In the table 1, a series of variables about patient characteristics was showed. The good group had 66 patients with the recovery rates of JOA score greater than or equal to 50 %, while the poor group had 20 patients with the recovery rates of JOA score greater less than 50 %. Compared with the preoperative JOA score, there was a statistically significant improvement at last follow-up (p<0.05). However, a preoperative JOA score wasn’t correlate to surgical outcome (p=0.641). With the univariate analyses, poor group had a significantly difference in age (p<0.001), duration of symptoms(P=0.002), preoperative T1 slope angle (p=0.001), change of local angle (CLA) (pre- and last) (p<0.001), LKA at last follow-up (p=0.003) and worsening of postoperative local alignment (WPLA) (P=0.032). Furthermore, the table 2 showed that age (OR =1.09, 95% CI =1.03-1.21, P=0.017), duration of symptoms (OR =4.64, 95% CI =1.22-3.75, P=0.001), T1 slope (OR =1.02, 95% CI =1.07-1.93, P<0.001) and change of local kyphosis angle (OR =10.67, 95% CI =1.35-32.18, P=0.003) were the risk factors of poor outcome after surgery.
Table 1 Comparison of patient characteristics between good group and poor group
Variables
|
Good (n=66)
|
Poor (n=20)
|
P-value
|
Age at surgery (y)
|
57.1±8.8
|
63.4±9.2
|
<0.001
|
Female, n (%)
|
35 (53%)
|
11(55%)
|
0.877
|
BMI (kg m- 2)
|
23.5±3.6
|
24.6±4.1
|
0.309
|
Duration of symptoms (m)
|
11.6±7.5
|
16.3±11.8
|
0.002
|
T1 slope (°)
|
14.3±2.4
|
17.8±3.2
|
0.001
|
C2-7 SVA (mm)
|
17.6±10.2
|
19.1±9.4
|
0.266
|
Involved levels, n (%)
|
|
|
0.762
|
C2-5
|
13(19.7%)
|
4 (20%)
|
|
C3-6
|
31 (47%)
|
11(55%)
|
|
C4-7
|
22 (33.3%)
|
5(25%)
|
|
JOA score
|
|
|
|
Preoperative
|
8.1±2.2
|
7.5±2.6
|
0.641
|
Postoperative
|
12.1±3.7
|
10.9±3.3
|
0.131
|
Last follow-up*
|
14.3±2.9
|
10.1±1.5
|
<0.001
|
Recovery rate, %
|
64.7±18.3
|
34.9±10.5
|
<0.001
|
C2-7 ROM (°)
|
38.2±12.7
|
39.5±13.0
|
0.891
|
C2-7 Cobb (°)
|
|
|
|
Preoperative
|
-10.7±5.5
|
-11.3±6.2
|
0.219
|
Postoperative
|
7.1±4.4
|
6.9±5.0
|
0.774
|
Last follow-up
|
6.3±5.7
|
5.6±4.9
|
0.428
|
Change of C2-7 (pre- and last)
|
12.4±8.7
|
13.1±9.5
|
0.138
|
LKA (°)
|
|
|
|
Preoperative
|
-13.7±10.5
|
-11.3±9.2
|
0.736
|
Postoperative
|
5.1±7.2
|
4.8±6.3
|
0.552
|
Last follow-up
|
5.6±3.9
|
0.3±5.4
|
0.003
|
CLA (pre- and last)
|
12.1±7.7
|
8.7±6.5
|
<0.001
|
WPLA, n (%)
|
10(15.1%)
|
7(35%)
|
0.032
|
Implant subsidence >3mm, n (%)
|
6(9%)
|
2(10%)
|
0.817
|
Notes: * Significantly different from preoperative JOA score (p<0.05)
Abbreviations: BMI, body mass index; T1, Thoracic 1; SVA, sagittal vertical axis; JOA, Japanese Orthopaedic Association; ROM, range of motion; LKA: Local kyphosis angle; CLA, change of local angle; WPLA, worsening of postoperative local alignment
Table 2 Multiple logistic regression analysis forecasted risk factors for the postoperative outcome
Variables
|
OR
|
95% CI
|
P-value
|
Age at surgery (y)
|
1.09
|
(1.03-1.21)
|
0.017
|
T1 slope
|
1.02
|
(1.07-1.93)
|
<0.001
|
Duration of symptoms (m)
|
4.64
|
(1.22-3.75)
|
0.001
|
LKA at last follow-up
|
1.73
|
(0.88-2.69)
|
0.118
|
CLA
|
10.67
|
(1.35-32.18)
|
0.003
|
WPLA
|
3.94
|
(0.65-3.44)
|
0.122
|
Abbreviations: LKA: Local kyphosis angle; CLA, Change of local angle; WPLA, worsening of postoperative local alignment
The ROC curve illustrated the degree of correlation between predictive factors and postoperative poor outcome according to area under the curve (AUC). A larger AUC mean closer relationship between risk factors and poor outcome. The change of local kyphosis angle (AUC=0.829) between before surgery and last follow-up was a reliable predictor. The maximum of Youden index was defined as cutoff value which was the best compromise between sensitivity and specificity. Therefore, the cutoff values could forecast chances of developing poor outcome. The cutoff values of age, T1 slope, duration of symptoms and change of local kyphosis angle were 61.3 years, 16.7 angle, 9.5 months and 10.2 angle, respectively. (table 3 and figure 3)
Table 3 Sensitivity, Specificity, AUC and cutoff of risk factors for predicting poor outcome
Variables
|
SN
|
SP
|
AUC
|
Cutoff
|
P-value
|
Age at surgery (y)
|
0.876
|
0.634
|
0.748
|
61.3
|
0.001
|
T1 slope
|
0.617
|
0.812
|
0.763
|
16.7
|
<0.001
|
Duration of symptoms (m)
|
0.876
|
0.584
|
0.763
|
9.5
|
0.002
|
CLA
|
0.578
|
0.903
|
0.829
|
10.2
|
<0.001
|
Abbreviations: AUC, area under the curve; SN, sensitivity; SP, specificity; CLA, Change of local angle
In this study, 17 patients (19.8%) occurred the worsening of postoperative local alignment. Comparison of improving group and worsening group showed that T1 slope (p<0.001), preoperative C2-7 SVA (p<0.001), adjacent segment degeneration (p=0.01) and implant subsidence (p=0.024) were significantly related to change of postoperative curvature. (table 4) Moreover, C5 palsy happened in 1 case which was functional recovery within 3 months after surgery, cerebrospinal fluid leakage happened in 5 cases and temporary dysphagia happened in 7 cases in this study. None of had a sequela.
Table 4 Comparison of postoperative local alignment between postoperative and last follow-up
Variables
|
Improving(n=69)
|
Worsening (n=17)
|
P-value
|
Age, (years)
|
62.5±9.0
|
60.9±10.2
|
0.332a
|
T1 slope, (°)
|
18.7±5.3
|
11.3±4.2
|
<0.001b
|
Preoperative C2-7 SVA, (mm)
|
10.6±8.8
|
24.9±12.6
|
<0.001a
|
ASD, n (%)
|
7(10.1%)
|
6(35.3%)
|
0.01c
|
Implant subsidence >3mm, n (%)
|
4(5.8%)
|
4(23.5%)
|
0.024 c
|
Involved levels, n (%)
|
|
|
0.921 c
|
C2-5
|
14
|
3
|
|
C3-6
|
34
|
8
|
|
C4-7
|
21
|
6
|
|
Notes: a Mann–Whitney U-test; b Independent t-test; c Chi-square test
Abbreviations: ASD, Adjacent segment degeneration