Clinical results and functional outcomes of primary and revision spinal deformity surgery in adults.

BACKGROUND Few studies have examined the postsurgical functional outcomes of adults with spinal deformities, and even fewer have focused on the functional results and complications among older adults who have undergone primary or revision surgery for spinal deformity. Our goal was to compare patient characteristics, surgical characteristics, duration of hospitalization, radiographic results, complications, and functional outcomes between adults forty years of age or older who had undergone primary surgery for spinal deformity and those who had undergone revision surgery for spinal deformity. METHODS We retrospectively reviewed the cases of 167 consecutive patients forty years of age or older who had undergone surgery for spinal deformity performed by the senior author (K.M.K.) from January 2005 through June 2009 and who were followed for a minimum of two years. We divided the patients into two groups: primary surgery (fifty-nine patients) and revision surgery (108 patients). We compared the patient characteristics (number of levels arthrodesed, type of procedure, estimated blood loss, and total operative time), duration of hospitalization, radiographic results (preoperative, six-week postoperative, and most recent follow-up Cobb angle measurements for thoracic and lumbar curves, thoracic kyphosis, and lumbar lordosis), major and minor complications, and functional outcome scores (Scoliosis Research Society-22 Patient Questionnaire and Oswestry Disability Index). RESULTS The groups were comparable with regard to most parameters. However, the revision group had more patients with sagittal plane imbalance and more frequently required pedicle subtraction osteotomies (p < 0.01). Patients in the primary group required more correction in the coronal plane than did patients in the revision group, whereas patients in the revision group required more correction in the sagittal plane. We found no significant difference between the two groups in the rate of major complications or in the Scoliosis Research Society-22 Patient Questionnaire functional outcome scores. There were significant improvements in many functional outcome scores in both groups between the preoperative and early (six-week) postoperative periods and between the early postoperative period and the time of final follow-up. CONCLUSIONS Revision surgery for spinal deformity in adults, although technically challenging and considered to present a higher risk than primary surgery, was shown to have a complication rate and outcomes that were comparable with those of primary spinal deformity surgery in adults. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

[1]  R. Skolasky,et al.  Scoliosis in Adults Aged Forty Years and Older: Prevalence and Relationship to Age, Race, and Gender , 2011, Spine.

[2]  L. Lenke,et al.  Changes in Radiographic and Clinical Outcomes With Primary Treatment Adult Spinal Deformity Surgeries From Two Years to Three- to Five-Years Follow-up , 2010, Spine.

[3]  F. Schwab,et al.  Major Intraoperative Neurologic Monitoring Deficits in Consecutive Pediatric and Adult Spinal Deformity Patients at One Institution , 2010, Spine.

[4]  Christopher R. Good,et al.  Revision Rates Following Primary Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery: Six Hundred Forty-Three Consecutive Patients Followed-up to Twenty-Two Years Postoperative , 2010, Spine.

[5]  D. B. Cohen,et al.  Incidence of surgical site infection following adult spinal deformity surgery: an analysis of patient risk , 2010, European Spine Journal.

[6]  O. Boachie-Adjei,et al.  Pain and Disability Determine Treatment Modality for Older Patients With Adult Scoliosis, While Deformity Guides Treatment for Younger Patients , 2009, Spine.

[7]  D. Antezana,et al.  Pulmonary Embolism After Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery , 2008, Spine.

[8]  K. Bridwell,et al.  The Impact of Perioperative Complications on Clinical Outcome in Adult Deformity Surgery , 2007, Spine.

[9]  L. Lenke,et al.  Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery: Complications and Outcomes in Patients Over Age 60 , 2007, Spine.

[10]  R. Deyo,et al.  Reoperation Rates Following Lumbar Spine Surgery and the Influence of Spinal Fusion Procedures , 2007, Spine.

[11]  L. Lenke,et al.  Pseudarthrosis in Long Adult Spinal Deformity Instrumentation and Fusion to the Sacrum: Prevalence and Risk Factor Analysis of 144 Cases , 2006, Spine.

[12]  T. Albert,et al.  Medical Complications of Surgical Treatment of Adult Spinal Deformity and How to Avoid Them , 2006, Spine.

[13]  Tom Stanley,et al.  Instrumentation-Related Complications of Multilevel Fusions for Adult Spinal Deformity Patients Over Age 65: Surgical Considerations and Treatment Options in Patients With Poor Bone Quality , 2006, Spine.

[14]  K. Bridwell Decision Making Regarding Smith-Petersen vs. Pedicle Subtraction Osteotomy vs. Vertebral Column Resection for Spinal Deformity , 2006, Spine.

[15]  J. Buchowski,et al.  Spinal Fusion After Revision Surgery for Pseudarthrosis in Adult Scoliosis , 2006, Spine.

[16]  K. Bridwell,et al.  Nonsurgical Resource Utilization in Adult Spinal Deformity , 2006, Spine.

[17]  L. Lenke,et al.  Pseudarthrosis in adult spinal deformity following multisegmental instrumentation and arthrodesis. , 2006, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[18]  L. Lenke,et al.  Comparison of Smith-Petersen Versus Pedicle Subtraction Osteotomy for the Correction of Fixed Sagittal Imbalance , 2005, Spine.

[19]  L. Lenke,et al.  The Validity of the SRS-22 Instrument in an Adult Spinal Deformity Population Compared With the Oswestry and SF-12: A Study of Response Distribution, Concurrent Validity, Internal Consistency, and Reliability , 2005, Spine.

[20]  L. Lenke,et al.  Pedicle subtraction osteotomy for the treatment of fixed sagittal imbalance. Surgical technique. , 2004, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[21]  L. Lenke,et al.  Pedicle Subtraction Osteotomy for the Treatment of Fixed Sagittal Imbalance , 2003, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[22]  V. Deviren,et al.  Outcome and Complications of Long Fusions to the Sacrum in Adult Spine Deformity: Luque-Galveston, Combined Iliac and Sacral Screws, and Sacral Fixation , 2002, Spine.

[23]  L. Lenke,et al.  Complications and results of long adult deformity fusions down to l4, l5, and the sacrum. , 2001, Spine.

[24]  L. Lenke,et al.  Long-Term Complications in Adult Spinal Deformity Patients Having Combined Surgery: A Comparison of Primary to Revision Patients , 2001, Spine.

[25]  P. Pynsent,et al.  The Oswestry Disability Index. , 2000, Spine.

[26]  Serena S. Hu,et al.  Adult scoliosis: surgical indications, operative management, complications, and outcomes. , 1999, Spine.

[27]  T. Lowe,et al.  Results of the Scoliosis Research Society instrument for evaluation of surgical outcome in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. A multicenter study of 244 patients. , 1999, Spine.

[28]  L. Lenke,et al.  Complications in the adult spinal deformity patient having combined surgery. Does revision increase the risk? , 1999, Spine.

[29]  R. Winter Neurologic Safety in Spinal Deformity Surgery , 1997, Spine.

[30]  John R. Johnson,et al.  Perioperative Complications of Anterior Procedures on the Spine*† , 1996, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[31]  T. Albert,et al.  Health Outcome Assessment Before and After Adult Deformity Surgery: A Prospective Study , 1995, Spine.

[32]  R. Letts,et al.  Delayed paresis following spinal fusion with Harrington instrumentation. , 1977, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[33]  G. Macewen,et al.  Acute neurological complications in the treatment of scoliosis. A report of the Scoliosis Research Society. , 1975, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[34]  J. James,et al.  Scoliosis in the elderly. , 1969, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.