P102. Does matching Roussouly spinal shape and improvement in SRS-Schwab modifier contribute to improved patient-reported outcomes?

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

BACKGROUND CONTEXT The Roussouly Classification system of sagittal spinal shape and the SRS-Schwab adult spinal deformity (ASD) classification system have become important indicators of spine deformity. No prior studies have examined the outcomes of matching both Roussouly type and improving in Schwab modifiers postoperatively. PURPOSE Evaluate outcomes of matching Roussouly Type and improving in Schwab modifier following ASD surgery. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING Retrospective review of single-center ASD database. PATIENT SAMPLE A total of 103 ASD patients. OUTCOME MEASURES Roussouly types, Schwab modifiers, Health Related Quality of Life scores(HRQLs): Minimal Clinical Important Difference for ODI, EQ5D, VAS Leg B Type 2: PI 60°); (2) “current” Roussouly type (1: SS 45°), as previously published. One year (1Y) matched Roussouly: preoperative mismatched (Between ‘actual’ and ‘theoretical’ patients that matched at 1Y. Schwab modifiers at BL were identified: non-, moderate and severe deformity (0, +, ++) for PT, SVA, and PI-LL. Schwab improvement was defined as a decrease in a modifier at one year. RESULTS A total of 103 ASD patients (61.8yrs, 63.1%F, 30kg/m2). By surgical approach, 79.6% posterior, 10.7% combined, 2.9% anterior). Average levels fused: 4.6. BL breakdown of ‘current; Roussouly type: 28% Type 1, 25.3% Type 2, 32.0% Type 3, 14.7% Type 4. BL Roussouly mismatch: 65.3%. Breakdown BL Schwab modifiers: PT (0: 8.7%, +: 41.7%, ++: 49.5%), SVA (0: 29.7%, +: 20.3%, ++: 50%), PI-LL mismatch (0: 28.2%, +: 25.2%, ++: 46.6%). At one year, 19.2% of patients matched Roussouly target type, while according to Schwab modifiers, 12.6% improved in SVA, 42.7% in PI-LL, and 45.6% in PT. Patients who both met Roussouly type and improved in a Schwab by the modifiers: 9 PT (8.7%), 8 PI-LL (7.8%), 2 SVA (1.9%). There were 2 patients (1.9%) who met their Roussouly type and improved in all 3 Schwab modifiers. One year (1Y) matched Roussouly patients improved more in HRQLs (MCID for ODI, EQ5D, VAS Leg/Back Pain), when compared to mismatched Roussouly, but was not significant(P>0.05). Match Roussouly and improvement in PT Schwab met MCID for EQ5D significantly more (33.3% vs 10.6%, p=0.050). Matched Roussouly and PI-LL Schwab had more patients meet MCID for all HRQLs, yet none were significant, p>0.05. Matched Roussouly and improvement in SVA Schwab met MCID for ODI significantly more (p=0.024). CONCLUSIONS Patients who both matched Roussouly sagittal spinal type and improved in SRS-Schwab modifiers had superior patient-reported outcomes at 1-year. Utilizing both classification systems in surgical decision making can optimize postop patient outcomes. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.