OBJECTIVE Surgical correction of cervical deformity (CD) has been associated with superior alignment and functional outcomes. It has not yet been determined whether baseline or postoperative T1 slope (T1S) and C2 slope (C2S) correlate with health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) metrics and radiographic complications, such as distal junctional kyphosis (DJK) and distal junctional failure (DJF). The objective of this study was to determine the impact of T1S and C2S deformity severity on HRQoL metrics and DJF development in patients with CD who underwent a cervical fusion procedure. METHODS All operative CD patients with upper instrumented vertebra above C7 and preoperative (baseline) and up to 2-year postoperative radiographic and HRQoL data were included. CD was defined as meeting at least one of the following radiographic parameters: C2–7 lordosis < −15°, TS1–cervical lordosis mismatch > 35°, segmental cervical kyphosis > 15° across any 3 vertebrae between C2 and T1, C2–7 sagittal vertical axis > 4 cm, McGregor’s slope > 20°, or chin-brow vertical angle > 25°. Spearman’s rank-order correlation and linear regression analysis assessed the impact of T1S and C2S on HRQoL metrics (Neck Disability Index [NDI], modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association [mJOA] scale, EuroQOL 5-Dimension Questionnaire [EQ-5D] visual analog scale [VAS] score, and numeric rating scale [NRS]–neck) and complications (DJK, DJF, reoperation). Logistic regression and a conditional inference tree (CIT) were used to determine radiographic thresholds for achieving optimal clinical outcome, defined as meeting good clinical outcome criteria (≥ 2 of the following: NDI < 20 or meeting minimal clinically important difference, mild myelopathy [mJOA score ≥ 14], and NRS-neck ≤ 5 or improved by ≥ 2 points), not undergoing reoperation, or developing DJF or mechanical complication by 2 years. RESULTS One hundred five patients with CD met inclusion criteria. By surgical approach, 14.7% underwent an anterior-only approach, 46.1% a posterior-only approach, and 39.2% combined anterior and posterior approaches. The mean baseline radiographic parameters were T1S 28.3° ± 14.5° and C2S 25.9° ± 17.5°. Significant associations were found between 3-month C2S and mJOA score (r = −0.248, p = 0.034), NDI (r = 0.399, p = 0.001), EQ-5D VAS (r = −0.532, p < 0.001), NRS-neck (r = 0.239, p = 0.040), and NRS-back (r = 0.264, p = 0.021), while significant correlation was also found between 3-month T1S and mJOA score (r = −0.314, p = 0.026), NDI (r = 0.445, p = 0.001), EQ-5D VAS (r = −0.347, p = 0.018), and NRS-neck (r = 0.269, p = 0.049). A significant correlation was also found between development of DJF and 3-month C2S (odds ratio [OR] 1.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01–1.1, p = 0.015) as well as for T1S (OR 1.1, 95% CI 1.01–1.1, p = 0.023). Logistic regression with CIT identified thresholds for optimal outcome by 2 years: optimal 3-month T1S < 26° (OR 5.6) and C2S < 10° (OR 10.4), severe 3-month T1S < 45.5° (OR 0.2) and C2S < 38.0° (no patient above this threshold achieved optimal outcome; all p < 0.05). Patients below both optimal thresholds achieved rates of 0% for DJK and DJF, and 100% met optimal outcome. CONCLUSIONS The severity of CD, defined by T1S and C2S at baseline and especially at 3 months, can be predictive of postoperative functional improvement and occurrence of worrisome complications in patients with CD, necessitating the use of thresholds in surgical planning to achieve optimal outcomes.
Summary of Background Data. The impact of not achieving ideal realignment in the global alignment and proportion (GAP) score in adult spinal deformity (ASD) correction on clinical outcomes is understudied at present. Objective. To identify the clinical impact of failing to achieve GAP proportionality in ASD surgery. Study Design. Retrospective cohort. Methods. Operative ASD patients with fusion to S1/pelvis and with pre-(BL) and 2-year (2Y) data were included. Patients were assessed for matching their 6-week (6W) age-adjusted alignment goals.1 Patients were stratified by age-adjusted match at 6W postoperatively (Matched) and 6W GAP proportionality (proportioned: GAP-P; moderately disproportioned: GAP-MD; severely disproportioned: GAP-SD). Groups were assessed for differences in demographics, surgical factors, radiographic parameters, and complications occurring by 2Y. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess independent effects of not achieving GAP proportionality on postoperative outcomes for Matched and Unmatched patients. Results. Included: One hundred twenty three ASD patients. At baseline, 39.8% were GAP-SD, and 12.2% GAP-SD at 6W. Of 123 patients, 51.2% (n =63) had more than or equal to one match at 6W. GAP-SD rates did not differ by being Matched or Unmatched (P = 0.945). GAP-SD/Unmatched patients had higher rates of reoperation, implant failure, and PJF by 2Y postop (all P <0.05). Regressions controlling for age at BL, levels fused, and CCI, revealed 6W GAP-SD/Unmatched patients had higher odds of reoperation (OR: 54 [3.2–899.9]; P =0.005), implant failure (OR: 6.9 [1.1–46.1]; P =0.045), and PJF (OR: 30.1 [1.4–662.6]; P =0.031). Compared to GAP-P or GAP-MD patients, GAP-SD/ Matched patients did not have higher rates of reoperation, implant failure, or junctional failure (all P >0.05). The regression results for both Matched and Unmatched cohorts were consistent when proportionality was substituted by the continuous GAP score. Conclusion. In ASD patients who meet age-adjusted realignment goals, GAP proportionality does not significantly alter complication rates. However, GAP proportionality remains an important consideration in patients with sub-optimal age- adjusted alignment. In these cases, severe global disproportion is associated with higher rates of reoperation, implant failure, rod fracture, and junctional failure.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.