Evolution of Adult Cervical Deformity Surgery Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes Based on a Multicenter Prospective Study: Are Behaviors and Outcomes Changing With Experience?

Study Design. Retrospective cohort study. Objective. Assess changes in outcomes and surgical approaches for adult cervical deformity surgery over time. Summary of Background Data. As 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 Methods. Adult 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. Results. A 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). Conclusion. Despite 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.

[1]  Allen L. Ho,et al.  Factors which predict adverse events following surgery in adults with cervical spinal deformity. , 2021, The Bone & Joint Journal.

[2]  Robert K. Eastlack,et al.  Prospective multicenter assessment of complication rates associated with adult cervical deformity surgery in 133 patients with minimum 1-year follow-up. , 2020, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[3]  Rushikesh S. Joshi,et al.  Comparison of perioperative complications following posterior column osteotomy versus posterior-based 3-column osteotomy for correction of rigid cervicothoracic deformity: a single-surgeon series of 95 consecutive cases. , 2020, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[4]  M. Kelly,et al.  Cost-Utility Analysis of rhBMP-2 Use in Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery. , 2020, Spine.

[5]  C. Ames,et al.  Epidemiology and Socioeconomic Trends in Adult Spinal Deformity Care. , 2020, Neurosurgery.

[6]  D. Hoh,et al.  Cervical Spine Deformity Correction Techniques , 2019, Neurospine.

[7]  R. Lafage,et al.  PROMIS physical health domain scores are related to cervical deformity severity , 2019, Journal of craniovertebral junction & spine.

[8]  D. K. Hamilton,et al.  Global spinal deformity from the upper cervical perspective. What is “Abnormal” in the upper cervical spine? , 2019, Journal of craniovertebral junction & spine.

[9]  M. Kelly,et al.  Development and validation of risk stratification models for adult spinal deformity surgery. , 2019, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[10]  Robert K. Eastlack,et al.  Development of a Modified Cervical Deformity Frailty Index: A Streamlined Clinical Tool for Preoperative Risk Stratification , 2019, Spine.

[11]  D. K. Hamilton,et al.  Grading of Complications After Cervical Deformity-corrective Surgery , 2019, Clinical spine surgery.

[12]  Robert K. Eastlack,et al.  Drivers of Cervical Deformity Have a Strong Influence on Achieving Optimal Radiographic and Clinical Outcomes at 1 Year After Cervical Deformity Surgery. , 2017, World neurosurgery.

[13]  Justin K Scheer,et al.  Prospective multi-centric evaluation of upper cervical and infra-cervical sagittal compensatory alignment in patients with adult cervical deformity , 2018, European Spine Journal.

[14]  C. Ames,et al.  Age-Adjusted Alignment Goals Have the Potential to Reduce PJK , 2017, Spine.

[15]  Justin K Scheer,et al.  Three-column osteotomy for correction of cervical and cervicothoracic deformities: alignment changes and early complications in a multicenter prospective series of 23 patients , 2017, European Spine Journal.

[16]  L. Lenke,et al.  Recent and Emerging Advances in Spinal Deformity , 2017, Neurosurgery.

[17]  Amit Jain,et al.  Prolonged length of stay after posterior surgery for cervical spondylotic myelopathy in patients over 65years of age , 2016, Journal of Clinical Neuroscience.

[18]  F. Schwab,et al.  Natural Head Posture in the Setting of Sagittal Spinal Deformity: Validation of Chin-Brow Vertical Angle, Slope of Line of Sight, and McGregor's Slope With Health-Related Quality of Life. , 2016, Neurosurgery.

[19]  Justin K Scheer,et al.  Assessment of Surgical Treatment Strategies for Moderate to Severe Cervical Spinal Deformity Reveals Marked Variation in Approaches, Osteotomies, and Fusion Levels. , 2016, World neurosurgery.

[20]  Justin K Scheer,et al.  Prospective multicenter assessment of perioperative and minimum 2-year postoperative complication rates associated with adult spinal deformity surgery. , 2016, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[21]  Kevin R. O'Neill,et al.  Factors associated with long-term patient-reported outcomes after three-column osteotomies. , 2015, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[22]  Kai-Ming G. Fu,et al.  Reliability assessment of a novel cervical spine deformity classification system. , 2015, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[23]  Kai-Ming G. Fu,et al.  Outcomes of Operative and Nonoperative Treatment for Adult Spinal Deformity (ASD): A Prospective, Multicenter Matched and Unmatched Cohort Assessment with Minimum Two-Year Follow-Up , 2014 .

[24]  Ho-Joong Kim,et al.  Comparison of Posterolateral Lumbar Fusion and Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Patients Younger Than 60 Years With Isthmic Spondylolisthesis , 2014, Spine.

[25]  Munish C. Gupta,et al.  Complications and intercenter variability of three-column osteotomies for spinal deformity surgery: a retrospective review of 423 patients. , 2014, Neurosurgical focus.

[26]  T. Dall,et al.  An aging population and growing disease burden will require a large and specialized health care workforce by 2025. , 2013, Health affairs.

[27]  Justin K Scheer,et al.  A standardized nomenclature for cervical spine soft-tissue release and osteotomy for deformity correction: clinical article. , 2013, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[28]  Vedat Deviren,et al.  Cervical spine alignment , sagittal deformity , and clinical implications , 2022 .

[29]  Oheneba Boachie-Adjei,et al.  Radiographical Spinopelvic Parameters and Disability in the Setting of Adult Spinal Deformity: A Prospective Multicenter Analysis , 2013, Spine.

[30]  E. Benzel,et al.  Relationship between degree of focal kyphosis correction and neurological outcomes for patients undergoing cervical deformity correction surgery. , 2013, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[31]  V. Deviren,et al.  Spontaneous improvement of cervical alignment after correction of global sagittal balance following pedicle subtraction osteotomy. , 2012, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[32]  Justin K Scheer,et al.  The Impact of Standing Regional Cervical Sagittal Alignment on Outcomes in Posterior Cervical Fusion Surgery. , 2012, Neurosurgery.

[33]  Justin K Scheer,et al.  Technique of cervicothoracic junction pedicle subtraction osteotomy for cervical sagittal imbalance: report of 11 cases. , 2011, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[34]  Khoi D. Than,et al.  Mid-term to long-term clinical and functional outcomes of minimally invasive correction and fusion for adults with scoliosis. , 2010, Neurosurgical focus.

[35]  P. Mummaneni,et al.  Postlaminectomy cervical deformity. , 2003, Neurosurgical focus.