Determining the utility of three-column osteotomies in revision surgery compared with primary surgeries in the thoracolumbar spine: a retrospective cohort study in the United States

Tyler Kade Williamson; Oluwatobi O Onafowokan; Ankita Das; Jamshaid Mahmood Mir; Oscar Krol; Peter Tretiakov; Rachel Joujon-Roche; Bailey Imbo; Salman Ahmad; Stephane Owusu-Sarpong; Jordan Lebovic; Shaleen Vira; Andrew J Schoenfeld; Muhammad Burhan Janjua; Bassel Diebo; Renaud Lafage; Virginie Lafage; Peter Gust Passias

doi:10.31616/asj.2023.0388

Asian Spine J > Volume 18(5); 2024 > Article

Williamson, Onafowokan, Das, Mir, Krol, Tretiakov, Joujon-Roche, Imbo, Ahmad, Owusu-Sarpong, Lebovic, Vira, Schoenfeld, Janjua, Diebo, Lafage, Lafage, and Passias: Determining the utility of three-column osteotomies in revision surgery compared with primary surgeries in the thoracolumbar spine: a retrospective cohort study in the United States

Clinical Study

Asian Spine Journal 2024;18(5):673-680.

Online first: October 22, 2024

DOI: https://doi.org/10.31616/asj.2023.0388

Determining the utility of three-column osteotomies in revision surgery compared with primary surgeries in the thoracolumbar spine: a retrospective cohort study in the United States

Tyler Kade Williamson¹

, Oluwatobi O Onafowokan¹

, Ankita Das¹

, Jamshaid Mahmood Mir¹

, Oscar Krol¹

, Peter Tretiakov¹

, Rachel Joujon-Roche¹

, Bailey Imbo¹, Salman Ahmad¹, Stephane Owusu-Sarpong¹

, Jordan Lebovic¹

, Shaleen Vira²

, Andrew J Schoenfeld³

, Muhammad Burhan Janjua⁴

, Bassel Diebo⁵

, Renaud Lafage⁶

, Virginie Lafage⁷

, Peter Gust Passias¹

¹Division of Spinal Surgery, Departments of Orthopaedic and Neurosurgery, NYU Langone Orthopedic Hospital, NY Spine Institute, New York, NY, USA

²Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Banner Health, Phoenix, AZ, USA

³Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Brigham and Women’s Hospital/Harvard Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA

⁴Department of Neurosurgery, Washington University of St Louis, St Louis, MO, USA

⁵Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI, USA

⁶Department of Orthopaedics, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA

⁷Department of Orthopaedics, Lenox Hill Hospital, Northwell Health, New York, NY, USA

Corresponding author: Peter Gust Passias, New York Spine Institute, Division of Spinal Surgery, Departments of Orthopaedic and Neurological Surgery, NYU Langone Medical Center, Orthopaedic Hospital–NYU School of Medicine, 301 East 17th St, New York, NY, 10003, USA,
Tel: +1-516-357-8777, Fax: +1-516-357-0087, E-mail: Peter.Passias@nyumc.org

Received November 27, 2023 Revised June 14, 2024 Accepted July 25, 2024

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Study Design

Retrospective cohort study.

Purpose

To determine the incidence and success of three-column osteotomies (3COs) performed in primary and revision adult spine deformity (ASD) corrective surgeries.

Overview of Literature

3COs are often required to correct severe, rigid ASD presentations. However, controversy remains on the utility of 3COs, particularly in primary surgery.

Methods

Patients ASD having 2-year data were included and divided into 3CO and non-3CO (remaining ASD cohort) groups. For the subanalysis, patients were stratified based on whether they were undergoing primary (P3CO) or revision (R3CO) surgery. Multivariate analysis controlling for age, Charlson comorbidity index, body mass index, baseline pelvic incidence–lumbar lordosis, and fused levels evaluated the complication rates and radiographic and patient-reported outcomes between the 3CO and non-3CO groups.

Results

Of the 436 patients included, 20% had 3COs. 3COs were performed in 16% of P3COs and 51% of R3COs. Both 3CO groups had greater severity in deformity and disability at baseline; however, only R3COs improved more than non-3COs. Despite greater segmental correction, 3COs had much lower rates of aligning in the lumbar distribution index (LDI), higher mechanical complications, and more reoperations when performed below L3. When comparing P3COs and R3COs, baseline lumbopelvic and global alignments, as well as disability, were different. The R3CO group had greater clinical improvements and global correction (both p<0.04), although the P3CO group achieved alignment in LDI more often (odds ratio, 3.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.3–6.2; p=0.006). The P3CO group had more neurological complications (30% vs. 13%, p=0.042), whereas the R3CO tended to have higher mechanical complication rates (25% vs. 15%, p=0.2).

Conclusions

3COs showed greater improvements in realignment while failing to demonstrate the same clinical improvement as primaries without a 3CO. Overall, when suitably indicated, a 3CO offers superior utility for achieving optimal realignment across primary and revision surgeries for ASD correction.

Keywords: Kyphosis; Scoliosis; Bone malalignment; Adult

Introduction

The prevalence of adult spinal deformity (ASD) is increasing and concomitantly the frequency of corrective surgical procedures [1]. A consequent major challenge is the treatment of patients presenting with rigid ASD, including deformities such as hyperkyphosis, scoliosis, flatback syndrome, and L5 spondyloptosis [2,3]. This pathology generally warrants complex procedures in older, frail, multimorbid groups to achieve the desired deformity correction and is often in the context of revision surgery [4,5].

Surgical management of ASD aims to improve pain and function while preventing the progression of deformity and associated symptoms. Patients with ASD and rigid and significantly malaligned vertebral curves often require a three-column osteotomy (3CO) as part of their surgical management [6]. 3CO variations include the Smith–Peterson osteotomy, pedicle subtraction osteotomy, and vertebral column resection. 3COs are indicated for cases with the highest osteotomy grades, according to the classification system by Schwab et al. [7], and offer the greatest scope for deformity correction in rigid ASDs. Given the extent of bony resection and surgical invasiveness required, 3COs are also associated with a significant incidence of complications [4,5]. Of particular concern are mechanical complications such as postoperative kyphotic decompensation syndrome and proximal or distal junctional kyphosis and failure [8,9]. Nevertheless, the notable and sustained efficacy of severe deformity correction with 3COs has been repeatedly demonstrated [4,5,10,11].

Despite the extensive study of 3CO techniques, studies examining the performance of 3COs in primary compared with revision surgery are limited. In this context, we sought to compare the outcomes of 3COs when used in primary and revision correction procedures for ASD.

Materials and Methods

Data source and study design

A retrospective analysis of a prospectively-enrolled, single-center database of patients with ASD enrolled between 2012 and 2020 was performed. The approval from the Ethics Committee of NYU School of Medicine was obtained before the study commenced (protocol code S13-00422), and all patients provided informed consent. The general enrollment criteria and the definition of ASD for this dataset were described in previous publications, and this cohort was also used to analyze various aspects of ASD investigation and management [12]. Patients included in the dataset had at least one of the following radiographic deformity parameters: sagittal vertical axis (SVA) >5 cm, Cobb angle >20°, pelvic tilt (PT) >25°, or thoracic kyphosis (TK) >60°.

Patients with ASD were included in this study if they were undergoing surgical intervention with complete demographic, radiographic, and patient-reported outcomes data up to at least 2 years postoperatively. In addition, patients were included if deemed to have a severe global deformity, which was defined as having a pelvic incidence–lumbar lordosis (PI–LL) mismatch of ≥20°. All surgical procedures were performed with at least two surgeons present. Surgical indications included neurological deficit, persistent severe pain despite conservative measures, spondylotic myelopathy, and intolerable, functionally-limiting postural deformity. 3CO was also indicated for rigid thoracolumbar deformity with PI–LL of ≥30°. Patients undergoing primary surgery were stratified according to whether they were undergoing a 3CO (P3CO+) or a lower-grade osteotomy (P3CO−). Similarly, patients undergoing revision surgery were stratified by undergoing a 3CO (R3CO+) or lower-grade osteotomy (R3CO−).

Data collection and radiographic assessment

Demographic data collected included age, sex, race, and body mass index (BMI). Collected health-related quality of life (HRQL) metrics included the Oswestry disability index (ODI) and the Scoliosis Research Society 22-item questionnaire (SRS-22). The minimum clinically important difference in ODI was set at 11% as reported previously [13]. Lateral spine radiographs were used to assess radiographic parameters at baseline and all follow-up timepoints. All images were analyzed with SpineView (ENSAM; Laboratory of Biomechanics, Paris, France) [14–16]. Spinopelvic radiographic parameters assessed included measures commonly used in ASD assessment, such as PT, PI–LL mismatch, SVA, T1 pelvic angle (T1PA), and L1 pelvic angle (L1PA) [17,18]. These parameters are illustrated in Fig. 1 [18].

The global alignment and proportion (GAP) score was used to assess deformity correction [19]. This realignment schema includes various spinopelvic components to assess the proportionality of alignment. The GAP score has been validated in patients with ASD, with lower scores being associated with poorer postoperative outcomes [20,21]. The segmental utility ratio (SUR) assessed the relative segmental correction achieved. This was defined as the segmental correction at the intervention level divided by the overall correction in lumbar lordosis (L1–S1) divided by the number of thoracolumbar interventions (interbody fusions + Smith–Peterson osteotomy/3-CO). The SUR was developed to assess segmental harmony, which is described as the absence of any significant differences in lordosis between adjacent disc pairs [22].

Complication assessment

Radiographic, mechanical, and neurological complications were the focus of this analysis. Radiographic complications included proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK) and proximal junctional failure (PJF). PJK was defined by a PJK angle of <–10° and a PJK angle difference of <–10° from the baseline at any time point up to 2 years. PJF was defined using the criteria of Lafage et al. [17]: a PJK angle of <–28° and a difference in the PJK angle of <–22° from the baseline at any follow-up time point up to 2 years. Mechanical complications included any complications related to the implant: implant prominence or malposition, implant failure, interbody dislocation, screw nerve impingement, screw fracture, rod dislocation, and rod fracture. Mechanical complications were classified as major if they required invasive interventions for correction or caused prolonged or permanent morbidity/mortality. Neurological complications were diagnosed if any new postoperative neurological deficits persisted beyond 6 weeks.

Statistical analysis

The primary outcome was postoperative radiographic alignment. Baseline demographic, radiographic, surgical, and clinical data were compared between the cohorts using chi-square test and t-test for categorical and continuous variables, respectively. Patients were first separated into groups based on whether they were undergoing a 3CO during the procedure or not and then whether they were undergoing a primary or revision surgery. Multivariable linear and regression analyses accounting for age, sex, BMI, osteoporosis, baseline deformity (via PI–LL mismatch), and fused levels surgically evaluated the complication rates and radiographic and patient-reported outcomes between groups at 2 years. All p-values <0.05 were considered significant. All statistical analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics ver. 28.1 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).

Results

Baseline characteristics

Of the 436 patients included in this study, 88 (20.2%) underwent a 3CO (16.3% pedicle subtraction osteotomy and 2.8% vertebral column resection), and 52.1% of the remaining cohort underwent a lower-grade osteotomy. Of the total cohort, a 3CO was performed in 16.1% of primaries (n=27, P3CO) and 50.8% of revisions (n=61, R3CO). The mean age in this cohort was 53.8±20.2 years, 68% were female, and the mean BMI was 26.0±5.9 kg/m². Baseline characteristics are displayed in Table 1.

P3COs

The P3CO+ group had double the EBL of the P3CO− group (2,635 mL versus 1,245 mL, p=0.001), despite similar operative times (475.3 minutes versus 465.7 minutes, p=0.35), and were more likely to be accompanied by a posterior support rod (odds ratio, 20.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.2–122.5; p=0.003). The P3CO+ group demonstrated higher rates of major complications and were more likely to endure a neurological complication (OR, 12.1; 95% CI, 7.36–25.49; p=0.032). No significant differences in HRQL outcomes were found the between P3CO+ and P3CO− groups. Despite similar correction in deformity (by PI–LL and T1PA correction), the P3CO+ group demonstrated higher rates of achieving alignment in the GAP score lumbar distribution index (68% versus 49%, p=0.01), GAP spinopelvic parameters (69% versus 50%, p=0.03), and overall proportioning in GAP (58% versus 41%, p=0.045).

R3COs

The R3CO+ group demonstrated greater deformity correction than the R3CO− group (by PI–LL magnitude: −29.4° versus −17.1°, p=0.025). No significant differences were found in complications between the two groups.

Similar to the P3CO+ group, multivariable regression analyses controlling for levels fused, baseline deformity, and disability revealed that the R3CO+ group less often achieved the MCID in ODI by 2 years compared with the R3CO− group (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.21–0.78; p=0.021). No differences in GAP score proportionality were found between the R3CO+ and R3CO− groups.

P3COs versus R3COs

The P3CO+ and R3CO+ groups had greater severity of deformity and disability at baseline than their non-3CO counterparts (Table 2). Both groups did not differ in the use of interbodies/support rods and segmental or overall correction in GAP lumbopelvic and global parameters. The P3CO+ group had higher rates of aligning in GAP LDI (65% versus 36%, p=0.015) (Table 3). The P3CO+ group also had significantly longer lengths of stay (9.6 days versus 7.1 days, p=0.043), admissions to the surgical intensive care unit (76% versus 57%, p=0.025), and higher neurological complications rates (34% versus 13%, p=0.001). The R3CO group had higher mechanical complication rates (41% versus 21%, p=0.005).

Discussion

Despite the notable associated morbidity risk, numerous studies have demonstrated the efficacy of 3COs at achieving significant deformity correction in patients with ASD presenting with severe, rigid malalignments in the sagittal, coronal, and/or axial planes [7,8]. The ability to perform these osteotomies asymmetrically can allow for deformity correction in the sagittal and coronal planes simultaneously [7]. The vast majority of literature on 3COs involves patients who have previously undergone spine surgery, with some patients having previously undergone multiple surgical interventions before 3COs [8]. In these patients, 3COs can be challenging, requiring extricating previous instrumentation and the potential obliterated/variable anatomy caused by scarring from prior surgery. 3COs are more recently employed in primary surgery. A potential reason for this may be the desire to avoid anterior spinal approaches in patients with severe deformity and thus avoid the notable associated risks of vascular, genitourinary, and bowel injuries [23–25].

Several published studies have reported on patients undergoing 3COs as part of their primary procedure. Raad et al. [26] reported a series of 197 patients undergoing 3COs for ASD, in which 69 patients (35%) underwent P3COs. Kelly et al. [27] reported on 132 patients undergoing 3COs for ASD, in which 17 patients (13%) underwent P3COs. In the study by Smith et al. [28] of 82 patients who underwent 3COs, 12 (15%) underwent a P3CO. In a series of 105 patients undergoing 3COs for ASD, Auerbach et al. [29] reported 16 (15%) undergoing a P3CO. However, none of these studies isolated the patients undergoing P3COs and assessed their specific outcomes.

Apparently, patients undergoing 3COs as part of their primary surgical intervention are a significant minority of all patients undergoing 3COs. In this study, patients undergoing P3COs and R3COs, as well as those undergoing primary and revision lower-grade osteotomies, were investigated. Similar to previously reported rates, patients undergoing a P3CO also make up the minority in the present study and comprised 31% of the 3CO groups. The P3CO+ group had similar HRQL outcomes to their P3CO− counterparts, as reported in previous studies [30]. Despite similar HRQL outcomes and deformity correction, the P3CO+ group had greater blood loss and higher complication rates and was more likely to develop a neurologic complication than the P3CO− group. The finding of increased blood loss and higher complication rates is perhaps not surprising because of the much higher invasiveness level associated with 3COs [8,31]. Given the lack of significant differences in HRQLs and radiographic outcomes, our findings indicate that the use of 3COs in primary surgery should be minimized wherever possible.

When comparing the P3CO and R3CO groups, no differences in alignment at 2 years were found. In this study, 3COs were predominantly performed at the L3 level, in line with previous studies [8–10]. After analyzing correction at various osteotomy sites, no differences were found between the overall lordosis correction when 3CO was performed as primary or revision surgery. The R3CO+ group had higher rates of mechanical complications than the P3CO+ group. The increased infection rates in revision cases is well-reported in the literature and likely has a multifactorial etiology, including higher blood loss, surgical invasiveness, and increased operative times [32–34]. Increased risk of mechanical complications in the R3CO+ group is perhaps unsurprising, and a potential reason for this is the decreased bone purchase for re-instrumentation, potentially contributing to higher rates of delayed union and/or non-union [31,35]. However, the P3CO+ group had longer hospital stays, higher rates of intensive care unit admissions, and higher rates of neurological complications.

3COs are undoubtedly a significant technical challenge to execute [31]. Studies have demonstrated that even patients with postoperative complications have still displayed significant improvements in quality-of-life metrics after 3COs, even those requiring reoperation [10,11,29]. Although 3CO implementation in primary surgery has increased, overall 3CO usage and associated mechanical complications has declined, reflecting improved understanding of 3CO utility and technique enhancement [8]. Our study’s findings indicate that patients who underwent revision surgery may demonstrate greater benefit from 3COs than those who underwent primary surgery.

This study has limitations. First, the utilization of a retrospective analysis of patients undergoing operation by a single surgeon incurs the risk of confounding by indications and expertise bias. Second, retrospective studies cannot determine causality, and we recommend delving into the effect of other factors, such as age, frailty, BMI, and mineral bone density at the operative levels, in the context of lower extremity compensation [17,36]. Given the exploratory, retrospective approach of this study, we do not recommend stratifying surgical candidacy or solely determining a treatment plan based on these results. They may be used as an integrative tool for surgical planning outside of the current parameters and factors currently utilized. Furthermore, we were unable to explain the higher incidence of neurologic deficits or longer length of stay in the P3CO group when compared with the R3CO group. Future studies isolating and analyzing the P3CO group may shed some light on this. We also did not perform a cost analysis, which may have contributed greater clarity to delineating the utility of 3COs in primary and revision surgeries. Finally, we encourage that these findings be replicated and validated to fully determine their true effects on clinical practice before more definitive substantiations are possible.

Conclusions

3COs possess significant ability for deformity correction in patients with severe spine deformity. However, patients experience greater benefit from these highly invasive techniques when they are performed as part of revision surgeries. Therefore, it may be more prudent to utilize lower-grade osteotomies when planning primary surgery for patients with rigid thoracolumbar deformities because of the inherent risks.

Key Points

The utility of three-column osteotomies (3CO) remains controversial, especially in primary adult spine deformity (ASD) realignment surgery.
This study investigated 3CO use in patients undergoing primary or revision surgery for ASD.
Patients undergoing 3CO demonstrated greater improvements in alignment metrics, but did not experience the same significant improvements in patient-reported outcomes.

Notes

Conflict of Interest

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Author Contributions

Study design: TKW, OOO, AD, JMM, OK, PT, RJR, BI, SA, SOS, JL, SV, AJS, MBJ, BD, RL, VL, PGP. Data acquisition: TKW, OOO, AD, JMM, OK, PT, RJR, BI, SA, SOS, JL, SV, AJS, MBJ, BD, RL, VL, PGP. Analysis and interpretation of data: TKW, OOO, AD, JMM, OK, PT, RJR, BI, SA, SOS, JL, SV, AJS, MBJ, BD, RL, VL, PGP. Active involvement in drafting and critical revision of manuscript: TKW, OOO, AD, JMM, OK, PT, RJR, BI, SA, SOS, JL, SV, AJS, MBJ, BD, RL, VL, PGP. Provided final approval of version to be published: TKW, OOO, AD, JMM, OK, PT, RJR, BI, SA, SOS, JL, SV, AJS, MBJ, BD, RL, VL, PGP.

Fig. 1

Illustration of regional, lower extremity, and global spinal radiographic parameters (SVA, PT, PI, LL, SFA, KA, AA, PS, and GSA) [18]. SVA, sagittal vertical axis; PT, pelvic tilt; PI, pelvic incidence; LL, lumbar lordosis; SFA, sacrofemoral angle; KA, knee angle; AA, ankle angle; PS, posterior pelvic shift; GSA, global sagittal angle.

Table 1

Baseline characteristics between primary and revision three-column osteotomy groups

Characteristic	Primary	Revision	p-value
Age (yr)	63.7±9.0	61.9±13.5	0.527
Gender (% female)	70	74	0.745
Body mass index (kg/m²)	28.6±5.4	27.8±5.2	0.474
Charlson comorbidity index	2.0±2.2	1.7±1.7	0.370
Frailty index	7.6±4.7	7.1±4.7	0.695
Osteoporosis (%)	22.2	18.0	0.651
Operative time (min)	468±138	440±154	0.428
Estimated blood loss (mL)	2,576±1,945	2,868±1,593	0.461
Levels fused	12.9±3.7	12.0±4.0	0.329
Length of stay (day)	9.7±3.6	8.5±4.0	0.180
Pelvic tilt (°)	27.0±8.9	31.2±10.2	0.059
PI (°)	55.2±12.9	58.4±14.3	0.314
PI–LL (°)	24.2±19.7	32.4±18.9	0.068
T1 pelvic angle (°)	26.9±11.8	34.6±26.9	0.012
Global alignment and proportion score	9.5±3.5	10.6±9.5	0.185
Oswestry disability index	45.9	46.5	0.892

Values are presented as mean±standard deviation, %, or number unless otherwise stated.

PI, pelvic incidence; PI–LL, pelvic incidence lumbar lordosis mismatch.

Table 2

Spinopelvic radiographic outcomes from baseline to early follow-up and early follow-up to 2 years

Variable	Baseline	Early FU	p-value	Early FU	2-yr FU	p-value
Sagittal vertical axis (mm)	54.5±70.1	14.6±40.9	<0.001^*	14.6±40.9	21.1±48.3	0.017^*
Pelvic tilt (°)	22.9±12.5	21.3±11.2	0.002^*	21.3±11.2	22.6±11.4	0.005^*
PI–LL (°)	13.3±22.6	3.7±14.5	<0.001^*	3.7±14.5	5.6±15.9	0.015^*
T1 pelvic angle (°)	22.7±16.5	15.9±11.4	<0.001^*	15.9±11.4	17.8±12.8	0.001^*
L1 pelvic angle (°)	12.3±11.6	9.4±9.7	<0.001^*	9.4±9.7	11.1±9.8	0.001^*
L4 pelvic angle (°)	11.8±6.2	11.1±5.8	0.041^*	11.1±5.8	12.3±6.1	0.001^*

Values are presented as mean±standard deviation unless otherwise stated.

FU, follow-up; PI–LL, pelvic incidence lumbar lordosis mismatch.

^* p<0.05.

Table 3

Focal and overall correction by revision status

Level	Intervention	No. of patients	Segmental correction (°)	Relative correction % (segmental utility ratio)	Overall lordosis (°)
Level	Intervention	No. of patients	Segmental correction (°)	Relative correction % (segmental utility ratio)	Baseline	6-wk follow-up	Correction
L1	3CO primary	1	34.2	72	8.2	55.4	47.2
	3CO revision	-	-	-	-	-	-
L2	3CO primary	3	39.0	116	37.5	64.9	35.9
	3CO revision	7	16.2	55	21.8	55.1	28.9
L3	3CO primary	11	18.4	56	29.2	60.4	32.8
	3CO revision	25	22.5	62	23.7	57.2	32.6
L4	3CO primary	3	18.3	48	16.3	54.7	38.4
	3CO revision	17	25.4	71	21.7	56.9	36.0
L5	3CO primary	1	23.0	67	19.0	53.3	34.3
	3CO revision	3	7.0	33	28.4	49.6	21.3
Total	3CO primary	27	22.7	54			31.5
	3CO revision	61	21.7	56			31.0

³ CO, three-column osteotomy.

References

1. Dagdia L, Kokabu T, Ito M. Classification of adult spinal deformity: review of current concepts and future directions. Spine Surg Relat Res 2018;3:17–26.

2. Saifi C, Laratta JL, Petridis P, Shillingford JN, Lehman RA, Lenke LG. Vertebral column resection for rigid spinal deformity. Global Spine J 2017;7:280–90.

3. Kim HJ, Yang JH, Chang DG, et al. Adult spinal deformity: a comprehensive review of current advances and future directions. Asian Spine J 2022;16:776–88.

4. Suk SI, Chung ER, Lee SM, Lee JH, Kim SS, Kim JH. Posterior vertebral column resection in fixed lumbosacral deformity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005;30:E703–10.

5. Smith JS, Sansur CA, Donaldson WF 3rd, et al. Short-term morbidity and mortality associated with correction of thoracolumbar fixed sagittal plane deformity: a report from the Scoliosis Research Society Morbidity and Mortality Committee. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2011;36:958–64.

6. Smith JS, Wang VY, Ames CP. Vertebral column resection for rigid spinal deformity. Neurosurgery 2008;63(3 Suppl): 177–82.

7. Schwab F, Blondel B, Chay E, et al. The comprehensive anatomical spinal osteotomy classification. Neurosurgery 2014;74:112–20.

8. Passias PG, Krol O, Passfall L, et al. Three-column osteotomy in adult spinal deformity: an analysis of temporal trends in usage and outcomes. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2022;104:1895–904.

9. Yadla S, Maltenfort MG, Ratliff JK, Harrop JS. Adult scoliosis surgery outcomes: a systematic review. Neurosurg Focus 2010;28:E3.

10. O’neill KR, Lenke LG, Bridwell KH, et al. Clinical and radiographic outcomes after 3-column osteotomies with 5-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2014;39:424–32.

11. Pratali RR, Martins SM, Santos FP, Barsotti CE, Oliveira CE. The use of three-column osteotomy in the treatment of rigid deformities of the adult spine. Rev Bras Ortop 2018;53:213–20.

12. Passias PG, Moattari K, Pierce KE, et al. Performance of the modified adult spinal deformity frailty index in preoperative risk assessment. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2022;47:1463–9.

13. Yoshida G, Hasegawa T, Yamato Y, et al. Minimum clinically important differences in Oswestry Disability Index domains and their impact on adult spinal deformity surgery. Asian Spine J 2019;13:35–44.

14. Rillardon L, Levassor N, Guigui P, et al. Validation of a tool to measure pelvic and spinal parameters of sagittal balance. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 2003;89:218–27.

15. Champain S, Benchikh K, Nogier A, Mazel C, Guise JD, Skalli W. Validation of new clinical quantitative analysis software applicable in spine orthopaedic studies. Eur Spine J 2006;15:982–91.

16. O’Brien MF, Kuklo TR, Blanke KM, et al. Radiographic measurement manual [Internet] Memphis (TN): Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA Inc. 2008 [cited 2024 Jan 4]. Available from: https://www.srs.org/Files/Research/Manuals-and-Publications/sdsg-radiographic-measuremnt-manual.pdf

17. Lafage R, Schwab F, Glassman S, et al. Age-adjusted alignment goals have the potential to reduce PJK. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2017;42:1275–82.

18. Passias PG, Jalai CM, Diebo BG, et al. Full-body radiographic analysis of postoperative deviations from age-adjusted alignment goals in adult spinal deformity correction and related compensatory recruitment. Int J Spine Surg 2019;13:205–14.

19. Yilgor C, Sogunmez N, Boissiere L, et al. Global alignment and proportion (GAP) score: development and validation of a new method of analyzing spinopelvic alignment to predict mechanical complications after adult spinal deformity surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2017;99:1661–72.

20. Cho M, Lee S, Kim HJ. Assessing the predictive power of the GAP score on mechanical complications: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Spine J 2024;33:1311–9.

21. Hiltunen S, Repo JP, Pekkanen L, Kautiainen H, Kyrola K. Mechanical complications and reoperations after adult spinal deformity surgery: a clinical analysis with the GAP score. Eur Spine J 2023;32:1421–8.

22. Passias PG, Williamson TK, Mir JM, et al. Comparison of multilevel low-grade techniques versus three-column osteotomies in adult spinal deformity surgery: does harmonious correction matter? J Neurosurg Spine 2024;40:677–83.

23. Sansur CA, Smith JS, Coe JD, et al. Scoliosis research society morbidity and mortality of adult scoliosis surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2011;36:E593–7.

24. Charosky S, Guigui P, Blamoutier A, Roussouly P, Chopin D, Study Group on Scoliosis. Complications and risk factors of primary adult scoliosis surgery: a multicenter study of 306 patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2012;37:693–700.

25. Schwab FJ, Hawkinson N, Lafage V, et al. Risk factors for major peri-operative complications in adult spinal deformity surgery: a multi-center review of 953 consecutive patients. Eur Spine J 2012;21:2603–10.

26. Raad M, Puvanesarajah V, Harris A, et al. The learning curve for performing three-column osteotomies in adult spinal deformity patients: one surgeon’s experience with 197 cases. Spine J 2019;19:1926–33.

27. Kelly MP, Lenke LG, Shaffrey CI, et al. Evaluation of complications and neurological deficits with three-column spine reconstructions for complex spinal deformity: a retrospective Scoli-RISK-1 study. Neurosurg Focus 2014;36:E17.

28. Smith JS, Shaffrey CI, Klineberg E, et al. Complication rates associated with 3-column osteotomy in 82 adult spinal deformity patients: retrospective review of a prospectively collected multicenter consecutive series with 2-year follow-up. J Neurosurg Spine 2017;27:444–57.

29. Auerbach JD, Lenke LG, Bridwell KH, et al. Major complications and comparison between 3-column osteotomy techniques in 105 consecutive spinal deformity procedures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2012;37:1198–210.

30. Riley MS, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, Dalton J, Kelly MP. Health-related quality of life outcomes in complex adult spinal deformity surgery. J Neurosurg Spine 2018;28:194–200.

31. Dorward IG, Lenke LG. Osteotomies in the posterior-only treatment of complex adult spinal deformity: a comparative review. Neurosurg Focus 2010;28:E4.

32. Eichholz KM, Ryken TC. Complications of revision spinal surgery. Neurosurg Focus 2003;15:E1.

33. Smith JS, Shaffrey CI, Sansur CA, et al. Rates of infection after spine surgery based on 108,419 procedures: a report from the Scoliosis Research Society Morbidity and Mortality Committee. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2011;36:556–63.

34. Poorman GW, Zhou PL, Vasquez-Montes D, et al. Differences in primary and revision deformity surgeries: following 1,063 primary thoracolumbar adult spinal deformity fusions over time. J Spine Surg 2018;4:203–10.

35. Oshima Y, Lenke LG, Koester L, Takeshita K. Revision versus primary patients undergoing vertebral column resection for severe spinal deformities. Spine Deform 2014;2:350–7.

36. Noh SH, Ha Y, Park JY, et al. Modified global alignment and proportion scoring with body mass index and bone mineral density analysis in global alignment and proportion score of each 3 categories for predicting mechanical complications after adult spinal deformity surgery. Neurospine 2021;18:484–91.