm, pelvic tilt of ≥25°, and/or thoracic kyphosis of >60°. We focused on demographic, radiographic, health-related quality-of-life, and operative data at the two-year follow-up. Patients with primary infections were excluded. Predictive and confounding variables for revisions were identified using univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression modeling. RESULTS: Two hundred and forty-three patients were included in this study; of these patients, forty (16.5%) underwent a revision surgical procedure (15% of these at six weeks, 38% between six weeks and one year, and 48% between one and two years). Screw or cage-related implant complications were the most common indications for revision, followed by proximal junctional kyphosis and rod failure. Positive predictors for a revision surgical procedure included total body mass, with an odds ratio of 1.33 (95% confidence interval, 1.04 to 1.70) per 10-kg increase, and preoperative sagittal vertical axis, with an odds ratio of 1.15 (95% confidence interval, 1.04 to 1.28) per 2-cm increase. Factors associated with lower risk of revision included use of bone morphogenetic protein-2 (BMP-2) (odds ratio, 0.16 [95% confidence interval, 0.05 to 0.47]) and greater diameter rods (odds ratio, 0.51 [95% confidence interval, 0.29 to 0.89]). Body mass index, although initially considered a potential predictor for a revision surgical procedure, was not significantly different between primary and revision cohorts on univariate analysis and was therefore not input into the multivariate model. All patients improved in two-year health-related quality-of-life scores; revision subjects had lower overall improvement (Scoliosis Research Society [SRS] score; p = 0.016) from baseline. Revision status did not predict two-year patient satisfaction (p = 0.726), as measured by the SRS Satisfaction domain (SRS-22r). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with greater preoperative sagittal vertical axis and high total body mass are at a higher risk for a revision surgical procedure following procedures to treat adult spinal deformity. Larger diameter rods and BMP-2 were associated with decreased revision odds. Revisions did not impact patient satisfaction at two years. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
BACKGROUND: The surgical procedure to treat adult spinal deformity is challenging, with high rates of complications, including revision procedures performed to repair instrumentation failure or unplanned surgical complications. This study quantifies the incidence of, identifies predictors for, and determines health-related quality-of-life changes associated with revision procedures to treat adult spinal deformity. METHODS: We analyzed a multicenter database of patients who underwent a surgical procedure for adult spinal deformity, which was defined as having an age of eighteen years or older and scoliosis of ≥20°, sagittal vertical axis of ≥5 cm, pelvic tilt of ≥25°, and/or thoracic kyphosis of >60°. We focused on demographic, radiographic, health-related quality-of-life, and operative data at the two-year follow-up. Patients with primary infections were excluded. Predictive and confounding variables for revisions were identified using univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression modeling. RESULTS: Two hundred and forty-three patients were included in this study; of these patients, forty (16.5%) underwent a revision surgical procedure (15% of these at six weeks, 38% between six weeks and one year, and 48% between one and two years). Screw or cage-related implant complications were the most common indications for revision, followed by proximal junctional kyphosis and rod failure. Positive predictors for a revision surgical procedure included total body mass, with an odds ratio of 1.33 (95% confidence interval, 1.04 to 1.70) per 10-kg increase, and preoperative sagittal vertical axis, with an odds ratio of 1.15 (95% confidence interval, 1.04 to 1.28) per 2-cm increase. Factors associated with lower risk of revision included use of bone morphogenetic protein-2 (BMP-2) (odds ratio, 0.16 [95% confidence interval, 0.05 to 0.47]) and greater diameter rods (odds ratio, 0.51 [95% confidence interval, 0.29 to 0.89]). Body mass index, although initially considered a potential predictor for a revision surgical procedure, was not significantly different between primary and revision cohorts on univariate analysis and was therefore not input into the multivariate model. All patients improved in two-year health-related quality-of-life scores; revision subjects had lower overall improvement (Scoliosis Research Society [SRS] score; p = 0.016) from baseline. Revision status did not predict two-year patient satisfaction (p = 0.726), as measured by the SRS Satisfaction domain (SRS-22r). CONCLUSIONS:Patients with greater preoperative sagittal vertical axis and high total body mass are at a higher risk for a revision surgical procedure following procedures to treat adult spinal deformity. Larger diameter rods and BMP-2 were associated with decreased revision odds. Revisions did not impact patient satisfaction at two years. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Authors: Andrea Zanirato; Marco Damilano; Matteo Formica; Andrea Piazzolla; Alessio Lovi; Jorge Hugo Villafañe; Pedro Berjano Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2018-03-01 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Charles H Crawford; Steven D Glassman; Leah Y Carreon; Christopher I Shaffrey; Tyler R Koski; Christine R Baldus; Keith H Bridwell Journal: Spine Deform Date: 2018 Nov - Dec
Authors: Bassel G Diebo; Frank A Segreto; Cyrus M Jalai; Dennis Vasquez-Montes; Cole A Bortz; Samantha R Horn; Nicholas J Frangella; Max I Egers; Eric Klineberg; Renaud Lafage; Virginie Lafage; Frank Schwab; Peter G Passias Journal: J Spine Surg Date: 2018-12
Authors: Rafael De la Garza-Ramos; Jonathan Nakhla; Yaroslav Gelfand; Murray Echt; Aleka N Scoco; Merritt D Kinon; Reza Yassari Journal: J Spine Surg Date: 2018-03
Authors: Justin S Smith; Christopher I Shaffrey; Michael P Kelly; Elizabeth L Yanik; Jon D Lurie; Christine R Baldus; Charles Edwards; Steven D Glassman; Lawrence G Lenke; Oheneba Boachie-Adjei; Jacob M Buchowski; Leah Y Carreon; Charles H Crawford; Thomas J Errico; Stephen J Lewis; Tyler Koski; Stefan Parent; Han Jo Kim; Christopher P Ames; Shay Bess; Frank J Schwab; Keith H Bridwell Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2019-09-01 Impact factor: 3.241
Authors: Nathan J Lee; Zeeshan M Sardar; Venkat Boddapati; Justin Mathew; Meghan Cerpa; Eric Leung; Joseph Lombardi; Lawrence G Lenke; Ronald A Lehman Journal: Global Spine J Date: 2020-10-08