51. How good are surgeons at achieving their goal sagittal alignment following adult deformity surgery?

Abstract

BACKGROUND CONTEXT Malalignment following adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery can negatively impact clinical outcomes and increase risk of mechanical complications. Despite improved definition of ideal alignment for ASD surgery and increasingly sophisticated preoperative alignment planning tools, it remains unclear whether the preoperative goals for alignment are actually achieved with surgery. PURPOSE The objective of this study was to assess whether preoperative goals for sagittal alignment following ASD surgery are consistently achieved. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING Multicenter, prospective cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE Operatively treatedASD patients. OUTCOME MEASURES Sagittal vertical axis (SVA), pelvic incidence to lumbar lordosis mismatch (PI-LL), T4-T12 thoracic kyphosis (TK). METHODS From 2018-2021, ASD patients were enrolled into a prospective ASD study based on three criteria: deformity severity (PI-LL>25°, TPA>30°, SVA>15cm, TCobb>70° or TLCobb>50°), procedure complexity (>12 levels fused, 3CO or ACR), and/or patient age (>65 and >7 levels fused). The operating surgeon documented sagittal alignment goals prior to surgery, including SVA, PI-LL mismatch and TK. Alignment goals were compared with achieved alignment at 6 weeks postop and the overall mean and SD were calculated for the offset (achieved minus goal) for each measure. Goal alignment was considered attained if the offset was within +/-1 SD of the goal. Demographic, surgical and baseline radiographic measures demonstrating significant association with achieving alignment goal on univariate analysis were used for multivariate regression analysis. RESULTS The 266 enrolled patients had a mean age of 61.0 yrs (SD=14.6 yrs) and 68% were women. Mean number of instrumented levels was 13.6 (SD=3.8) and 24% had a 3-column osteotomy (3CO). Mean (SD) offsets were: SVA=-8.5 mm (45.6 mm), PI-LL=-4.6° (14.6°), TK=7.2° (14.7°), reflecting a tendency to undercorrect SVA and PI-LL relative to goal and to increase TK relative to goal. Surgeons achieved goal alignment (within 1 SD) for SVA, PI-LL, and TK in 74.4%, 71.4%, and 68.8% of cases, respectively. On regression analysis: goal SVA was more likely to be achieved with lower baseline SVA (OR=0.993, 95%CI=0.988-0.997, p=0.001) and greater baseline TK (OR=1.016, 95%CI=1.002-1.031, p=0.029); goal PI-LL was more likely to be achieved with greater patient age (OR=1.021, 95%CI=1.002-1.039, p=0.026) and history of previous TL spine surgery (OR=2.028, 95% CI=1.136-3.621, p=0.017); and goal TK was more likely to be achieved with lower baseline SVA (OR=0.995, 95%CI=0.991-0.999; p=0.014). The proportions of patients with achieved alignment within 1 SD of goal were not significantly different for patients with a UIV above T7 vs those with a UIV at or below T7 for SVA (p=0.20), PI-LL (p=0.49) or TK (p=0.06). Notably, patient-specific rods were used in 21 patients and were not associated with greater achievement of goal alignment for any parameter (p>0.8), with similar tendencies to undercorrect SVA and PI-LL and increase TK (p>0.6). CONCLUSIONS Surgeons failed to achieve goal alignment of each sagittal parameter in ∼25% of patients operated for ASD, with a tendency to undercorrect SVA and PI-LL and increase TK. Patients at greatest risk tended to be those with more severe baseline deformity. Further advancements are needed to enable more consistent translation of preoperative alignment planning to the operating room. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs. Malalignment following adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery can negatively impact clinical outcomes and increase risk of mechanical complications. Despite improved definition of ideal alignment for ASD surgery and increasingly sophisticated preoperative alignment planning tools, it remains unclear whether the preoperative goals for alignment are actually achieved with surgery. The objective of this study was to assess whether preoperative goals for sagittal alignment following ASD surgery are consistently achieved. Multicenter, prospective cohort study. Operatively treatedASD patients. Sagittal vertical axis (SVA), pelvic incidence to lumbar lordosis mismatch (PI-LL), T4-T12 thoracic kyphosis (TK). From 2018-2021, ASD patients were enrolled into a prospective ASD study based on three criteria: deformity severity (PI-LL>25°, TPA>30°, SVA>15cm, TCobb>70° or TLCobb>50°), procedure complexity (>12 levels fused, 3CO or ACR), and/or patient age (>65 and >7 levels fused). The operating surgeon documented sagittal alignment goals prior to surgery, including SVA, PI-LL mismatch and TK. Alignment goals were compared with achieved alignment at 6 weeks postop and the overall mean and SD were calculated for the offset (achieved minus goal) for each measure. Goal alignment was considered attained if the offset was within +/-1 SD of the goal. Demographic, surgical and baseline radiographic measures demonstrating significant association with achieving alignment goal on univariate analysis were used for multivariate regression analysis. The 266 enrolled patients had a mean age of 61.0 yrs (SD=14.6 yrs) and 68% were women. Mean number of instrumented levels was 13.6 (SD=3.8) and 24% had a 3-column osteotomy (3CO). Mean (SD) offsets were: SVA=-8.5 mm (45.6 mm), PI-LL=-4.6° (14.6°), TK=7.2° (14.7°), reflecting a tendency to undercorrect SVA and PI-LL relative to goal and to increase TK relative to goal. Surgeons achieved goal alignment (within 1 SD) for SVA, PI-LL, and TK in 74.4%, 71.4%, and 68.8% of cases, respectively. On regression analysis: goal SVA was more likely to be achieved with lower baseline SVA (OR=0.993, 95%CI=0.988-0.997, p=0.001) and greater baseline TK (OR=1.016, 95%CI=1.002-1.031, p=0.029); goal PI-LL was more likely to be achieved with greater patient age (OR=1.021, 95%CI=1.002-1.039, p=0.026) and history of previous TL spine surgery (OR=2.028, 95% CI=1.136-3.621, p=0.017); and goal TK was more likely to be achieved with lower baseline SVA (OR=0.995, 95%CI=0.991-0.999; p=0.014). The proportions of patients with achieved alignment within 1 SD of goal were not significantly different for patients with a UIV above T7 vs those with a UIV at or below T7 for SVA (p=0.20), PI-LL (p=0.49) or TK (p=0.06). Notably, patient-specific rods were used in 21 patients and were not associated with greater achievement of goal alignment for any parameter (p>0.8), with similar tendencies to undercorrect SVA and PI-LL and increase TK (p>0.6). Surgeons failed to achieve goal alignment of each sagittal parameter in ∼25% of patients operated for ASD, with a tendency to undercorrect SVA and PI-LL and increase TK. Patients at greatest risk tended to be those with more severe baseline deformity. Further advancements are needed to enable more consistent translation of preoperative alignment planning to the operating room.