Cargando…

What are the major drivers of outcomes in cervical deformity surgery?

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Cervical deformity (CD) correction is becoming more challenging and complex. Understanding the factors that drive optimal outcomes has been understudied in CD correction surgery. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to assess the factors associated with improved outcomes (IO) fo...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Passias, Peter Gust, Pierce, Katherine E., Passano, Brandon, Tariq, Muhammad B., Ahmad, Salman, Singh, Vivek, Owusu-Sarpong, Stephane, Krol, Oscar, Imbo, Bailey, Passfall, Lara, Tretiakov, Peter, Williamson, Tyler, Joujon-Roche, Rachel, Ahmad, Waleed, Naessig, Sara, Diebo, Bassel
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8740812/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35068819
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jcvjs.jcvjs_117_21
_version_ 1784629380737138688
author Passias, Peter Gust
Pierce, Katherine E.
Passano, Brandon
Tariq, Muhammad B.
Ahmad, Salman
Singh, Vivek
Owusu-Sarpong, Stephane
Krol, Oscar
Imbo, Bailey
Passfall, Lara
Tretiakov, Peter
Williamson, Tyler
Joujon-Roche, Rachel
Ahmad, Waleed
Naessig, Sara
Diebo, Bassel
author_facet Passias, Peter Gust
Pierce, Katherine E.
Passano, Brandon
Tariq, Muhammad B.
Ahmad, Salman
Singh, Vivek
Owusu-Sarpong, Stephane
Krol, Oscar
Imbo, Bailey
Passfall, Lara
Tretiakov, Peter
Williamson, Tyler
Joujon-Roche, Rachel
Ahmad, Waleed
Naessig, Sara
Diebo, Bassel
author_sort Passias, Peter Gust
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Cervical deformity (CD) correction is becoming more challenging and complex. Understanding the factors that drive optimal outcomes has been understudied in CD correction surgery. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to assess the factors associated with improved outcomes (IO) following CD surgery. STUDY DESIGN SETTING: Retrospective review of a single-center database. PATIENT SAMPLE: Sixty-one patients with CD. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes measured were radiographic and clinical “IO” or “poor outcome” (PO). Radiographic IO or PO was assessed utilizing Schwab pelvic tilt (PT)/sagittal vertical axis (SVA), and Ames cervical SVA (cSVA)/TS-CL. Clinical IO or PO was assessed using MCID EQ5D, Neck Disability Index (NDI), and/or improvement in Modified Japanese Orthopedic Association Scale (mJOA) modifier. The secondary outcomes assessed were complication and reoperation rates. MATERIALS AND METHODS: CD patients with data available on baseline (BL) and 1-year (1Y) radiographic measures and health-related quality of life s were included in our study. Patients with reoperations for infection were excluded. Patients were categorized by IO, PO, or not. IO was defined as “nondeformed” radiographic measures as well as improved clinical outcomes. PO was defined as “moderate or severe deformed” radiographic measures as well as worsening clinical outcome measures. Random forest assessed ratios of predictors for IO and PO. The categorical regression models were utilized to predict BL regional deformity (Ames cSVA, TS-CL, horizontal gaze), BL global deformity (Schwab PI-LL, SVA, PT), regional/global change (BL to 1Y), BL disability (mJOA score), and BL pain/function impact outcomes. RESULTS: Sixty-one patients met inclusion criteria for our study (mean age of 55.8 years with 54.1% female). The most common surgical approaches were as follows: 18.3% anterior, 51.7% posterior, and 30% combined. Average number of levels fused was 7.7. The mean operative time was 823 min and mean estimated blood loss was 1037 ml. At 1 year, 24.6% of patients were found to have an IO and 9.8% to have a PO. Random forest analysis showed the top 5 individual factors associated with an “IO” were: BL Maximum Kyphosis, Maximum Lordosis, C0-C2 Angle, L4-Pelvic Angle, and NSR Back Pain (80% radiographic, 20% clinical). Categorical IO regression model (R(2) = 0.328, P = 0.007) found following factors to be significant: low BL regional deformity (β = ‒0.082), low BL global deformity (β = ‒0.099), global improve (β = 0.532), regional improve (β = 0.230), low BL disability (β = 0.100), and low BL NDI (β = 0.024). Random forest found the top 5 individual BL factors associated with “PO” (80% were radiographic): BL CL Apex, DJK angle, cervical lordosis, T1 slope, and NSR neck pain. Categorical PO regression model (R(2) = 0.306, P = 0.012) found following factors to be significant: high BL regional deformity (β = ‒0.108), high BL global deformity (β = ‒0.255), global decline (β = 0.272), regional decline (β = 0.443), BL disability (β = ‒0.164), and BL severe NDI (>69) (β = 0.181). CONCLUSIONS: The categorical weight demonstrated radiographic as the strongest predictor of both improved (global alignment) and PO (regional deformity/deterioration). Radiographic factors carry the most weight in determining an improved or PO and can be ultimately utilized in preoperative planning and surgical decision-making to optimize the outcomes.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8740812
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-87408122022-01-21 What are the major drivers of outcomes in cervical deformity surgery? Passias, Peter Gust Pierce, Katherine E. Passano, Brandon Tariq, Muhammad B. Ahmad, Salman Singh, Vivek Owusu-Sarpong, Stephane Krol, Oscar Imbo, Bailey Passfall, Lara Tretiakov, Peter Williamson, Tyler Joujon-Roche, Rachel Ahmad, Waleed Naessig, Sara Diebo, Bassel J Craniovertebr Junction Spine Original Article BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Cervical deformity (CD) correction is becoming more challenging and complex. Understanding the factors that drive optimal outcomes has been understudied in CD correction surgery. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to assess the factors associated with improved outcomes (IO) following CD surgery. STUDY DESIGN SETTING: Retrospective review of a single-center database. PATIENT SAMPLE: Sixty-one patients with CD. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes measured were radiographic and clinical “IO” or “poor outcome” (PO). Radiographic IO or PO was assessed utilizing Schwab pelvic tilt (PT)/sagittal vertical axis (SVA), and Ames cervical SVA (cSVA)/TS-CL. Clinical IO or PO was assessed using MCID EQ5D, Neck Disability Index (NDI), and/or improvement in Modified Japanese Orthopedic Association Scale (mJOA) modifier. The secondary outcomes assessed were complication and reoperation rates. MATERIALS AND METHODS: CD patients with data available on baseline (BL) and 1-year (1Y) radiographic measures and health-related quality of life s were included in our study. Patients with reoperations for infection were excluded. Patients were categorized by IO, PO, or not. IO was defined as “nondeformed” radiographic measures as well as improved clinical outcomes. PO was defined as “moderate or severe deformed” radiographic measures as well as worsening clinical outcome measures. Random forest assessed ratios of predictors for IO and PO. The categorical regression models were utilized to predict BL regional deformity (Ames cSVA, TS-CL, horizontal gaze), BL global deformity (Schwab PI-LL, SVA, PT), regional/global change (BL to 1Y), BL disability (mJOA score), and BL pain/function impact outcomes. RESULTS: Sixty-one patients met inclusion criteria for our study (mean age of 55.8 years with 54.1% female). The most common surgical approaches were as follows: 18.3% anterior, 51.7% posterior, and 30% combined. Average number of levels fused was 7.7. The mean operative time was 823 min and mean estimated blood loss was 1037 ml. At 1 year, 24.6% of patients were found to have an IO and 9.8% to have a PO. Random forest analysis showed the top 5 individual factors associated with an “IO” were: BL Maximum Kyphosis, Maximum Lordosis, C0-C2 Angle, L4-Pelvic Angle, and NSR Back Pain (80% radiographic, 20% clinical). Categorical IO regression model (R(2) = 0.328, P = 0.007) found following factors to be significant: low BL regional deformity (β = ‒0.082), low BL global deformity (β = ‒0.099), global improve (β = 0.532), regional improve (β = 0.230), low BL disability (β = 0.100), and low BL NDI (β = 0.024). Random forest found the top 5 individual BL factors associated with “PO” (80% were radiographic): BL CL Apex, DJK angle, cervical lordosis, T1 slope, and NSR neck pain. Categorical PO regression model (R(2) = 0.306, P = 0.012) found following factors to be significant: high BL regional deformity (β = ‒0.108), high BL global deformity (β = ‒0.255), global decline (β = 0.272), regional decline (β = 0.443), BL disability (β = ‒0.164), and BL severe NDI (>69) (β = 0.181). CONCLUSIONS: The categorical weight demonstrated radiographic as the strongest predictor of both improved (global alignment) and PO (regional deformity/deterioration). Radiographic factors carry the most weight in determining an improved or PO and can be ultimately utilized in preoperative planning and surgical decision-making to optimize the outcomes. Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2021 2021-12-11 /pmc/articles/PMC8740812/ /pubmed/35068819 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jcvjs.jcvjs_117_21 Text en Copyright: © 2021 Journal of Craniovertebral Junction and Spine https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Original Article
Passias, Peter Gust
Pierce, Katherine E.
Passano, Brandon
Tariq, Muhammad B.
Ahmad, Salman
Singh, Vivek
Owusu-Sarpong, Stephane
Krol, Oscar
Imbo, Bailey
Passfall, Lara
Tretiakov, Peter
Williamson, Tyler
Joujon-Roche, Rachel
Ahmad, Waleed
Naessig, Sara
Diebo, Bassel
What are the major drivers of outcomes in cervical deformity surgery?
title What are the major drivers of outcomes in cervical deformity surgery?
title_full What are the major drivers of outcomes in cervical deformity surgery?
title_fullStr What are the major drivers of outcomes in cervical deformity surgery?
title_full_unstemmed What are the major drivers of outcomes in cervical deformity surgery?
title_short What are the major drivers of outcomes in cervical deformity surgery?
title_sort what are the major drivers of outcomes in cervical deformity surgery?
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8740812/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35068819
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jcvjs.jcvjs_117_21
work_keys_str_mv AT passiaspetergust whatarethemajordriversofoutcomesincervicaldeformitysurgery
AT piercekatherinee whatarethemajordriversofoutcomesincervicaldeformitysurgery
AT passanobrandon whatarethemajordriversofoutcomesincervicaldeformitysurgery
AT tariqmuhammadb whatarethemajordriversofoutcomesincervicaldeformitysurgery
AT ahmadsalman whatarethemajordriversofoutcomesincervicaldeformitysurgery
AT singhvivek whatarethemajordriversofoutcomesincervicaldeformitysurgery
AT owususarpongstephane whatarethemajordriversofoutcomesincervicaldeformitysurgery
AT kroloscar whatarethemajordriversofoutcomesincervicaldeformitysurgery
AT imbobailey whatarethemajordriversofoutcomesincervicaldeformitysurgery
AT passfalllara whatarethemajordriversofoutcomesincervicaldeformitysurgery
AT tretiakovpeter whatarethemajordriversofoutcomesincervicaldeformitysurgery
AT williamsontyler whatarethemajordriversofoutcomesincervicaldeformitysurgery
AT joujonrocherachel whatarethemajordriversofoutcomesincervicaldeformitysurgery
AT ahmadwaleed whatarethemajordriversofoutcomesincervicaldeformitysurgery
AT naessigsara whatarethemajordriversofoutcomesincervicaldeformitysurgery
AT diebobassel whatarethemajordriversofoutcomesincervicaldeformitysurgery