Adult spine deformity

  • Christopher R. Good
  • Joshua D. Auerbach
  • Patrick T. O’Leary
  • Thomas C. Schuler
Spine (Matthew E. Cunningham, Section Editor)


Adult spinal deformity may occur as the result of a number of conditions and patients may present with a heterogeneous group of symptoms. Multiple etiologies may cause spinal deformity; however, symptoms are associated with progressive and asymmetric degeneration of the spinal elements potentially leading to neural element compression. Symptoms and clinical presentation vary and may be related to progressive deformity, axial back pain, and/or neurologic symptoms. Spinal deformity is becoming more common as adults 55–64 years of age are the fastest growing proportion of the U.S. population. As the percentage of elderly in the United States accelerates, more patients are expected to present with painful spinal conditions, potentially requiring spinal surgery. The decision between operative and nonoperative treatment for adult spinal deformity is based on the severity and type of the patient’s symptoms as well as the magnitude and risk of potential interventions.


Spine deformity Adult Scoliosis Kyphosis Spine surgery Sagittal imbalance Osteotomy Posterior-only surgery Spine reconstruction 


Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Everett CR, Patel RK. A systematic review of nonsurgical treatment in adult scoliosis. Spine. 2007;32(19 Suppl):S130–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Glassman SD, Berven S, Kostuik J, et al. Nonsurgical resource utilization in adult spinal deformity. Spine. 2006;31:941–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Glassman SD, Schwab FJ, Bridwell KH, et al. The selection of operative versus nonoperative treatment in patients with adult scoliosis. Spine. 2007;32:93–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    •• Bridwell KH, Glassman S, Horton W, et al. Does treatment (nonoperative and operative) improve the two-year quality of life in patients with adult symptomatic lumbar scoliosis: a prospective multicenter evidence-based medicine study. Spine. 2009;34(20): 2171–78. Prospective multicenter evidenced based medicine study following 160 consecutive patients for a period of two years after enrollment. Quality of life measures including Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Scoliosis Research Society (SRS) and numerical back and leg pain scores were followed. The nonoperative patients did not improve during this time period and a non-significant decline in quality of life scores was common. Significant improvement in quality of life measures were noted in the operative group. The authors reported that it appeared that common nonoperative treatment did not change quality of life measures with adult symptomatic lumbar scoliosis at two year follow-up.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baron EM, Berven SH, Bridwell KH, et al. Adult spinal deformity focus issue: summary statement. Spine. 2006;31(19):S202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    • Ylada S, Maltenfort MG, Ratliff JK, et al. Adult scoliosis surgery outcomes: a systematic review. Neurosurg Focus. 2010;28(3): E3. A systematic review of 49 articles on 3,299 patients undergoing adult spinal deformity surgery. Average curve correction with surgery was 26.6° (40.7% improvement) and mean total pre-op ODI was 41.2 with average postoperative reduction to 15.7 and mean pre-operative SRS-30 equivalent score was 97.1 with mean postoperative decrease of 23.1. There was 897 complications for 2175 patients (41.2%)and 319 pseudoarthroses (12.9%). Despite the lack of randomized prospective date, this review did conclude that surgery for adult scoliosis was associated with improvement in clinical outcomes and radiographic parameters at the at least two years follow-up. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Deyo RA, Cherkin DC, Loeser, et al. Morbidity and mortality in association with operations on the lumbar spine: the influence of age diagnosis and procedure. J Bone Surg Am. 1992;74:536–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Carreon LY, Puno RM, Dimar JR, et al. Perioperative complications of posterior lumbar decompression and arthrodesis in older patients. J Bone Surg Am. 2003;85:2089–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dobbs MD, Lenke LG, Cheh G, et al. Adult spinal deformity surgery: complications and outcomes in patients over age 60. Spine. 2007;32(20):2238–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Benz RJ, Ibrahim ZK, Afshar P, et al. Predicting complications in elderly patients undergoing lumbar decompression. Clin Orthop. 2001;384:116–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    • Smith JS, Shaffrey CI, Glassman SD, et al. Risk-benefit analysis assessment of surgery for adult scoliosis: an analysis based on patient age. Spine. 2011;36(10): 817–24. A retrospective review of a multicenter database identifying incidence of complications and outcome measurements of 206 adult patients undergoing spinal deformity reconstruction surgery. Increasing complication rates were noted with increasing age. When all age groups were examined together, significant improvement in outcomes were noted including ODI, SRS-22, back pain, and leg pain at 2 year follow-up. Improvement in ODI and leg pain were significantly greater amongst elderly patients with greater improvement in SS12 and SRS-22 when compared to younger patients. This study demonstrates the potential benefit for surgical treatment for adult scoliosis and suggests that despite having greater risk for complications, the elderly may obtain greater improvement of disability and pain with surgical reconstruction.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Urban MK, Beckman J, Gordon M, et al. The efficacy of antifibrinolytics in reduction of blood loss during complex adult reconstructive spine surgery. Spine. 2001;26:1152–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Elwatidy S, Jamjoom Z, Elgamal E, et al. Efficacy and safety of prophylactic large doses of tranexamic acid in spine surgery. Spine. 2008;33(24):2577–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    •• Elgafy H, Bransford RJ, McGuire RJ, et al. Are there effective measures to decrease massive hemorrhage in major spine fusion surgery? Spine. 2010;35(95):S47-56. A Meta Analysis reviewing 90 studies with 17 meeting inclusion criteria. They found a high level of evidence to support the use antifibrinolytic medications to reduced blood loss and the need for transfusion during and after adult spine surgery. The use of CellSaver, Recumbent Factor VIIa, activated growth factor platelet gel, and normovolemic hemodilution were all evaluated as methods to prevent blood loss and were found to have very low evidence to support their efficacy. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cahill KS, Chi JH, Day A, et al. Prevalance, complications, and hospital charges associated with use of bone-morphogenetic protein in spinal fusion procedures. JAMA. 2009;302:58–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Carreon LY, Glassman SD, Djurasovic M, et al. RhBMP-2 versus iliac crest bone graft for lumbar spine fusion in patients over 60 years of age: a cost utility study. Spine. 2009;34(3):238–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Maeda T, Buchowski JM, Kim YJ, et al. Long adult spinal deformity fusion to the sacrum using rhBMP-2 versus autogenous iliac crest bone graft. Spine. 2009;34:2205–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dimar JR, Glassman SD, Burkus JK, et al. Clinical and radiographic analysis of an optimized rhBMP-2 formulation as an autograft replacement in posterolateral lumbr spine arthrodesis. JBJS. 2009;91:1377–86.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bradford DS, Tay BK, Hu SS. Adult scoliosis: surgical indications, operative management, complications, and outcomes. Spine. 1999;24:2617–29.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Byrd III JA, Scoles PV, Winter RB, et al. Adult idiopathic scoliosis treated by anterior and posterior spinal fusion. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1987;69:843–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dick J, Boachie-Adjei O, Wilson M. One-stage versus two-stage anterior and posterior spinal reconstruction in adults. Comparison of outcomes including nutritional status, complication rates, hospital costs, and other factors. Spine. 1992;17:S310–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Horton WC, Bridwell KH, Glassman SD, et al. The morbidity of anterior exposure for spinal deformity in adults: an analysis of patient-based outcomes and complications in 112 consecutive cases. Paper 32, Presented at the Scoliosis Research Society 40th Annual Meeting, Miami, FL, October 2005.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lapp MA, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, et al. Long-term complications in adult spinal deformity patients having combined surgery a comparison of primary to revision patients. Spine. 2001;26:973–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Newton PO, Faro FD, Gollogly S, et al. Results of preoperative pulmonary function testing of adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis. A study of six hundred and thirty-one patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:1937–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Luhmann SJ, Lenke LG, Kim YJ, et al. Thoracic adolescent idiopathic scoliosis curves between 70° and 100°: is anterior release necessary? Spine. 2005;30:2061–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Dobbs MB, Lenke LG, Kim YJ, et al. Anterior/posterior spinal instrumentation versus posterior instrumentation alone for the treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliotic curves more than 90 degrees. Spine. 2006;31:2386–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Schwab F, Lafage V, Farcy JP, et al. Surgical rates and operative outcome analysis in thoracolumbar and lumbar major adult scoliosis: application of the new adult deformity classification. Spine. 2007;32:2723–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Watanabe K, Lenke LG, Bridwell KH, et al. Comparison of radiographic outcomes for the treatment of scoliotic curves greater than 100 degrees: wires versus hooks versus screws. Spine. 2008;33:1084–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lee SS, Lenke LG, Kuklo TR, et al. Comparison of Scheuermann kyphosis correction by posterior-only thoracic pedicle screw fixation versus combined anterior/posterior fusion. Spine. 2006;31:2316–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    • Good CR, Lenke LG, O’Leary PT, Pichelmann M, Keeler KA, Bridwell KH, Baldus C, Koester L. Can posterior only surgery replace combined anterior (thoracotomy/thoracoabdominal) /posterior approaches for adult scoliosis? Spine. 2010;35(2):210–8. In a matched cohort analysis comparing A/P surgery versus posterior surgery alone for primary adult scoliosis, Post-only fusion provided the same deformity correction with similar complications, radiographic and clinical outcomes at over 2-year follow-up. OR time, EBL, and hospital LOS were significantly lower in the Post-only group. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    • O’Leary PT, Bridwell KH, Good CR, Lenke LG, Buchowski JM, Kim YJ, Flynn J. Risk factors and outcomes for catastrophic failures at the top of long pedicle screw constructs (FPSC): a matched cohort analysis performed at a single center. Spine. 2009;34(20):2134–39. A matched cohort analysis evaluation 13 patients who developed fractures at or above pedicle screw constructs found that factors that increased the risk of FPSC included obesity and older age. Osteopenia increased the risk as evidenced by BMD (based on 17 patients) and the older age of these patients. Neuro deficits were severe. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bridwell KH, Anderson PA, Boden SD, et al. Specialty update: what’s new in spine surgery. JBJS. 2010;92:2017–28.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher R. Good
    • 1
  • Joshua D. Auerbach
    • 2
  • Patrick T. O’Leary
    • 3
  • Thomas C. Schuler
    • 1
  1. 1.Virginia Spine InstituteRestonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Orthopaedics, Bronx-Lebanon Hospital CenterAlbert Einstein College of MedicineBronxUSA
  3. 3.Midwest Orthopaedic CenterPeoriaUSA

Personalised recommendations