What level of symptoms are patients with adult spinal deformity prepared to live with? A cross-sectional analysis of the 12-month follow-up data from 1043 patients

European Spine Journal - Previous studies suggest that a meaningful and easily understood measure of treatment outcome may be the proportion of patients who are in a “patient acceptable...     

Association between sagittal alignment and loads at the adjacent segment in the fused spine: a combined clinical and musculoskeletal modeling study of 205 patients with adult spinal deformity

Purpose

Sagittal malalignment is a risk factor for mechanical complications after surgery for adult spinal deformity (ASD). Spinal loads, modulated by sagittal alignment, may explain this relationship. The aims of this study were to investigate the relationships between: (1) postoperative changes in loads at the proximal segment and realignment, and (2) absolute postoperative loads and postoperative alignment measures.

Methods

A previously validated musculoskeletal model of the whole spine was applied to study a clinical sample of 205 patients with ASD. Based on clinical and radiographic data, pre-and postoperative patient-specific alignments were simulated to predict loads at the proximal segment adjacent to the spinal fusion.

Results

Weak-to-moderate associations were found between pre-to-postop changes in lumbar lordosis, LL (r =  − 0.23, r =  − 0.43; p < 0.001), global tilt, GT (r = 0.26, r = 0.38; p < 0.001) and the Global Alignment and Proportion score, GAP (r = 0.26, r = 0.37; p < 0.001), and changes in compressive and shear forces at the proximal segment. GAP score parameters, thoracic kyphosis measurements and the slope of upper instrumented vertebra were associated with changes in shear. In patients with T10-pelvis fusion, moderate-to-strong associations were found between postoperative sagittal alignment measures and compressive and shear loads, with GT showing the strongest correlations (r = 0.75, r = 0.73, p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Spinal loads were estimated for patient-specific full spinal alignment profiles in a large cohort of patients with ASD pre-and postoperatively. Loads on the proximal segments were greater in association with sagittal malalignment and malorientation of proximal vertebra. Future work should explore whether they provide a causative mechanism explaining the associated risk of proximal junction complications.

     

Factor analysis of the SRS-22 outcome assessment instrument in patients with adult spinal deformity

Purpose

Designed for patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis, the SRS-22 is now widely used as an outcome instrument in patients with adult spinal deformity (ASD). No studies have confirmed the four-factor structure (pain, function, self-image, mental health) of the SRS-22 in ASD and under different contexts. Factorial invariance of an instrument over time and in different languages is essential to allow for precise interpretations of treatment success and comparisons across studies. This study sought to evaluate the invariance of the SRS-22 structure across different languages and sub-groups of ASD patients.

Methods

Confirmatory factor analysis was performed on the 20 non-management items of the SRS-22 with data from 245 American English-, 428 Spanish-, 229 Turkish-, 95 French-, and 195 German-speaking patients. Item loading invariance was compared across languages, age groups, etiologies, treatment groups, and assessment times. A separate sample of SRS-22 data from 772 American surgical patients with ASD was used for cross-validation.

Results

The factor structure fitted significantly better to the proposed four-factor solution than to a unifactorial solution. However, items 14 (personal relationships), 15 (financial difficulties), and 17 (days off work) consistently showed weak item loading within their factors across all language versions and in both baseline and follow-up datasets. A trimmed SRS (16 non-management items) that used the four least problematic items in each of the four domains yielded better-fitting models across all languages, but equivalence was still not reached. With this shorter version there was equivalence of item loading with respect to treatment (surgery vs conservative), time of assessment (baseline vs 12 months follow-up), and etiology (degenerative vs idiopathic), but not age (< vs ≥50 years). All findings were confirmed in the cross-validation sample.

Conclusion

We recommend removal of the worst-fitting items from each of the four domains of the SRS-instrument (items 3, 14, 15, 17), together with adaptation and standardization of other items across language versions, to provide an improved version of the instrument with just 16 non-management items.