Rod fractures in thoracolumbar fusions to the sacrum/pelvis for adult symptomatic lumbar scoliosis: long-term follow-up of a prospective, multicenter cohort of 160 patients

Lumbar Lordosis Redistribution and Segmental Correction in Adult Spinal Deformity: Does it Matter?

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data.

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate the impact of correcting normative segmental lordosis values on postoperative outcomes.

BACKGROUND

Restoring lumbar lordosis magnitude is crucial in adult spinal deformity surgery, but the optimal location and segmental distribution remain unclear.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients were grouped based on offset to normative segmental lordosis values, extracted from recent publications. Matched patients were within 10% of the cohort's mean offset, less than or over 10% were undercorrected and overcorrected. Surgical technique, patient-reported outcome measures, and surgical complications were compared across groups at baseline and two years.

RESULTS

In total, 510 patients with a mean age of 64.6, a mean Charlson comorbidity index 2.08, and a mean follow-up of 25 months. L4-5 was least likely to be matched (19.1%), while L4-S1 was the most likely (24.3%). More patients were overcorrected at proximal levels (T10-L2; undercorrected, U: 32.2% vs. matched, M: 21.7% vs. overcorrected, O: 46.1%) and undercorrected at distal levels (L4-S1: U: 39.0% vs. M: 24.3% vs. O: 36.8%). Postoperative Oswestry disability index was comparable across correction groups at all spinal levels except at L4-S1 and T10-L2/L4-S1, where overcorrected patients and matched were better than undercorrected (U: 32.1 vs. M: 25.4 vs. O: 26.5, P =0.005; U: 36.2 vs. M: 24.2 vs. O: 26.8, P =0.001; respectively). Patients overcorrected at T10-L2 experienced higher rates of proximal junctional failure (U: 16.0% vs. M: 15.6% vs. O: 32.8%, P <0.001) and had greater posterior inclination of the upper instrumented vertebrae (U: -9.2±9.4° vs. M: -9.6±9.1° vs. O: -12.2±10.0°, P <0.001), whereas undercorrection at these levels led to higher rates of revision for implant failure (U: 14.2% vs. M: 7.3% vs. O: 6.4%, P =0.025).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing fusion for adult spinal deformity suffer higher rates of proximal junctional failure with overcorrection and increased rates of implant failure with undercorrection based on normative segmental lordosis.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.

Instrumentation Failure in Adult Spinal Deformity Patients

In recent years, advances in the surgical treatment of adult spinal deformity (ASD) have led to improved outcomes. Although these advances have helped drive the development of deformity surgery to meet the rising volume of patients seeking surgical treatment, many challenges have yet to be solved. Instrumentation failure remains one of the most common major complications following deformity surgery, associated with significant morbidity due to elevated re-operation rates among those experiencing mechanical complications. The two most frequently encountered subtypes of instrumentation failure are rod fracture (RF) and proximal junctional kyphosis/proximal junctional failure (PJK/PJF). While RF and PJK/PJF are both modes of instrumentation failure, they are two distinct entities with different clinical implications and treatment strategies. Considering that RF and PJK/PJF continue to represent a major challenge for patients with ASD and deformity surgeons alike, this review aims to discuss the incidence, risk factors, clinical impact, treatment strategies, preventive measures, and future research directions for each of these substantial complications.

Iliac Accessory Rod Technique for Rod Fracture Prevention in Long Fusion Constructs: 2-Dimensional Operative Video

Implant-related complications in surgery for adult spinal deformity (ASD) account for roughly $1 billion US health care expenditures over 5 years, with a majority due to primary rod fracture.1,2 Traditional two-rod constructs have demonstrated rod fracture rates of up to 40%, with a median time to fracture of 3 years.3 Current supplementary rod techniques for decreasing rod fractures inadequately address the issue of increased strain across the lumbosacral junction.4 Here, we describe a novel four-rod technique using "iliac accessory rods," designed to mitigate rod fractures by reinforcing osteotomy levels and dispersing biomechanical stress across the lumbosacral junction. Compared with other supplementary rod techniques for ASD, iliac accessory rods anchor to independent iliac bolts.5 The added fixation points across the lumbosacral junction (4 iliac bolts total) substantially offloads stress on primary rods, most of which fracture near the lumbosacral junction.3 Additionally, connecting these rods to primary rods rostrally via side-to-side connectors, above the osteotomy levels, ensures mobile osteotomy segments are reinforced. Presented is a 78-year-old woman with ASD and worsening lower back pain, radiculopathy, and bilateral leg weakness who failed nonoperative management. She underwent T9 to bi-iliac instrumented fusion with L1-S1 posterior column osteotomies, L4-S1 transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions, and bilateral iliac accessory rod fixation. Postoperatively, she recovered well and had improvement in her symptoms. Imaging revealed correction of spinal alignment. The patient consented to the procedure, and the participants and any identifiable individuals consented to publication of his/her image. Institutional Review Board approval was waived because of institutional exemption policy.

Analysis of Personalized Interbody Implants in the Surgical Treatment of Adult Spinal Deformity

STUDY DESIGN

Multicenter cohort.

OBJECTIVES

A report from the International Spine Study Group (ISSG) noted that surgeons failed to achieve alignment goals in nearly two-thirds of 266 complex adult deformity surgery (CADS) cases. We assess whether personalized interbody spacers are associated with improved rates of achieving goal alignment following adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery.

METHODS

ASD patients were included if their surgery utilized 3D-printed personalized interbody spacer(s) and they met ISSG CADS inclusion criteria. Planned alignment was personalized by the surgeon during interbody planning. Planned vs achieved alignment was assessed and compared with the ISSG CADS series that used stock interbodies.

RESULTS

For 65 patients with personalized interbodies, 62% were women, mean age was 70.3 years (SD = 8.3), mean instrumented levels was 9.9 (SD = 4.1), and the mean number of personalized interbodies per patient was 2.2 (SD = .8). Segmental alignment was achieved close to plan for levels with personalized interbodies, with mean difference between goal and achieved as follows: intervertebral lordosis = .9° (SD = 5.2°), intervertebral coronal angle = .1° (SD = 4.7°), and posterior disc height = -0.1 mm (SD = 2.3 mm). Achieved pelvic incidence-to-lumbar lordosis mismatch (PI-LL) correlated significantly with goal PI-LL (r = .668, P < .001). Compared with the ISSG CADS cohort, utilization of personalized interbodies resulted in significant improvement in achieving PI-LL <5° of plan (P = .046) and showed a significant reduction in cases with PI-LL >15° of plan (P = .012).

CONCLUSIONS

This study supports use of personalized interbodies as a means of better achieving goal segmental sagittal and coronal alignment and significantly improving achievement of goal PI-LL compared with stock devices.

Estimating the Cost of Spinopelvic Complications After Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery

Objective

Reoperations for spinopelvic failure after adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery are common. We sought to determine the added costs of ASD surgery attributable to reoperations for spinopelvic construct failures.

Methods

We constructed a Markov process model to calculate the expected discounted 5-year costs of spinopelvic construct failures after ASD surgery. The Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) was queried to estimate the number of ASD surgeries. Model inputs were based on literature review and expert opinion. ASD surgery was defined as thoracolumbar fusion of 4 or more levels with pelvic fixation. The following pelvic fixation failures were included: 1) rod fracture or pseudarthrosis from L4-S1, 2) iliac screw failure or set plug dislodgment, 3) iliac screw prominence, and 4) sacroiliac (SI) joint pain. The number of patients undergoing ASD surgery annually in the US was determined using a commercial claims database.

Results

The net present value 5-year cost per patient for spinopelvic complications was $35,265, equal to 29% of index surgery costs. Given an estimated 27,580 cases annually in the US, the additional cost to address spinopelvic complications reach nearly $1 billion over 5-years. A sensitivity analysis showed that these costs were most sensitive to the rate of rod fracture/pseudarthrosis, iliac screw prominence, and reoperation.

Conclusion

A conservative estimate of the cost of spinopelvic failures after ASD surgery is substantial, nearly $1 billion over 5-years. We propose a method of capturing spinopelvic fixation failures for use in future clinical studies and cost analyses.

Use of Tethers for Proximal Junctional Kyphosis Prophylaxis in Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery: A Review of Current Clinical Evidence

BACKGROUND

Surgery for adult spinal deformity (ASD) often involves long-segment posterior instrumentation that introduces stress at the proximal junction that can result in proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK) or proximal junctional failure (PJF). Recently, the use of tethers at the proximal junction has been proposed as a means of buffering the transitional stresses and reducing the risk of PJK/PJF. Our objectives are to summarize the clinical literature on proximal junctional tethers for PJK/PJF prophylaxis.

METHODS

Articles published between 1 January 2000 and 10 November 2022 were identified via a PubMed search using combinations of the search terms "spine surgery," "ASD," "complication," "surgery," "PJK," "PJF," "tether," "sublaminar band," and "prophylaxis." No restrictions were placed on the number of patients, surgical indications, or surgical procedures. Relevant articles were reviewed and summarized.

RESULTS

Fifteen articles were identified, including 2 prospective cohorts (Level II), 10 retrospective cohorts (Level III), and 3 retrospective case series (Level IV). All studies were published between 2016 and 2022, and all focused on ASD patient populations. The mean age in each study ranged from 55 to 69 years, and most studies had a mean follow-up of at least 12 months (range, 5.5-45.4 months). Eleven studies used a polyethylene tether, 2 used soft sublaminar cables, and 2 used semitendinous allograft. The tether extended to the UIV+1 or UIV+2, passing either through or around the spinous processes, in 13 studies. In the remaining 2 studies, the tether was passed sublaminar at the UIV+1. Fourteen studies favored the use of tethers with regard to reduction of PJK/PJF rates, and one demonstrated similar rates of PJK between the tether and no-tether groups.

CONCLUSIONS

PJK/PJF remain major challenges in ASD surgery. Most early studies suggest that the use of tethers for ligamentous augmentation may help to mitigate the development of PJK/PJF. However, the multifactorial etiology of PJK/PJF makes it unlikely that any single technique will solve this complex problem. Further study is needed to address not only the effectiveness of junctional tethers but also to clarify whether there are optimal tether configurations, tether materials, and tether tension.

LEVEL EVIDENCE

3.

Comparison of complications, revisions, spinopelvic parameters, and health-related quality of life after posterior spinal fusion using multiple-rod constructs or two-rod constructs for adult spinal deformity: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The incidence of mechanical complications is high in patients undergoing posterior spinal fusion (PSF) for adult spinal deformity (ASD), especially for cases with severe sagittal malalignment or a prior spinal fusion requiring three-column osteotomy (3-CO) or spinopelvic fixation (SPF). The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the complications, revisions, radiographic spinopelvic parameters, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and surgical data of PSF using multiple-rod constructs to those of two-rod constructs for the treatment of ASD.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was performed for relevant studies in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. Complications, revisions, spinopelvic parameters, HRQoL, and surgical date were compared between patients with ASD who underwent PSF using multiple-rod constructs (multi-rod group) and two-rod constructs (two-rod group).

RESULTS

Ten studies, comprising 797 patients with ASD (399 in the multi-rod group and 398 in the two-rod group), were included. All these studies were retrospective cohort studies. There were no significant differences in the surgical, wound-related, and systemic complications between the groups. In the multi-rod group, we noted a significantly lower incidence of rod fracture (RR, 0.43; 95% CI 0.33 to 0.57, P < 0.01), pseudoarthrosis (RR, 0.38; 95% CI 0.28 to 0.53, P < 0.01), and revisions (RR, 0.44; 95% CI 0.33 to 0.58, P < 0.01); a superior restoration of PI-LL (WMD, 3.96; 95% CI 1.03 to 6.88, P < 0.01) and SVA (WMD, 31.53; 95% CI 21.16 to 41.90, P < 0.01); a better improvement of ODI score (WMD, 6.82; 95% CI 2.33 to 11.31, P < 0.01), SRS-22 total score (WMD, 0.44; 95% CI 0.06 to 0.83, P = 0.02), and VAS-BP score (WMD, 1.02; 95% CI 0.31 to 1.73, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Compared with the two-rod constructs, PSF using multiple-rod constructs was associated with a lower incidence of mechanical complications, a lower revision rate, a superior restoration of sagittal alignment, and a better improvement of HRQoL, without increasing surgical invasiveness. Multiple-rod constructs should be routinely considered to for ASD patients, especially for cases with severe sagittal malalignment or a prior spinal fusion requiring 3-CO or SPF.

Biomechanical evaluation of multiple pelvic screws and multirod construct for the augmentation of lumbosacral junction in long spinal fusion surgery

Background: Posterior long spinal fusion was the common procedure for adult spinal deformity (ASD). Although the application of sacropelvic fixation (SPF), the incidence of pseudoarthrosis and implant failure is still high in long spinal fusion extending to lumbosacral junction (LSJ). To address these mechanical complications, advanced SPF technique by multiple pelvic screws or multirod construct has been recommended. This was the first study to compare the biomechanical performance of combining multiple pelvic screws and multirod construct to other advanced SPF constructs for the augmentation of LSJ in long spinal fusion surgery through finite element (FE) analysis.

Methods: An intact lumbopelvic FE model based on computed tomography images of a healthy adult male volunteer was constructed and validated. The intact model was modified to develop five instrumented models, all of which had bilateral pedicle screw (PS) fixation from L1 to S1 with posterior lumbar interbody fusion and different SPF constructs, including No-SPF, bilateral single S2-alar-iliac (S2AI) screw and single rod (SS-SR), bilateral multiple S2AI screws and single rod (MS-SR), bilateral single S2AI screw and multiple rods (SS-MR), and bilateral multiple S2AI screws and multiple rods (MS-MR). The range of motion (ROM) and stress on instrumentation, cages, sacrum, and S1 superior endplate (SEP) in flexion (FL), extension (EX), lateral bending (LB), and axial rotation (AR) were compared among models.

Results: Compared with intact model and No-SPF, the ROM of global lumbopelvis, LSJ, and sacroiliac joint (SIJ) was decreased in SS-SR, MS-SR, SS-MR, and MS-MR in all directions. Compared with SS-SR, the ROM of global lumbopelvis and LSJ of MS-SR, SS-MR, and MS-MR further decreased, while the ROM of SIJ was only decreased in MS-SR and MS-MR. The stress on instrumentation, cages, S1-SEP, and sacrum decreased in SS-SR, compared with no-SPF. Compared with SS-SR, the stress in EX and AR further decreased in SS-MR and MS-SR. The most significantly decreased ROM and stress were observed in MS-MR.

Conclusion: Both multiple pelvic screws and multirod construct could increase the mechanical stability of LSJ and reduce stress on instrumentation, cages, S1-SEP, and sacrum. The MS-MR construct was the most adequate to reduce the risk of lumbosacral pseudarthrosis, implant failure, and sacrum fracture. This study may provide surgeons with important evidence for the application of MS-MR construct in the clinical settings.

How Good Are Surgeons at Achieving Their Preoperative Goal Sagittal Alignment Following Adult Deformity Surgery?

STUDY DESIGN

Multicenter, prospective cohort.

OBJECTIVES

Malalignment following adult spine deformity (ASD) surgery can impact outcomes and increase mechanical complications. We assess whether preoperative goals for sagittal alignment following ASD surgery are achieved.

METHODS

ASD patients were prospectively enrolled based on 3 criteria: deformity severity (PI-LL ≥25°, TPA ≥30°, SVA ≥15 cm, TCobb≥70° or TLCobb≥50°), procedure complexity (≥12 levels fused, 3-CO or ACR) and/or age (>65 and ≥7 levels fused). The surgeon documented sagittal alignment goals prior to surgery. Goals were compared with achieved alignment on first follow-up standing radiographs.

RESULTS

The 266 enrolled patients had a mean age of 61.0 years (SD = 14.6) and 68% were women. Mean instrumented levels was 13.6 (SD = 3.8), and 23.2% had a 3-CO. Mean (SD) offsets (achieved-goal) were: SVA = -8.5 mm (45.6 mm), PI-LL = -4.6° (14.6°), TK = 7.2° (14.7°), reflecting tendencies to undercorrect SVA and PI-LL and increase TK. Goals were achieved for SVA, PI-LL, and TK in 74.4%, 71.4%, and 68.8% of patients, respectively, and was achieved for all 3 parameters in 37.2% of patients. Three factors were independently associated with achievement of all 3 alignment goals: use of PACs/equivalent for surgical planning (P < .001), lower baseline GCA (P = .009), and surgery not including a 3-CO (P = .037).

CONCLUSIONS

Surgeons failed to achieve goal alignment of each sagittal parameter in ∼25-30% of ASD patients. Goal alignment for all 3 parameters was only achieved in 37.2% of patients. Those at greatest risk were patients with more severe deformity. Advancements are needed to enable more consistent translation of preoperative alignment goals to the operating room.