Study Design. Retrospective study Objective. To analyze the risk factors for bony proximal junctional failure (B-PJF) and ligamentous PJF (L-PJF) separately after adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery Summary of Background Data. Despite numerous studies about the risk factors of PJF, it remains unclear whether same risk factors can be applied to both B-PJF and L-PJF. Methods. Patients who underwent corrective surgery from low thoracic level (T9-T12) to pelvis with minimum follow-up duration of two years were included in this study. Patients with PJF were divided into two groups according to the involvement of bony structure: B-PJF and L-PJF. The control group was created using patients who did not develop PJF for ≥2 years postoperatively (no-PJF group). Risk factors were analyzed by comparing various clinical and radiographic parameters between no PJF versus B-PJF group and between no PJF versus L-PJF groups. Results. The final study cohort comprised 240 patients. The mean age was 68.7 years, and there were 205 women (85.4%). On average, 8.1 levels were fused. PJF developed in 103 patients, with 70 (68.0%) in the B-PJF group and 33 (32.0%) in the L-PJF group. Stepwise logistic regression analyses revealed that older age (odds ratio [OR]=1.088), higher body mass index (BMI) (OR=1.161), osteoporosis (OR=3.293), greater postoperative lumbar distribution index (OR=1.032), and overcorrection relative to the age-adjusted pelvic incidence - lumbar lordosis (OR=3.964) were significant risk factors for B-PJF. Meanwhile, no use of transverse process (TP) hook was the single risk factor for L-PJF (OR=4.724). Conclusions. Understanding the difference in risk factors between B-PJF and L-PJF will facilitate the optimization of surgical outcome for patients with ASD. Appropriate correction of sagittal malalignment along with use of TP hook is advisable to mitigate both B-PJF and L-PJF development.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Park et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: