Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 23, 2025
Surgical Approach and Complications of Stand-alone Lateral Trans-Psoas Interbody Fusion
Published on: February 14, 2025
Adult spinal deformity patients revised for pseudarthrosis have comparable two-year outcomes to those not undergoing
Sarthak Mohanty1, Fthimnir M Hassan2, Andrew Platt1
1Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The Daniel and Jane Och Spine Hospital New York Presbyterian, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, 5141 Broadway, New York, NY, 10034, USA.
Purpose:
This study aimed to evaluate whether adult spinal deformity patients undergoing revision for symptomatic pseudarthrosis have comparable two-year outcomes as patients who do not experience pseudarthrosis.
Methods:
Patients whose indexed procedure was revision for pseudarthrosis (pseudo) were compared with patients who underwent a primary procedure and did not have pseudarthrosis by 2Y post-op (non-pseudo). Patients were propensity-matched (PSM) based on baseline (BL) sagittal alignment, specifically C7SVA and CrSVA-Hip. Key outcomes were 2Y PROs (SRS and ODI) and reoperation. All patients had a minimum follow-up period of two years.
Results:
A total of 224 patients with min 2-year FU were included (pseudo = 42, non-pseudo = 182). Compared to non-pseudo, pseudo-patients were more often female (P = 0.0018) and had worse BL sagittal alignment, including T1PA (P = 0.02], C2-C7 SVA [P = 0.0002], and CrSVA-Hip [P = 0.004]. After 37 PSM pairs were generated, there was no significant difference in demographics, BL and 2Y alignment, or operative/procedural variables. PSM pairs did not report any significantly different PROs at BL. Consistently, at 2Y, there were no significant differences in PROs, including SRS function [3.9(0.2) vs 3.7(0.2), P = 0.44], pain [4.0 (0.2) vs. 3.57 (0.2), P = 0.12], and ODI [25.7 (5.2) vs 27.7 (3.7), P = 0.76]. There were no differences in 1Y (10.8% vs 10.8%, P > 0.99) and 2Y (13.2% vs 15.8%, P = 0.64) reoperation, PJK rate (2.6% vs 10.5%, P = 0.62), or implant failure (2.6% vs 10.5%, P = 0.37). Notably, only 2 patients (5.4%) had recurrent pseudarthrosis following revision. Kaplan-Meier curves indicated that patients undergoing intervention for pseudarthrosis had comparable overall reoperation-free survival (log-rank test, χ2 = 0.1975 and P = 0.66).
Conclusions:
Patients undergoing revision for pseudarthrosis have comparable PROs and clinical outcomes as patients who never experienced pseudarthrosis. Recurrence of symptomatic pseudarthrosis was infrequent.
