P99. Are two-year reoperation rates different for circumferential minimally invasive surgery (cMIS) vs open ASD surgery? A propensity matched cohort study using a prospective ASD database

BACKGROUND CONTEXT As surgical techniques for deformity correction evolve towards minimizing tissue trauma, further clarity is warranted to define differences in complication profiles between cMIS and open surgeries. PURPOSE To compare cMIS and open surgery reoperation rates and identify contributing etiologies to reoperation in each cohort. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING Prospective multicenter observational series. PATIENT SAMPLE Database enrollment required age =18 years, adult spinal deformity and circumferential minimally invasive spine surgery. OUTCOME MEASURES Reoperation rate, patient reported outcomes (PROMS), spinopelvic parameters, mechanical failures (defined as rod breakage/dislocation, screw breakage/loosening, set screw loosening, proximal/distal junctional kyphosis, pseudoarthrosis) and other factors contributing to re-operation such as wound infection, medial breach, nerve impingement by screw, vertebral body fracture, sagittal/coronal imbalance, and wound infection. METHODS A total of 85 patients (pts) with cMIS for ASD with 2-year follow-up (2YFU) were identified and propensity matched to 85 patients in open cohort. Propensity matching was performed based on pre-operative PT, PI-LL, BMI, and SVA. Patient demographic variables, reoperation rate, and complications contributing to reoperation were compared with uni- and multi-variate analysis at any time in each cohort (33 open, 17 cMIS). PROMS at 2YFU were compared in the reoperated cohorts. RESULTS Total of 33 reoperation in the open cohort vs 17 in cMIS were identified. The reoperation rate was significantly higher in the open cohort at 39% (33/85) compared to 20% (17/85) in the cMIS cohort (P= 0.012). The reoperation rate in open cohort related to mechanical failure was 52% (17/33) compared to 35% (6/17) in cMIS cohort (P= 0.43). No significant difference was found in rates of specific etiologies contributing to complications in the cMIS vs open reoperation cohorts under uni- and multivariate analysis. The change in spinopelvic parameters among the two reoperation cohorts at 2YFU were statistically not significant (δCVA, δSVA, δPI-LL, δPT, δLL CA, δTL CA). Under univariate analysis, the following PROMS were similar: ODI, NRS Leg and Back Pain, EQ5D, EQ5D-VAS, SF-36 PCS,SF-36 MCS. However, SRS-22 in open cohort was significantly higher at 2YFU (3.55 ± 0.73 open vs. 3,10 ± 0.56 MIS, p = 0.029). CONCLUSIONS Findings in our ongoing study show that cMIS procedures were associated with a significantly lower reoperation rate compared to open surgical approaches. PROMS and the change in spinopelvic parameters were similar at 2YFU in both reoperated cohorts (except for SRS-22 favored open cohort). FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs. As surgical techniques for deformity correction evolve towards minimizing tissue trauma, further clarity is warranted to define differences in complication profiles between cMIS and open surgeries. To compare cMIS and open surgery reoperation rates and identify contributing etiologies to reoperation in each cohort. Prospective multicenter observational series. Database enrollment required age =18 years, adult spinal deformity and circumferential minimally invasive spine surgery. Reoperation rate, patient reported outcomes (PROMS), spinopelvic parameters, mechanical failures (defined as rod breakage/dislocation, screw breakage/loosening, set screw loosening, proximal/distal junctional kyphosis, pseudoarthrosis) and other factors contributing to re-operation such as wound infection, medial breach, nerve impingement by screw, vertebral body fracture, sagittal/coronal imbalance, and wound infection. A total of 85 patients (pts) with cMIS for ASD with 2-year follow-up (2YFU) were identified and propensity matched to 85 patients in open cohort. Propensity matching was performed based on pre-operative PT, PI-LL, BMI, and SVA. Patient demographic variables, reoperation rate, and complications contributing to reoperation were compared with uni- and multi-variate analysis at any time in each cohort (33 open, 17 cMIS). PROMS at 2YFU were compared in the reoperated cohorts. Total of 33 reoperation in the open cohort vs 17 in cMIS were identified. The reoperation rate was significantly higher in the open cohort at 39% (33/85) compared to 20% (17/85) in the cMIS cohort (P= 0.012). The reoperation rate in open cohort related to mechanical failure was 52% (17/33) compared to 35% (6/17) in cMIS cohort (P= 0.43). No significant difference was found in rates of specific etiologies contributing to complications in the cMIS vs open reoperation cohorts under uni- and multivariate analysis. The change in spinopelvic parameters among the two reoperation cohorts at 2YFU were statistically not significant (δCVA, δSVA, δPI-LL, δPT, δLL CA, δTL CA). Under univariate analysis, the following PROMS were similar: ODI, NRS Leg and Back Pain, EQ5D, EQ5D-VAS, SF-36 PCS,SF-36 MCS. However, SRS-22 in open cohort was significantly higher at 2YFU (3.55 ± 0.73 open vs. 3,10 ± 0.56 MIS, p = 0.029). Findings in our ongoing study show that cMIS procedures were associated with a significantly lower reoperation rate compared to open surgical approaches. PROMS and the change in spinopelvic parameters were similar at 2YFU in both reoperated cohorts (except for SRS-22 favored open cohort).