Evolution of Adult Cervical Deformity Surgery Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes Based on a Multicenter Prospective Study: Are Behaviors and Outcomes Changing With Experience?

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: Assess changes in outcomes and surgical approaches for adult cervical deformity surgery over time. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: As the population ages and the prevalence of cervical deformity increases, corrective surgery has been increasingly seen as a viable treatment. Dramatic surgical advancements and expansion of knowledge on this procedure have transpired over the years, but the impact on cervical deformity surgery is unknown. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adult cervical deformity patients (18 yrs and above) with complete baseline and up to the two-year health-related quality of life and radiographic data were included. Descriptive analysis included demographics, radiographic, and surgical details. Patients were grouped into early (2013-2014) and late (2015-2017) by date of surgery. Univariate and multivariable regression analyses were used to assess differences in surgical, radiographic, and clinical outcomes over time. RESULTS: A total of 119 cervical deformity patients met the inclusion criteria. Early group consisted of 72 patients, and late group consisted of 47. The late group had a higher Charlson Comorbidity Index (1.3 vs. 0.72), more cerebrovascular disease (6% vs. 0%, both P <0.05), and no difference in age, frailty, deformity, or cervical rigidity. Controlling for baseline deformity and age, late group underwent fewer three-column osteotomies [odds ratio (OR)=0.18, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.06-0.76, P =0.014]. At the last follow-up, late group had less patients with: a moderate/high Ames horizontal modifier (71.7% vs. 88.2%), and overcorrection in pelvic tilt (4.3% vs. 18.1%, both P <0.05). Controlling for baseline deformity, age, levels fused, and three-column osteotomies, late group experienced fewer adverse events (OR=0.15, 95% CI: 0.28-0.8, P =0.03), and neurological complications (OR=0.1, 95% CI: 0.012-0.87, P =0.03). CONCLUSION: Despite a population with greater comorbidity and associated risk, outcomes remained consistent between early and later time periods, indicating general improvements in care. The later cohort demonstrated fewer three-column osteotomies, less suboptimal realignments, and concomitant reductions in adverse events and neurological complications. This may suggest a greater facility with less invasive techniques.

Duke Scholars

Author Peter Passias Orthopaedic Surgery

Author Christopher Ignatius Shaffrey Orthopaedic Surgery