Proximal Junctional Kyphosis and Failure Prophylaxis Improves Cost Efficacy, While Maintaining Optimal Alignment, in Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery.
Academic Article
Overview
abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To investigate the cost-effectiveness and impact of prophylactic techniques on the development of proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK) and proximal junctional failure (PJF) in the context of postoperative alignment. METHODS: Adult spinal deformity patients with fusion to pelvis and 2-year data were included. Patients receiving PJK prophylaxis (hook, tether, cement, minimally-invasive surgery approach) were compared to those who did not. These cohorts were further stratified into "Matched" and "Unmatched" groups based on achievement of age-adjusted alignment criteria. Costs were calculated using the Diagnosis-Related Group costs accounting for PJK prophylaxis, postoperative complications, outpatient health care encounters, revisions, and medical-related readmissions. Quality-adjusted life years were calculated using Short Form-36 converted to Short-Form Six-Dimension (SF-6D) and used an annual 3% discount rate. Multivariate analysis controlling for age, sex, levels fused, and baseline deformity severity assessed outcomes of developing PJK/PJF if matched and/or with use of PJK prophylaxis. RESULTS: A total of 738 adult spinal deformity patients met inclusion criteria (age: 63.9 ± 9.9, body mass index: 28.5 ± 5.7, Charlson comorbidity index: 2.0 ± 1.7). Multivariate analysis revealed patients corrected to age-adjusted criteria postoperatively had lower rates of developing PJK or PJF (odds ratio [OR]: 0.4, [0.2-0.8]; P = .011) with the use of prophylaxis. Among those unmatched in T1 pelvic angle, pelvic incidence lumbar lordosis mismatch, and pelvic tilt, prophylaxis reduced the likelihood of developing PJK (OR: 0.5, [0.3-0.9]; P = .023) and PJF (OR: 0.1, [0.03-0.5]; P = .004). Analysis of covariance analysis revealed patients matched in age-adjusted alignment had better cost-utility at 2 years compared with those without prophylaxis ($361 539.25 vs $419 919.43; P < .001). Patients unmatched in age-adjusted criteria also generated better cost ($88 348.61 vs $101 318.07; P = .005) and cost-utility ($450 190.80 vs $564 108.86; P < .001) with use of prophylaxis. CONCLUSION: Despite additional surgical cost, the optimization of radiographic realignment in conjunction with prophylaxis of the proximal junction appeared to be a more cost-effective strategy, primarily because of the minimization of reoperations secondary to mechanical failure. Even among those not achieving optimal alignment, junctional prophylactic measures were shown to improve cost efficiency.
