Neurological Complications and Recovery Rates of Patients With Adult Cervical Deformity Surgeries

Perseverance of Optimal Realignment is Associated With Improved Cost-utility in Adult Cervical Deformity Surgery

BACKGROUND

Early-term complications may not predict long-term success after adult cervical deformity (ACD) correction.

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate whether optimal realignment results in similar rates of perioperative complications but achieves longer-term cost-utility.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

METHODS

ACD patients with 2-year data included. Outcomes: distal junctional failure (DJF), good clinical outcome (GCO):[Meeting 2 of 3: (1) NDI>20 or meeting MCID, (2) mJOA≥14, (3)NRS-Neck improved≥2]. Ideal Outcome defined as GCO without DJF or reoperation. Patient groups were stratified by correction to 'Optimal radiographic outcome', defined by cSVA 9 (<40 mm) AND TS-CL (<15 deg) upon correction. Cost calculated by CMS.com definitions, and cost-per-QALY was calculated by converting NDI to SF-6D. Multivariable analysis controlling for age, baseline T1-slope, cSVA, disability, and frailty, was used to assess complication rates, clinical outcomes, and cost-utility based on meeting optimal radiographic outcome.

RESULTS

One hundred forty-six patients included: 52 optimal radiographic realignment (O) and 94 not optimal (NO). NO group presented with higher cSVA and T1-slope. Adjusted analysis showed O group suffered similar 90-day complications (P>0.8), but less DJK, DJF (0% vs. 18%; P<0.001) and reoperations (18% vs. 35%; P=0.02). Patients meeting optimal radiographic criteria more often met Ideal outcome [odds ratio: 2.2, (1.1-4.8); P=0.03]. Despite no differences in overall cost, O group saw greater clinical improvement, translating to a better cost-utility [mean difference: $91,000, ($49,000-$132,000); P<0.001].

CONCLUSION

Despite similar perioperative courses, patients optimally realigned experienced less junctional failure, leading to better cost-utility compared with those sub-optimally realigned. Perioperative complication risk should not necessarily preclude optimal surgical intervention, and policy efforts might better focus on long-term outcome measures in adult cervical deformity surgery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Outcomes and survival analysis of adult cervical deformity patients with 10-year follow-up

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have demonstrated that adult cervical deformity patients may be at increased risk of death in conjunction with increased frailty or a weakened physiologic state. However, such studies have often been limited by follow-up duration, and longer-term studies are needed to better assess temporal changes in ACD patients and associated mortality risk.

PURPOSE

To assess if patients with decreased comorbidities and physiologic burden will be at lessened risk of death for a greater length of time after undergoing adult cervical deformity surgery.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Retrospective review.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Two hundred ninety ACD patients.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Morbidity and mortality data.

METHODS

Operative ACD patients ≥18 years with pre-(BL) and 10-year (10Y) data were included. Patients were stratified as expired versus living, as well as temporally grouped by Expiration prior to 5Y or between 5Y and 10Y. Group differences were assessed via means comparison analysis. Backstep logistic regression identified mortality predictors. Kaplan-Meier analysis assessed survivorship of expired patients. Log rank analysis determined differences in survival distribution groups.

RESULTS

Sixty-six total patients were included (60.97±10.19 years, 48% female, 28.03±7.28 kg/m2). Within 10Y, 12 (18.2% of ACD cohort) expired. At baseline, patients were comparable in age, gender, BMI, and CCI total on average (all p>.05). Furthermore, patients were comparable in BL HRQLs (all p>.05). However, patients who expired between 5Y and 10Y demonstrated higher BL EQ5D and mJOA scores than their earlier expired counterparts at 2Y (p<.021). Furthermore, patients who presented with no CCI markers at BL were significantly more likely to survive until the 5Y-10Y follow-up window. Surgically, the only differences observed between patients who survived until 5Y was in undergoing osteotomy, with longer survival seen in those who did not require it (p=.003). Logistic regression revealed independent predictors of death prior to 5Y to be increased BMI, increased frailty, and increased levels fused (model p<.001). KM analysis found that by Passias et al frailty, not frail patients had mean survival time of 170.56 weeks, versus 158.00 in frail patients (p=.949).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrates that long-term survival after cervical deformity surgery may be predicted by baseline surgical factors. By optimizing BMI, frailty status, and minimizing fusion length when appropriate, surgeons may be able to further assist ACD patients in increasing their survivability postoperatively.

Development of Risk Stratification Predictive Models for Cervical Deformity Surgery

BACKGROUND

As corrective surgery for cervical deformity (CD) increases, so does the rate of complications and reoperations. To minimize suboptimal postoperative outcomes, it is important to develop a tool that allows for proper preoperative risk stratification.

OBJECTIVE

To develop a prognostic utility for identification of risk factors that lead to the development of major complications and unplanned reoperations.

METHODS

CD patients age 18 years or older were stratified into 2 groups based on the postoperative occurrence of a revision and/or major complication. Multivariable logistic regressions identified characteristics that were associated with revision or major complication. Decision tree analysis established cutoffs for predictive variables. Models predicting both outcomes were quantified using area under the curve (AUC) and receiver operating curve characteristics.

RESULTS

A total of 109 patients with CD were included in this study. By 1 year postoperatively, 26 patients experienced a major complication and 17 patients underwent a revision. Predictive modeling incorporating preoperative and surgical factors identified development of a revision to include upper instrumented vertebrae > C5, lowermost instrumented vertebrae > T7, number of unfused lordotic cervical vertebrae > 1, baseline T1 slope > 25.3°, and number of vertebral levels in maximal kyphosis > 12 (AUC: 0.82). For developing a major complication, a model included a current smoking history, osteoporosis, upper instrumented vertebrae inclination angle < 0° or > 40°, anterior diskectomies > 3, and a posterior Smith Peterson osteotomy (AUC: 0.81).

CONCLUSION

Revisions were predicted using a predominance of radiographic parameters while the occurrence of major complications relied on baseline bone health, radiographic, and surgical characteristics.

Defining Cervical Sagittal Plane Deformity - When Are Sagittal Realignment Procedures Necessary in Patients Presenting Primarily With Radiculopathy or Myelopathy?

OBJECTIVE

It remains unclear whether cervical sagittal deformity (CSD) should be defined by radiographic parameters alone versus both clinical and radiographic factors, and whether radiographic malalignment by itself warrants a CSD corrective surgery in patients who present primarily with neurologic symptoms.

METHODS

We administered a survey to a group of expert surgeons to evaluate whether radiographic parameters alone were sufficient to diagnose CSD, and in which scenarios surgeons recommend a CSD realignment procedure versus addressing the neurologic symptoms alone.

RESULTS

No single radiographic criteria reached a 50% threshold as being sufficient to establish the diagnosis of CSD. When asymptomatic radiographic malalignment was present, a sagittal deformity correction was more likely to be recommended in patients with myelopathy versus those with radiculopathy alone. The majority of surgeons recommended deformity correction when symptoms of cervical deformity were present in addition to radiographic malalignment (85% with deformity symptoms and radiculopathy, 93% with deformity symptoms and myelopathy).

CONCLUSION

There is no consensus on which radiographic and/or clinical criteria are necessary to define the presence of CSD. We recommend that symptoms of cervical deformity, in addition to radiographic parameters, be considered when deciding whether to perform deformity correction in patients who present primarily with myelopathy or radiculopathy.