The Incremental Clinical Benefit of Adding Layers of Complexity to the Planning and Execution of Adult Spinal Deformity Corrective Surgery.


Journal

Operative neurosurgery (Hagerstown, Md.)
ISSN: 2332-4260
Titre abrégé: Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown)
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101635417

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
21 May 2024
Historique:
received: 19 06 2023
accepted: 01 03 2024
medline: 21 5 2024
pubmed: 21 5 2024
entrez: 21 5 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

For patients with surgical adult spinal deformity (ASD), our understanding of alignment has evolved, especially in the last 20 years. Determination of optimal restoration of alignment and spinal shape has been increasingly studied, yet the assessment of how these alignment schematics have incrementally added benefit to outcomes remains to be evaluated. Patients with ASD with baseline and 2-year were included, classified by 4 alignment measures: Scoliosis Research Society (SRS)-Schwab, Age-Adjusted, Roussouly, and Global Alignment and Proportion (GAP). The incremental benefits of alignment schemas were assessed in chronological order as our understanding of optimal alignment progressed. Alignment was considered improved from baseline based on SRS-Schwab 0 or decrease in severity, Age-Adjusted ideal match, Roussouly current (based on sacral slope) matching theoretical (pelvic incidence-based), and decrease in proportion. Patients separated into 4 first improving in SRS-Schwab at 2-year, second Schwab improvement and matching Age-Adjusted, third two prior with Roussouly, and fourth improvement in all four. Comparison was accomplished with means comparison tests and χ2 analyses. Sevenhundredthirty-two. patients met inclusion. SRS-Schwab BL: pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis mismatch (++:32.9%), sagittal vertical axis (++: 23%), pelvic tilt (++:24.6%). 640 (87.4%) met criteria for first, 517 (70.6%) second, 176 (24%) third, and 55 (7.5%) fourth. The addition of Roussouly (third) resulted in lower rates of mechanical complications and proximal junctional kyphosis (48.3%) and higher rates of meeting minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for physical component summary and SRS-Mental (P < .05) compared with the second. Fourth compared with the third had higher rates of MCID for ODI (44.2% vs third: 28.3%, P = .011) and SRS-Appearance (70.6% vs 44.8%, P < .001). Mechanical complications and proximal junctional kyphosis were lower with the addition of Roussouly (P = .024), while the addition of GAP had higher rates of meeting MCID for SRS-22 Appearance (P = .002) and Oswestry Disability Index (P = .085). Our evaluation of the incremental benefit that alignment schemas have provided in ASD corrective surgery suggests that the addition of Roussouly provided the greatest reduction in mechanical complications, while the incorporation of GAP provided the most significant improvement in patient-reported outcomes.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES OBJECTIVE
For patients with surgical adult spinal deformity (ASD), our understanding of alignment has evolved, especially in the last 20 years. Determination of optimal restoration of alignment and spinal shape has been increasingly studied, yet the assessment of how these alignment schematics have incrementally added benefit to outcomes remains to be evaluated.
METHODS METHODS
Patients with ASD with baseline and 2-year were included, classified by 4 alignment measures: Scoliosis Research Society (SRS)-Schwab, Age-Adjusted, Roussouly, and Global Alignment and Proportion (GAP). The incremental benefits of alignment schemas were assessed in chronological order as our understanding of optimal alignment progressed. Alignment was considered improved from baseline based on SRS-Schwab 0 or decrease in severity, Age-Adjusted ideal match, Roussouly current (based on sacral slope) matching theoretical (pelvic incidence-based), and decrease in proportion. Patients separated into 4 first improving in SRS-Schwab at 2-year, second Schwab improvement and matching Age-Adjusted, third two prior with Roussouly, and fourth improvement in all four. Comparison was accomplished with means comparison tests and χ2 analyses.
RESULTS RESULTS
Sevenhundredthirty-two. patients met inclusion. SRS-Schwab BL: pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis mismatch (++:32.9%), sagittal vertical axis (++: 23%), pelvic tilt (++:24.6%). 640 (87.4%) met criteria for first, 517 (70.6%) second, 176 (24%) third, and 55 (7.5%) fourth. The addition of Roussouly (third) resulted in lower rates of mechanical complications and proximal junctional kyphosis (48.3%) and higher rates of meeting minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for physical component summary and SRS-Mental (P < .05) compared with the second. Fourth compared with the third had higher rates of MCID for ODI (44.2% vs third: 28.3%, P = .011) and SRS-Appearance (70.6% vs 44.8%, P < .001). Mechanical complications and proximal junctional kyphosis were lower with the addition of Roussouly (P = .024), while the addition of GAP had higher rates of meeting MCID for SRS-22 Appearance (P = .002) and Oswestry Disability Index (P = .085).
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
Our evaluation of the incremental benefit that alignment schemas have provided in ASD corrective surgery suggests that the addition of Roussouly provided the greatest reduction in mechanical complications, while the incorporation of GAP provided the most significant improvement in patient-reported outcomes.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38771063
doi: 10.1227/ons.0000000000001192
pii: 01787389-990000000-01169
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

Copyright © Congress of Neurological Surgeons 2024. All rights reserved.

Références

Lowe T, Berven SH, Schwab FJ, Bridwell KH. The SRS classification for adult spinal deformity: building on the King/Moe and Lenke classification systems. Spine. 2006;31(19 Suppl):S119-S125.
Smith JS, Klineberg E, Schwab FJ, et al. Change in classification grade by the SRS-Schwab Adult Spinal Deformity Classification predicts impact on health-related quality of life measures: prospective analysis of operative and nonoperative treatment. Spine. 2013;38(19):1663-1671.
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(4):559-568.
Lafage R, Schwab F, Challier V, et al. Defining spino-pelvic alignment thresholds: should operative goals in adult spinal deformity surgery account for age? Spine. 2016;41(1):62-68.
Roussouly P, Gollogly S, Berthonnaud E, Dimnet J. Classification of the normal variation in the sagittal alignment of the human lumbar spine and pelvis in the standing position. Spine. 2005;30(3):346-353.
Laouissat F, Sebaaly A, Gehrchen M, Roussouly P. Classification of normal sagittal spine alignment: refounding the Roussouly classification. Eur Spine J. 2018;27(8):2002-2011.
Pizones J, Martin MB, Perez-Grueso FJS, et al. Impact of adult scoliosis on Roussouly sagittal shape classification. Spine. 2019;44(4):270-279.
Yilgor C, Sogunmez N, Boissiere L, et al. Global alignment and proportion (GAP) score: development and validation of a new method of analyzing spinopelvic alignment to predict mechanical complications after adult spinal deformity surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017;99(19):1661-1672.
Copay AG, Glassman SD, Subach BR, Berven S, Schuler TC, Carreon LY. Minimum clinically important difference in lumbar spine surgery patients: a choice of methods using the Oswestry Disability Index, Medical Outcomes Study questionnaire Short Form 36, and pain scales. Spine J. 2008;8(6):968-974.
Carreon LY, Kelly MP, Crawford CH 3rd, et al. SRS-22R minimum clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit after adult lumbar scoliosis surgery. Spine Deform. 2018;6(1):79-83.
Vos T, Flaxman AD, Naghavi M, et al. Years lived with disability (YLDs) for 1160 sequelae of 289 diseases and injuries 1990-2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet (London, England). 2012;380(9859):2163-2196.
Safaee MM, Ames CP, Smith JS. Epidemiology and socioeconomic trends in adult spinal deformity care. Neurosurgery. 2020;87(1):25-32.
Pellisé F, Vila-Casademunt A, Ferrer M, et al. Impact on health related quality of life of adult spinal deformity (ASD) compared with other chronic conditions. Eur Spine J. 2015;24(1):3-11.
Smith JS, Shaffrey CI, Ames CP, Lenke LG. Treatment of adult thoracolumbar spinal deformity: past, present, and future. J Neurosurg Spine. 2019;30(5):551-567.
Riley MS, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, Dalton J, Kelly MP. Health-related quality of life outcomes in complex adult spinal deformity surgery. J Neurosurg Spine. 2018;28(2):194-200.
Lafage R, Smith JS, Elysee J, et al. Sagittal age-adjusted score (SAAS) for adult spinal deformity (ASD) more effectively predicts surgical outcomes and proximal junctional kyphosis than previous classifications. Spine Deform. 2022;10(1):121-131.

Auteurs

Katherine E Pierce (KE)

Departments of Orthopaedic and Neurologic Surgery, NYU Langone Orthopedic Hospital, New York Spine Institute, New York, New York, USA.

Jamshaid M Mir (JM)

Departments of Orthopaedic and Neurologic Surgery, NYU Langone Orthopedic Hospital, New York Spine Institute, New York, New York, USA.

Pooja Dave (P)

Departments of Orthopaedic and Neurologic Surgery, NYU Langone Orthopedic Hospital, New York Spine Institute, New York, New York, USA.

Renaud Lafage (R)

Department of Orthopedic, Lenox Hill Hospital, Northwell, New York, New York, USA.

Virginie Lafage (V)

Department of Orthopedic, Lenox Hill Hospital, Northwell, New York, New York, USA.

Paul Park (P)

Department of Neurologic Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.

Pierce Nunley (P)

Spine Institute of Louisiana, Shreveport, Louisiana, USA.

Gregory Mundis (G)

San Diego Center for Spinal Disorders, La Jolla, California, USA.

Jeffrey Gum (J)

Norton Leatherman Spine Center, Louisville, Kentucky, USA.

Peter Tretiakov (P)

Departments of Orthopaedic and Neurologic Surgery, NYU Langone Orthopedic Hospital, New York Spine Institute, New York, New York, USA.

Juan Uribe (J)

Department of Neurosurgery, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, USA.

Richard Hostin (R)

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Baylor Scoliosis Center, Dallas, Texas, USA.

Robert Eastlack (R)

Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, Scripps Clinic, La Jolla, California, USA.

Bassel Diebo (B)

Department of Orthopedic Surgery, SUNY Downstate, New York, New York, USA.

Han Jo Kim (HJ)

Department of Orthopedic, Lenox Hill Hospital, Northwell, New York, New York, USA.

Justin S Smith (JS)

Department of Neurosurgery, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA.

Christopher P Ames (CP)

Department of Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.

Christopher Shaffrey (C)

Departments of Neurosurgery and Orthopaedic Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA.

Douglas Burton (D)

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas, USA.

Robert Hart (R)

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Swedish Neuroscience Institute, Seattle, Washington, USA.

Shay Bess (S)

Department of Spine Surgery, Denver International Spine Clinic, Presbyterian St. Luke's/Rocky Mountain Hospital for Children, Denver, Colorado, USA.

Eric Klineberg (E)

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California, Davis, Davis, California, USA.

Frank Schwab (F)

Department of Orthopedic, Lenox Hill Hospital, Northwell, New York, New York, USA.

Munish Gupta (M)

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.

D Kojo Hamilton (DK)

Departments of Neurosurgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.

Peter G Passias (PG)

Departments of Orthopaedic and Neurologic Surgery, NYU Langone Orthopedic Hospital, New York Spine Institute, New York, New York, USA.

Classifications MeSH