Search

Study Design: A multisurgeon assessment of curve classification, selection of operative approach, and fusion levels via a case study presentation., Objectives: To evaluate the ability of a group of scoliosis surgeons, not involved in the development of a new classification system, to accurately choose the corresponding curve classification of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) cases and to evaluate the variability in the selection of operative approaches and both proximal and distal fusion levels in accordance with the new classification system in operative adolescent idiopathic scoliosis., Summary of Background Data: Recent evaluations using the King method for classifying AIS has shown poor intraobserver and interobserver reliability. A new, comprehensive classification system of AIS has been developed, but the result of a scoliosis surgeon's ability to apply the objective classification is unknown. In the surgical treatment of AIS, there are three choices for the operative approach (anterior, posterior, or both) and multiple choices for the selection of fusion levels., Methods: During an AIS roundtable discussion at a spinal surgery meeting, 28 scoliosis surgeons were presented seven cases of operative AIS via good quality slides. Standard preoperative radiographs and clinical photographs were presented, and the reviewers were asked to classify the cases by a new classification system, choose their preferred surgical approach, and classify both proximal and distal fusion levels., Results: For the seven cases presented, 84% of the curve types, 86% of lumbar modifiers, and 90% of sagittal thoracic modifiers were classified by the reviewers as described in the new classification. The case study found widely variable operative approaches and fusion levels chosen by the reviewers. There was an average of five different proximal (range, 4-8) and four different distal (range, 3-5) fusion levels chosen by the reviewers for each case., Conclusions: This case study assessment found a relatively high rate (84-90%) of agreement in curve classification of the individual components of a new classification system of AIS. This suggests the ability of a group of scoliosis surgeons to identify the specific criteria necessary for this new classification system of AIS. In addition, the high variability in selection of both operative approach and fusion levels confirms the current lack of standardized treatment paradigms. This further reinforces the need for a method to critically and objectively evaluate these variable treatments to determine the "best" radiographic and clinical results.

Study Design: This is a consecutive study of patients having undergone surgical treatment of adult lumbar scoliosis. Follow-up ranged from 2 to 13 years (average 5 years)., Objectives: To assess the complications and outcomes of patients with long fusions to L4 (n=23), L5 (n=21), or the sacrum (n=15) and determine if a "deeply seated" L5 segment is protective., Summary of Background Data: Few studies assess outcomes and complications in adults fused from the thoracic spine to L4, L5, or the sacrum with minimum 2-year follow-up., Methods: Fifty-eight patients (59 cases; average age 43 years; range 21 to 60) with minimum 2-year follow-up were analyzed for subsequent spinal degeneration and complications. Outcomes were assessed from questionnaires administered at latest follow-up., Results: Sixteen percent of cases (7 of 44) fused short of the sacrum displayed subsequent postoperative distal spinal degeneration, although only three patients were symptomatic. Compared with the group with no subsequent degeneration, this group had a lower improvement in function and pain relief. Other complications for patients fused short of the sacrum included two cases with crosslink breakage, one with neurologic deficit, three with pseudarthroses, one with hook pullout, and one with L5 screw pullout. For cases fused to the sacrum, two cases with deep wound infections and one with loose iliac screw requiring removal were observed. Because two of four cases fused to L5 with subsequent degeneration at L5-S1 were observed to have "deeply seated" L5 segments and two of the four did not, the authors could conclude only that "deep seating" of L5 is not absolute protection., Conclusions: Fusions short of the sacrum did not have predictable long-term results. Those fused short of the sacrum who developed distal spinal degeneration had worse outcomes. Patients fused to the sacrum did not have a higher complication rate. A "deeply seated" L5 segment does not necessarily protect the L5-S1 disc.

Study Design: This is a comparison of primary (N = 18) to revision (N = 26) combined (anterior and posterior surgery) adult spinal deformity patients with regard to late (>6 months) complications and radiographic/functional outcomes at a minimum 2-year follow-up., Objectives: To determine whether revision status increases the risk of late complications or offers a poor prognosis for functional outcome in adult deformity patients., Summary of Background Data: It is known that patients who have combined surgery for adult deformity have a high incidence of perioperative complications. Long-term complications and the effect of revision status have not been clarified in the literature. The functional outcomes for these patients are unclear as to whether or not there is a difference between primary and revision patients. Outside the arena of adult spinal deformity the functional outcomes for revision cases have been disappointing., Methods: A consecutive series of 44 patients who underwent combined procedures for adult spinal deformity were followed for a minimum of 2 years (average follow-up 42 months). Clinical data were obtained by chart and radiographic review. Major complications were considered to be deep wound infection, pseudarthrosis, transition syndrome, neurologic deficit, and death. Minor complications considered were asymptomatic instrumentation failure (without loss of correction), instrumentation prominence requiring removal, and proximal or distal junctional segmental kyphosis (5-10 degrees ) or subsequent disc space narrowing of 2-5 mm without clinical symptoms. The patients also completed the AAOS Lumbar/Scoliosis MODEMS questionnaires aimed at assessing pain, function, and satisfaction., Results: Minor complications were comparable in both groups: 4 of 18 (22%) in the primary group and 6 of 26 (23%) in the revision group. Major complications were slightly more frequent in the primary group with five complications in 4 patients (4 of 18 patients) (22%) compared with 3 of 26 patients (12%) in the revision group. The incidence of pseudarthrosis was 22% (4 of 18) for the primary group and 4% (1 of 26) for the revision group (P< 0.14). Forty of 44 patients completed the questionnaires. The primary patients functioned at a slightly higher level after surgery than the revision group. The level of pain was also slightly lower at final follow-up in the primary group. Despite these differences, the revision group had a higher level of patient satisfaction., Conclusion: At a minimum 2-year follow-up the late complications were not higher in the revision patients than in the primary group. The rate of major long-term complications, specifically pseudarthroses, was higher in the primary group. Patient satisfaction was higher in the revision patients, probably because they were experiencing a greater level of perceived pain and dysfunction at the time of their reconstruction.