TY - JOUR
T1 - Intraoperative alignment goals for distinctive sagittal morphotypes of severe cervical deformity to achieve optimal improvements in health-related quality of life measures
AU - International Spine Study Group
AU - Virk, Sohrab
AU - Passias, Peter
AU - Lafage, Renaud
AU - Klineberg, Eric
AU - Mundis, Gregory
AU - Protopsaltis, Themistocles
AU - Shaffrey, Christopher
AU - Bess, Shay
AU - Burton, Doug
AU - Hart, Robert
AU - Kim, Han Jo
AU - Ames, Christopher
AU - Schwab, Frank
AU - Smith, Justin
AU - Lafage, Virginie
N1 - Funding Information:
Author disclosure: SV : Nothing to disclose. PP : Consulting: Medicrea, SpineWave, Allosource; Speaking and/or Teaching Arrangements: Zimmer, Globus Medical; Research Support: Cervical Scolosis Research Society. RL : Nothing to disclose. EK : Consulting: Depuy Synthes, Stryker, Medicrea; Speaking and/or Teaching Arrangements: AO Spine; Fellowship Support: AOSpine (F). GM : Royalties; Stock Ownership; Consulting; Speaking and/or Teaching Arrangements; Trips/Travel; Scientific Advisory Board/Other Office: Seaspine; Grants: ISSGF; Fellowship Support: Nuvasive, Seaspine. TP : Nothing to disclose. CS : Nothing to disclose. SB : Nothing to disclose. DB : Royalties: DePuy Spine (C); Consulting: DePuy Spine (B); Research Support: DePuy Spine (B), Bioventus (B), Pfizer (B). RH : Nothing to disclose. HJK : Grant: ISSGF; Royalties: Zimmerbiomet (F), K2M (D); Private Investments: Spine Stud; Scientific Advisory Board/Other Office: AO Foundation (A); Fellowship Support: AO Spine (E). CA : Royalties: Stryker (F), Biomet Zimmer Spine (C), DePuy Synthes (F), Nuvasive (B), Next Orthosurgical (F), Medicrea (B); Consulting: DePuy Synthes (B), Medtronic (B), Medicrea (B), K2M (C); Research Support: Titan Spine (E), ISSG (C); Grant: SRS. FS : Grant: Depuy Synthes Spine (F); Royalties: K2M (past) (C), MSD (F), Medicrea (C), ZimmerBiomet (F); Consulting: K2M (B), Globus Medical (E), ZimmerBiomet (D), NuVasive (past) (B); Speaking and/or Teaching Arrangements: ZimmerBiomet (B), DuPuy Synthes (past) (B) NuVasive (past) (B). JS : Grants: DuPay Synthes/ISSGF (D); Royalties: Zimmer Baret (F), NuVasive (A); Stock Ownership: Alphatec (E); Consulting: Zimmer Baret (E), Allosource (B), K2M/Stryker (B); Fellowchip Support: APSpine (F), NREF (F). VL : Grants: DuPay Synthes Spine (F); Royalties: NuVasive, Inc (A); Consulting: Globus Medical (E); Speaking and/or Teaching Arrangements: The Permanente Group (B), DePuy Synthes Spine (B), AO Spine Foundation (past relationship) (B), K2 Medical (past relationship) (A). ISSG : Grants: DuPay Synthes Spine (F), DuPay Synthes Spine (F), Orthofix (F), NuVasive (G), K2M (G), Medtronic (G), Globus (F), Allosource (D), SI Bone (D).
Funding Information:
Author disclosure: SV: Nothing to disclose. PP: Consulting: Medicrea, SpineWave, Allosource; Speaking and/or Teaching Arrangements: Zimmer, Globus Medical; Research Support: Cervical Scolosis Research Society. RL: Nothing to disclose. EK: Consulting: Depuy Synthes, Stryker, Medicrea; Speaking and/or Teaching Arrangements: AO Spine; Fellowship Support: AOSpine (F). GM: Royalties; Stock Ownership; Consulting; Speaking and/or Teaching Arrangements; Trips/Travel; Scientific Advisory Board/Other Office: Seaspine; Grants: ISSGF; Fellowship Support: Nuvasive, Seaspine. TP: Nothing to disclose. CS: Nothing to disclose. SB: Nothing to disclose. DB: Royalties: DePuy Spine (C); Consulting: DePuy Spine (B); Research Support: DePuy Spine (B), Bioventus (B), Pfizer (B). RH: Nothing to disclose. HJK: Grant: ISSGF; Royalties: Zimmerbiomet (F), K2M (D); Private Investments: Spine Stud; Scientific Advisory Board/Other Office: AO Foundation (A); Fellowship Support: AO Spine (E). CA: Royalties: Stryker (F), Biomet Zimmer Spine (C), DePuy Synthes (F), Nuvasive (B), Next Orthosurgical (F), Medicrea (B); Consulting: DePuy Synthes (B), Medtronic (B), Medicrea (B), K2M (C); Research Support: Titan Spine (E), ISSG (C); Grant: SRS. FS: Grant: Depuy Synthes Spine (F); Royalties: K2M (past) (C), MSD (F), Medicrea (C), ZimmerBiomet (F); Consulting: K2M (B), Globus Medical (E), ZimmerBiomet (D), NuVasive (past) (B); Speaking and/or Teaching Arrangements: ZimmerBiomet (B), DuPuy Synthes (past) (B) NuVasive (past) (B). JS: Grants: DuPay Synthes/ISSGF (D); Royalties: Zimmer Baret (F), NuVasive (A); Stock Ownership: Alphatec (E); Consulting: Zimmer Baret (E), Allosource (B), K2M/Stryker (B); Fellowchip Support: APSpine (F), NREF (F). VL: Grants: DuPay Synthes Spine (F); Royalties: NuVasive, Inc (A); Consulting: Globus Medical (E); Speaking and/or Teaching Arrangements: The Permanente Group (B), DePuy Synthes Spine (B), AO Spine Foundation (past relationship) (B), K2 Medical (past relationship) (A). ISSG: Grants: DuPay Synthes Spine (F), DuPay Synthes Spine (F), Orthofix (F), NuVasive (G), K2M (G), Medtronic (G), Globus (F), Allosource (D), SI Bone (D). There was no financial support used for the authoring of this manuscript.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 Elsevier Inc.
PY - 2020/8
Y1 - 2020/8
N2 - Background Context: Patients with severe cervical deformity (CD) often have profound deficits in numerous activities of daily living. The association between health status and postoperative radiographic goals is difficult to quantify. Purpose: We aimed to investigate the radiographic characteristics of patients who achieved optimal health related quality of life scores following surgery for CD. Study Design: We performed a retrospective review of a prospectively collected database of patients with spinal deformity. Patient Sample: One hundred and fifty-three patients with cervical deformity Outcome Measures: Common health-related quality of life scores (HRQOLs) measurements were taken for patients treated operatively for cervical deformity including neck disability index (NDI), modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association scale (mJOA) for myelopathy and numeric rating scale for neck pain (NRS-neck), Methods: Surgical patients with severe CD were isolated based upon a previously presented discriminant analysis which outlined a combination of preoperative cervical sagittal vertical axis (cSVA), T1 slope, maximum focal kyphosis in extension, C2 slope in extension, and number of kyphotic levels in extension. Those with available preoperative and 1-year postoperative HRQL data were included. Based on a previous study, patients were grouped into three distinct sagittal morphotypes of CD: focal deformity (FD), flat neck (FN = large TS-CL and lack of compensation), or cervicothoracic (CT). Postoperative outcomes were defined as “good” if a patient had ≥2 of the three following criteria (1) NDI <20 or meeting MCID, (2) mild myelopathy (mJOA≥14), and (3) NRS-Neck ≤5 or improved by ≥2 points from baseline. Within each distinct deformity group, patients with good outcomes were compared to those with poor outcomes (ie, not meeting the criteria for good) for differences in demographics, HRQOL scores, and alignment, via Chi-squared or student's t tests. Results: Overall, 83 of 153 patients met the criteria of severe CD and 40 patients had complete 1-year follow-up of clinical/radiographic data. Patient breakdown by deformity pattern was: CT (N=13), FN (N=17), and FD (N=17), with 7 patients meeting criteria for both FD and FN deformities. Within the FD cohort, maximal focal kyphosis (ie, kyphosis at one level) was better corrected in patients with a “good” outcome (p=.03). In the FN cohort, patients with “good” outcomes presented preoperatively with worse horizontal gaze (McGregor Slope 21° vs. 6°, p=.061) and cSVA (72 mm vs. 60 mm, p=.030). “Good” outcome FN patients showed significantly greater postop correction of horizontal gaze (-25° vs. -5°, p=.031). In the CT cohort, patients with “good” outcomes had superior global alignment both pre- (SVA: -17 mm vs. 108 mm, p<.001) and postoperatively (50 mm vs. 145 mm, p=.001). CT patients with “good” outcomes also had better postop cervical alignment (cSVA 35 mm vs. 49 mm, p=.030), and less kyphotic segments during extension (p=.011). In the FD cohort, there were no differences between “good” and “poor” outcomes patients in preoperative alignment; however, “good” outcome patients showed superior changes in postoperative focal kyphosis (−2° vs. 5°, p=.030). Within all three deformity pattern categories, there were no differences between “good” and “poor” outcome patients with respect to demographics or surgical parameters (levels fused, surgical approach, decompression, osteotomy, all p>.050). Conclusions: The results of this study show each CD patient's unique deformity must be carefully examined in order to determine the appropriate alignment goals to achieve optimal HRQOLs. In particular, the recognition of the sagittal morphotype can help assist surgeons to aim for specific alignment goals for CT, FN and FD. Distinct deformity specific intra-operative goals include obtaining proper sagittal global/cervical alignment for cervicothoracic patients, correcting maximal focal kyphosis in focal deformity patients, and correcting horizontal gaze for flatneck patients.
AB - Background Context: Patients with severe cervical deformity (CD) often have profound deficits in numerous activities of daily living. The association between health status and postoperative radiographic goals is difficult to quantify. Purpose: We aimed to investigate the radiographic characteristics of patients who achieved optimal health related quality of life scores following surgery for CD. Study Design: We performed a retrospective review of a prospectively collected database of patients with spinal deformity. Patient Sample: One hundred and fifty-three patients with cervical deformity Outcome Measures: Common health-related quality of life scores (HRQOLs) measurements were taken for patients treated operatively for cervical deformity including neck disability index (NDI), modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association scale (mJOA) for myelopathy and numeric rating scale for neck pain (NRS-neck), Methods: Surgical patients with severe CD were isolated based upon a previously presented discriminant analysis which outlined a combination of preoperative cervical sagittal vertical axis (cSVA), T1 slope, maximum focal kyphosis in extension, C2 slope in extension, and number of kyphotic levels in extension. Those with available preoperative and 1-year postoperative HRQL data were included. Based on a previous study, patients were grouped into three distinct sagittal morphotypes of CD: focal deformity (FD), flat neck (FN = large TS-CL and lack of compensation), or cervicothoracic (CT). Postoperative outcomes were defined as “good” if a patient had ≥2 of the three following criteria (1) NDI <20 or meeting MCID, (2) mild myelopathy (mJOA≥14), and (3) NRS-Neck ≤5 or improved by ≥2 points from baseline. Within each distinct deformity group, patients with good outcomes were compared to those with poor outcomes (ie, not meeting the criteria for good) for differences in demographics, HRQOL scores, and alignment, via Chi-squared or student's t tests. Results: Overall, 83 of 153 patients met the criteria of severe CD and 40 patients had complete 1-year follow-up of clinical/radiographic data. Patient breakdown by deformity pattern was: CT (N=13), FN (N=17), and FD (N=17), with 7 patients meeting criteria for both FD and FN deformities. Within the FD cohort, maximal focal kyphosis (ie, kyphosis at one level) was better corrected in patients with a “good” outcome (p=.03). In the FN cohort, patients with “good” outcomes presented preoperatively with worse horizontal gaze (McGregor Slope 21° vs. 6°, p=.061) and cSVA (72 mm vs. 60 mm, p=.030). “Good” outcome FN patients showed significantly greater postop correction of horizontal gaze (-25° vs. -5°, p=.031). In the CT cohort, patients with “good” outcomes had superior global alignment both pre- (SVA: -17 mm vs. 108 mm, p<.001) and postoperatively (50 mm vs. 145 mm, p=.001). CT patients with “good” outcomes also had better postop cervical alignment (cSVA 35 mm vs. 49 mm, p=.030), and less kyphotic segments during extension (p=.011). In the FD cohort, there were no differences between “good” and “poor” outcomes patients in preoperative alignment; however, “good” outcome patients showed superior changes in postoperative focal kyphosis (−2° vs. 5°, p=.030). Within all three deformity pattern categories, there were no differences between “good” and “poor” outcome patients with respect to demographics or surgical parameters (levels fused, surgical approach, decompression, osteotomy, all p>.050). Conclusions: The results of this study show each CD patient's unique deformity must be carefully examined in order to determine the appropriate alignment goals to achieve optimal HRQOLs. In particular, the recognition of the sagittal morphotype can help assist surgeons to aim for specific alignment goals for CT, FN and FD. Distinct deformity specific intra-operative goals include obtaining proper sagittal global/cervical alignment for cervicothoracic patients, correcting maximal focal kyphosis in focal deformity patients, and correcting horizontal gaze for flatneck patients.
KW - Adult spinal deformity
KW - Cervical deformity
KW - Cervicothoracic deformity
KW - Flatneck
KW - Focal kyphosis
KW - HRQOL
KW - Health-related quality of life scores
KW - Horizontal gaze
KW - Operative goals
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85083055827&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85083055827&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.spinee.2020.03.014
DO - 10.1016/j.spinee.2020.03.014
M3 - Article
C2 - 32209421
AN - SCOPUS:85083055827
SN - 1529-9430
VL - 20
SP - 1267
EP - 1275
JO - Spine Journal
JF - Spine Journal
IS - 8
ER -