• Peter G Passias, Oscar Krol, Kevin Moattari, Tyler K Williamson, Virginie Lafage, Renaud Lafage, Han Jo Kim, Alan Daniels, Bassel Diebo, Themistocles Protopsaltis, Gregory Mundis, Khaled Kebaish, Alexandra Soroceanu, Justin Scheer, D Kojo Hamilton, Eric Klineberg, Andrew J Schoenfeld, Shaleen Vira, Breton Line, Robert Hart, Douglas C Burton, Frank A Schwab, Christopher Shaffrey, Shay Bess, Justin S Smith, Christopher P Ames, and International Spine Study Group.
• Division of Spinal Surgery/Department of Orthopaedic and Neurosurgery, NYU Medical Center, NY Spine Institute, New York, NY.
• Spine. 2022 Nov 15; 47 (22): 157415821574-1582.

Study DesignRetrospective cohort study.ObjectiveAssess changes in outcomes and surgical approaches for adult cervical deformity surgery over time.Summary Of Background DataAs the population ages and the prevalence of cervical deformity increases, corrective surgery has been increasingly seen as a viable treatment. Dramatic surgical advancements and expansion of knowledge on this procedure have transpired over the years, but the impact on cervical deformity surgery is unknown.Materials And MethodsAdult cervical deformity patients (18 yrs and above) with complete baseline and up to the two-year health-related quality of life and radiographic data were included. Descriptive analysis included demographics, radiographic, and surgical details. Patients were grouped into early (2013-2014) and late (2015-2017) by date of surgery. Univariate and multivariable regression analyses were used to assess differences in surgical, radiographic, and clinical outcomes over time.ResultsA total of 119 cervical deformity patients met the inclusion criteria. Early group consisted of 72 patients, and late group consisted of 47. The late group had a higher Charlson Comorbidity Index (1.3 vs. 0.72), more cerebrovascular disease (6% vs. 0%, both P <0.05), and no difference in age, frailty, deformity, or cervical rigidity. Controlling for baseline deformity and age, late group underwent fewer three-column osteotomies [odds ratio (OR)=0.18, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.06-0.76, P =0.014]. At the last follow-up, late group had less patients with: a moderate/high Ames horizontal modifier (71.7% vs. 88.2%), and overcorrection in pelvic tilt (4.3% vs. 18.1%, both P <0.05). Controlling for baseline deformity, age, levels fused, and three-column osteotomies, late group experienced fewer adverse events (OR=0.15, 95% CI: 0.28-0.8, P =0.03), and neurological complications (OR=0.1, 95% CI: 0.012-0.87, P =0.03).ConclusionDespite a population with greater comorbidity and associated risk, outcomes remained consistent between early and later time periods, indicating general improvements in care. The later cohort demonstrated fewer three-column osteotomies, less suboptimal realignments, and concomitant reductions in adverse events and neurological complications. This may suggest a greater facility with less invasive techniques.Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

9 keywords...

hide…