Highest Achievable Outcomes for Patients Undergoing Cervical Deformity Corrective Surgery by Frailty.
Journal
Neurosurgery
ISSN: 1524-4040
Titre abrégé: Neurosurgery
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7802914
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 11 2022
01 11 2022
Historique:
received:
10
01
2022
accepted:
26
05
2022
pubmed:
10
9
2022
medline:
19
10
2022
entrez:
9
9
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Frailty is influential in determining operative outcomes, including complications, in patients with cervical deformity (CD). To assess whether frailty status limits the highest achievable outcomes of patients with CD. Adult patients with CD with 2-year (2Y) data included. Frailty stratification: not frail (NF) <0.2, frail (F) 0.2 to 0.4, and severely frail (SF) >0.4. Analysis of covariance established estimated marginal means based on age, invasiveness, and baseline deformity, for improvement, deterioration, or maintenance in Neck Disability Index (NDI), Modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA), and Numerical Rating Scale Neck Pain. One hundred twenty-six patients with CD included 29 NF, 83 F, and 14 SF. The NF group had the highest rates of deterioration and lowest rates of improvement in cervical Sagittal Vertical Axis and horizontal gaze modifiers. Two-year improvements in NDI by frailty: NF: -11.2, F: -16.9, and SF: -14.6 ( P = .524). The top quartile of NF patients also had the lowest 1-year (1Y) NDI (7.0) compared with F (11.0) and SF (40.5). Between 1Y and 2Y, 7.9% of patients deteriorated in NDI, 71.1% maintained, and 21.1% improved. Between 1Y and 2Y, SF had the highest rate of improvement (42%), while NF had the highest rate of deterioration (18.5%). Although frail patients improved more often by 1Y, SF patients achieve most of their clinical improvement between 1 and 2Y. Frailty is associated with factors such as osteoporosis, poor alignment, neurological status, sarcopenia, and other medical comorbidities. Similarly, clinical outcomes can be affected by many factors (fusion status, number of pain generators within treated levels, integrity of soft tissues and bone, and deformity correction). Although accounting for such factors will ultimately determine whether frailty alone is an independent risk factor, these preliminary findings may suggest that frailty status affects the clinical outcomes and improvement after CD surgery.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Frailty is influential in determining operative outcomes, including complications, in patients with cervical deformity (CD).
OBJECTIVE
To assess whether frailty status limits the highest achievable outcomes of patients with CD.
METHODS
Adult patients with CD with 2-year (2Y) data included. Frailty stratification: not frail (NF) <0.2, frail (F) 0.2 to 0.4, and severely frail (SF) >0.4. Analysis of covariance established estimated marginal means based on age, invasiveness, and baseline deformity, for improvement, deterioration, or maintenance in Neck Disability Index (NDI), Modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA), and Numerical Rating Scale Neck Pain.
RESULTS
One hundred twenty-six patients with CD included 29 NF, 83 F, and 14 SF. The NF group had the highest rates of deterioration and lowest rates of improvement in cervical Sagittal Vertical Axis and horizontal gaze modifiers. Two-year improvements in NDI by frailty: NF: -11.2, F: -16.9, and SF: -14.6 ( P = .524). The top quartile of NF patients also had the lowest 1-year (1Y) NDI (7.0) compared with F (11.0) and SF (40.5). Between 1Y and 2Y, 7.9% of patients deteriorated in NDI, 71.1% maintained, and 21.1% improved. Between 1Y and 2Y, SF had the highest rate of improvement (42%), while NF had the highest rate of deterioration (18.5%).
CONCLUSION
Although frail patients improved more often by 1Y, SF patients achieve most of their clinical improvement between 1 and 2Y. Frailty is associated with factors such as osteoporosis, poor alignment, neurological status, sarcopenia, and other medical comorbidities. Similarly, clinical outcomes can be affected by many factors (fusion status, number of pain generators within treated levels, integrity of soft tissues and bone, and deformity correction). Although accounting for such factors will ultimately determine whether frailty alone is an independent risk factor, these preliminary findings may suggest that frailty status affects the clinical outcomes and improvement after CD surgery.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36084195
doi: 10.1227/neu.0000000000002091
pii: 00006123-202211000-00005
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
693-700Informations de copyright
Copyright © Congress of Neurological Surgeons 2022. All rights reserved.
Références
Searle SD, Mitnitski A, Gahbauer EA, Gill TM, Rockwood K. A standard procedure for creating a frailty index. BMC Geriatr. 2008;8(1):24.
Miller EK, Lenke LG, Neuman BJ, et al.; AOSpine Knowledge Forum Deformity, The International Spine Study Group. External validation of the adult spinal deformity (ASD) frailty index (ASD-FI) in the Scoli-RISK-1 patient database. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2018;43(20):1426-1431.
Mitnitski AB, Mogilner AJ, Rockwood K. Accumulation of deficits as a proxy measure of aging. Sci World J. 2001;1:323-336.
Morley JE, Vellas B, van Kan GA, et al. Frailty consensus: a call to action. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2013;14:392-397.
Rockwood K, Blodgett JM, Theou O, et al. A frailty index based on deficit accumulation quantifies mortality risk in humans and in mice. Sci Rep. 2017;7:43068-43110.
Stow D, Matthews FE, Barclay S, et al. Evaluating frailty scores to predict mortality in older adults using data from population based electronic health records: case control study. Age Ageing. 2018;47:564-569.
Wen Y-C, Chen L-K, Hsiao F-Y. Predicting mortality and hospitalization of older adults by the multimorbidity frailty index. PLoS One. 2017;12(11):e0187825.
Lohman MC, Sonnega AJ, Resciniti NV, Leggett AN. Frailty phenotype and cause-specific mortality in the United States. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2020;75(10):1935-1942.
Abtahi AM, Lyman KS, Brodke DS, Lawrence BD, Zhang C, Spiker WR. Patient satisfaction is not associated with self-reported disability in a spine patient population. Clin Spine Surg. 2017;30(8):E1165-E1168.
Agarwal N, Goldschmidt E, Taylor T, et al. Impact of frailty on outcomes following spine surgery: a prospective cohort analysis of 668 patients. Neurosurgery. 2021;88(3):552-557.
Chan V, Wilson JR, Ravinsky R, et al. Frailty adversely affects outcomes of patients undergoing spine surgery: a systematic review. Spine J. 2021;21(6):988-1000.
Miller EK, Ailon T, Neuman BJ, et al.; International Spine Study Group. Assessment of a novel adult cervical deformity frailty index as a component of preoperative risk stratification. World Neurosurg. 2018;109:e800-e806.
Passias PG, Bortz CA, Segreto FA, et al.; International Spine Study Group. Development of a modified cervical deformity frailty index: a Streamlined clinical tool for preoperative risk stratification. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2019;44(3):169-176.
Segreto FA, Passias PG, Brown AE, et al. The influence of surgical intervention and sagittal alignment on frailty in adult cervical deformity. Oper Neurosurg. 2020;18(6):583-589.
Passias PG, Diebo BG, Marascalchi BJ, et al. A novel index for quantifying the risk of early complications for patients undergoing cervical spine surgeries. J Neurosurg Spine. 2017;27(5):501-507.
Poorman GW, Moon JY, Horn SR, et al. Rates of mortality in cervical spine surgical procedures and factors associated with its occurrence over a 10-year period: a study of 342 477 patients on the nationwide inpatient sample. Int J Spine Surg. 2018;12(2):276-284.
Lafage R, Smith JS, Sheikh Alshabab B, et al.; International Spine Study Group (ISSG). When can we expect global sagittal alignment to reach a stable value following cervical deformity surgery? J Neurosurg Spine. 2021;36(4):616-623.
Alas H, Passias PG, Diebo BG, et al. Cervical deformity patients with baseline hyperlordosis or hyperkyphosis differ in surgical treatment and radiographic outcomes. J Craniovertebr Junction Spine. 2021;12(3):279-286.
Champain S, Benchikh K, Nogier A, Mazel C, De Guise J, Skalli W. Validation of new clinical quantitative analysis software applicable in spine orthopaedic studies. Eur Spine J. 2006;15(6):982-991.
O’Brien MF, Kuklo TRTR, Blanke KM, Lenke LG; Spinal Deformity Study Group. Radiographic Measurement Manual. Medtronic Sofamor Danek; 2005.
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(3):218-227.
Ames CP, Smith JS, Eastlack R, et al.; International Spine Study Group. Reliability assessment of a novel cervical spine deformity classification system. J Neurosurg Spine. 2015;23(6):673-683.
Passias PG, Horn SR, Soroceanu A, et al.; International Spine Study Group. Development of a novel cervical deformity surgical invasiveness index. Spine. 2020;45(2):116-123.
Carreon LY, Glassman SD, Campbell MJ, Anderson PA. Neck Disability Index, Short Form-36 physical component summary, and pain scales for neck and arm pain: the minimum clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit after cervical spine fusion. Spine J. 2010;10(6):469-474.
Shin JI, Kothari P, Phan K, et al. Frailty index as a predictor of adverse postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing cervical spinal fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2017;42(5):304-310.
Pierce KE, Passias PG, Daniels AH, et al. Baseline frailty status influences recovery patterns and outcomes following alignment correction of cervical deformity. Neurosurgery. 2021;88(6):1121-1127.
Ailon T, Smith JS, Shaffrey CI, et al.; International Spine Study Group. Outcomes of operative treatment for adult cervical deformity: a prospective multicenter assessment with 1-year follow-up. Neurosurgery. 2018;83(5):1031-1039.
Protopsaltis TS, Ramchandran S, Hamilton DK, et al.; International Spine Study Group ISSG. Analysis of successful versus failed radiographic outcomes after cervical deformity surgery. Spine. 2018;43(13):E773-E781.
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(5):483-490.
Passfall L, Williamson TK, Krol O, et al. Do the newly proposed realignment targets for C2 and T1 slope bridge the gap between radiographic and clinical success in corrective surgery for adult cervical deformity? J Neurosurg Spine. Published online ahead of print April 15, 2022. DOI: 10.3171/2022.2.SPINE211576.
doi: 10.3171/2022.2.SPINE211576
Scheer JK, Tang JA, Smith JS, et al.; International Spine Study Group. Cervical spine alignment, sagittal deformity, and clinical implications: a review. J Neurosurg Spine. 2013;19(2):141-159.