182. Impact of realignment schemas on rates of proximal junctional changes in adult spinal deformity surgery

Abstract

<h3>BACKGROUND CONTEXT</h3> Operative intervention for adult spinal deformity (ASD) is associated with high rates of proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK) and proximal junctional failure (PJF). Multiple attempts have been made to guide realignment for ASD corrective surgery, yet the predominance have been based on functional gains, which may or may not directly impact such junctional malcompensation. <h3>PURPOSE</h3> To assess impact of baseline patient deformity and surgical realignment on rates of PJK and PJF. <h3>STUDY DESIGN/SETTING</h3> Retrospective study of patients prospectively enrolled in a single center ASD database. <h3>PATIENT SAMPLE</h3> A total of 298 ASD patients. <h3>OUTCOME MEASURES</h3> Proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK); proximal junctional Failure (PJF). <h3>METHODS</h3> ASD patients with 2-year (2Y) data, UIV above L1 and LIV at S1 or pelvis were included. Those with evidence of PJK at 6-weeks postoperatively were excluded. Six-week radiographs were used to assess alignment by 5 published alignment systems: SRS-Schwab, GAP Score, age-adjusted (AA), Roussouly (Rous), and the newly published sagittal age-adjusted score (SAAS). To compare the impact of each alignment system on rates of PJK and PJF by level of baseline deformity, all radiographic measurements used to calculate SRS-Schwab, AA, Rous, GAP and SAAS were re-scaled from 0 to 100 using the min-max of the cohort for each respective angle. Normalized values were then summed to compute a composite "deformity score" for each patient. Patients were ranked by deformity score into 3 groups: mild, moderate, and severe. Means comparison tests were used to assess rates of PJK and PJF (defined as PJK with reoperation) by alignment system in the cohort and by deformity group. Multivariate logistic regressions controlling for covariates such as age, PJK prophylaxis, and osteoporosis were used to generate odds ratios (OR) and identify the alignment systems associated with lower odds of developing PJK and PJF. <h3>RESULTS</h3> A total of 298 patients met inclusion (62.5yrs, BMI: 27.5kg/m², CCI: 1.5, 76% F). Overall, 33.6% of the cohort developed PJK and 6.7% developed PJF. MVA of the cohort found those aligned to AA had a 55% lower odds of PJK (OR: 0.453, [0.283, 0.727], p=.001) and 60.4% lower odds of PJF (OR: 0.396, [0.169, 0.933], p=.034). Subanalysis of patients presenting with mild deformity scores (N=71) found none of the alignment systems reduced odds of PJK or PJF (all p>.05). Subanalysis of patients presenting with moderate deformity scores (N=108) found those meeting AA had 79% lower odds of PJK (OR: 0.210, [0.072, 0.615], p=.004), yet none of the alignment systems significantly reduced odds of PJF. In those severe deformity scores (N=119), meeting Schwab significantly reduced odds of PJK (OR: 0.492, [0.318, 0.761], p=.001). With regard to PJF, in those with severe deformity scores, alignment to Schwab (OR: 0.235, [0.104, 0.532], p=.001) and AA significantly reduced odds of PJF (OR: 0.352, [0.124, 0.994], p=.049). <h3>CONCLUSIONS</h3> This study aimed to assess impact of realignment to published systems on rates of PJK and PJF in surgical correction of adult spinal deformity. Overally, those meeting age-adjusted alignment had lowest rates of PJK and PJF. Morover, further analysis revealed that moderately and severely deformed patients beneit benefit from realignment to age adjusted criteria. However, none of the alignment systems were associated with lower odds of PJK or PJF in those presenting with mild deformity. This may indicate a certain level of PJK and PJF is not preventable by optimal realignment alone. <h3>FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS</h3> This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.