Incidence and risk factors of iatrogenic coronal malalignment after adult spinal deformity surgery: a single-center experience

OBJECTIVE The authors’ objectives were: 1) to evaluate the incidence and risk factors of iatrogenic coronal malalignment (CM), and 2) to assess the outcomes of patients with all three types of postoperative CM (iatrogenic vs unchanged/worsened vs improved but persistent). METHODS A single-institution, retrospective cohort study was performed on adult spinal deformity (ASD) patients who underwent > 6-level fusion from 2015 to 2019. Iatrogenic CM was defined as immediate postoperative C7 coronal vertical axis (CVA) ≥ 3 cm in patients with preoperative CVA < 3 cm. Additional subcategories of postoperative CM were unchanged/worsened CM, which was defined as immediate postoperative CVA within 0.5 cm of or worse than preoperative CVA, and improved but persistent CM, which was defined as immediate postoperative CVA that was at least 0.5 cm better than preoperative CVA but still ≥ 3 cm; both groups included only patients with preoperative CM. Immediate postoperative radiographs were obtained when the patient was discharged from the hospital after surgery. Demographic, radiographic, and operative variables were collected. Outcomes included major complications, readmissions, reoperations, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). The t-test, Kruskal-Wallis test, and univariate logistic regression were performed for statistical analysis. RESULTS In this study, 243 patients were included, and the mean ± SD age was 49.3 ± 18.3 years and the mean number of instrumented levels was 13.5 ± 3.9. The mean preoperative CVA was 2.9 ± 2.7 cm. Of 153/243 patients without preoperative CM (CVA < 3 cm), 13/153 (8.5%) had postoperative iatrogenic CM. In total, 43/243 patients (17.7%) had postoperative CM: iatrogenic CM (13/43 [30.2%]), unchanged/worsened CM (19/43 [44.2%]), and improved but persistent CM (11/43 [25.6%]). Significant risk factors associated with iatrogenic CM were anxiety/depression (OR 3.54, p = 0.04), greater preoperative sagittal vertical axis (SVA) (OR 1.13, p = 0.007), greater preoperative pelvic obliquity (OR 1.41, p = 0.019), lumbosacral fractional (LSF) curve concavity to the same side of the CVA (OR 11.67, p = 0.020), maximum Cobb concavity opposite the CVA (OR 3.85, p = 0.048), and three-column osteotomy (OR 4.34, p = 0.028). In total, 12/13 (92%) iatrogenic CM patients had an LSF curve concavity to the same side as the CVA. Among iatrogenic CM patients, mean pelvic obliquity was 3.1°, 4 (31%) patients had pelvic obliquity > 3°, mean preoperative absolute SVA was 8.0 cm, and 7 (54%) patients had preoperative sagittal malalignment. Patients with iatrogenic CM were more likely to sustain a major complication during the 2-year postoperative period than patients without iatrogenic CM (12% vs 33%, p = 0.046), yet readmission, reoperation, and PROs were similar. CONCLUSIONS Postoperative iatrogenic CM occurred in 9% of ASD patients with preoperative normal coronal alignment (CVA < 3 cm). ASD patients who were most at risk for iatrogenic CM included those with preoperative sagittal malalignment, increased pelvic obliquity, LSF curve concavity to the same side as the CVA, and maximum Cobb angle concavity opposite the CVA, as well as those who underwent a three-column osteotomy. Despite sustaining more major complications, iatrogenic CM patients did not have increased risk of readmission, reoperation, or worse PROs.

Be Prepared: Preoperative Coronal Malalignment Often Leads to More Extensive Surgery Than Sagittal Malalignment During Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery

Objective: To evaluate the effect of coronal alignment on: (1) surgical invasiveness and operative complexity and (2) postoperative complications.Methods: A retrospective, cohort study of adult spinal deformity patients was conducted. Alignment groups were: (1) neutral alignment (NA): coronal vertical axis (CVA) ≤ 3 cm and sagittal vertical axis (SVA) ≤ 5 cm; (2) coronal malalignment (CM) only: CVA > 3 cm; (3) Sagittal malalignment (SM) only: SVA > 5 cm; and (4) coronal and sagittal malalignment (CCSM): CVA > 3 cm and SVA > 5 cm.Results: Of 243 patients, alignment groups were: NA 115 (47.3%), CM 48 (19.8%), SM 38 (15.6%), and CCSM 42 (17.3%). Total instrumented levels (TILs) were highest in CM (14.5 ± 3.7) and CCSM groups (14 ± 4.0) (p < 0.001). More 3-column osteotomies (3COs) were performed in SM (21.1%) and CCSM (28.9%) groups than CM (10.4%) (p = 0.003). CM patients had more levels instrumented (p = 0.029), posterior column osteotomies (PCOs) (p < 0.001), and TLIFs (p = 0.002) than SM patients. CCSM patients had more TLIFs (p = 0.012) and higher estimated blood loss (EBL) (p = 0.003) than SM patients. CVA displayed a stronger relationship with TIL (p = 0.002), EBL (p < 0.001), and operative time (p < 0.001) than SVA, which had only one significant association with EBL (p = 0.010). Both SM/CCSM patients had higher readmissions (p = 0.003) and reoperations (p < 0.001) than CM patients.Conclusion: Amount of preoperative CM was a better predictor of surgical invasiveness than the amount of SM, despite 3COs more commonly performed in SM patients. CM patients had more instrumented levels, PCOs, and TLIFs than SM patients.

Is Complete Correction of Cervical Sagittal Malalignment Necessary During 4-Level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Surgery in Patients With Kyphosis?

Study Design: Retrospective analysis. Objective: We investigated whether complete correction of cervical sagittal malalignment is necessary during 4-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) in patients with kyphosis. Methods: This retrospective study included 84 patients who underwent 4-level ACDF surgery at a university hospital between January 2010 and December 2015. Based on the degree of cervical lordosis correction, patients were categorized into the following groups: mild (0-10°), moderate (10-20°), and complete correction (>20°). The clinical outcomes, radiological parameters, and functional outcomes were analyzed. Results: We observed no significant intergroup differences in the baseline characteristics. The cervical sagittal vertical axis (CSVA) correction loss at the final follow-up was lesser in the mild- and moderate- than in the complete-correction group. The spinocranial angle (SCA) and T1 slope (T1 S) were significantly higher in the moderate- and complete-correction groups than in the mild-correction group, 3 days postoperatively. The cervical proximal junctional kyphosis (CPJK), adjacent segment degeneration (ASD), and ASD following CPJK rates were higher in the complete-correction group. We observed no significant intergroup differences in postoperative complications; however, 5 patients showed internal fixation failure in the complete-correction group; 4 of these patients required reoperation. No significant intergroup difference was observed in the Japanese Orthopedic Association and neck disability index scores at any time point. Conclusions: A mild-to-moderate correction of cervical lordosis is superior to complete correction in patients with kyphosis who undergo 4-level ACDF because this approach is associated with lesser axial stress and CSVA correction loss.

Restoration of sagittal alignment in high-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis using the reverse Bohlman technique with anterior lumbar interbody fusion using a hyperlordotic cage at L4–5: illustrative case

BACKGROUND Circumferential fusion with or without reduction is the preferred treatment for high-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis. Reduction presents significant risk of neurological injury. The authors present one case in which the “reverse Bohlman” technique was used with the addition of a hyperlordotic interbody cage at L4–5 as a means to correct sagittal malalignment while avoiding the reduction of L5 on S1. OBSERVATIONS The patient was a 22-year-old woman with a long-term history of lower back pain and bilateral L5 radiculopathy secondary to high-grade isthmic lumbar spondylolisthesis. She underwent anterior lumbar interbody fusion using the reverse Bohlman technique plus a hyperlordotic interbody cage at L4–5, followed by decompression and posterior spinal instrumentation and fusion from L4 to the pelvis. At 2-year follow-up, she was found to have complete resolution of symptoms with clinical and radiographic evidence of fusion. Her spinopelvic parameters had significantly improved. LESSONS The reverse Bohlman technique with the addition of a hyperlordotic interbody cage at L4–5 is a potential alternative treatment method to correct sagittal malalignment while avoiding possible injury to the L5 nerve roots that can be seen in the reduction of high-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis.

Prevalence and Characteristics of Spinal Sagittal Malalignment in Patients with Osteoporosis

Spinal sagittal malalignment due to vertebral fractures (VFs) induces low back pain (LBP) in patients with osteoporosis. This study aimed to elucidate spinal sagittal malalignment prevalence based on VF number and patient characteristics in individuals with osteoporosis and spinal sagittal malalignment. Spinal sagittal alignment, and VF number were measured in 259 patients with osteoporosis. Spinal sagittal malalignment was defined according to the SRS-Schwab classification of adult spinal deformity. Spinal sagittal malalignment prevalence was evaluated based on VF number. In patients without VFs, bone mineral density, bone turnover markers, LBP scores and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) scores of normal and sagittal malalignment groups were compared. In 205 of the 259 (79.2%) patients, spinal sagittal malalignment was detected. Sagittal malalignment prevalence in patients with 0, 1, or ≥2 VFs was 72.1%, 86.0%, and 86.3%, respectively. All LBP scores and some subscale of HRQoL scores in patients without VFs were significantly worse for the sagittal malalignment group than the normal alignment group (p < 0.05). The majority of patients with osteoporosis had spinal sagittal malalignment, including ≥70% of patients without VFs. Patients with spinal sagittal malalignment reported worse LBP and HRQoL. These findings suggest that spinal sagittal malalignment is a risk factor for LBP and poor HRQoL in patients with osteoporosis.

Relationship of Sagittal Spinal Alignment With Low Back Pain And Physical Performance In A Population-Based Japanese Cohort: The Wakayama Spine Study

Studies have suggested a relationship between sagittal malalignment of the spine and low back pain (LBP). The Wakayama Spine Study investigated the relationship between spinal alignment, LBP, and physical performance in 1491 individuals who attended a second follow-up visit as part of the ROAD Study and for whom standing lateral spinal radiographs were available. The sagittal vertical axis at C7 (C7 SVA) was measured by a spinal surgeon. LBP in the previous month was determined by the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and indicators of physical performance were measured. The mean C7 SVA was 11.0 ± 42.7 mm and significantly greater in older subjects (p<0.001). Based on their C7 SVA, the subjects were divided into small (<40 mm), intermediate (40≤SVA<95 mm), and large (≥95 mm) groups. LBP was more prevalent in subjects with a larger C7 SVA (small, 35.7%; intermediate, 47.3%; large, 59.4%; p<0.001) and those with a higher ODI score (10.0%, 17.5%, and 29.4%, respectively; p<0.001). Physical performance was significantly decreased in subjects with a larger C7 SVA (p<0.001). Multiple linear regression analysis revealed that LBP and physical performance were significantly associated with C7 SVA (p<0.001). Thus, sagittal malalignment of the spine may lead to LBP and decreased physical performance.