Lumbar Lordosis Redistribution and Segmental Correction in Adult Spinal Deformity: Does it Matter?

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the impact of correcting normative segmental lordosis values on postoperative outcomes. BACKGROUND: Restoring lumbar lordosis magnitude is crucial in adult spinal deformity surgery, but the optimal location and segmental distribution remain unclear. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were grouped based on offset to normative segmental lordosis values, extracted from recent publications. Matched patients were within 10% of the cohort's mean offset, less than or over 10% were undercorrected and overcorrected. Surgical technique, patient-reported outcome measures, and surgical complications were compared across groups at baseline and two years. RESULTS: In total, 510 patients with a mean age of 64.6, a mean Charlson comorbidity index 2.08, and a mean follow-up of 25 months. L4-5 was least likely to be matched (19.1%), while L4-S1 was the most likely (24.3%). More patients were overcorrected at proximal levels (T10-L2; undercorrected, U: 32.2% vs. matched, M: 21.7% vs. overcorrected, O: 46.1%) and undercorrected at distal levels (L4-S1: U: 39.0% vs. M: 24.3% vs. O: 36.8%). Postoperative Oswestry disability index was comparable across correction groups at all spinal levels except at L4-S1 and T10-L2/L4-S1, where overcorrected patients and matched were better than undercorrected (U: 32.1 vs. M: 25.4 vs. O: 26.5, P =0.005; U: 36.2 vs. M: 24.2 vs. O: 26.8, P =0.001; respectively). Patients overcorrected at T10-L2 experienced higher rates of proximal junctional failure (U: 16.0% vs. M: 15.6% vs. O: 32.8%, P <0.001) and had greater posterior inclination of the upper instrumented vertebrae (U: -9.2±9.4° vs. M: -9.6±9.1° vs. O: -12.2±10.0°, P <0.001), whereas undercorrection at these levels led to higher rates of revision for implant failure (U: 14.2% vs. M: 7.3% vs. O: 6.4%, P =0.025). CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing fusion for adult spinal deformity suffer higher rates of proximal junctional failure with overcorrection and increased rates of implant failure with undercorrection based on normative segmental lordosis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.

Safety of externally stimulated intracranial electrodes during functional MRI at 1.5T.

Surgical resection of the epileptogenic zone (EZ) is a potential cure for medically refractory focal epilepsy. Proper identification of the EZ is essential for such resection. Synergistic application of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) simultaneously with stimulation of a single externalized intracranial stereotactic EEG (SEEG) electrode has the potential to improve identification of the EZ. While most EEG-fMRI studies use the electrodes passively to record electrical activity, it is possible to stimulate the brain using the electrodes by connecting them with conducting cables to the stimulation hardware. In this study, we investigated the effect of MRI-induced heating on a single SEEG electrode and its sensitivity to geometry, configuration, and associated connections required for the stimulation. The temperature increase of a single electrode embedded within a gel phantom and connected to an external stimulation system was measured during 1.5T MRI scans using adjacent fluoroptic temperature sensors. A receive-only split-array head coil and a transmit-receive head coil were used for testing. Sequences included a standard localizer, T1-weighted axial fast low-angle shot (FLASH), gradient echo-planar imaging (GE-EPI) axial fMRI, and a high specific absorption rate T2-weighted turbo spin-echo (TSE) axial scan. Variations of the electrode location and connecting cable configuration were tested. No unacceptable heating was observed with the standard sequences used for evaluation of the EZ. Considerable heating (up to 14°C) was observed with the TSE sequence, which is not used clinically. The temperature increase was insignificant (<0.05°C) for electrode contacts closest to the isocenter and connecting cables lying along the isocenter, and varied with configurations of the connecting cable assembly. Simultaneous intracranial electrode stimulation during fMRI using an externalized stimulation system may be safe with strict adherence to settings tested prior to the fMRI. Localizer, FLASH, and GE-EPI fMRI may be safely performed in patients with a single SEEG electrode following the configurations tested in this study, but high SAR TSE scans should not be performed in these patients.