Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 18 items for

  • Author or Editor: Eric O. Klineberg x
Clear All Modify Search
Free access

Justin K. Scheer, Jessica A. Tang, Justin S. Smith, Eric Klineberg, Robert A. Hart, Gregory M. Mundis Jr., Douglas C. Burton, Richard Hostin, Michael F. O'Brien, Shay Bess, Khaled M. Kebaish, Vedat Deviren, Virginie Lafage, Frank Schwab, Christopher I. Shaffrey, Christopher P. Ames and the International Spine Study Group

Object

Complications and reoperation for surgery to correct adult spinal deformity are not infrequent, and many studies have analyzed the rates and factors that influence the likelihood of reoperation. However, there is a need for more comprehensive analyses of reoperation in adult spinal deformity surgery from a global standpoint, particularly focusing on the 1st year following operation and considering radiographic parameters and the effects of reoperation on health-related quality of life (HRQOL). This study attempts to determine the prevalence of reoperation following surgery for adult spinal deformity, assess the indications for these reoperations, evaluate for a relation between specific radiographic parameters and the need for reoperation, and determine the potential impact of reoperation on HRQOL measures.

Methods

A retrospective review was conducted of a prospective, multicenter, adult spinal deformity database collected through the International Spine Study Group. Data collected included age, body mass index, sex, date of surgery, information regarding complications, reoperation dates, length of stay, and operation time. The radiographic parameters assessed were total number of levels instrumented, total number of interbody fusions, C-7 sagittal vertical axis, uppermost instrumented vertebra (UIV) location, and presence of 3-column osteotomies. The HRQOL assessment included Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), 36-Item Short Form Health Survey physical component and mental component summary, and SRS-22 scores. Smoking history, Charlson Comorbidity Index scores, and American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status classification grades were also collected and assessed for correlation with risk of early reoperation. Various statistical tests were performed for evaluation of specific factors listed above, and the level of significance was set at p < 0.05.

Results

Fifty-nine (17%) of a total of 352 patients required reoperation. Forty-four (12.5%) of the reoperations occurred within 1 year after the initial surgery, including 17 reoperations (5%) within 30 days.

Two hundred sixty-eight patients had a minimum of 1 year of follow-up. Fifty-three (20%) of these patients had a 3-column osteotomy, and 10 (19%) of these 53 required reoperation within 1 year of the initial procedure. However, 3-column osteotomy was not predictive of reoperation within 1 year, p = 0.5476). There were no significant differences between groups with regard to the distribution of UIV, and UIV did not have a significant effect on reoperation rates. Patients needing reoperation within 1 year had worse ODI and SRS-22 scores measured at 1-year follow-up than patients not requiring operation.

Conclusions

Analysis of data from a large multicenter adult spinal deformity database shows an overall 17% reoperation rate, with a 19% reoperation rate for patients treated with 3-column osteotomy and a 16% reoperation rate for patients not treated with 3-column osteotomy. The most common indications for reoperation included instrumentation complications and radiographic failure. Reoperation significantly affected HRQOL outcomes at 1-year follow-up. The need for reoperation may be minimized by carefully considering spinal alignment, termination of fixation, and type of surgical procedure (presence of osteotomy). Precautions should be taken to avoid malposition or instrumentation (rod) failure.

Free access

Raqeeb M. Haque, Gregory M. Mundis Jr., Yousef Ahmed, Tarek Y. El Ahmadieh, Michael Y. Wang, Praveen V. Mummaneni, Juan S. Uribe, David O. Okonkwo, Robert K. Eastlack, Neel Anand, Adam S. Kanter, Frank La Marca, Behrooz A. Akbarnia, Paul Park, Virginie Lafage, Jamie S. Terran, Christopher I. Shaffrey, Eric Klineberg, Vedat Deviren and Richard G. Fessler

Object

Various surgical approaches, including open, minimally invasive, and hybrid techniques, have gained momentum in the management of adult spinal deformity. However, few data exist on the radiographic outcomes of different surgical techniques. The objective of this study was to compare the radiographic and clinical outcomes of the surgical techniques used in the treatment of adult spinal deformity.

Methods

The authors conducted a retrospective review of two adult spinal deformity patient databases, a prospective open surgery database and a retrospective minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and hybrid surgery database. The time frame of enrollment in this study was from 2007 to 2012. Spinal deformity patients were stratified into 3 surgery groups: MIS, hybrid surgery, and open surgery. The following pre- and postoperative radiographic parameters were assessed: lumbar major Cobb angle, lumbar lordosis, pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis (PI−LL), sagittal vertical axis, and pelvic tilt. Scores on the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and a visual analog scale (VAS) for both back and leg pain were also obtained from each patient.

Results

Of the 234 patients with adult spinal deformity, 184 patients had pre- and postoperative radiographs and were thus included in the study (MIS, n = 42; hybrid, n = 33; open, n = 109). Patients were a mean of 61.7 years old and had a mean body mass index of 26.9 kg/m2. Regarding radiographic outcomes, the MIS group maintained a significantly smaller mean lumbar Cobb angle (13.1°) after surgery compared with the open group (20.4°, p = 0.002), while the hybrid group had a significantly larger lumbar curve correction (26.6°) compared with the MIS group (18.8°, p = 0.045). The mean change in the PI−LL was larger for the hybrid group (20.6°) compared with the open (10.2°, p = 0.023) and MIS groups (5.5°, p = 0.003). The mean sagittal vertical axis correction was greater for the open group (25 mm) compared with the MIS group (≤ 1 mm, p = 0.008). Patients in the open group had a significantly larger postoperative thoracic kyphosis (41.45°) compared with the MIS patients (33.5°, p = 0.005). There were no significant differences between groups in terms of pre- and postoperative mean ODI and VAS scores at the 1-year follow-up. However, patients in the MIS group had much lower estimated blood loss and transfusion rates compared with patients in the hybrid or open groups (p < 0.001). Operating room time was significantly longer with the hybrid group compared with the MIS and open groups (p < 0.001). Major complications occurred in 14% of patients in the MIS group, 14% in the hybrid group, and 45% in the open group (p = 0.032).

Conclusions

This study provides valuable baseline characteristics of radiographic parameters among 3 different surgical techniques used in the treatment of adult spinal deformity. Each technique has advantages, but much like any surgical technique, the positive and negative elements must be considered when tailoring a treatment to a patient. Minimally invasive surgical techniques can result in clinical outcomes at 1 year comparable to those obtained from hybrid and open surgical techniques.

Free access

Christopher P. Ames, Justin S. Smith, Robert Eastlack, Donald J. Blaskiewicz, Christopher I. Shaffrey, Frank Schwab, Shay Bess, Han Jo Kim, Gregory M. Mundis Jr., Eric Klineberg, Munish Gupta, Michael O’Brien, Richard Hostin, Justin K. Scheer, Themistocles S. Protopsaltis, Kai-Ming G. Fu, Robert Hart, Todd J. Albert, K. Daniel Riew, Michael G. Fehlings, Vedat Deviren, Virginie Lafage and International Spine Study Group

OBJECT

Despite the complexity of cervical spine deformity (CSD) and its significant impact on patient quality of life, there exists no comprehensive classification system. The objective of this study was to develop a novel classification system based on a modified Delphi approach and to characterize the intra- and interobserver reliability of this classification.

METHODS

Based on an extensive literature review and a modified Delphi approach with an expert panel, a CSD classification system was generated. The classification system included a deformity descriptor and 5 modifiers that incorporated sagittal, regional, and global spinopelvic alignment and neurological status. The descriptors included: “C,” “CT,” and “T” for primary cervical kyphotic deformities with an apex in the cervical spine, cervicothoracic junction, or thoracic spine, respectively; “S” for primary coronal deformity with a coronal Cobb angle ≥ 15°; and “CVJ” for primary craniovertebral junction deformity. The modifiers included C2–7 sagittal vertical axis (SVA), horizontal gaze (chin-brow to vertical angle [CBVA]), T1 slope (TS) minus C2–7 lordosis (TS–CL), myelopathy (modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association [mJOA] scale score), and the Scoliosis Research Society (SRS)-Schwab classification for thoracolumbar deformity. Application of the classification system requires the following: 1) full-length standing posteroanterior (PA) and lateral spine radiographs that include the cervical spine and femoral heads; 2) standing PA and lateral cervical spine radiographs; 3) completed and scored mJOA questionnaire; and 4) a clinical photograph or radiograph that includes the skull for measurement of the CBVA. A series of 10 CSD cases, broadly representative of the classification system, were selected and sufficient radiographic and clinical history to enable classification were assembled. A panel of spinal deformity surgeons was queried to classify each case twice, with a minimum of 1 intervening week. Inter- and intrarater reliability measures were based on calculations of Fleiss k coefficient values.

RESULTS

Twenty spinal deformity surgeons participated in this study. Interrater reliability (Fleiss k coefficients) for the deformity descriptor rounds 1 and 2 were 0.489 and 0.280, respectively, and mean intrarater reliability was 0.584. For the modifiers, including the SRS-Schwab components, the interrater (round 1/round 2) and intrarater reliabilities (Fleiss k coefficients) were: C2–7 SVA (0.338/0.412, 0.584), horizontal gaze (0.779/0.430, 0.768), TS-CL (0.721/0.567, 0.720), myelopathy (0.602/0.477, 0.746), SRS-Schwab curve type (0.590/0.433, 0.564), pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis (0.554/0.386, 0.826), pelvic tilt (0.714/0.627, 0.633), and C7-S1 SVA (0.071/0.064, 0.233), respectively. The parameter with the poorest reliability was the C7–S1 SVA, which may have resulted from differences in interpretation of positive and negative measurements.

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed classification provides a mechanism to assess CSD within the framework of global spinopelvic malalignment and clinically relevant parameters. The intra- and interobserver reliabilities suggest moderate agreement and serve as the basis for subsequent improvement and study of the proposed classification.