Smith Justin S, Shaffrey Christopher I, Kim Han Jo, Passias Peter, Protopsaltis Themistocles, Lafage Renaud, Mundis Gregory M, Klineberg Eric, Lafage Virginie, Schwab Frank J, Scheer Justin K, Kelly Michael, Hamilton D Kojo, Gupta Munish, Deviren Vedat, Hostin Richard, Albert Todd, Riew K Daniel, Hart Robert, Burton Doug, Bess Shay, Ames Christopher P
University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA.
Global Spine J. 2019 May;9(3):303-314. doi: 10.1177/2192568218794164. Epub 2018 Aug 16.
Retrospective cohort study.
Factors that predict outcomes for adult cervical spine deformity (ACSD) have not been well defined. To compare ACSD patients with best versus worst outcomes.
This study was based on a prospective, multicenter observational ACSD cohort. Best versus worst outcomes were compared based on Neck Disability Index (NDI), Neck Pain Numeric Rating Scale (NP-NRS), and modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA) scores.
Of 111 patients, 80 (72%) had minimum 1-year follow-up. For NDI, compared with best outcome patients (n = 28), worst outcome patients (n = 32) were more likely to have had a major complication ( = .004) and to have undergone a posterior-only procedure ( = .039), had greater Charlson Comorbidity Index ( = .009), and had worse postoperative C7-S1 sagittal vertical axis (SVA; = .027). For NP-NRS, compared with best outcome patients (n = 26), worst outcome patients (n = 18) were younger ( = .045), had worse baseline NP-NRS ( = .034), and were more likely to have had a minor complication ( = .030). For the mJOA, compared with best outcome patients (n = 16), worst outcome patients (n = 18) were more likely to have had a major complication ( = .007) and to have a better baseline mJOA ( = .030). Multivariate models for NDI included posterior-only surgery ( = .006), major complication ( = .002), and postoperative C7-S1 SVA ( = .012); models for NP-NRS included baseline NP-NRS ( = .009), age ( = .017), and posterior-only surgery ( = .038); and models for mJOA included major complication ( = .008).
Factors distinguishing best and worst ACSD surgery outcomes included patient, surgical, and radiographic factors. These findings suggest areas that may warrant greater awareness to optimize patient counseling and outcomes.
回顾性队列研究。
预测成人颈椎畸形(ACSD)预后的因素尚未明确界定。比较ACSD患者的最佳与最差预后情况。
本研究基于一项前瞻性、多中心观察性ACSD队列。根据颈部功能障碍指数(NDI)、颈部疼痛数字评定量表(NP-NRS)和改良日本骨科协会(mJOA)评分比较最佳与最差预后情况。
111例患者中,80例(72%)进行了至少1年的随访。对于NDI,与最佳预后患者(n = 28)相比,最差预后患者(n = 32)更有可能发生严重并发症(P = .004)且仅接受了后路手术(P = .039),Charlson合并症指数更高(P = .009),术后C7-S1矢状垂直轴(SVA)更差(P = .027)。对于NP-NRS,与最佳预后患者(n = 26)相比,最差预后患者(n = 18)更年轻(P = .045),基线NP-NRS更差(P = .034),且更有可能发生轻微并发症(P = .030)。对于mJOA,与最佳预后患者(n = 16)相比,最差预后患者(n = 18)更有可能发生严重并发症(P = .007)且基线mJOA更好(P = .030)。NDI的多变量模型包括仅后路手术(P = .006)、严重并发症(P = .002)和术后C7-S1 SVA(P = .012);NP-NRS的模型包括基线NP-NRS(P = .009)、年龄(P = .017)和仅后路手术(P = .038);mJOA的模型包括严重并发症(P = .008)。
区分ACSD手术最佳和最差预后的因素包括患者、手术和影像学因素。这些发现提示了可能需要更多关注以优化患者咨询和预后的领域。