At What Point Should the Thoracolumbar Region Be Addressed in Patients Undergoing Corrective Cervical Deformity Surgery?
Journal
Spine
ISSN: 1528-1159
Titre abrégé: Spine (Phila Pa 1976)
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7610646
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 Oct 2021
15 Oct 2021
Historique:
entrez:
24
9
2021
pubmed:
25
9
2021
medline:
29
9
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Retrospective cohort study. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of cervical to thoracolumbar ratios on poor outcomes in cervical deformity (CD) corrective surgery. Consideration of distal regional and global alignment is a critical determinant of outcomes in CD surgery. For operative CD patients, it is unknown whether certain thoracolumbar parameters play a significant role in poor outcomes and whether addressing such parameters is warranted. Included: surgical CD patients (C2-C7 Cobb >10°, cervical lordosis [CL] >10°, C2-C7 sagittal vertical axis (cSVA) >4 cm, or chin-brow vertical angle >25°) with baseline and 1-year data. Patients were assessed for ratios of preop cervical and global parameters including: C2 Slope/T1 slope, T1 slope minus C2-C7 lordosis (TS-CL)/mismatch between pelvic incidence and lumbar lordosis (PI-LL), cSVA/sagittal vertical axis (SVA). Deformity classification ratios of cervical (Ames-ISSG) to spinopelvic (SRS-Schwab) were investigated: cSVA modifier/SVA modifier, TS-CL modifier/PI-LL modifier. Cervical to thoracic ratios included C2-C7 lordosis/T4-T12 kyphosis. Correlations assessed the relationship between ratios and poor outcomes (major complication, reoperation, distal junctional kyphosis (DJK), or failure to meet minimal clinically important difference [MCID]). Decision tree analysis through multiple iterations of multivariate regressions assessed cut-offs for ratios for acquiring suboptimal outcomes. A total of 110 CD patients were included (61.5 years, 66% F, 28.8 kg/m2). Mean preoperative radiographic ratios calculated: C2 slope/T1 slope of 1.56, TS-CL/PI-LL of 11.1, cSVA/SVA of 5.4, CL/thoracic kyphosis (TK) of 0.26. Ames-ISSG and SRS-Schwab modifier ratios: cSVA/SVA of 0.1 and TS-CL/PI-LL of 0.35. Pearson correlations demonstrated a relationship between major complications and baseline TS-CL/PI-LL, Ames TS-CL/Schwab PI-LL modifiers, and the CL/TK ratios (P < 0.050). Reoperation had significant correlation with TS-CL/PI-LL and cSVA/SVA ratios. Postoperative DJK correlated with C2 slope/T1 slope and CL/TK ratios. Not meeting MCID for Neck Disability Index (NDI) correlated with CL/TK ratio and not meeting MCID for EQ5D correlated with Ames TS-CL/Schwab PI-LL. Consideration of cervical to global alignment is a critical determinant of outcomes in CD corrective surgery. Key ratios of cervical to global alignment correlate with suboptimal clinical outcomes. A larger cervical lordosis to TK predicted postoperative complication, DJK, and not meeting MCID for NDI.Level of Evidence: 4.
Sections du résumé
STUDY DESIGN
METHODS
Retrospective cohort study.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of cervical to thoracolumbar ratios on poor outcomes in cervical deformity (CD) corrective surgery.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA
BACKGROUND
Consideration of distal regional and global alignment is a critical determinant of outcomes in CD surgery. For operative CD patients, it is unknown whether certain thoracolumbar parameters play a significant role in poor outcomes and whether addressing such parameters is warranted.
METHODS
METHODS
Included: surgical CD patients (C2-C7 Cobb >10°, cervical lordosis [CL] >10°, C2-C7 sagittal vertical axis (cSVA) >4 cm, or chin-brow vertical angle >25°) with baseline and 1-year data. Patients were assessed for ratios of preop cervical and global parameters including: C2 Slope/T1 slope, T1 slope minus C2-C7 lordosis (TS-CL)/mismatch between pelvic incidence and lumbar lordosis (PI-LL), cSVA/sagittal vertical axis (SVA). Deformity classification ratios of cervical (Ames-ISSG) to spinopelvic (SRS-Schwab) were investigated: cSVA modifier/SVA modifier, TS-CL modifier/PI-LL modifier. Cervical to thoracic ratios included C2-C7 lordosis/T4-T12 kyphosis. Correlations assessed the relationship between ratios and poor outcomes (major complication, reoperation, distal junctional kyphosis (DJK), or failure to meet minimal clinically important difference [MCID]). Decision tree analysis through multiple iterations of multivariate regressions assessed cut-offs for ratios for acquiring suboptimal outcomes.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 110 CD patients were included (61.5 years, 66% F, 28.8 kg/m2). Mean preoperative radiographic ratios calculated: C2 slope/T1 slope of 1.56, TS-CL/PI-LL of 11.1, cSVA/SVA of 5.4, CL/thoracic kyphosis (TK) of 0.26. Ames-ISSG and SRS-Schwab modifier ratios: cSVA/SVA of 0.1 and TS-CL/PI-LL of 0.35. Pearson correlations demonstrated a relationship between major complications and baseline TS-CL/PI-LL, Ames TS-CL/Schwab PI-LL modifiers, and the CL/TK ratios (P < 0.050). Reoperation had significant correlation with TS-CL/PI-LL and cSVA/SVA ratios. Postoperative DJK correlated with C2 slope/T1 slope and CL/TK ratios. Not meeting MCID for Neck Disability Index (NDI) correlated with CL/TK ratio and not meeting MCID for EQ5D correlated with Ames TS-CL/Schwab PI-LL.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Consideration of cervical to global alignment is a critical determinant of outcomes in CD corrective surgery. Key ratios of cervical to global alignment correlate with suboptimal clinical outcomes. A larger cervical lordosis to TK predicted postoperative complication, DJK, and not meeting MCID for NDI.Level of Evidence: 4.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34559752
doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000004045
pii: 00007632-202110150-00014
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
E1113-E1118Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Références
Scheer JK, Tang JA, Smith JS, et al. Cervical spine alignment, sagittal deformity, and clinical implications. J Neurosurg Spine 2013; 19:141–159.
Tan LA, Riew KD, Traynelis VC. Cervical spine deformity—part 1: biomechanics, radiographic parameters, and classification. Neurosurgery 2017; 81:197–203.
Bao H, Varghese J, Lafage R, et al. Principal radiographic characteristics for cervical spinal deformity: a health-related quality of life analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2017; 42:1375–1382.
Smith JS, Eastlack R, Blaskiewicz D, et al. Reliability Assessment of a Novel Cervical Deformity Classification System. In: International Meeting on Advanced Spine Techniques (IMAST); July 16-19 2014.
Kim HJ, Lafage R, Elysée J, et al. The morphology of cervical deformities a two-step cluster analysis to identify cervical deformity patterns. North Am Spine 2019; 1–7.
Smith JS, Lafage V, Schwab FJ, et al. Prevalence and type of cervical deformity among 470 adults with throacolumbar deformity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2014; 39:E1001–E1009.
Ha Y, Schwab FJ, Lafage V, et al. Reciprocal changes in cervical spine alignment after corrective thoracolumbar deformity surgery. Eur Spine J 2014; 23:552–559.
Champain S, Benchikh K, Nogier a, et al. Validation of new clinical quantitative analysis software applicable in spine orthopaedic studies. Eur Spine J 2006; 15:982–991.
Rillardon L, Levassor N, Guigui P, et al. [Validation of a tool to measure pelvic and spinal parameters of sagittal balance]. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 2003; 89:218–227.
O’Brien MF, Kuklo TR, Blanke KM, Lenke LG. Spinal Deformity Study Group Radiographic Measurement Manual. Medtronic Sofamor Danek; 2005. Available at: http://www.oref.org/docs/default-source/default-document-library/sdsg-radiographic-measuremnt-manual.pdf?sfvrsn=2 .
Diebo BG, Varghese JJ, Lafage R, et al. Sagittal alignment of the spine: What do you need to know? Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2015; 139:295–301.
Lafage R, Challier V, Liabaud B, et al. Natural head posture in the setting of sagittal spinal deformity: validation of chin-brow vertical angle, slope of line of sight, and McGregor's slope with health-related quality of life. Neurosurgery 2016; 79:108–115.
Duval-Beaupère G, Schmidt C, Cosson P, et al. A barycentremetric study of the sagittal shape of spine and pelvis: The conditions required for an economic standing position. Ann Biomed Eng 1992; 20:451–462.
Legaye J, Duval-Beaupère G, Hecquet J, et al. Pelvic incidence: a fundamental pelvic parameter for three-dimensional regulation of spinal sagittal curves. Eur Spine J 1998; 7:99–103.
Vaz G, Roussouly P, Berthonnaud E, et al. Sagittal morphology and equilibrium of pelvis and spine. Eur Spine J 2002; 11:80–87.
Lee S-H, Son E-S, Seo E-M, et al. Factors determining cervical spine sagittal balance in asymptomatic adults: correlation with spinopelvic balance and thoracic inlet alignment. Spine J 2013; 15:705–712.
Hardacker JW, Shuford RF, Capicotto PN, et al. Radiographic standing cervical segmental alignment in adult volunteers without neck symptoms. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1997; 22:1472–1480.
Gore DR, Sepic SB, Gardner GM. Roentgenographic findings of the cervical spine in asymptomatic people. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1986; 11:521–524.
Tang JA, Scheer JK, Smith JS, et al. The impact of standing regional cervical sagittal alignment on outcomes in posterior cervical fusion surgery. Neurosurgery 2012; 71:662–669.
Villavicencio AT, Babuska JM, Ashton A, et al. Prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical study evaluating the correlation of clinical outcomes and cervical sagittal alignment. Neurosurgery 2011; 68:1309–1316.
Farcy J-PP, Schwab FJ. Management of flatback and related kyphotic decompensation syndromes. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1997; 22:2452–2457.
Protopsaltis TS, Terran J, Bronsard N, et al. T1 slope minus cervical lordosis (TS-CL), the cervical answer to PI-LL, defines cervical sagittal deformity in patients undergoing thoracolumbar osteotomy. Cerv Spine Res Soc Annu Meet December 5-7 2018; 12:362–370. doi:10.14444/5042.
doi: 10.14444/5042
Hyun S-J, Kim K-J, Jahng T-A, et al. Relationship between T1 slope and cervical alignment following multi-level posterior cervical fusion surgery: impact of T1 slope minus cervical lordosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2015; 41:E396–E402.
Hyun S-J, Kim K-J, Jahng T-A, et al. Clinical impact of T1 slope minus cervical lordosis following multilevel posterior cervical fusion surgery: a minimum 2-year follow-up data. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2017; 45:1859–1864.
Protopsaltis TS, Ramchandran S, Tishelman JC, et al. The importance of C2-slope, a singular marker of cervical deformity, correlates with patient reported outcomes. North Am Spine Soc Annu Meet 2020; 45:184–192.
Passias PG, Horn SR, Oh C, et al. Predicting the occurrence of postoperative distal junctional kyphosis in cervical deformity patients. Neurosurgery 2020; 86:38–46.
Takeshima T, Omokawa S, Takaoka T, et al. Sagittal alignment of cervical flexion and extension: lateral radiographic analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2002; 27:E348–E355.
Terran J, Schwab FJ, Shaffrey CI, et al. The SRS-Schwab Adult Spinal Deformity Classification: assessment and clinical correlations based on a prospective operative and nonoperative cohort. Neurosurgery 2013; 73:559–568.
Bakouny Z, Khalil N, Otayek J, et al. Are the sagittal cervical radiographic modifiers of the Ames-ISSG classification specific to adult cervical deformity? J Neurosurg Spine 2018; 29:483–490.
Ao S, Liu Y, Wang Y, et al. Cervical kyphosis in asymptomatic populations: incidence, risk factors, and its relationship with health-related quality of life. J Orthop Surg Res 2019; 14:322.