Next Article in Journal
Operator Performance of the Digital Setup Fabrication for Orthodontic–Orthognathic Treatment: An Explorative Study
Next Article in Special Issue
Differences in Demographic and Radiographic Characteristics between Patients with Visible and Invisible T1 Slopes on Lateral Cervical Radiographic Images
Previous Article in Journal
Cerebellar Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Pilot Study on Efficacy, Feasibility, Safety, and Unexpected Outcomes in Tic Disorder and Epilepsy
Previous Article in Special Issue
Time Course of Acute Vertebral Fractures: A Prospective Multicenter Cohort Study
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Perioperative Predictive Factors for Positive Outcomes in Spine Fusion for Adult Deformity Correction

1
IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Via Riccardo Galeazzi, 4, 20161 Milan, Italy
2
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, RWTH Uniklinik Aachen, 52074 Aachen, Germany
3
Department of Spine Surgery, Eifelklinik St. Brigida, 52152 Simmerath, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11(1), 144; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11010144
Submission received: 28 November 2021 / Revised: 21 December 2021 / Accepted: 26 December 2021 / Published: 28 December 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Current Advances in Spinal Diseases of Elderly Patients)

Abstract

:
Purpose: Identifying perioperative factors that may influence the outcomes of long spine fusion for the treatment of adult deformity is key for tailored surgical planning and targeted informed consent. The aim of this study was to analyze the association between demographic or perioperative factors and clinical outcomes 2 years after long spine fusion for the treatment of adult deformity. Methods: This study is a multivariate analysis of retrospectively collected data. All patients who underwent long fusion of the lumbar spine for adult spinal deformity (January 2016–June 2019) were included. The outcomes of interest were the Oswestry disability index (ODI), visual analogic scale (VAS) preoperatively and at 1 and 2 years’ follow up, age, body mass index, American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) score, upper and lowest instrumented vertebrae (UIV and LIV, respectively), length of surgery, estimated blood loss, and length of hospital stay. Results: Data from 192 patients were available. The ODI at 2 years correlated weakly to moderately with age (r = 0.4), BMI (r = 0.2), ASA (r = 0.3), and LIV (r = 0.2), and strongly with preoperative ODI (r = 0.6). The leg VAS at 2 years moderately correlated with age (r = 0.3) and BMI (r = 0.3). Conclusion: ODI and VAS at 2 years’ follow-up had no to little association to preoperative age, health status, LIV, or other peroperative data, but showed a strong correlation with preoperative ODI and pain level.

1. Introduction

The social burden caused by low back pain (LBP) is relevant, having a first-ever episode incidence of 15% and an 80% recurrence rate within a year [1]. This percentage increases in patients affected by adult spine deformity [2] and various studies showed that this condition has a negative impact on the patients’ quality of life [3,4]. Surgical deformity correction involves complex procedures; given the advances in surgical and anesthesiological techniques, it is now possible to perform surgery in patients at an older age and with more comorbidities [5,6,7,8]. So, disability and pain levels play a decisive role in the assessment of a patient and in the decision-making process [9]. However, the postoperative motion restriction following fusion of the lumbar spine should be considered when indicating surgical management to ensure that the benefits of the surgery outweigh the limitations [10].
Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are used to obtain a more complete overview of a patient’s status, as they allow to match objective informations such as radiographic findings with subjective data regarding different aspects of the patient’s quality of life [11]. In particular, the Oswestry disability index (ODI) and the visual analogic scale (VAS) are two parameters widely used for pre- and postoperative assessment of patients undergoing spine surgery [12,13].
The effects of the correction of sagittal and coronal parameters on disability and pain levels have been evaluated in multiple studies [14,15,16,17]. However, the effects of demographic and perioperative data on the postoperative outcome has not yet been thoroughly investigated, and patients with a low risk of a poor clinical outcome have not yet been characterized [18]. Thus, the aim of this study was to analyze the demographic and perioperative data of adult spine deformity patients undergoing long fusion involving the lumbar spine, in order to seek possible associations between these parameters and levels of disability (ODI) and pain (VAS back and leg) at the one- and two-year follow-up.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Patient Recruitment

The present retrospective study was conducted according to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology: the STROBE Statement [19].
All patients who underwent spine fusion at IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi (Milano, Italy) between January 2016 and June 2019 were retrospectively screened for inclusion on the local spine registry using the ICD (International Classification of Diseases) diagnosis and procedure codes listed in Table 1. The use of ICD codes for diagnosis and procedure allows to retrieve data from the registry, but also offers an internationally acknowledged key to replicate data extraction, if necessary. Inclusion criteria for the current study were age ≥ 18, diagnosis of adult spine deformity, and fusion of at least four segments—at least three of which in the lumbar spine. Patients who did not have an ODI and/or VAS preoperatively and at the one- or two-year follow-up were not eligible for the study.

2.2. Outcomes of Interest

We analyzed the effects of demographic and perioperative parameters on ODI and VAS over time, as well as the mutual association between ODI and VAS at different follow-ups. Furthermore, question n. 11 of the COME back questionnaire (CB11) [20] was used to identify whether patients felt overall that surgery had helped or not (0 = helped a lot, 4 = made things worse). Demographic parameters included age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) score. The level of the upper and lowest instrumented vertebra (UIV and LIV, respectively) was analyzed. Length of surgery, estimated blood loss (EBL), and length of hospital stay were also considered.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

For the statistical analysis, STATA software (StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA) was used. Continuous variables are expressed as mean ± standard deviation. Comparisons between continuous variables across the follow-ups were assessed through the mean difference and t-test, with values of p < 0.05 considered statistically significant. A multivariate diagnostic through the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient (r) was performed to investigate potential correlations between continuous variables. According to the Cauchy–Schwarz equation of inequality, the final effect can score between +1 (positive linear correlation) and −1 (negative linear correlation). Values of 0.1 > |r| < 0.3, 0.3 < |r| < 0.5, and |r| > 0.5 indicate weak, moderate, and strong association, respectively. The test of overall significance was performed through the χ2 test, with values of p > 0.05 considered statistically significant.

3. Results

3.1. Patient Recruitment and Demographics

After cross-referencing the ICD diagnosis and procedure codes, 821 eligible patients were identified on the local spine registry. Of them, 128 were excluded because they were <18 years old. A further 210 were excluded because their level or extent of instrumentation did not match the requirements of this study. A further 291 patients were excluded due to the lack of a sufficient follow-up, leaving 192 patients available for the analysis. The flowchart of the patients’ recruitment is presented in Figure 1.
Summaries of the patients’ demographics and the considered intraoperative data are shown in Table 2 and Table 3, respectively. An overview of ODI, VAS, and CB11 in the different follow-ups is presented in Table 4.

3.2. Multivariate Analysis

Age and BMI showed a significant, weak-to-moderate correlation with most of the considered PROMs (ODI and leg VAS before and after surgery, and back VAS preoperatively and at 12 months, CB11). The ASA class correlated moderately with the ODI at all follow-ups and with the VAS leg before surgery and at 1 year, and with the CB11 at both follow-ups. Length of surgery, EBL, and length of hospital stay had a little correlation to ODI, VAS, and CB11 at different follow-ups. While UIV showed no significant correlation with postoperative outcomes, LIV had a weak-to-moderate correlation with postoperative ODI, leg VAS, and CB11. Numerous, mostly medium-to-strong correlations were observed among ODI, leg and back VAS, and CB11.
Other moderate correlations of interest were observed between age and BMI (r = 0.52, p < 0.001), ASA (r = 0.51, p < 0.001), and LIV (r = 0.54, p < 0.001); and between LIV and BMI (r = 0.35, p < 0.001), ASA (r = 0.38, p < 0.001), and length of hospital stay (r = 0.31, p < 0.001). Length of surgery correlated with EBL (r = 0.46, p < 0.001) and length of hospital stay (r = 0.33, p < 0.001). The details of the correlations are shown in Figure 2.

4. Discussion

Overall, we observed a significant improvement in ODI and leg and back VAS at the last follow-up. CB11 analysis highlighted a high level of satisfaction after surgery, confirming the results of previous studies, which reported positive outcomes after surgical therapy for adult spine deformity [21,22].
The correlation between ODI and age, BMI, or ASA was moderate at the one-year follow-up, but the strength of these correlations was reduced at the two-year follow-up. The correlation between leg and back VAS and age, BMI, and ASA showed similar trends to those observed for the ODI: back pain weakly correlated with age and BMI before surgery and at the 1 year follow-up, but no significant correlation was observed at 2 years, or with ASA at any follow-up. Leg pain showed a weak-to-moderate correlation with all parameters and at all follow-up, except with ASA at the last follow-up. Similar trends were also observed for CB11. These data confirmed that older age and poorer overall health condition may have a moderate negative impact on the level of complications and disability or pain after surgery [23,24,25], but this negative influence dissipates over time. Thus, these patients can also expect positive outcomes after long spine fusion [26,27,28,29], but have to be adequately informed that a poorer preoperative health status correlates with longer recovery time. Surgeons, however, need to consider that obesity and age or comorbidities have a relevant impact on intraoperative blood loss, length of surgery, and complication rate; thus, preoperative BMI and ASA should still be considered when planning long spine fusion [30,31,32].
Length of surgery, estimated blood loss, and length of hospital stay showed no or only weak correlation with ODI, VAS, and CB11. This aspect is also key for the informed consent of the patients and their attitude toward the recovery process, as a prolonged hospital stay does not have a negative impact on the long-term outcomes of surgery.
Analyzing the correlation of ODI, VAS, or CB with the extent of the instrumentation, we found that the level of the UIV did not affect any of the outcomes of interest. Given the relative limited mobility of the thoracic spine [33], these data are not surprising. It is however striking that the moderate correlation between ODI and LIV at the one-year follow-up was further reduced at the two-year follow-up. Similar results were obtained in other studies observing different PROMs and the ability of patients to perform determined activities after spinal fusion: over time, a gradual ODI improvement could be observed even in patients with fusion to the pelvis [10,34]. The explanation for this finding may lie in the postoperative movement restrictions required by many surgeons after fusion (e.g., avoiding forward bending or heavy lifting), which then ease over time, or in the fact that patients adapt to the movement restrictions imposed by the instrumentation and develop strategies to overcome them. This topic requires further investigation: if the developing of these strategies is the key in reducing postoperative disability after spine fusion, specific pre- or postoperative physiotherapy programs may be implemented to support patients and improve their quality of life after surgery.
Overall, the ODI, VAS, and CB parameters showed multiple moderate and strong correlations amongst each other, confirming how different aspects of a patient’s health, quality of life, and satisfaction regarding treatment are interconnected [35]. Regarding the ODI, a strong correlation was observed between pre- and postoperative disability levels; this suggests that patients starting with high ODI values have lower chances of achieving a low ODI postoperatively. This represents a key factor in planning the timing of surgery. Different to what was observed for the ODI, the preoperative VAS only weakly to moderately associated with levels of back and pain level at the two-year follow-up. Thus, even patients with a high preoperative pain level can expect an improvement with respect to the painful symptoms two years after surgery. Unsurprisingly, the level of satisfaction with the treatment (CB11) correlated with ODI and VAS both at the one- and two-year follow-ups. However, while the correlation with pain level was of moderate intensity and declined at the two-year follow-up, the correlation to disability was strong at both follow-ups. A similar correlation between patients’ satisfaction and PROMs was also observed by another study group [35].
This study is not without limitations, the main one being its retrospective nature. The relationship between ODI, pain, and satisfaction with treatment and pre- and perioperative data proved to be a complex, and further research on a wider patient cohort will be required to investigate it. Furthermore, the patients in our cohort presented different types of instrumentations (e.g., different types or levels of interbody implants) and deformity correction techniques. While it was not possible to investigate the effect of different surgical techniques on the outcome of interest due to the limited number of observations, this topic deserves further analysis in the future.

5. Conclusions

The main finding of this work was that preoperative ODI showed the strongest association with the postoperative clinical outcomes after spine fusion for adult deformity correction. Other parameters such as age, health status, or LIV presented only a weak association with the long-term ODI or VAS values. Thus, surgery should be performed in a timely manner to avoid patients reaching high preoperative ODI values.

Author Contributions

A.B., conception, data interpretation, draft and revision, final approval of the work; F.M., statistical analysis, draft and revision, final approval of the work; P.B. (Paolo Barletta), data acquisition, draft and revision, final approval of the work; F.L., C.L., P.B. (Pedro Berjano), P.T., E.Q., R.C. and M.D., data interpretation, draft and revision, final approval of the work, logistic support. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Funding for this study was provided by the Italian Ministry of Health (CO-2016-02364645).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical approval for this study was asked for and waived by the local Medical Research Ethics Committee (Fourth Amendment to the SPINEREG Protocol, Issued on 10 October 2019). The study fell outside the remit of the law for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act and was approved by the local ethical committee.

Informed Consent Statement

Waived as not required by local law for retrospective studies.

Data Availability Statement

The dataset used and/or analyzed in the present study is available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

Berjano, P. and Lamartina, C. disclose grants and personal fees from Nuvasive, personal fees from Depuy Sinthes, personal fees from Medacta, personal fees from Zimmer, personal fees from K2M, personal fees from Medtronic, grants from Stoeckli Medical, outside the submitted work. Trobisch, P. is a consultant for Globus Medical and Zimmer Biomet. Cecchinato, R. and Damilano, M. disclose personal fees from Nuvasive and Medacta. Baroncini, A., Migliorini, F., Langella, F., Barletta, P., and Quarto, E. have no conflict of interest to disclose.

References

  1. Hoy, D.; Brooks, P.; Blyth, F.; Buchbinder, R. The Epidemiology of low back pain. Best Pract. Res. Clin. Rheumatol. 2010, 24, 769–781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Kostuik, J.P.; Bentivoglio, J. The incidence of low-back pain in adult scoliosis. Spine 1981, 6, 268–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Berven, S.; Deviren, V.; Demir-Deviren, S.; Hu, S.S.; Bradford, D.S. Studies in the modified Scoliosis Research Society Outcomes Instrument in adults: Validation, reliability, and discriminatory capacity. Spine 2003, 28, 2164–2169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Ogura, Y.; Shinozaki, Y.; Kobayashi, Y.; Kitagawa, T.; Yonezawa, Y.; Takahashi, Y.; Yoshida, K.; Yasuda, A.; Ogawa, J. Impact of sagittal spinopelvic alignment on clinical outcomes and health-related quality of life after decompression surgery without fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis. J. Neurosurg. Spine 2019, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Daniels, A.H.; Reid, D.B.; Tran, S.N.; Hart, R.A.; Klineberg, E.O.; Bess, S.; Burton, D.; Smith, J.S.; Shaffrey, C.; Gupta, M.; et al. Evolution in Surgical Approach, Complications, and Outcomes in an Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery Multicenter Study Group Patient Population. Spine Deform. 2019, 7, 481–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Berjano, P.; Langella, F.; Ismael, M.-F.; Damilano, M.; Scopetta, S.; Lamartina, C. Successful correction of sagittal imbalance can be calculated on the basis of pelvic incidence and age. Eur. Spine J. 2014, 23, 587–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Campagner, A.; Berjano, P.; Lamartina, C.; Langella, F.; Lombardi, G.; Cabitza, F. Assessment and prediction of spine surgery invasiveness with machine learning techniques. Comput. Biol. Med. 2020, 121, 103796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Langella, F.; Villafañe, J.H.; Damilano, M.; Cecchinato, R.; Pejrona, M.; Ismael, M.; Berjano, P. Predictive Accuracy of Surgimap Surgical Planning for Sagittal Imbalance: A Cohort Study. Spine 2017, 42, E1297–E1304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Bess, S.; Boachie-Adjei, O.; Burton, D.; Cunningham, M.; Shaffrey, C.; Shelokov, A.; Hostin, R.; Schwab, F.; Wood, K.; Akbarnia, B. Pain and disability determine treatment modality for older patients with adult scoliosis, while deformity guides treatment for younger patients. Spine 2009, 34, 2186–2190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Togawa, D.; Hasegawa, T.; Yamato, Y.; Yoshida, G.; Kobayashi, S.; Yasuda, T.; Oe, S.; Banno, T.; Arima, H.; Mihara, Y.; et al. Postoperative Disability After Long Corrective Fusion to the Pelvis in Elderly Patients with Spinal Deformity. Spine 2018, 43, E804–E812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Finkelstein, J.A.; Schwartz, C.E. Patient-reported outcomes in spine surgery: Past, current, and future directions. J. Neurosurg. Spine 2019, 31, 155–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  12. Gum, J.L.; Carreon, L.Y.; Glassman, S.D. State-of-the-art: Outcome assessment in adult spinal deformity. Spine Deform. 2020, 9, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Langella, F.; Barletta, P.; Baroncini, A.; Agarossi, M.; Scaramuzzo, L.; Luca, A.; Bassani, R.; Peretti, G.M.; Lamartina, C.; Villafañe, J.H.; et al. The use of electronic PROMs provides same outcomes as paper version in a spine surgery registry. Results from a prospective cohort study. Eur. Spine J. 2021, 30, 2645–2653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Diebo, B.G.; Varghese, J.J.; Lafage, R.; Schwab, F.J.; Lafage, V. Sagittal alignment of the spine: What do you need to know? Clin. Neurol. Neurosurg. 2015, 139, 295–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Garbossa, D.; Pejrona, M.; Damilano, M.; Sansone, V.; Ducati, A.; Berjano, P. Pelvic parameters and global spine balance for spine degenerative disease: The importance of containing for the well being of content. Eur. Spine J. 2014, 23 (Suppl. 6), 616–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Johnson, R.; Valore, A.; Villaminar, A.; Comisso, M.; Balsano, M. Sagittal balance and pelvic parameters--a paradigm shift in spinal surgery. J. Clin. Neurosci. 2013, 20, 191–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Yamato, Y.; Hasegawa, T.; Togawa, D.; Yoshida, G.; Banno, T.; Arima, H.; Oe, S.; Mihara, Y.; Ushirozako, H.; Kobayashi, S.; et al. Rigorous Correction of Sagittal Vertical Axis Is Correlated with Better ODI Outcomes After Extensive Corrective Fusion in Elderly or Extremely Elderly Patients with Spinal Deformity. Spine Deform. 2019, 7, 610–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Yagi, M.; Michikawa, T.; Suzuki, S.; Okada, E.; Nori, S.; Tsuji, O.; Nagoshi, N.; Asazuma, T.; Hosogane, N.; Fujita, N.; et al. Characterization of Patients with Poor Risk for Clinical Outcomes in Adult Symptomatic Lumbar Deformity Surgery. Spine 2021, 46, 813–821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Von Elm, E.; Altman, D.G.; Egger, M.; Pocock, S.J.; Gøtzsche, P.C.; Vandenbroucke, J.P. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies. Int. J. Surg. 2014, 12, 1495–1499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Mannion, A.F.; Porchet, F.; Kleinstück, F.S.; Lattig, F.; Jeszenszky, D.; Bartanusz, V.; Dvorak, J.; Grob, D. The quality of spine surgery from the patient’s perspective: Part 2. Minimal clinically important difference for improvement and deterioration as measured with the Core Outcome Measures Index. Eur. Spine J. 2009, 18 (Suppl. 3), 374–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Ledonio, C.G.T.; Polly, D.W.; Crawford, C.H.; Duval, S.; Smith, J.S.; Buchowski, J.; Yson, S.C.; Larson, A.N.; Sembrano, J.N.; Santos, E.R.G. Adult Degenerative Scoliosis Surgical Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Spine Deform. 2013, 1, 248–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Smith, J.S.; Kelly, M.P.; Yanik, E.L.; Baldus, C.R.; Buell, T.J.; Lurie, J.D.; Edwards, C.; Glassman, S.D.; Lenke, L.G.; Boachie-Adjei, O.; et al. Operative versus nonoperative treatment for adult symptomatic lumbar scoliosis at 5-year follow-up: Durability of outcomes and impact of treatment-related serious adverse events. J. Neurosurg. Spine 2021, 35, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Dinizo, M.; Dolgalev, I.; Passias, P.G.; Errico, T.J.; Raman, T. Complications after Adult Spinal Deformity Surgeries: All Are Not Created Equal. Int. J. Spine Surg. 2021, 15, 137–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Alas, H.; Passias, P.G.; Brown, A.E.; Pierce, K.E.; Bortz, C.; Bess, S.; Lafage, R.; Lafage, V.; Ames, C.P.; Burton, D.C.; et al. Predictors of serious, preventable, and costly medical complications in a population of adult spinal deformity patients. Spine J. 2021, 21, 1559–1566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Brown, A.E.; Alas, H.; Pierce, K.E.; Bortz, C.A.; Hassanzadeh, H.; Labaran, L.A.; Puvanesarajah, V.; Vasquez-Montes, D.; Wang, E.; Raman, T.; et al. Obesity negatively affects cost efficiency and outcomes following adult spinal deformity surgery. Spine J. 2020, 20, 512–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Hashimoto, J.; Yoshii, T.; Sakai, K.; Hirai, T.; Yuasa, M.; Inose, H.; Kawabata, A.; Utagawa, K.; Matsukura, Y.; Tomori, M.; et al. Impact of body mass index on surgical outcomes and complications in adult spinal deformity. J. Orthop. Sci. 2021, in press. [CrossRef]
  27. Khan, J.M.; Basques, B.A.; Harada, G.K.; Louie, P.K.; Chen, I.; Vetter, C.; Kadakia, K.; Elboghdady, I.; Colman, M.; An, H.S. Does increasing age impact clinical and radiographic outcomes following lumbar spinal fusion? Spine J. 2020, 20, 563–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Drazin, D.; Shirzadi, A.; Rosner, J.; Eboli, P.; Safee, M.; Baron, E.M.; Liu, J.C.; Acosta, F.L. Complications and outcomes after spinal deformity surgery in the elderly: Review of the existing literature and future directions. Neurosurg. Focus 2011, 31, E3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Lovato, Z.R.; Deckey, D.G.; Chung, A.S.; Crandall, D.G.; Revella, J.; Chang, M.S. Adult spine deformity surgery in elderly patients: Are outcomes worse in patients 75 years and older? Spine Deform. 2020, 8, 1353–1359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Lingutla, K.K.; Pollock, R.; Benomran, E.; Purushothaman, B.; Kasis, A.; Bhatia, C.K.; Krishna, M.; Friesem, T. Outcome of lumbar spinal fusion surgery in obese patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Bone Jt. J. 2015, 97-B, 1395–1404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Pierce, K.E.; Passias, P.G.; Alas, H.; Brown, A.E.; Bortz, C.A.; Lafage, R.; Lafage, V.; Ames, C.; Burton, D.C.; Hart, R.; et al. Does Patient Frailty Status Influence Recovery Following Spinal Fusion for Adult Spinal Deformity?: An Analysis of Patients With 3-Year Follow-up. Spine 2020, 45, E397–E405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Scheer, J.K.; Smith, J.S.; Schwab, F.; Lafage, V.; Shaffrey, C.I.; Bess, S.; Daniels, A.H.; Hart, R.A.; Protopsaltis, T.S.; Mundis, G.M.; et al. Development of a preoperative predictive model for major complications following adult spinal deformity surgery. J. Neurosurg. Spine 2017, 26, 736–743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  33. Pan, F.; Firouzabadi, A.; Reitmaier, S.; Zander, T.; Schmidt, H. The shape and mobility of the thoracic spine in asymptomatic adults—A systematic review of in vivo studies. J. Biomech. 2018, 78, 21–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Yoshida, G.; Boissiere, L.; Larrieu, D.; Bourghli, A.; Vital, J.M.; Gille, O.; Pointillart, V.; Challier, V.; Mariey, R.; Pellisé, F.; et al. Advantages and Disadvantages of Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery and Its Impact on Health-Related Quality of Life. Spine 2017, 42, 411–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Kyrölä, K.; Kautiainen, H.; Pekkanen, L.; Mäkelä, P.; Kiviranta, I.; Häkkinen, A. Long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes and patient satisfaction after adult spinal deformity correction. Scand. J. Surg. SJS 2019, 108, 343–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. STROBE flow diagram of patient selection.
Figure 1. STROBE flow diagram of patient selection.
Jcm 11 00144 g001
Figure 2. Overview of all the observed correlations among the considered parameters. Red, orange and yellow color indicate significant weak, moderate and strong correlations, respectively.
Figure 2. Overview of all the observed correlations among the considered parameters. Red, orange and yellow color indicate significant weak, moderate and strong correlations, respectively.
Jcm 11 00144 g002
Table 1. List of all ICD diagnosis and procedure codes used for data extraction from the local spine registry.
Table 1. List of all ICD diagnosis and procedure codes used for data extraction from the local spine registry.
ICD Diagnosis Codes
737.30, 737.31, 737.32, 737.34, 737.0, 737.10, 737.12, 737.22, 737.40, 737.41, 737.43, 737.19, 738.5, 737.39
ICD Procedure Codes
Primary surgery81.05, 81.06, 81.08, 81.63, 81.64
Revision surgery996.49, V45.4, 996.78, 998.89
ICD, International Classification of Diseases.
Table 2. Overview of the patients’ demographics.
Table 2. Overview of the patients’ demographics.
Demographic Data
Age (years)53.4 ± 16.7
Sex149 women (78%), 43 men (22%)
BMI (kg/cm2)24.2 ± 3.9
BMI, body mass index.
Table 3. Summary of perioperative data.
Table 3. Summary of perioperative data.
Perioperative Data
UIVC7: 1; T1: 5; T2: 7; T3: 28; T4: 29; T5: 15; T6: 4; T7: 3; T8: 11; T9: 16; T10: 44; T11: 5; T12: 3; L1: 5; L2: 13; L3: 3
LIVL3: 11; L4: 35; L5: 24; S1: 62; Ilium: 60
AccessPosterior only: 192; postero-anterior: 21; postero-lateral: 38
Curve correction methodSPO: 21; PSO: 13; ALIF: 21; LLIF 38
Length of surgery (min)430 ± 150
% EBL 18 ± 15.3
EBL (mL)1264 ± 1073
Length of hospital stay (days)8.5 ± 4.5
UIV, upper instrumented vertebra; LIV, lowest instrumented vertebra; SPO, Smith Petersen osteotomy; PSO, pedicle substraction osteotomy; ALIF, anterior lumbar interbody fusion; LLIF, latera lumbar interbody fusion; EBL, estimated blood loss.
Table 4. Overview of ODI, back and leg VAS, and CB11 values over time.
Table 4. Overview of ODI, back and leg VAS, and CB11 values over time.
ODI, VAS and CB11 Overview
Preop1-year FU2-years FUp (Preop vs. 2-year FU)
ODI42.5 ± 20.326.7 ± 21.426.8 ± 20.7<0.0001
VAS back6.8 ± 2.73.8 ± 34 ± 3.1<0.0001
VAS leg4.8 ± 3.73.4 ± 3.13.6 ± 3.50.01
CB11-0.9 ± 1.10.9 ± 1.2-
ODI, Oswestry disability index; VAS, visual analogic scale; CB11, question n. 11 of the COME back questionnaire; FU, follow-up.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Baroncini, A.; Migliorini, F.; Langella, F.; Barletta, P.; Trobisch, P.; Cecchinato, R.; Damilano, M.; Quarto, E.; Lamartina, C.; Berjano, P. Perioperative Predictive Factors for Positive Outcomes in Spine Fusion for Adult Deformity Correction. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 144. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11010144

AMA Style

Baroncini A, Migliorini F, Langella F, Barletta P, Trobisch P, Cecchinato R, Damilano M, Quarto E, Lamartina C, Berjano P. Perioperative Predictive Factors for Positive Outcomes in Spine Fusion for Adult Deformity Correction. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2022; 11(1):144. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11010144

Chicago/Turabian Style

Baroncini, Alice, Filippo Migliorini, Francesco Langella, Paolo Barletta, Per Trobisch, Riccardo Cecchinato, Marco Damilano, Emanuele Quarto, Claudio Lamartina, and Pedro Berjano. 2022. "Perioperative Predictive Factors for Positive Outcomes in Spine Fusion for Adult Deformity Correction" Journal of Clinical Medicine 11, no. 1: 144. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11010144

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop