Characteristics of patients undergoing revision surgery for proximal junctional failure after adult spinal deformity surgery: revalidation of the Hart–International Spine Study Group proximal junctional kyphosis severity scale

View More View Less
  • 1 Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Spine Center, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea
Restricted access

Purchase Now

USD  $45.00

Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $376.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $612.00
USD  $45.00
USD  $376.00
USD  $612.00
Print or Print + Online Sign in

OBJECTIVE

Score on the proximal junctional kyphosis severity scale (PJKSS) has been validated to show good correlations with likelihood of revision surgery for proximal junctional failure (PJF) after surgical treatment of adult spinal deformity (ASD). However, if the patient has progressive neurological deterioration, revision surgery should be considered regardless of severity based on PJKSS score. This study aimed to revalidate the correlation of PJKSS score with likelihood of revision surgery in patients with PJF but without neurological deficit. In addition, the authors provide the cutoff score on PJKSS that indicates need for revision surgery.

METHODS

A retrospective study was performed. Among 360 patients who underwent fusion of more than 4 segments including the sacrum, 83 patients who developed PJF without acute neurological deficit were included. Thirty patients underwent revision surgery (R group) and 53 patients did not undergo revision surgery (NR group). All components of PJKSS and variables other than those included in PJKSS were compared between groups. The cutoff score on PJKSS that indicated need for revision surgery was calculated with receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. Multivariate analysis with logistic regression was performed to identify which variables were most predictive of revision surgery.

RESULTS

The mean patient age at the time of index surgery was 69.4 years, and the mean fusion length was 6.1 segments. All components of PJKSS, such as focal pain, instrumentation problem, change in kyphosis, fracture at the uppermost instrumented vertebra (UIV)/UIV+1, and level of UIV, were significantly different between groups. The average total PJKSS score was significantly greater in the R group than in the NR group (6.0 vs 3.9, p < 0.001). The calculated cutoff score was 4.5, with 70% sensitivity and specificity. There were no significant between-group differences in patient, surgical, and radiographic factors (other than the PJKSS components). Three factors were significantly associated with revision surgery on multivariate analysis: instrumentation problem (OR 8.160, p = 0.004), change in kyphosis (OR 4.809, p = 0.026), and UIV/UIV+1 fracture (OR 6.462, p = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

PJKSS score positively predicted need for revision surgery in patients with PJF who were neurologically intact. The calculated cutoff score on PJKSS that indicated need for revision surgery was 4.5, with 70% sensitivity and specificity. The factor most responsible for revision surgery was bony failure with > 20° focal kyphotic deformity. Therefore, early revision surgery should be considered for these patients even in the absence of neurological deficit.

ABBREVIATIONS

ASA = American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification System; ASD = adult spinal deformity; ISSG = International Spine Study Group; LL = lumbar lordosis; NR = nonrevision; ODI = Oswestry Disability Index; PI = pelvic incidence; PJA = proximal junctional angle; PJF = proximal junctional failure; PJK = proximal junctional kyphosis; PJKSS = proximal junctional kyphosis severity scale; PSO = pedicle subtraction osteotomy; PT = pelvic tilt; R = revision; ROC = receiver operating characteristic; SRS = Scoliosis Research Society; SS = sacral slope; SVA = sagittal vertical axis; TK = thoracic kyphosis; TP = transverse process; UIV = uppermost instrumented vertebra; VAS = visual analog scale.

Illustration from Dibble et al. (pp 384–394). © Washington University Department of Neurosurgery, published with permission.

Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $376.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $612.00
USD  $376.00
USD  $612.00
  • 1

    Glattes RC, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, Kim YJ, Rinella A, Edwards C II. Proximal junctional kyphosis in adult spinal deformity following long instrumented posterior spinal fusion: incidence, outcomes, and risk factor analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005;30(14):16431649.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2

    Kim HJ, Yang JH, Chang DG, et al. Adult spinal deformity: current concepts and decision-making strategies for management. Asian Spine J. 2020;14(6):886897.

  • 3

    Smith MW, Annis P, Lawrence BD, Daubs MD, Brodke DS. Acute proximal junctional failure in patients with preoperative sagittal imbalance. Spine J. 2015;15(10):21422148.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    Kim HJ, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, et al. Patients with proximal junctional kyphosis requiring revision surgery have higher postoperative lumbar lordosis and larger sagittal balance corrections. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014;39(9):E576E580.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5

    Hart R, McCarthy I, OʼBrien M, et al. Identification of decision criteria for revision surgery among patients with proximal junctional failure after surgical treatment of spinal deformity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38(19):E1223E1227.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6

    Koike Y, Kotani Y, Terao H, Iwasaki N. Risk factor analysis of proximal junctional kyphosis after surgical treatment of adult spinal deformity with oblique lateral interbody fusion. Asian Spine J. 2021;15(1):107116.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7

    Decker S, Lafage R, Krettek C, et al. Is sacral extension a risk factor for early proximal junctional kyphosis in adult spinal deformity surgery?. Asian Spine J. 2020;14(2):212219.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8

    Naresh-Babu J, Viswanadha AK, Ito M, Park JB. What should an ideal adult spinal deformity classification system consist of?: Review of the factors affecting outcomes of adult spinal deformity management. Asian Spine J. 2019;13(4):694703.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

    Park SJ, Lee CS, Park JS, Lee KJ. Should thoracolumbar junction be always avoided as upper instrumented vertebra in long instrumented fusion for adult spinal deformity?: Risk factor analysis for proximal junctional failure. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2020;45(10):686693.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10

    Park SJ, Lee CS, Chung SS, Lee JY, Kang SS, Park SH. Different risk factors of proximal junctional kyphosis and proximal junctional failure following long instrumented fusion to the sacrum for adult spinal deformity: survivorship analysis of 160 patients. Neurosurgery. 2017;80(2):279286.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11

    Kim JS, Cheung ZB, Arvind V, Caridi J, Cho SK. Role of posterior ligamentous reinforcement in proximal junctional kyphosis: a cadaveric biomechanical study. Asian Spine J. 2019;13(1):6876.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12

    Hart RA, Rastegar F, Contag A, et al. Inter- and intra-rater reliability of the Hart-ISSG proximal junctional failure severity scale. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2018;43(8):E461E467.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13

    Lau D, Funao H, Clark AJ, et al. The clinical correlation of the Hart-ISSG proximal junctional kyphosis severity scale with health-related quality-of-life outcomes and need for revision surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016;41(3):213223.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14

    Hostin R, McCarthy I, OʼBrien M, et al. Incidence, mode, and location of acute proximal junctional failures after surgical treatment of adult spinal deformity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38(12):10081015.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15

    Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, Cho SK, et al. Proximal junctional kyphosis in primary adult deformity surgery: evaluation of 20 degrees as a critical angle. Neurosurgery. 2013;72(6):899906.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16

    Kim HJ, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, et al. Proximal junctional kyphosis results in inferior SRS pain subscores in adult deformity patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38(11):896901.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17

    Yagi M, King AB, Boachie-Adjei O. Incidence, risk factors, and natural course of proximal junctional kyphosis: surgical outcomes review of adult idiopathic scoliosis. Minimum 5 years of follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37(17):14791489.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18

    Kim YJ, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, Glattes CR, Rhim S, Cheh G. Proximal junctional kyphosis in adult spinal deformity after segmental posterior spinal instrumentation and fusion: minimum five-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008;33(20):21792184.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19

    Cammarata M, Aubin CE, Wang X, Mac-Thiong JM. Biomechanical risk factors for proximal junctional kyphosis: a detailed numerical analysis of surgical instrumentation variables. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014;39(8):E500E507.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20

    Raman T, Miller E, Martin CT, Kebaish KM. The effect of prophylactic vertebroplasty on the incidence of proximal junctional kyphosis and proximal junctional failure following posterior spinal fusion in adult spinal deformity: a 5-year follow-up study. Spine J. 2017;17(10):14891498.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21

    Bess S, Harris JE, Turner AW, et al. The effect of posterior polyester tethers on the biomechanics of proximal junctional kyphosis: a finite element analysis. J Neurosurg Spine. 2017;26(1):125133.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22

    Matsumura A, Namikawa T, Kato M, et al. Effect of different types of upper instrumented vertebrae instruments on proximal junctional kyphosis following adult spinal deformity surgery: pedicle screw versus transverse process hook. Asian Spine J. 2018;12(4):622631.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23

    Lee KY, Lee JH, Kang KC, Shin WJ, Im SK, Cho SJ. Preliminary report on the flexible rod technique for prevention of proximal junctional kyphosis following long-segment fusion to the sacrum in adult spinal deformity. J Neurosurg Spine. 2019;31(5):703710.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24

    Diebo BG, Shah NV, Stroud SG, Paulino CB, Schwab FJ, Lafage V. Realignment surgery in adult spinal deformity. Prevalence and risk factors for proximal junctional kyphosis. Orthopade. 2018;47(4):301309.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25

    Cho SK, Shin JI, Kim YJ. Proximal junctional kyphosis following adult spinal deformity surgery. Eur Spine J. 2014;23(12):27262736.

  • 26

    Lee J, Park YS. Proximal junctional kyphosis: diagnosis, pathogenesis, and treatment. Asian Spine J. 2016;10(3):593600.

  • 27

    Yagi M, Akilah KB, Boachie-Adjei O. Incidence, risk factors and classification of proximal junctional kyphosis: surgical outcomes review of adult idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011;36(1):E60E68.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 1521 1521 564
Full Text Views 204 204 114
PDF Downloads 189 189 90
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0