OBJECTIVE Score on the proximal junctional kyphosis severity scale (PJKSS) has been validated to show good correlations with likelihood of revision surgery for proximal junctional failure (PJF) after surgical treatment of adult spinal deformity (ASD). However, if the patient has progressive neurological deterioration, revision surgery should be considered regardless of severity based on PJKSS score. This study aimed to revalidate the correlation of PJKSS score with likelihood of revision surgery in patients with PJF but without neurological deficit. In addition, the authors provide the cutoff score on PJKSS that indicates need for revision surgery. METHODS A retrospective study was performed. Among 360 patients who underwent fusion of more than 4 segments including the sacrum, 83 patients who developed PJF without acute neurological deficit were included. Thirty patients underwent revision surgery (R group) and 53 patients did not undergo revision surgery (NR group). All components of PJKSS and variables other than those included in PJKSS were compared between groups. The cutoff score on PJKSS that indicated need for revision surgery was calculated with receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. Multivariate analysis with logistic regression was performed to identify which variables were most predictive of revision surgery. RESULTS The mean patient age at the time of index surgery was 69.4 years, and the mean fusion length was 6.1 segments. All components of PJKSS, such as focal pain, instrumentation problem, change in kyphosis, fracture at the uppermost instrumented vertebra (UIV)/UIV+1, and level of UIV, were significantly different between groups. The average total PJKSS score was significantly greater in the R group than in the NR group (6.0 vs 3.9, p < 0.001). The calculated cutoff score was 4.5, with 70% sensitivity and specificity. There were no significant between-group differences in patient, surgical, and radiographic factors (other than the PJKSS components). Three factors were significantly associated with revision surgery on multivariate analysis: instrumentation problem (OR 8.160, p = 0.004), change in kyphosis (OR 4.809, p = 0.026), and UIV/UIV+1 fracture (OR 6.462, p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS PJKSS score positively predicted need for revision surgery in patients with PJF who were neurologically intact. The calculated cutoff score on PJKSS that indicated need for revision surgery was 4.5, with 70% sensitivity and specificity. The factor most responsible for revision surgery was bony failure with > 20° focal kyphotic deformity. Therefore, early revision surgery should be considered for these patients even in the absence of neurological deficit.

Study Design. Retrospective study. Objective. To validate the age-adjusted ideal sagittal alignment in terms of proximal junctional failure (PJF) and clinical outcomes. Summary of Background. It is reported that optimal sagittal correction with regard to the age-adjusted ideal sagittal alignment reduces the risk of PJF development. However, few studies have validated this concept. The age-considered optimal correction is likely to be undercorrection in terms of conventional surgical target, such as pelvic incidence (PI)−lumbar lordosis (LL) within ± 9°. Therefore, the clinical impact of age-adjusted sagittal alignment should be evaluated along with radiographic effect. Materials and Methods. Adult spinal deformity patients, aged 50 years and above, who underwent greater than or equal to fourlevel fusion to sacrum with a minimum of four years of follow-up data were included in this study. Radiographic risk factors for PJF (including age-adjusted ideal PI−LL) were evaluated with multivariate analyses. Three groups were created based on PI−LL offset between age-adjusted ideal PI−LL and actual actual PI−LL. . undercorrection, ideal correction, and overcorrection. Clinical outcomes were compared among the three groups.Results. This study included 194 adult spinal deformity patients. The mean age was 68.5 years and there were 172 females (88.7%). PJF developed in 99 patients (51.0%) at a mean postoperative period of 14.9 months. Multivariate analysis for PJF revealed that only PI−LL offset group had statistical significance. The proportion of patients with PJF was greatest in the overcorrection group followed by the ideal correction and undercorrection groups.Overcorrected patients regard to the age-adjusted ideal alignment showed poorer clinical outcomes than the other patient groups. Conclusions. Overcorrection relative to age-adjusted sagittal alignment increases the risk of PJF development and is associated with poor clinical outcomes. Older patients and those with small PI are likely to be overcorrected in terms of the age-adjusted PI−LL target. Therefore, the age-adjusted alignment should be considered more strictly in these patients.

Background This study aimed to examine trends in postoperative survival and surgical methods over a 25-year period in patients surgically treated for metastatic spinal tumors. Methods We performed a retrospective study of patients who underwent surgical treatment for metastatic spinal tumors between 1996 and 2020. For trend analysis, the study cohort was divided into three groups according to the year of surgery: 1996–2004, 2005–2012, and 2013–2020. A Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed to examine survival, and the log-rank test was used to compare the survival of the top six common cancers among the periods. The surgical methods were grouped and examined as follows: fixation only, palliative decompression and fixation, gross total removal and fixation, and total en bloc spondylectomy. Results This study included a total of 608 patients. There were 78 patients in 1996–2004, 236 in 2005–2012, and 294 in 2013–2020. Regarding the overall survival trend, the group 2013–2020 had a significantly improved survival as compared to the other two groups ( p < 0.001). According to specific cancer sites, significant survival improvement was observed in patients with lung, kidney, and breast cancers ( p < 0.001, p < 0.001, and p = 0.022, respectively). There were no significant changes in the primary sites of the liver, colorectum, or prostate. Regarding surgical methods, the proportion of gross total tumor removal declined, whereas the proportion of palliative decompression and fixation and fixation only procedures increased. Conclusions During the past 25 years, significant survival improvement was observed in patients with lung, kidney, and breast cancers. There was no improvement in survival in patients with liver, colorectal, and prostate cancers. In terms of surgical techniques, palliative decompression and fixation only procedures increased, while gross total tumor removal declined.