Literature DB >> 29709551

Predictive model for distal junctional kyphosis after cervical deformity surgery.

Peter G Passias1, Dennis Vasquez-Montes2, Gregory W Poorman2, Themistocles Protopsaltis2, Samantha R Horn2, Cole A Bortz2, Frank Segreto2, Bassel Diebo3, Chris Ames4, Justin Smith5, Virginie LaFage6, Renaud LaFage6, Eric Klineberg7, Chris Shaffrey5, Shay Bess8, Frank Schwab6.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Distal junctional kyphosis (DJK) is a primary concern of surgeons correcting cervical deformity. Identifying patients and procedures at higher risk of developing this condition is paramount in improving patient selection and care.
PURPOSE: The present study aimed to develop a risk index for DJK development in the first year after surgery. STUDY DESIGN/
SETTING: This is a retrospective review of a prospective multicenter cervical deformity database. PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients over the age of 18 meeting one of the following deformities were included in the study: cervical kyphosis (C2-7 Cobb angle>10°), cervical scoliosis (coronal Cobb angle>10°), positive cervical sagittal imbalance (C2-C7 sagittal vertical axis (SVA)>4 cm or T1-C6>10°), or horizontal gaze impairment (chin-brow vertical angle>25°). OUTCOME MEASURES: Development of DJK at any time before 1 year.
METHODS: Distal junctional kyphosis was defined by both clinical diagnosis (by enrolling surgeon) and post hoc identification of development of an angle<-10° from the end of fusion construct to the second distal vertebra, as well as a change in this angle by <-10° from baseline. Conditional Inference Decision Trees were used to identify factors predictive of DJK incidence and the cut-off points at which they have an effect. A conditional Variable-Importance table was constructed based on a non-replacement sampling set of 2,000 Conditional Inference Trees. Twelve influencing factors were found; binary logistic regression for each variable at significant cutoffs indicated their effect size.
RESULTS: Statistical analysis included 101 surgical patients (average age: 60.1 years, 58.3% female, body mass index: 30.2) undergoing long cervical deformity correction (mean levels fused: 7.1, osteotomy used: 49.5%, approach: 46.5% posterior, 17.8% anterior, 35.7% combined). In 2 years after surgery, 6% of patients were diagnosed with clinical DJK; however, 23.8% of patients met radiographic definition for DJK. Patients with neurologic symptoms were at risk of DJK (odds ratio [OR]: 3.71, confidence interval [CI]: 0.11-0.63). However, no significant relationship was found between osteoporosis, age, and ambulatory status with DJK incidence. Baseline radiographic malalignments were the most numerous and strong predictors for DJK: (1) C2-T1 tilt>5.33 (OR: 6.94, CI: 2.99-16.14); (2) kyphosis<-50.6° (OR: 5.89, CI: 0.07-0.43); (3) C2-C7 lordosis<-12° (OR: 5.7, CI: 0.08-0.41); (4) T1 slope minus cervical lordosis>36.4 (OR: 5.6, CI: 2.28-13.57); (5) C2-C7 SVA>56.3° (OR: 5.4, CI: 2.20-13.23); and (6) C4_Tilt>56.7 (OR: 5.0, CI: 1.90-13.1). Clinically, combined approaches (OR: 2.67, CI: 1.21-5.89) and usage of Smith-Petersen osteotomy (OR: 2.55, CI: 1.02-6.34) were the most important predictors of DJK.
CONCLUSIONS: In a surgical cohort of patients with cervical deformity, we found a 23.8% incidence of DJK. Different procedures and patient malalignment predicted incidence of DJK up to 1 year. Preoperative T1 slope-cervical lordosis, cervical kyphosis, SVA, and cervical lordosis all strongly predicted DJK at specific cut-off points. Knowledge of these factors will potentially help direct future study and strategy aimed at minimizing this potentially dramatic occurrence.
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cervical; Cervical alignment; Cervical deformity; Deformity; Distal junctional kyphosis; Outcomes; Sagittal malalignment; Surgery; Surgical correction

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29709551     DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2018.04.017

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine J        ISSN: 1529-9430            Impact factor:   4.166


  14 in total

Review 1.  Sagittal balance of the cervical spine: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Parisa Azimi; Taravat Yazdanian; Edward C Benzel; Yong Hai; Ali Montazeri
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2021-03-27       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Artificial Intelligence in Adult Spinal Deformity.

Authors:  Pramod N Kamalapathy; Aditya V Karhade; Daniel Tobert; Joseph H Schwab
Journal:  Acta Neurochir Suppl       Date:  2022

Review 3.  Artificial intelligence in spine surgery.

Authors:  Ahmed Benzakour; Pavlos Altsitzioglou; Jean Michel Lemée; Alaaeldin Ahmad; Andreas F Mavrogenis; Thami Benzakour
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2022-07-29       Impact factor: 3.479

4.  Risk factors for distal junctional failure in long-construct instrumentation for adult spinal deformity.

Authors:  Jake M McDonnell; Shane R Evans; Daniel P Ahern; Gráinne Cunniffe; Christopher Kepler; Alexander Vaccaro; Ian D Kaye; Patrick B Morrissey; Scott C Wagner; Arjun Sebastian; Joseph S Butler
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2022-09-30       Impact factor: 2.721

5.  Laminectomy alone versus laminectomy with fusion for degenerative cervical myelopathy: a long-term study of a national cohort.

Authors:  Eddie de Dios; Robert F Heary; Lars Lindhagen; Anna MacDowall
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2021-12-01       Impact factor: 2.721

6.  Epidemiological Relevance of Elevated Preoperative Patient Health Questionnaire-9 Scores on Clinical Improvement Following Lumbar Decompression.

Authors:  James M Parrish; Nathaniel W Jenkins; Elliot D K Cha; Conor P Lynch; Cara E Geoghegan; Caroline N Jadczak; Shruthi Mohan; Kern Singh
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2022-02

7.  Cost-utility of revisions for cervical deformity correction warrants minimization of reoperations.

Authors:  Samantha R Horn; Peter G Passias; Aaron Hockley; Renaud Lafage; Virginie Lafage; Hamid Hassanzadeh; Jason A Horowitz; Cole A Bortz; Frank A Segreto; Avery E Brown; Justin S Smith; Daniel M Sciubba; Gregory M Mundis; Michael P Kelley; Alan H Daniels; Douglas C Burton; Robert A Hart; Frank J Schwab; Shay Bess; Christopher I Shaffrey; Richard A Hostin; Christopher P Ames
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2018-12

8.  The impact of osteotomy grade and location on regional and global alignment following cervical deformity surgery.

Authors:  Peter G Passias; Samantha R Horn; Tina Raman; Avery E Brown; Virginie Lafage; Renaud Lafage; Justin S Smith; Cole A Bortz; Frank A Segreto; Katherine E Pierce; Haddy Alas; Breton G Line; Bassel G Diebo; Alan H Daniels; Han Jo Kim; Alex Soroceanu; Gregory M Mundis; Themistocles S Protopsaltis; Eric O Klineberg; Douglas C Burton; Robert A Hart; Frank J Schwab; Shay Bess; Christopher I Shaffrey; Christopher P Ames
Journal:  J Craniovertebr Junction Spine       Date:  2019 Jul-Sep

9.  Cervical Spine Deformity Correction Techniques.

Authors:  Alexander B Dru; Dennis Timothy Lockney; Sasha Vaziri; Matthew Decker; Adam J Polifka; W Christopher Fox; Daniel J Hoh
Journal:  Neurospine       Date:  2019-09-30

10.  Incidence and predictors of kyphotic deformity following resection of cervical intradural tumors in adults: a population-based cohort study.

Authors:  Charles Tatter; Alexander Fletcher-Sandersjöö; Oscar Persson; Gustav Burström; Per Grane; Erik Edström; Adrian Elmi-Terander
Journal:  Acta Neurochir (Wien)       Date:  2020-06-16       Impact factor: 2.216

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.