Are Minimally Invasive Spine Surgeons or Classical Open Spine Surgeons More Consistent with Their Treatment of Adult Spinal Deformity?

Abstract

Spine surgeons have a heuristic sense of how to surgically restore alignment and address adult spinal deformity (ASD) symptoms, but consensus on the extent of treatment remains unclear. We sought to determine the variability of surgical approaches in treating ASD. Sixteen spine surgeons were surveyed on treatment approaches in 10 select ASD cases. We repeated the survey with the same surgeons 4 weeks later, with cases ordered differently. We examined the variability in length of construct, use of interbody spacers, osteotomies, and pelvic fixation frequency. Treatment approaches for each case varied by surgeon, with some surgeons opting for long fusion constructs in cases for which others offered no surgery. There was no consensus among surgeons on the number of levels fused, interbody spacer use, or anterior/posterior osteotomies. Intersurgeon and intrasurgeon variability was 48% (kappa= 0.31) and 59% (kappa= 0.44) for surgeons performing minimally invasive surgery (MIS) versus 37% (kappa= 0.21) and 47% (kappa= 0.30) for those performing open surgery. In the second-round survey, 8 of 15 (53%) surgeons substantially changed the construct length, number of interbody spacers, and osteotomies in at least half the cases they previously reviewed. Surgeons performing MIS versus open surgery were less likely to extend constructs to the pelvis (42.5% vs. 67.5%; P= 0.02), but construct length was not correlated with whether a surgeon performed MIS or open surgery. Spinal deformity surgeons lack consensus on the optimal surgical approach for treating ASD. Classifying surgeons as performing MIS or open surgery does not mitigate this variability.