Incidence and risk factors of iatrogenic coronal malalignment after adult spinal deformity surgery: a single-center experience

View More View Less
  • 1 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Columbia University Medical Center, The Och Spine Hospital at NewYork-Presbyterian, New York, New York; and
  • | 2 Department of Neurosurgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
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
Print or Print + Online

OBJECTIVE

The authors’ objectives were: 1) to evaluate the incidence and risk factors of iatrogenic coronal malalignment (CM), and 2) to assess the outcomes of patients with all three types of postoperative CM (iatrogenic vs unchanged/worsened vs improved but persistent).

METHODS

A single-institution, retrospective cohort study was performed on adult spinal deformity (ASD) patients who underwent > 6-level fusion from 2015 to 2019. Iatrogenic CM was defined as immediate postoperative C7 coronal vertical axis (CVA) ≥ 3 cm in patients with preoperative CVA < 3 cm. Additional subcategories of postoperative CM were unchanged/worsened CM, which was defined as immediate postoperative CVA within 0.5 cm of or worse than preoperative CVA, and improved but persistent CM, which was defined as immediate postoperative CVA that was at least 0.5 cm better than preoperative CVA but still ≥ 3 cm; both groups included only patients with preoperative CM. Immediate postoperative radiographs were obtained when the patient was discharged from the hospital after surgery. Demographic, radiographic, and operative variables were collected. Outcomes included major complications, readmissions, reoperations, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). The t-test, Kruskal-Wallis test, and univariate logistic regression were performed for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

In this study, 243 patients were included, and the mean ± SD age was 49.3 ± 18.3 years and the mean number of instrumented levels was 13.5 ± 3.9. The mean preoperative CVA was 2.9 ± 2.7 cm. Of 153/243 patients without preoperative CM (CVA < 3 cm), 13/153 (8.5%) had postoperative iatrogenic CM. In total, 43/243 patients (17.7%) had postoperative CM: iatrogenic CM (13/43 [30.2%]), unchanged/worsened CM (19/43 [44.2%]), and improved but persistent CM (11/43 [25.6%]). Significant risk factors associated with iatrogenic CM were anxiety/depression (OR 3.54, p = 0.04), greater preoperative sagittal vertical axis (SVA) (OR 1.13, p = 0.007), greater preoperative pelvic obliquity (OR 1.41, p = 0.019), lumbosacral fractional (LSF) curve concavity to the same side of the CVA (OR 11.67, p = 0.020), maximum Cobb concavity opposite the CVA (OR 3.85, p = 0.048), and three-column osteotomy (OR 4.34, p = 0.028). In total, 12/13 (92%) iatrogenic CM patients had an LSF curve concavity to the same side as the CVA. Among iatrogenic CM patients, mean pelvic obliquity was 3.1°, 4 (31%) patients had pelvic obliquity > 3°, mean preoperative absolute SVA was 8.0 cm, and 7 (54%) patients had preoperative sagittal malalignment. Patients with iatrogenic CM were more likely to sustain a major complication during the 2-year postoperative period than patients without iatrogenic CM (12% vs 33%, p = 0.046), yet readmission, reoperation, and PROs were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

Postoperative iatrogenic CM occurred in 9% of ASD patients with preoperative normal coronal alignment (CVA < 3 cm). ASD patients who were most at risk for iatrogenic CM included those with preoperative sagittal malalignment, increased pelvic obliquity, LSF curve concavity to the same side as the CVA, and maximum Cobb angle concavity opposite the CVA, as well as those who underwent a three-column osteotomy. Despite sustaining more major complications, iatrogenic CM patients did not have increased risk of readmission, reoperation, or worse PROs.

ABBREVIATIONS

ASD = adult spinal deformity; BMI = body mass index; C7PL = C7 plumb line; CM = coronal malalignment; CVA = coronal vertical axis; EBL = estimated blood loss; LSF = lumbosacral fractional; ODI = Oswestry Disability Index; PRO = patient-reported outcome; SM = sagittal malalignment; SRS-22r = Scoliosis Research Society–22r; SVA = sagittal vertical axis.

Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $376.00

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

USD  $612.00
  • 1

    Bao H, Yan P, Qiu Y, Liu Z, Zhu F. Coronal imbalance in degenerative lumbar scoliosis: Prevalence and influence on surgical decision-making for spinal osteotomy. Bone Joint J. 2016;98-B(9):1227-1233.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2

    Tanaka N, Ebata S, Oda K, Oba H, Haro H, Ohba T. Predictors and clinical importance of postoperative coronal malalignment after surgery to correct adult spinal deformity. Clin Spine Surg. 2020;33(7):E337E341.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3

    Ploumis A, Simpson AK, Cha TD, Herzog JP, Wood KB. Coronal spinal balance in adult spine deformity patients with long spinal fusions: a minimum 2- to 5-year follow-up study. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2015;28(9):341347.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    Lewis SJ, Keshen SG, Kato S, Dear TE, Gazendam AM. Risk factors for postoperative coronal balance in adult spinal deformity surgery. Global Spine J. 2018;8(7):690697.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5

    Bao H, Liu Z, Zhang Y, Sun X, Jiang J, Qian B, et al. Sequential correction technique to avoid postoperative global coronal decompensation in rigid adult spinal deformity: a technical note and preliminary results. Eur Spine J. 2019;28(9):21792186.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6

    Plais N, Bao H, Lafage R, Gupta M, Smith JS, Shaffrey C, et al. The clinical impact of global coronal malalignment is underestimated in adult patients with thoracolumbar scoliosis. Spine Deform. 2020;8(1):105113.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7

    Daubs MD, Lenke LG, Bridwell KH, Kim YJ, Hung M, Cheh G, et al. Does correction of preoperative coronal imbalance make a difference in outcomes of adult patients with deformity?. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38(6):476483.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8

    Negrini A, Vanossi M, Donzelli S, Zaina F, Romano M, Negrini S. Spinal coronal and sagittal balance in 584 healthy individuals during growth: normal plumb line values and their correlation with radiographic measurements. Phys Ther. 2019;99(12):17121718.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

    Lau D, Haddad AF, Deviren V, Ames CP. Asymmetrical pedicle subtraction osteotomy for correction of concurrent sagittal-coronal imbalance in adult spinal deformity: a comparative analysis. J Neurosurg Spine. Published online August 7, 2020.doi:10.3171/2020.5.SPINE20445

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10

    Chan AK, Lau D, Osorio JA, Yue JK, Berven SH, Burch S, et al. Asymmetric pedicle subtraction osteotomy for adult spinal deformity with coronal imbalance: complications, radiographic and surgical outcomes. Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown). 2020;18(2):209216.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11

    Berjano P, Lamartina C. Classification of degenerative segment disease in adults with deformity of the lumbar or thoracolumbar spine. Eur Spine J. 2014;23(9):18151824.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12

    Glassman SD, Berven S, Bridwell K, Horton W, Dimar JR. Correlation of radiographic parameters and clinical symptoms in adult scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005;30(6):682688.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13

    Zhang J, Wang Z, Chi P. Risk factors for immediate postoperative coronal imbalance in degenerative lumbar scoliosis patients fused to pelvis. Global Spine J. 2021;11(5):649655.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14

    Walker CT, Godzik J, Angel S, Giraldo JP, Turner JD, Uribe JS. Coronal balance with circumferential minimally invasive spinal deformity surgery for the treatment of degenerative scoliosis: are we leaning in the right direction?. J Neurosurg Spine. Published March 12, 2021.doi:10.3171/2020.8.SPINE201147

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15

    Theologis AA, Lertudomphonwanit T, Lenke LG, Bridwell KH, Gupta MC. The role of the fractional lumbosacral curve in persistent coronal malalignment following adult thoracolumbar deformity surgery: a radiographic analysis. Spine Deform. 2021;9(3):721731.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16

    Yilgor C, Sogunmez N, Boissiere L, Yavuz Y, Obeid I, Kleinstück F, et al. Global alignment and proportion (GAP) score: development and validation of a new method of analyzing spinopelvic alignment to predict mechanical complications after adult spinal deformity surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017;99(19):16611672.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17

    Baum GR, Ha AS, Cerpa M, Zuckerman SL, Lin JD, Menger RP, et al. Does the Global Alignment and Proportion score overestimate mechanical complications after adult spinal deformity correction?. J Neurosurg Spine. 2020;34(1):96102.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18

    Ames CP, Smith JS, Scheer JK, Bess S, Bederman SS, Deviren V, et al. Impact of spinopelvic alignment on decision making in deformity surgery in adults: a review. J Neurosurg Spine. 2012;16(6):547564.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19

    Glassman SD, Hamill CL, Bridwell KH, Schwab FJ, Dimar JR, Lowe TG. The impact of perioperative complications on clinical outcome in adult deformity surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32(24):27642770.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20

    Fairbank JC, Couper J, Davies JB, O’Brien JP. The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy. 1980;66(8):271273.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21

    Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB. The Oswestry Disability Index. Spine (Phila Pa 1976).2000;25(22):29402952.

  • 22

    Asher MA, Lai SM, Glattes RC, Burton DC, Alanay A, Bago J. Refinement of the SRS-22 Health-Related Quality of Life questionnaire Function domain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006;31(5):593597.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23

    Jann B. Plotting regression coefficients and other estimates. Stata J. 2014;14(4):708737.

  • 24

    Altman DG, Royston P. The cost of dichotomising continuous variables. BMJ. 2006;332:1080.

  • 25

    Buell TJ, Smith JS, Shaffrey CI, Kim HJ, Klineberg EO, Lafage V, et al. Multicenter assessment of surgical outcomes in adult spinal deformity patients with severe global coronal malalignment: determination of target coronal realignment threshold. J Neurosurg Spine. 202134(3):399-412.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26

    Zhang J, Wang Z, Chi P, Chi C. Coronal T1 pelvic tilt, a novel predictive index for global coronal alignment in adult spinal deformity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976).. 2020;45(19):13351340.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27

    Zhang J, Wang Z, Chi P, Chi C. Directionality of lumbosacral fractional curve relative to C7 plumb line, a novel index associated with postoperative coronal imbalance in patients with degenerative lumbar scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2020;46(6):366373.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28

    Ma Q, Wang L, Zhao L, Wang Y, Chen M, Wang S, et al. Coronal balance vs. sagittal profile in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis, are they correlated? Front Pediatr. Published online January 10, 2020.doi: 10.3389/fped.2019.00523

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 292 292 260
Full Text Views 29 29 11
PDF Downloads 45 45 16
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0