Skip to main content
Download PDF

Factors and predictive model associated with perioperative complications after long fusion in the treatment of adult non-degenerative scoliosis

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders volume 22, Article number: 483 (2021) Cite this article

Abstract

Introduction

Adult non-degenerative scoliosis accounts for 90% of spinal deformities in young adults. However, perioperative complications and related risk factors of long posterior instrumentation and fusion for the treatment of adult non-degenerative scoliosis have not been adequately studied.

Methods

We evaluated clinical and radiographical results from 146 patients with adult non-degenerative scoliosis who underwent long posterior instrumentation and fusion. Preoperative clinical data, intraoperative variables, and perioperative radiographic parameters were collected to analyze the risk factors for perioperative complications. Potential and independent risk factors for perioperative complications were evaluated by univariate analysis and logistic regression analysis.

Results

One hundred forty-six adult non-degenerative scoliosis patients were included in our study. There were 23 perioperative complications for 21 (14.4%) patients, eight of which were cardiopulmonary complications, two of which were infection, six of which were neurological complications, three of which were gastrointestinal complications, and four of which were incision-related complication. The independent risk factors for development of total perioperative complications included change in Cobb angle (odds ratio [OR] = 1.085, 95% CI = 1.035 ~ 1.137, P = 0.001) and spinal osteotomy (OR = 3.565, 95% CI = 1.039 ~ 12.236, P = 0.043). The independent risk factor for minor perioperative complications is change in Cobb angle (OR = 1.092, 95% CI = 1.023 ~ 1.165, P = 0.008). The independent risk factors for major perioperative complications are spinal osteotomy (OR = 4.475, 95% CI = 1.960 ~ 20.861, P = 0.036) and change in Cobb angle (OR = 1.106, 95% CI = 1.035 ~ 1.182, P = 0.003).

Conclusions

Our study indicate that change in Cobb angle and spinal osteotomy are independent risk factors for total perioperative complications after long-segment posterior instrumentation and fusion in adult non-degenerative scoliosis patients. Change in Cobb angle is an independent risk factor for minor perioperative complications. Change in Cobb angle and spinal osteotomy are independent risk factors for major perioperative complications.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Adult spinal deformities (ASD) can be classified into two subtypes: progression of childhood scoliosis (non-degenerative scoliosis) and degenerative scoliosis [1]. Because conservative treatment is often insufficient to effectively improve the diverse symptoms, surgical treatment is usually recommended. When a spinal surgery is advocated, determining the extent of the fusion is important. Long-segment instrumentation and fusion have been proven to be able to correct severe deformities and rotatory subluxations [2]. However, long fusions are also associated with excessive intraoperative blood loss, which contributes to the development of perioperative complications [3].

As life expectancy increases, adult degenerative scoliosis (ADS), or de novo scoliosis, is gaining more attention in the field. Patients with ADS suffer from pain, disability, and neurological symptoms [4]. The estimated incidence of postoperative complications has been reported to range from 16.4% to as high as 80% [5, 6]. Many risk factors for these complications have been reported, including massive intraoperative blood loss (> 2 to 4 L), age, the extent and approach of the surgery, and the presence of more than three comorbidities [7,8,9].

In contrast to ADS, adult non-degenerative scoliosis remains poorly studied. Non-degenerative factors are presumed to account for as high as 90% of the spinal deformities in young adults [10]. Although surgical correction of ASD is cost-effective and improves the quality-of-life and clinical outcomes for scoliosis patients when compared to the non-operative conservative treatment, it is not risk-free. In addition to being associated with worse clinical outcomes and further difficulties in treatment, perioperative complications can impose a substantial clinical and financial burden on state healthcare [11]. In this study, we aim to retrospectively evaluate the potential risk factors for perioperative complications stemming from the use of long-segment posterior-only instrumentation and fusion in the treatment of adult non-degenerative scoliosis.

Materials and methods

Patients

A single center-based, retrospective cohort study was performed on adult patients who had undergone long spinal fusions at the Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Peking Union Medical College Hospital. A total of 146 consecutive patients, who were diagnosed with adult non-degenerative scoliosis and who had undergone long-segment internal fixation and fusion by the conventional midline open posterior approach from January 2012 to July 2018, were selected and reviewed. The experimental protocol was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of Peking Union Medical College Hospital (agreement number: JS-908). Our study was performed in accordance with experimental protocol and the Declaration of Helsinki, and informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Inclusion criteria for this study were operatively treated adult spinal deformity patients with the following conditions: (1) age > 18 years by the time of the surgery, (2) major Cobb angle ≥40°, (3) posterior long-segment internal fixation and fusion (≥ 4 vertebrae), (4) follow-up ≥1 year, (5) complete preoperative and postoperative radiographic data and clinical evaluations, (6) complete medical history, and (7) the patient was diagnosed with idiopathic scoliosis. Exclusion criteria were (1) degenerative or de novo scoliosis (degenerative change without preexisting scoliosis typically manifested in the lumbar spine) and other kinds of secondary spinal deformities (e.g., ankylosing spondylitis, spinal tumor, iatrogenic spinal deformity, and posttraumatic spinal deformity); (2) previous history of lumbar surgery; and (3) anterior instrumentation or non-fusion surgery.

Medical history and operative data

Baseline characteristics, including age, sex, body mass index (BMI), presenting symptoms, any history of smoking, medication use, previous surgeries, comorbidities, preoperative hemoglobin (Hgb) level, and the length of hospital stay (LOS) were collected. American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grades were evaluated by anesthetists. Fusion levels, distal instrumented and fusion levels, estimated blood loss (EBL), duration of the operation, and the volume of blood transfusions were charted. Perioperative complications were defined as any event for which the patient required a specific intervention or treatment. All complications that occurred before discharge were recorded and analyzed [12].

Perioperative complications were categorized as minor and major complications as previously defined [13]. Major complications were defined as the complications that were life-threatening or may adversely affect the outcome of the treatment. Minor complications were defined as medical events noted in the medical records but did not compromise outcome.

Radiographic measurements

For all patients, both anterior-posterior and lateral whole-spine X-rays were included to measure parameters. The following parameters, including sagittal vertical axis (SVA), thoracic kyphosis (TK), pelvic tilt (PT), sacral slope (SS), lumbar lordosis (LL), pelvic incidence (PI), and pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis (PI-LL), were recorded to assess the degree of spinal deformities in the coronal and sagittal plane. These data were measured on both the preoperative and the immediate postoperative radiographs. All measurements were performed independently by two spinal surgeons to decrease subjective bias.

Statistical analysis

Data analysis was performed with SPSS version 25.0 (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Continuous variables are reported as mean ± standard deviations (SD). Categorical variables are presented as a number or ratio. In the univariate testing, continuous variables were examined by the Student t-test. Categorical variables were tested by the Pearson chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test, depending on which was appropriate. Predictors with a P value < 0.2 on univariate analysis were included in the multivariate analysis.

The selection of variables in the final model was not only driven by statistical power but also by clinical judgement, collinearity, and previously reported risk factors. These variables were analyzed using a binary logistic regression model. Variables that differed significantly between those groups were then entered into a multivariate logistic regression analysis to identify independent risk factors. We generated a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve using predicted probability values from the logistic regression. Data were analyzed using SPSS software 20.0 (Chicago, Illinois, USA).

Result

Baseline characteristics and surgical characteristics

A total of 146 patients were included in our study. The preoperative assessment showed that 33.5% of the patients in our cohort had mild or severe systemic disease (ASA 2–3). The lowest instrumented vertebra of most cases was at L4 or upper (121 patients, 82.8%). Instrumented vertebral levels, ranging from 4 to 16, could be divided into two groups: 4 to 10 (43 patients, 29.4%) and 11 to 16 (103 patients, 66.5%). Fusion levels, ranging from 4 to 15, could be divided into two groups: 4 to 10 (60 patients, 41.1%) and 11 to 15 (86 patients, 58.9%). Decompression and osteotomy were performed in 2.1% (3 of 146) and 19.2% (28 of 146) of our patients, respectively. The radiographic parameters were based on anterior-posterior and lateral whole-spine X-rays. Prior to surgery, the average Cobb angle, SVA, TK, PT, SS, LL, PI, and PI -LL were as follows: 59.1 ± 19.7°, 23.2 ± 17.0 mm, 29.7 ± 15.7°, 9.6 ± 7.9°, 30.9 ± 12.7°, 46.4 ± 16.4°, 39.8 ± 16.1°, 12.9 ± 14.3°; the respective postoperative data were the following: 23.8 ± 17.2°, 19.4 ± 16.1 mm, 30.7 ± 11.3°, 10.3 ± 7.7°, 28.3 ± 12.5°, 43.8 ± 12.4°, 37.8 ± 16.9°, 8.1 ± 8.4°. A summary of baseline characteristics and surgical characteristics is shown in Tables 1 and 2.

Table 1 Demographics and baseline characteristics of included patients
Full size table
Table 2 Operative characteristics of included patients
Full size table

Perioperative complications

Of 146 patients, there were 21 (14.4%) patients who suffered from complications during the perioperative periods, including eight (34.8%) cardiopulmonary complications, two (8.7%) infection complications, six (26.1%) neurological complications, three (13.0%) gastrointestinal complications, and four (17.4%) incision-related complications. Eighteen patients (12.3%) suffered one complication. Two complications were recorded in each of 2 patients (1.4%) (Table 3).

Table 3 Distribution of perioperative complications
Full size table

Different strategies were employed to deal with perioperative complications (Table 4). Closed thoracic drainage proved beneficial for patients with pleural effusion and atelectasis. To treat congestive heart failure, the patient’s fluid status was closely monitored, and drugs were given to promote diuresis. Urinary infection was treated with urine culture and anti-infection drug. Acute neurological problems could be rapidly corrected by dehydration and steroid treatment, while chronic neurological symptoms required patience and a nerve-nurturing treatment. Generally, all symptoms tended to improve in the follow-up period.

Table 4 Category, management and treatment outcomes of perioperative complications
Full size table

Univariate analysis

Patients were divided into two groups based on whether they had any perioperative complications: without perioperative complication group (125) and with perioperative complications group (21). The results of univariate analysis investigating the relationships between baseline/surgical characteristics and perioperative complications are shown in Tables 1 and 2. Factors that were found to carry a statistically significant weight in risk prediction were ASA classification (P = 0.048), LOS (P = 0.017), EBL (P = 0.061), levels of fusion (P = 0.026), spinal osteotomy (P = 0.038), preoperative Cobb angle (P = 0.004), change in Cobb angle (P = 0.022) and postoperative LL (P = 0.050). Predictors with P values < 0.2 were also considered eligible to be factored into risk calculations.

Multivariate analysis

Factors whose P value < 0.2 in the univariate analysis were selected for multivariate analysis. The independent risk factors for development of total perioperative complications included change in Cobb angle (OR = 1.085, 95% CI = 1.035 ~ 1.137, P = 0.001) and spinal osteotomy (OR = 3.565, 95% CI = 1.039 ~ 12.236, P = 0.043). The area under the ROC curve based on predicted probability of the logistic regression was 0.842 (95% CI = 0.734 ~ 0.949) (Fig. 1a). The independent risk factor for minor perioperative complications is change in Cobb angle (OR = 1.092, 95% CI = 1.023 ~ 1.165, P = 0.008). The area under the ROC curve based on predicted probability of the logistic regression was 0.818 (95% CI = 0.678 ~ 0.959) (Fig. 1b). The independent risk factors for major perioperative complications are spinal osteotomy (OR = 4.475, 95% CI = 1.960 ~ 20.861, P = 0.036) and change in Cobb angle (OR = 1.106, 95% CI = 1.035 ~ 1.182, P = 0.003). The area under the ROC curve based on predicted probability of the logistic regression was 0.856 (95% CI = 0.742 ~ 0.989) (Fig. 1c). A summary of multivariate analysis results is shown in Table 5.

Fig. 1
figure 1

The ROC curve using predicted probability values from the logistic regression. a ROC curve of risk factors predicting total perioperative complications, b ROC curve of risk factors predicting minor perioperative complications, c ROC curve of risk factors predicting major perioperative complications

Full size image
Table 5 Multivariate analysis of risk factors of perioperative complications
Full size table

Discussion

Non-degenerative factors are presumed to account for as high as 90% of spinal deformities in young adults [10]. ASD patients often undergo long-segment thoracolumbar arthrodesis that extends to the lower lumbar spine or the sacral region, and this procedure is associated with more perioperative complications [6]. The treatment for adult non-degenerative scoliosis aims not only to prevent further progression but also seeks to improve the existing manifestations [14]. In this study, we collected a cohort of data on the perioperative complications after surgical treatment of adult non-degenerative scoliosis. The results of multivariate analysis reveal that the change in Cobb angle and spinal osteotomy are independent risk factors for the development of perioperative complications, the change in Cobb angle is an independent risk factor for the development of minor perioperative complications, the change in Cobb angle and spinal osteotomy are independent risk factor for the development of major perioperative complications.

Surgical treatment is recommended when conservative treatment proves unsatisfactory, and decompression surgery is essential for alleviating symptoms. Most surgeons recommend fusion and instrumentation techniques for decompression [15]. Thus, choosing the proper extent of the fusion is key to a successful surgery. Long fusion and instrumentation proved successful in correcting scoliotic curvature and coronal imbalance. For patients with a large Cobb angle and rotatory subluxation, long fusion should be carried out to minimize adjacent segment disease [6]. All the patients selected for our study had long fusions, and their levels of distal fusions were different. Stopping a fusion at L5 can lead to subsequent degeneration at L5-S1. If the fusion extends to the sacrum, the procedure would be more complex, and there is a higher likelihood of pseudarthrosis at the lumbosacral junction. However, studies have found that long fusions terminating at L5 or the sacrum was similar in overall complication rate and improvement in pain and disability [16, 17]. In our study, we found no association between the incidence of perioperative complications and the level at which the fusion stopped (P = 0.952). There is a new instrument method, the S2AI iliac screw, which is designed to fix drawbacks such as screw site prominence and wound complication, that can successfully avoid the complications associated with conventional iliac screws [18]. However, this presumed reduction in perioperative complications in the S2AI group was not detected by our study, which might be due to our limited sample size.

Focused on adult non-degenerative scoliosis patients who underwent long fusion surgeries, we collected and analyzed all the parameters deemed relevant according to our clinical expertise and previous research, which involved collecting the patients’ medical history, radiographic data, and clinical evaluations. Owing to the fact that most of our patients were relatively young, there was relatively little data on history of lumbar operation, previous medication use, or whether there were any age-associated comorbidities such as diabetes and osteoporosis, some of which could be potential risk factors for ADS. Several studies have reported a direct correlation between parameters such as the ASA grade, Cobb angle, total operation time, PT, level of fusion, LOS, staging, multiple surgeries and the incidence of perioperative complications in ADS [9, 19,20,21,22]. However, further research is needed to identify the risk factors for perioperative complications in adult non-degenerative scoliosis.

In this study, change of main Cobb angle were significantly associated with the risk of minor and major perioperative complications. We included changes of all parameters in our analysis, which have rarely been reported in previous studies. Previous studies have shown that preoperative magnitude of the spinal curvature and coronal imbalance was associated with the likelihood of complications. Some author reported that an increased Cobb angle is associated with impaired pulmonary function due to airway blockage [23]. A higher risk of postoperative non-neurological complications, pulmonary compromise in particular, could be caused by a larger Cobb angle in adults and juvenile scoliosis patients [24]. An increased Cobb angle causes abnormal chest and lung development and results in less reserved space for ventilation.

Osteotomy is an effective procedure to correct spinal deformity, but it is often accompanied by some complications. In the Sciubba’s study, they found that the most common complication after three-column osteotomies was neurological deficits [25]. In the Buchowski’s study, they reported that the incidence of neurological complications was 11.1% after lumbar pedicle subtraction osteotomies (PSO) [26]. In our study, osteotomy procedure was significantly associated with the risk of total perioperative complications (P = 0.043, OR = 3.565, 95% CI = 1.039, 12.236) and major perioperative complications (P = 0.036, OR = 4.475, 95% CI = 1.960, 20.861). We consider that osteotomy procedure is usually associated with large surgical injury, which not only causes a high incidence of nerve injury, but also leads to abnormal homeostasis and stress states in patients. The combined effect of these factors may lead to the occurrence of complications.

There are some limitations to our study. First, the most significant being its retrospective nature. Second, in this study, all of the data was obtained from single medical center, and results were not validated by other centers. Third, due to the relatively young age of many of our patients, the effect of comorbidities that are more prevalent in elderly populations could not be adequately investigated.

In summary, we observed a 21 of 146 patients experienced complications during the perioperative periods. The change in Cobb angle and spinal osteotomy may contribute to the development of perioperative complications. The identification of these risk factors has potential to help stratify preoperative risks and reduce the incidence of complications.

Availability of data and materials

All of the patient’s medical record and images are kept in Peking Union Medical College Hospital. For the review, please refer to the method section.

Abbreviations

OR:

odds ratio

RBC:

red blood cell

ROC:

receiver operating characteristic

ASD:

adult spinal deformities

ADS:

adult degenerative scoliosis

BMI:

body mass index

Hgb:

hemoglobin

ASA:

American Society of Anesthesiologists

SVA:

sagittal vertical axis

TK:

thoracic kyphosis

PT:

pelvic tilt

SS:

sacral slope

LL:

lumbar lordosis

PI:

pelvic incidence

PI-LL:

pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis

LOS:

length of hospital stays

AIS:

adolescent idiopathic scoliosis

References

  1. Diebo B, Shah N, Boachie-Adjei O, Zhu F, Rothenfluh D, Paulino C, et al. Adult spinal deformity. Lancet. 2019;394(10193):160–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31125-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Berjano P, Lamartina C. Classification of degenerative segment disease in adults with deformity of the lumbar or thoracolumbar spine. Eur Spine J. 2014;23(9):1815–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-014-3219-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Youssef J, Orndorff D, Patty C, Scott M, Price H, Hamlin L, et al. Current status of adult spinal deformity. Global Spine J. 2012;03(01):051–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Cho KJ, Kim YT, Shin SH, Suk SI. Surgical treatment of adult degenerative scoliosis. Asian Spine J. 2014;8(3):371–81. https://doi.org/10.4184/asj.2014.8.3.371.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Bess S, Boachie-Adjei O, Burton D, Cunningham M, Shaffrey C, Shelokov A, et al. Pain and disability determine treatment modality for older patients with adult scoliosis, while deformity guides treatment for younger patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009;34(20):2186–90. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181b05146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Cho KJ, Suk SI, Park SR, Kim JH, Kim SS, Lee TJ, et al. Short fusion versus long fusion for degenerative lumbar scoliosis. Eur Spine J. 2008;17(5):650–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-008-0615-z.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Auerbach JD, Lenke LG, Bridwell KH, Sehn JK, Milby AH, Bumpass D, et al. Major complications and comparison between 3-column osteotomy techniques in 105 consecutive spinal deformity procedures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37(14):1198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bianco KNR, Schwab F, Smith JS, Klineberg E, Obeid I, Mundis G Jr, et al. Complications and intercenter variability of three-column osteotomies for spinal deformity surgery: a retrospective review of 423 patients. Neurosurg Focus. 2014;36(5):E18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Schwab FJ, Hawkinson N, Lafage V. 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(12):2603–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2370-4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Carter OD, Haynes SG. Prevalence rates for scoliosis in US adults: results from the first National Health and nutrition examination survey. Int J Epidemiol. 1987;16(4):537–44. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/16.4.537.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Yeramaneni S, Robinson C, Hostin R. Impact of spine surgery complications on costs associated with management of adult spinal deformity. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2016;9(3):327–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-016-9352-9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Carreon L, Puno R, Dimar J, Glassman S, Johnson J. Perioperative complications of posterior lumbar decompression and arthrodesis in older adults. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85(11):2089–92. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-200311000-00004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Carreon LY, Puno RM, Dimar JR 2nd, Glassman SD, Johnson JR. Perioperative complications of posterior lumbar decompression and arthrodesis in older adults. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85(11):2089–92. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-200311000-00004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Trobisch P, Suess O, Schwab F. Idiopathic scoliosis. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2010;107(49):875–83.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Daffner SD, Vaccaro AR. Adult degenerative lumbar scoliosis. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2003;32(2):77–82.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Daniels AH, Koller H, Hiratzka SL, Mayer M, Meier O, Contag AG, et al. Selecting caudal fusion levels: 2year functional and stiffness outcomes with matched pairs analysis in multilevel fusion to L5 versus S1. Eur Spine J. 2017;26(6):1645–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4790-z.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Jia F, Wang G, Liu X, Li T, Sun J. Comparison of long fusion terminating at L5 versus the sacrum in treating adult spinal deformity: a meta-analysis. Eur Spine J. 2020;29(1):24–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-019-06187-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hasan MY, Liu G, Wong HK, Tan JH. Postoperative complications of S2AI versus iliac screw in spinopelvic fixation: a meta-analysis and recent trends review. Spine J. 2020;20(6):964–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2019.11.014.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Charosky S, Guigui P, Blamoutier A, Roussouly P, Chopin D. Complications and risk factors of primary adult scoliosis surgery: a multicenter study of 306 patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37(8):693–700. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31822ff5c1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Master DL, Son-Hing JP, Poe-Kochert C, Armstrong DG, Thompson GH. Risk factors for major complications after surgery for neuromuscular scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011;36(7):564–71. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181e193e9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Wang H, Zhang Z, Qiu G, Zhang J, Shen J. Risk factors of perioperative complications for posterior spinal fusion in degenerative scoliosis patients: a retrospective study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2018;19(1):242. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-018-2148-x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Zhang X, Sun X, Meng X, Hai Y. Risk factors for medical complications after long-level internal fixation in the treatment of adult degenerative scoliosis. Int Orthop. 2018;42(11):2603–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-018-3927-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Xue X, Shen J, Zhang J, Zhao H, Li S, Wang Y, et al. An analysis of thoracic cage deformities and pulmonary function tests in congenital scoliosis. Eur Spine J. 2015;24(7):1415–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-014-3327-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Wang Y, Hai Y, Liu Y, Guan L, Liu T. Risk factors for postoperative pulmonary complications in the treatment of non-degenerative scoliosis by posterior instrumentation and fusion. Eur Spine J. 2019;28(6):1356–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-019-05968-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Sciubba DM, Yurter A, Smith JS, Kelly MP, Scheer JK, Goodwin CR, et al. A comprehensive review of complication rates after surgery for adult deformity: a reference for informed consent. Spine Deform. 2015;3(6):575–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspd.2015.04.005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Buchowski JM, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, Kuhns CA, Lehman RA Jr, Kim YJ, et al. Neurologic complications of lumbar pedicle subtraction osteotomy: a 10-year assessment. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32(20):2245–52. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31814b2d52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the patients, their families and clinical surgeons for providing samples and clinical histories.

Guideline statement

All experiments were performed in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (No. 2017YFC1104902 to J.Z. and No. 2018YFC0910500 to Z.W. and N.W.); the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 81672123, 81972037 to J.Z.; No. 81822030 to N.W. and No. 81772299 to Z.W.); Beijing Natural Science Foundation (No. 7172175 to N.W. and No. L192015 to J.Z.); the Central Level Public Interest Program for Scientific Research Institute (No. 2018RC31003 to N.W.), and the CAMS Initiative Fund for Medical Sciences (No. 2016-I2M-3-003 to N.W.).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Nan Wu, Jiashen Shao and Zhen Zhang contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College and Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, 100730, China

    Nan Wu, Jiashen Shao, Zhen Zhang, Shengru Wang, Ziquan Li, Sen Zhao, Yang Yang, Lian Liu, Chenxi Yu, Sen Liu, Zhengye Zhao, You Du, Yuanqiang Zhang, Lianlei Wang, Yu Zhao, Keyi Yu, Hong Zhao, Jianxiong Shen, Guixing Qiu, Zhihong Wu & Terry Jianguo Zhang

  2. Key Laboratory of Big Data for Spinal Deformities, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, 100730, China

    Nan Wu, Shengru Wang, Sen Zhao, Yang Yang, Guixing Qiu & Terry Jianguo Zhang

  3. Beijing Key Laboratory for Genetic Research of Skeletal Deformity, Beijing, 100730, China

    Nan Wu, Sen Zhao, Guixing Qiu, Zhihong Wu & Terry Jianguo Zhang

  4. Graduate School of Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100005, China

    Jiashen Shao, Zhen Zhang, Lian Liu, Chenxi Yu, Zhengye Zhao, You Du, Yuanqiang Zhang & Lianlei Wang

  5. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, Jinan, 250012, China

    Yuanqiang Zhang & Lianlei Wang

  6. Medical Research Center, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College and Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China

    Zhihong Wu

Authors
  1. Nan Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jiashen Shao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Zhen Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Shengru Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ziquan Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Sen Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Yang Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Lian Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Chenxi Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Sen Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Zhengye Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. You Du
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Yuanqiang Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Lianlei Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Yu Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Keyi Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Hong Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  18. Jianxiong Shen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  19. Guixing Qiu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  20. Zhihong Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  21. Terry Jianguo Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Consortia

Deciphering Disorders Involving Scoliosis and COmorbidities (DISCO) study

  • Guixing Qiu
  • , Nan Wu
  • , Shengru Wang
  • , Jiaqi Liu
  • , Sen Liu
  • , Yuzhi Zuo
  • , Gang Liu
  • , Chenxi Yu
  • , Lian Liu
  • , Jiashen Shao
  • , Sen Zhao
  • , Zihui Yan
  • , Hengqiang Zhao
  • , Yuchen Niu
  • , Xiaoxin Li
  • , Huizi Wang
  • , Congcong Ma
  • , Zefu Chen
  • , Bowen Liu
  • , Xi Cheng
  • , Jiachen Lin
  • , Huakang Du
  • , Yaqi Li
  • , Shuang Song
  • , Weijie Tian
  • , Zhixin Xie
  • , Zhengye Zhao
  • , Lina Zhao
  • , Zhi Zhao
  • , Zhifa Zheng
  •  & Yingzhao Huang

Contributions

Nan Wu, Jiashen Shao and Zhen Zhang made substantial contributions to the conception and design of the work. Shengru Wang, Ziquan Li, Sen Zhao, Yuanqiang Zhang and Lianlei Wang made contributions to the acquisition and analysis of data. Nan Wu, Jiashen Shao and Zhen Zhang drafted the manuscript. Yang Yang, Lian Liu, Chenxi Yu, Sen Liu, Zhengye Zhao and You Du helped with data management and statistical analysis. Yu Zhao, Keyi Yu, Hong Zhao, Jianxiong Shen, Guixing Qiu and Zhihong Wu helped to revised manuscript critically for important intellectual content. Terry Jianguo Zhang helped to revised manuscript and offered professional discussions and instructions. All authors approved the final version to be published.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Nan Wu or Terry Jianguo Zhang.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was approved by the Ethical Review Board of the Peking Union Medical College Hospital (agreement number: JS-908). Written informed consent was provided by each participant.

Consent for publication

Written informed consent for publication of clinical details and/or clinical images was obtained from the all of the participants.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wu, N., Shao, J., Zhang, Z. et al. Factors and predictive model associated with perioperative complications after long fusion in the treatment of adult non-degenerative scoliosis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 22, 483 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-021-04361-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-021-04361-y

Keywords

  • Adult non-degenerative scoliosis
  • Perioperative complications
  • Risk factors
  • Long-segment posterior instrumentation and fusion

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

ISSN: 1471-2474

Contact us