Browsing by Author "Virk, Sohrab"
Now showing 1 - 6 of 6
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Open Access Are the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Für Osteosynthesefragen (AO) Principles for Long Bone Fractures Applicable to 3-Column Osteotomy to Reduce Rod Fracture Rates?(Clinical spine surgery, 2022-06) Virk, Sohrab; Lafage, Renaud; Bess, Shay; Shaffrey, Christopher; Kim, Han J; Ames, Christopher; Burton, Doug; Gupta, Munish; Smith, Justin S; Eastlack, Robert; Klineberg, Eric; Mundis, Gregory; Schwab, Frank; Lafage, Virginie; International Spine Study GroupObjective
The aim was to determine whether applying Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen (AO) principles for external fixation of long bone fracture to patients with a 3-column osteotomy (3CO) would be associated with reduced rod fracture (RF) rates.Summary of background data
AO dictate principles to follow when fixating long bone fractures: (1) decrease bone-rod distance; (2) increase the number of connecting rods; (3) increase the diameter of rods; (4) increase the working length of screws; (5) use multiaxial fixation. We hypothesized that applying these principles to patients undergoing a 3CO reduces the rate of RF.Methods
Patients were categorized as having RF versus no rod fracture (non-RF). Details on location and type of instrumentation were collected. Dedicated software was used to calculate the distance between osteotomy site and adjacent pedicle screws, angle between screws and the distance between the osteotomy site and rod. Classic sagittal spinopelvic parameters were evaluated.Results
The study included 170 patients (34=RF, 136=non-RF). There was no difference in age (P=0.224), sagittal vertical axis correction (P=0.287), or lumbar lordosis correction (P=0.36). There was no difference in number of screws cephalad (P=0.62) or caudal (P=0.31) to 3CO site. There was a lower rate of RF for patients with >2 rods versus 2 rods (P<0.001). Patients with multiplanar rod fixation had a lower rod fracture rate (P=0.01). For patients with only 2 rods (N=68), the non-RF cohort had adjacent screws that trended to have less angulation to each other (P=0.06) and adjacent screws that had a larger working length (P=0.03).Conclusions
A portion of AO principles can be applied to 3CO to reduce RF rates. Placing more rods around a 3CO site, placing rods in multiple planes, and placing adjacent screws with a larger working length around the 3CO site is associated with lower RF rates.Item Open Access Factors influencing upper-most instrumented vertebrae selection in adult spinal deformity patients: qualitative case-based survey of deformity surgeons.(Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong), 2021-03) Virk, Sohrab; Platz, Uwe; Bess, Shay; Burton, Douglas; Passias, Peter; Gupta, Munish; Protopsaltis, Themistocles; Kim, Han Jo; Smith, Justin S; Eastlack, Robert; Kebaish, Khaled; Mundis, Gregory M; Nunley, Pierce; Shaffrey, Christopher; Gum, Jeffrey; Lafage, Virginie; Schwab, Frank; International Spine Study Group13Background
The decision upper-most instrumented vertebrae (UIV) in a multi-level fusion procedure can dramatically influence outcomes of corrective spine surgery. We aimed to create an algorithm for selection of UIV based on surgeon selection/reasoning of sample cases.Methods
The clinical/imaging data for 11 adult spinal deformity (ASD) patients were presented to 14 spine deformity surgeons who selected the UIV and provided reasons for avoidance of adjacent levels. The UIV chosen was grouped into either upper thoracic (UT, T1-T6), lower thoracic (LT, T7-T12), lumbar or cervical. Disagreement between surgeons was defined as ≥3 not agreeing. We performed a descriptive analysis of responses and created an algorithm for choosing UIV then applied this to a large database of ASD patients.Results
Surgeons agreed in 8/11 cases on regional choice of UIV. T10 was the most common UIV in the LT region (58%) and T3 was the most common UIV in the UT region (44%). The most common determinant of UIV in the UT region was proximal thoracic kyphosis and presence of coronal deformity. The most common determinant of UIV in the LT region was small proximal thoracic kyphosis. Within the ASD database (236 patients), when the algorithm called for UT fusion, patients fused to TL region were more likely to develop proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK) at 1 year post-operatively (76.9% vs. 38.9%, P=0.025).Conclusions
Our algorithm for selection of UIV emphasizes the role of proximal and regional thoracic kyphosis. Failure to follow this consensus for UT fusion was associated with twice the rate of PJK.Item Open Access Intraoperative alignment goals for distinctive sagittal morphotypes of severe cervical deformity to achieve optimal improvements in health-related quality of life measures.(The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society, 2020-03-21) Virk, Sohrab; Passias, Peter; Lafage, Renaud; Klineberg, Eric; Mundis, Gregory; Protopsaltis, Themistocles; Shaffrey, Christopher; Bess, Shay; Burton, Doug; Hart, Robert; Kim, Han Jo; Ames, Christopher; Schwab, Frank; Smith, Justin; Lafage, Virginie; International Spine Study GroupBACKGROUND CONTEXT:Patients with severe cervical deformity (CD) often have profound deficits in numerous activities of daily living. The association between health status and post-operative radiographic goals is difficult to quantify. PURPOSE:We aimed to investigate the radiographic characteristics of patients who achieved optimal health related quality of life scores following surgery for CD. STUDY DESIGN:We performed a retrospective review of a prospectively collected database of patients with spinal deformity. PATIENT SAMPLE:One hundred and fifty-three patients with cervical deformity OUTCOME MEASURES: Common health-related quality of life scores (HRQOLs) measurements were taken for patients treated operatively for cervical deformity including neck disability index (NDI), modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association scale (mJOA) for myelopathy and numeric rating scale for neck pain (NRS-neck), METHODS: Surgical patients with severe (can you define severe?) CD were isolated based upon a previously presented discriminant analysis which outlined a combination of preoperative cervical sagittal vertical axis (cSVA), T1 slope, maximum focal kyphosis in extension, C2 slope in extension, and number of kyphotic levels in extension. Those with available preoperative and 1-year postoperative HRQL data were included. Based on a previous study, patients were grouped into 3 distinct sagittal morphotypes of CD: focal deformity (FD), flatneck (FN=large TS-CL and lack of compensation), or cervicothoracic (CT). Post-operative outcomes were defined as "good" if a patient had ≥2 of the 3 following criteria (1) NDI <20 or meeting MCID, (2) mild myelopathy (mJOA≥14), and (3) NRS-Neck ≤5 or improved by ≥2 points from baseline. Within each distinct deformity group, patients with good outcomes were compared to those with poor outcomes (i.e. not meeting the criteria for good) for differences in demographics, HRQL scores, and alignment, via Chi-squared or student's t-tests. RESULTS:Overall, 83 of 153 patients met the criteria of severe CD and 40 patients had complete 1-year follow-up of clinical/radiographic data. Patient breakdown by deformity pattern was: CT (N=13), FN (N=17), and FD (N=17), with 7 patients meeting criteria for both FD and FN deformities. Within the FD cohort, maximal focal kyphosis (i.e. kyphosis at one level) was better corrected in patients with a "good" outcome (p = 0.03). In the FN cohort, patients with "good" outcomes presented pre-operatively with worse horizontal gaze (McGregor Slope 21° vs 6°, p=0.061) and cSVA (72mm vs 60mm, p=0.030). "Good" outcome FN patients showed significantly greater postop correction of horizontal gaze (-25° vs -5°, p = 0.031). In the CT cohort, patients with "good" outcomes had superior global alignment both pre- (SVA: -17mm vs 108mm, p <0.001) and post-operatively (50mm vs 145mm, p=0.001). CT patients with "good" outcomes also had better postop cervical alignment (cSVA 35mm vs 49mm, p=0.030), and less kyphotic segments during extension (p=0.011). In the FD cohort, there were no differences between "good" and "poor" outcomes patients in preoperative alignment; however, "good" outcome patients showed superior changes in postoperative focal kyphosis (-2° vs 5°, p=0.030). Within all three deformity pattern categories, there were no differences between "good" and "poor" outcome patients with respect to demographics or surgical parameters (levels fused, surgical approach, decompression, osteotomy, all p>0.050). CONCLUSIONS:The results of this study show each CD patient's unique deformity must be carefully examined in order to determine the appropriate alignment goals to achieve optimal HRQOLs. In particular, the recognition of the sagittal morphotype can help assist surgeons to aim for specific alignment goals for CT, FN and FD. Distinct deformity specific intra-operative goals include obtaining proper sagittal global/cervical alignment for cervicothoracic patients, correcting maximal focal kyphosis in focal deformity patients, and correcting horizontal gaze for flatneck patients.Item Open Access Radiographic Characteristics of Cervical Deformity (CD) Using a Discriminant Analysis: The Value of Extension Radiographs.(Clinical spine surgery, 2022-06) Lafage, Renaud; Virk, Sohrab; Elysee, Jonathan; Passias, Peter; Ames, Christopher; Hart, Robert; Shaffrey, Christopher; Mundis, Gregory; Protopsaltis, Themistocles; Gupta, Munish; Klineberg, Eric; Burton, Douglas; Schwab, Frank; Lafage, Virginie; ISSGStudy design
This was a retrospective review of a prospectively collected database.Objective
The aim of this study was to delineate radiographic parameters that distinguish severe cervical spine deformity (CSD).Summary of background data
Our objective was to define parameters that distinguish severe CSD using a consensus approach combined with discriminant analysis as no system currently exists in the literature.Methods
Twelve CSD surgeons reviewed preoperative x-rays from a CSD database. A consensus was reached for categorizing patients into a severe cervical deformity (sCD), non-severe cervical deformity (non-sCD), or an indeterminate cohort. Radiographic parameters were found including classic cervical and spinopelvic parameters in neutral/flexion/extension alignment. To perform our discriminant analysis, we selected for parameters that had a significant difference between the sCD and non-sCD groups using the Student t test. A discriminant function analysis was used to determine which variables discriminate between the sCD versus non-sCD. A stepwise analysis was performed to build a model of parameters to delineate sCD.Results
A total of 146 patients with cervical deformity were reviewed (60.5±10.5 y; body mass index: 29.8 kg/m2; 61.3% female). There were 83 (56.8%) classified as sCD and 51 (34.9%) as non-sCD. The comparison analysis led to 16 radiographic parameters that were different between cohorts, and 5 parameters discriminated sCD and non-sCD. These parameters were cervical sagittal vertical axis, T1 slope, maximum focal kyphosis in extension, C2 slope in extension, and number of kyphotic levels in extension. The canonical coefficient of correlation was 0.689, demonstrating a strong association between our model and cervical deformity classification. The accuracy of classification was 87.0%, and cross-validation was 85.2% successful.Conclusions
More than one third of a series of CSD patients were not considered to have a sCD. Analysis of an initial 17 parameters showed that a subset of 5 parameters can discriminate between sCD versus non-sCD with 85% accuracy. Our study demonstrates that flexion/extension images are critical for defining severe CD.Item Open Access Surgical Strategy for the Management of Cervical Deformity Is Based on Type of Cervical Deformity.(Journal of clinical medicine, 2021-10) Kim, Han Jo; Virk, Sohrab; Elysee, Jonathan; Ames, Christopher; Passias, Peter; Shaffrey, Christopher; Mundis, Gregory; Protopsaltis, Themistocles; Gupta, Munish; Klineberg, Eric; Hart, Robert; Smith, Justin S; Bess, Shay; Schwab, Frank; Lafage, Renaud; Lafage, Virginie; On Behalf Of The International Spine Study GroupCervical deformity morphotypes based on type and location of deformity have previously been described. This study aimed to examine the surgical strategies implemented to treat these deformity types and identify if differences in treatment strategies impact surgical outcomes. Our hypothesis was that surgical strategies will differ based on different morphologies of cervical deformity. Adult patients enrolled in a prospective cervical deformity database were classified into four deformity types (Flatneck (FN), Focal kyphosis (FK), Cervicothoracic kyphosis (CTK) and Coronal (C)), as previously described. We analyzed group differences in demographics, preoperative symptoms, health-related quality of life scores (HRQOLs), and surgical strategies were evaluated, and postop radiographic and HROQLs at 1+ year follow up were compared. 90/109 eligible patients (mean age 63.3 ± 9.2, 64% female, CCI 1.01 ± 1.36) were evaluated. Group distributions included FN = 33%, FK = 29%, CTK = 29%, and C = 9%. Significant differences were noted in the surgical approaches for the four types of deformities, with FN and FK having a high number of anterior/posterior (APSF) approaches, while CTK and C had more posterior only (PSF) approaches. For FN and FK, PSF was utilized more in cases with prior anterior surgery (70% vs. 25%). For FN group, PSF resulted in inferior neck disability index compared to those receiving APSF suggesting APSF is superior for FN types. CTK types had more three-column osteotomies (3CO) (p < 0.01) and longer fusions with the LIV below T7 (p < 0.01). There were no differences in the UIV between all deformity types (p = 0.19). All four types of deformities had significant improvement in NRS neck pain post-op (p < 0.05) with their respective surgical strategies. The four types of cervical deformities had different surgical strategies to achieve improvements in HRQOLs. FN and FK types were more often treated with APSF surgery, while types CTK and C were more likely to undergo PSF. CTK deformities had the highest number of 3COs. This information may provide guidelines for the successful management of cervical deformities.Item Open Access The morphology of cervical deformities: a two-step cluster analysis to identify cervical deformity patterns.(Journal of neurosurgery. Spine, 2019-11-15) Kim, Han Jo; Virk, Sohrab; Elysee, Jonathan; Passias, Peter; Ames, Christopher; Shaffrey, Christopher I; Mundis, Gregory; Protopsaltis, Themistocles; Gupta, Munish; Klineberg, Eric; Smith, Justin S; Burton, Douglas; Schwab, Frank; Lafage, Virginie; Lafage, Renaud; International Spine Study GroupOBJECTIVE:Cervical deformity (CD) is difficult to define due to the high variability in normal cervical alignment based on postural- and thoracolumbar-driven changes to cervical alignment. The purpose of this study was to identify whether patterns of sagittal deformity could be established based on neutral and dynamic alignment, as shown on radiographs. METHODS:This study is a retrospective review of a prospective, multicenter database of CD patients who underwent surgery from 2013 to 2015. Their radiographs were reviewed by 12 individuals using a consensus-based method to identify severe sagittal CD. Radiographic parameters correlating with health-related quality of life were introduced in a two-step cluster analysis (a combination of hierarchical cluster and k-means cluster) to identify patterns of sagittal deformity. A comparison of lateral and lateral extension radiographs between clusters was performed using an ANOVA in a post hoc analysis. RESULTS:Overall, 75 patients were identified as having severe CD due to sagittal malalignment, and they formed the basis of this study. Their mean age was 64 years, their body mass index was 29 kg/m2, and 66% were female. There were significant correlations between focal alignment/flexibility of maximum kyphosis, cervical lordosis, and thoracic slope minus cervical lordosis (TS-CL) flexibility (r = 0.27, 0.31, and -0.36, respectively). Cluster analysis revealed 3 distinct groups based on alignment and flexibility. Group 1 (a pattern involving a flat neck with lack of compensation) had a large TS-CL mismatch despite flexibility in cervical lordosis; group 2 (a pattern involving focal deformity) had focal kyphosis between 2 adjacent levels but no large regional cervical kyphosis under the setting of a low T1 slope (T1S); and group 3 (a pattern involving a cervicothoracic deformity) had a very large T1S with a compensatory hyperlordosis of the cervical spine. CONCLUSIONS:Three distinct patterns of CD were identified in this cohort: flat neck, focal deformity, and cervicothoracic deformity. One key element to understanding the difference between these groups was the alignment seen on extension radiographs. This information is a first step in developing a classification system that can guide the surgical treatment for CD and the choice of fusion level.