• Home
  • E-submission
  • Sitemap
  • Contact us
  • Search
  • Advanced Search
Asian Spine J Search

CLOSE

Asian Spine J > Volume 18(5); 2024 > Article
Nakarai, Kazarian, Lovecchio, and Kim: Hounsfield units and vertebral bone quality score for predicting mechanical complications after adult spinal deformity surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Review Article

Asian Spine Journal 2024;18(5):719-730.

Online first: October 22, 2024

DOI: https://doi.org/10.31616/asj.2023.0402

Hounsfield units and vertebral bone quality score for predicting mechanical complications after adult spinal deformity surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Hiroyuki Nakarai1,2, Gregory S. Kazarian1, Francis C. Lovecchio1, Han Jo Kim1

1Department of Spine Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA

2Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan

Corresponding author: Han Jo Kim, Department of Spine Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, 541 East 71st Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10021, USA,
Tel: +1-212-774-2837, Fax: +1-646-797-8428, E-mail: kimh@hss.edu

Received December 7, 2023       Revised February 10, 2024       Accepted March 11, 2024

Copyright © 2024 by Korean Society of Spine Surgery

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to assess existing literature and determine the association between the Hounsfield unit (HU) value and the vertebral body quality (VBQ) score with mechanical complications (MCs) after adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery. Although bone quality is considered an increasingly important factor for MCs after ASD surgery, the utility of the HU value assessed by computed tomography and the VBQ score assessed by magnetic resonance imaging remains unknown. A systematic review of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases was performed to find studies evaluating the association between the HU value and the VBQ score with MCs after ASD surgery. In the subsequent meta-analysis, MC outcomes were combined using a random-effects model, and the standardized mean difference and 95% confidence interval were calculated. The final analysis included a total of 20 studies. Nineteen studies reported HU values, and two studies reported VBQ scores. Proximal junctional kyphosis/failure (PJK/PJF) was reported as the MC in 16 studies, whereas other MCs were included in 6 studies. Six studies with a pool of 506 patients with ASD revealed that preoperative HU values at the upper instrumented vertebra (UIV) and UIV+1 were significantly lower in patients with PJK/PJF (standardized mean difference, −0.74; 95% confidence interval, −1.09 to −0.40). Three studies suggested an cutoff HU value of approximately ≤120, yielding a pooled sensitivity of 0.77, specificity of 0.67, and diagnostic odds ratio of 7.01. However, two studies reported conflicting results on the relationship between the VBQ score and PJK/PJF. Low HU values predicted the risk of certain MCs, particularly PJK/PJF, after ASD surgery. An HU value of <120 should alert surgeons to be cautious about the postoperative occurrence of PJK/PJF. Future studies are needed to validate the cutoff HU value and evaluate the utility of the VBQ score.

Keywords: Scoliosis; Osteoporosis; Hounsfield unit; Computed tomography; Magnetic resonance imaging

Introduction

Adult spinal deformity (ASD) is a complex condition characterized by abnormal spine alignment in the sagittal and/or coronal plane. Although advancements in indications, techniques, and instrumentation have improved outcomes and decreased the number of surgical complications, mechanical complications (MCs) are still common and often have devastating implications, including the need for revision surgery [1,2].
Many studies have attempted to identify common risk factors for MCs, focusing on instrumentation, techniques, and patient-specific factors that increase patients’ risk [3–7]. Given the high prevalence of osteoporosis in patients undergoing ASD surgery, bone quality has become an important area of research. Although dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is the gold standard for diagnosing osteoporosis, its use is limited in degenerative spinal conditions [8]. In contrast, Hounsfield units (HUs) and Vertebral Bone Quality (VBQ) scores allow for more precise estimates of bone density in degenerated spines and allow for specific measurements of bone density in the surgical zone of interest [9–11].
The HU value is a quantitative measure that reflects the radiodensity of the bone and serves as a surrogate marker for bone mineral density (BMD). To measure the HU value, a circle is drawn around a region of interest, and relevant software automatically calculates the attenuation HU value [10]. This value enables surgeons to measure the bone quality at a specific level and region [9]. Because the upper instrumented vertebra (UIV) and the vertebra one level above the UIV (UIV+1) are subject to the highest loading force after long segment fusion [12], the HU value at the UIV may be more informative than systemic measures of bone quality in predicting postoperative MCs. As originally described by Ehresman et al. [11], the VBQ score is another alternative measure of BMD using a sagittal magnetic resonance (MR) image of the lumbar spine. Although the VBQ score cannot evaluate regional BMD, it may provide additional and distinct data about bone quality by assessing fatty infiltration of the vertebral bone. The relationship between the BMD and spinal deformity has been studied extensively in recent years; however, the precise effects of these surrogate measures on the risk of MCs and failure remain unclear.
Therefore, a systematic review with meta-analysis is warranted to synthesize the available evidence and comprehensively evaluate this relationship. This review aimed (1) to assess the clinical usefulness of HU values and VBQ scores in predicting MCs after ASD surgery and (2) to determine the cutoff HU value to predict MCs after ASD surgery. We hypothesized that the HU value, and potentially the VBQ score, will be predictors of MCs.

Materials and Methods

Institutional review board approval

This study is a retrospective systematic review of publicly accessible documents, and thus institutional review board approval was not required.

Literature research

This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched from their inception to July 14, 2023. Search terms included keywords and medical subject headings related to spine surgery, ASD, computed tomograhy (CT), HU, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and VBQ (Appendix 1). Language was restricted to English; however, no restriction was placed on the publication date.

Study selection

The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) studies involving patients with ASD, (2) studies that measured outcomes of the incidence and risk factors of MCs, and, (3) studies that compared patients with and without MCs. MCs include proximal junctional kyphosis/failure (PJK/PJF), distal junctional kyphosis/failure, pseudarthrosis, or hardware failure. The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) abstracts, letters, reviews, or case reports; (2) studies that analyzed repeated data; (3) studies that did not report outcomes of interest; and (4) cadaveric and animal studies. Studies were also included if they assessed patients with degenerative pathologies; however, inclusion was limited to patients who underwent posterior fusion of ≥4 segments. All candidate citations were imported into Covidence software (Melbourne, VC, Australia). After removing duplicates, two independent reviewers (H.N. and G.K.) screened titles and abstracts based on the selection criteria. Relevant studies were then screened via a full-text review. Discrepancies were settled by discussion among reviewers.

Data extraction and methodological quality assessment

Data regarding authors, publication year, study location, study design, participant, characteristics, demographics, follow-up time, type of outcomes and MCs, measurement location of outcomes, MC incidence, cutoff value, and relevant statistics were extracted. Two independent reviewers evaluated the risk of bias and quality of each study using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS). The NOS is a tool for evaluating the quality of evidence of nonrandomized studies including three main domains: patient selection, comparability, and outcomes [13]. The total NOS score ranges from 0 to 9, and studies that scored ≥6 were considered to have high quality [14].

Statistical analysis and data synthesis

Meta-analysis was performed to compare the HU value and VBQ score by PJK/PJF occurrence because of the limited number of publications available for other MCs. Forest plots were generated using standardized mean differences (SMDs), and 95% CIs were reported. Study heterogeneity was analyzed using the chi-squared test and I2 statistics, where a p-value of <0.10 for the chi-squared test and I2 >50% indicated heterogeneity [15]. To address heterogeneity, the leave-one-out method was used in the sensitivity analysis by single elimination of the studies [16,17]. Publication bias was not assessed because each analysis included <10 studies [18]. To validate the proposed cutoff value, sensitivity and specificity were extracted from the original articles, and forest plots were drawn to estimate pooled sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio (OR) [19,20]. A p-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant. All statistical analyses were performed using Review Manager ver. 5.4 (The Cochrane Collaboration, London, UK) and MetaDTA ver. 2.0.4 (https://crsu.shinyapps.io/MetaDTA/) [19,20].

Results

Literature search

The search strategy identified 362 studies after duplicate removal, and a total of 20 studies were eligible for inclusion (Fig. 1) [21–40]. Nineteen studies assessed HU values, and two studies reported VBQ scores (Table 1). MCs included PJK and/or PJF in 16 studies, overall MCs in two, early instrumentation failure in one, rod fracture in one, screw pullout in one, and adjacent segment degeneration in one (Table 2). PJK is a broad term that encompasses PJF, which is a severe form of PJK, defined as PJK with structural failure or requiring reoperations [29,31,34,37]. Thus, studies describing the outcomes of PJK were presumed to include PJF, unless if they were explicitly differentiated. Consequently, the review categorized and described proximal junctional complications as PJK/PJF (which included both PJK and PJF), PJK, and PJF. The studies by Chanbour et al. [21,22], Hills et al. [23], Maruo et al. [31], Yoshie et al. [32], and Mikula et al. [33], Pinter et al. [35] and two studies by Hiyama et al. [27,28] were reported by the same groups, and these overlapping patient cohorts were excluded from further meta-analysis. All studies were rated as having high quality according to the NOS, scoring 6–8 points (Table 3).

Methodology of HU measurements

Among the studies analyzed, heterogeneity was noted in the methodology of HU measurements. Of the included studies, 12 followed the original method of measuring the vertebral body HU value described by Schreiber et al. [10], that is, three axial measurements within a single vertebral body are averaged to give a single HU value: just above the inferior endplate, middle of the body, and just below the superior endplate. Alternatively, three studies measured HU values within only one axial slice [24,25], and Kurra et al. [30] and Wang et al. [38] averaged the HU values on the axial and sagittal images. Two studies also assessed the HU value within pedicles on one axial plane [25,37], and one study assessed the HU value within the posterior fusion mass [24].

HU as a predictor of PJK/PJF

The definition of PJK was consistent among studies as proximal junctional angle ≥10° and at least 10° greater than the preoperative measurement [12]. Because two studies further divided the patients with PJK into two subgroups [30,40], the mean and standard deviation of the subgroups were combined to include them in the meta-analysis. The HU value in the UIV or the mean HU value of the UIV and UIV+1 (UIV/UIV+1) of patients with PJK/PJF was significantly lower than that of patients without PJK/PJF (SMD, −0.75; 95% CI, −1.02 to −0.48; p<0.001; I2=48%) (Fig. 2). Sensitivity analysis revealed stable outcomes, suggesting the robustness of our meta-analysis. Additionally, two studies examined the incidence of PJF [28,31], which was defined as PJK combined with structural fracture as previously reported [41]. Fig. 3 shows that the HU value in the UIV+1 was significantly lower in the PJF group than in the non-PJF group (SMD, −0.54; 95% CI, −0.89 to −0.19; p=0.003; I2=0%). Uei et al. [37] also reported that the HU value of the pedicles at T8 and T9 were significantly lower in patients with PJK requiring reoperations.

Cutoff HU value to predict PJK/PJF

Six studies reported cutoff HU values at the UIV and UIV+1 level, and three studies reported sensitivity and specificity, which were finally included for further analysis. The three included studies proposed cutoff values of roughly ≤120 (range, 104–122.8), and the pooled sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic OR were 0.77 (95% CI, 0.70–0.84), 0.67 (95% CI, 0.58–0.75), and 7.01 (95% CI, 4.00–12.3), respectively (Fig. 4). Mikula et al. [33,34] examined two patient cohorts, patients undergoing fusion surgery from the pelvis to (1) T10–L2 and (2) T1–T6, and proposed cutoff HU values of 122 and 159 at the UIV/UIV+1 for each cohort, respectively. Yao et al. [40] showed that HU values of <120 at the UIV/UIV+1 had a 5.74 times higher risk for bony PJK than those with HU values >120. Chanbour et al. [22] also reported that a cutoff HU value of 163 at the UIV−4/UIV+4 may predict PJK. Wang et al. [38] reported a cutoff HU value of <89.25 at L1, which demonstrated a hazard ratio of 8.98.

HU as a predictor of other MCs

Cho et al. [25] found that screw pullout was significantly associated with lower HU values for both UIV vertebrae and pedicles. However, Chanbour et al. [21,22] did not find significant difference in the HU values with or without overall MCs or in patients with distal junctional kyphosis, pseudoarthrosis/rod fractures, or hardware failure compared with controls, except that the PJK group had significantly lower HU values at the UIV−4/UIV+4. Penalosa et al. [36] analyzed the incidence of early instrumentation failure within 6 months of initial pedicle subtraction osteotomy and found no differences in the HU values at L1–L4.

VBQ score to predict PJK/PJF in patients with ASD

The VBQ score was calculated by dividing the mean signal intensity in the L1–L4 vertebral bodies by the signal intensity of the cerebrospinal fluid at L3 using the signal intensity obtained from a midsagittal, non-contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MR image of the lumbar spine [11]. Kuo et al. [29] showed that the VBQ score was the only significant predictor of PJK/PJF on the multivariate analysis (OR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.56–1.95). In contrast, Hiyama et al. [28] found that the VBQ score did not correlate with PJF (p=0.47), whereas the HU values at the UIV (p=0.035) and L4 (p=0.033) significantly correlated with PJF.

Discussion

Poor bone density is a well-known risk factor for MCs after ASD surgery. Gupta et al. [42] found that osteoporosis increased the risk of revision within 2 years of the index procedure because of hardware failure, pseudoarthrosis, and PJF. Typically, BMD is assessed by DXA scans of the hip, femur, or lumbar spine [43], and recent studies have shown that a lower BMD T-score is associated with higher PJK incidence [34,43–49]. Hyun et al. [44] also demonstrated that the mean T-scores in patients with PJK averaged −2.5, as compared with −1.3 in patients without PJK, which was significant. Yagi et al. [43] compared 24 propensity-matched pairs of patients with ASD and found that a T-score <−1.5 was significantly associated with higher incidence of PJF.
Although DXA is still considered the gold standard for assessing BMD, the biggest potential strength of utilizing the HU value is that is allows measurement of bone density in the surgical zone of interest. Among MCs, PJK/PJF may have the most effect on bone quality, as the UIV and UIV+1 vertebral bone must tolerate the stress between the instrumented and uninstrumented spines [12]. According to Uei et al. [37], HU values vary between vertebral levels even in the same patient, suggesting that junctional HU values may be more strongly related to PJK/PJF than DXA or quantitative CT (QCT), which only measure bone quality in a representative part of the body. Additionally, several shortcomings of DXA have been reported. Because of the nature of the ASD pathology, BMD can be easily distorted by osteophytes and areas of sclerosis because of degenerative changes [8]. Moreover, in patients who have undergone bilateral hip replacement surgery, BMD cannot be evaluated at the femoral neck by DXA.
Not surprisingly, this meta-analysis showed that a lower HU value around the UIV was associated with significant PJK/PJF incidence, which is consistent with the results of previous studies evaluating BMD by DXA. Our results also demonstrated that a cutoff HU value of <120 around the UIV had pooled sensitivity and specificity of approximately 70% and a diagnostic OR of 7. However, a cutoff value aimed at achieving high sensitivity to “rule out” PJK/PJF, which can indicate a “safety zone” for the HU value, is warranted to propose a target HU value for preoperative osteoporotic treatment.
The VBQ score has become a topic of interest in the evaluation of osteoporosis because patients undergoing spine surgery routinely undergo MRI to assess the degree of nerve compression. Additionally, the VBQ score could provide additional and distinct assessment of bone quality over and above radiation-based bone quality assessment using DXA or CT because it can assess fatty infiltration in vertebral body using MRI [11]. Previous studies have shown that the VBQ score can reduce interference from degenerative changes compared with conventional DXA scans [50,51]; however, in a study of 61 patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery, Kim et al. [52] proposed a cutoff value of 2.6 to detect osteoporosis, but only a weak correlation was observed between the VBQ score and the QCT-derived BMD (r=−0.27). The VBQ score can be an alternative tool in assessing bone quality; however, its effectiveness as a predictor of PJK/PJF may be inferior to HU assessment because it can only assess lumbar spine bone quality and does not directly measure the bone quality around the UIV.
This study has several limitations. First, the measurement methodologies of the HU value and the assessed vertebral levels varied. Therefore, the measurement methodology of the HU value using the original method appears necessary in future studies to accumulate consistent clinical evidence and allow readers to accurately interpret previous results. Although Ehresman et al. [11] reported that the VBQ score was not significantly affected by the difference in MRI systems, the HU value was reported to be influenced by tube voltages and body habitus [10]. This information was not consistently reported in the included studies, and this limitation may affect the proposed cutoff value. Therefore, future studies should also report the tube voltage and other factors that may affect HU values. Second, this systematic review only included retrospective studies. Although the results should be interpreted cautiously, the included studies were of high quality according to the NOS, and the meta-analysis showed a clear association between the HU values and PJK/PJF occurrence without significant heterogeneity. Third, the limited number of studies may be underpowered to answer certain questions, such as the cutoff HU value and the utility of the VBQ score. Despite the range of values proposed by previous studies, our approach to propose a cutoff value may be justified because similar approaches have been employed previously [53]. As this study is the first to focus on this topic to date, this study would be important for spine surgeons who must be aware of the utility and limitations of these surrogate markers for assessing bone quality in ASD surgery.

Conclusions

A low vertebral body HU value was a strong predictor of the risk of PJK/PJF after ASD surgery. However, the utility of the HU value in predicting other MCs was not well supported. Despite limited evidence on the cutoff HU value, an HU value at the UIV/UIV+1 of ≤120 had a pooled diagnostic OR of 7.01 for predicting PJK/PJF. However, the HU value can be influenced by the measurement method, tube voltage, and body habitus. Future studies are needed to validate the proposed cutoff HU value, should use the original measurement method of vertebral body HU, and should report tube voltage to accumulate consistent evidence. To date, the VBQ score has not shown sufficient validity in predicting MCs after ASD surgery in contrast to the HU value.

Key Points

  • Low vertebral body Hounsfield unit (HU) value is a risk of proximal junctional kyphosis/failure (PJK/PJF) after adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery, but does not predict other mechanical complications.

  • An HU value at the upper instrumented vertebra (UIV)/UIV+1 of ≤120 had a pooled diagnostic odds ratio of 7.01 for predicting PJK/ PJF, but this value can be influenced by the measurement method, tube voltage, and body habitus.

  • To date, the vertebral body quality score has not shown sufficient validity in predicting mechanical complications after ASD surgery.

Notes

Conflict of Interest

Han Jo Kim has the following disclosures: AAOS: board or committee member; Acuity Surgical: IP royalties; HS2: stock or stock options; HSS Journal, Asian Spine Journal: editorial or governing board; International Spine Society; Group (ISSG): IP royalties; ISSGF: research support; K2M: IP royalties; Operative Neurosurgery: editorial or governing board; SI BONE: research support; SPINE STUD: stock or stock options; and Zimmer: IP royalties. Except for that, no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: HN, FL, HJK. Data curation: GSK, HN. Formal analysis: HN, GSK, FL, HJK. Funding acquisition: NA. Methodology: HN, GSK, FL, HJK. Project administration: HJK. Visualization: HN, GSK, FL, HJK. Writing–original draft: HN, GSK, FL, HJK.Eriting–review & editing: HN, GSK, FL, HJK. Final approval of the manuscript: all authors.

Fig. 1
Flow chart showing results of literature search. HY, Hounsfield unit; VBQ, vertebral body quality; ASD, adult spinal deformity.
asj-2023-0402f1.jpg
Fig. 2
Preoperative upper instrumented vertebra (UIV) and UIV/UIV+1 Hounsfield unit (HU) and postoperative proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK)/proximal junctional failure (PJF). SD, standard deviation; SMD, standard mean difference; IV, inverse variance; CI, confidence interval; df, degrees of freedom.
asj-2023-0402f2.jpg
Fig. 3
Preoperative upper instrumented vertebra (UIV)+1 Hounsfield unit (HU) and postoperative proximal junctional failure (PJF). SD, standard deviation; SMD, standard mean difference; IV, inverse variance; CI, confidence interval; df, degrees of freedom.
asj-2023-0402f3.jpg
Fig. 4
Pooled sensitivity (A) and specificity (B) of cutoff Hounsfield unit (HU) at upper instrumented vertebra (UIV) and/or UIV+1 for predicting proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK)/proximal junctional failure (PJF) occurrence.
asj-2023-0402f4.jpg
Table 1
Study outcomes
Authors Type of outcome Measurement location for HU Type of MC OR/HR ROC-AUC Cutoff value
Chanbour et al. [21] (2023) HU UIV−4/UIV+4 Overall MC - - -
Chanbour et al. [22] (2023) HU UIV−4/UIV+4 PJK/PJF, overall MC OR 0.99 0.63 163 HUs: sensitivity=NA, specificity: NA
Hills et al. [23] (2022) HU UIV−4/UIV+4 PJK/PJF aOR 1.8 (decrease in HU from 180 to 120) - -
Cho et al. [24] (2023) HU L3, posterior fusion mass PJK/PJF, rod fracture - - -
Cho et al. [25] (2023) HU UIV Screw pullout - - -
Duan et al. [26] (2020) HU UIV, UIV+1, UIV+2 PJK/PJF - 0.71 (UIV), 0.68 (UIV+1), 0.68 (UIV+2) 104 HUs (UIV): sensitivity=0.84, specificity=0.52; 113 HUs (UIV+1): sensitivity=0.72, specificity=0.52; 110 HUs (UIV+2): sensitivity=0.88, specificity=0.45
Hiyama et al. [27] (2022) HU UIV, UIV+1, UIV+2 PJF - - -
Hiyama et al. [28] (2023) HU and VBQ UIV, UIV+1, UIV+2, L1–L4 PJF - - -
Kuo et al. [29] (2023) VBQ - PJK/PJF aOR 1.75 - -
Kurra et al. [30] (2022) HU UIV−1, UIV, UIV+1 PJK (with or without fracture) - -
Maruo et al. [31] (2023) HU UIV+1 PJF - - -
Yoshie et al. [32] (2023) HU UIV, UIV+1 PJK/PJF - 0.85 (UIV), 0.83 (UIV+1) 122.8 HUs (UIV): sensitivity=0.89, specificity=0.74; 114.9 HUs (UIV+1): sensitivity=0.73, specificity=0.79
Mikula et al. [33] (2021) HU UIV/UIV+1, L3/L4 PJK/PJF a‌OR 0.94 (UIV/UIV+1); aOR 0.99 (L3/4) 0.89 122 HUs (UIV/UIV+1): sensitivity=NA, specificity=NA; 73 HU (UIV/UIV+1): specificity >0.9; 202 HU (UIV/UIV+1): sensitivity >0.9
Mikula et al. [34] (2022) HU UIV/UIV+1, L3/L4 PJK/PJF OR 0.98 (UIV/UIV+1); OR 0.96 (L3/4) 0.77 159 HUs (UIV/UIV+1): sensitivity >0.7, specificity >0.7; 136 HU (UIV/UIV+1): specificity >0.9; 193 HU (UIV/UIV+1): sensitivity >0.9
Pinter et al. [35] (2023) HU UIV, UIV+1, L3, L4 PJK, PJF aOR 0.80 for PJK (UIV); aOR 0.79 for PJF (UIV) - -
Penalosa et al. [36] (2021) HU L1–4 Early instrumentation failure - - -
Uei et al. [37] (2018) HU T8–S1 PJF - - -
Wang et al. [38] (2021) HU L1 PJF HR 8.984 (<89.25 HU) 0.8 89.25 HUs: sensitivity=0.78, specificity=0.80
Wang et al. [39] (2023) HU FCRV ASD - - -
Yao et al. [40] (2021) HU UIV/UIV+1 PJK/PJF (non-bony or bony) aOR 5.74 (<120 HU) - 120 HUs: sensitivity=0.71, specificity=0.70

HU, Hounsfield unit; MC, mechanical complications; OR, odds ratio; HR, hazard ratio; ROC, receiver operating characteristic; AUC, area under the curve; UIV, upper instrumented vertebra; PJK, proximal junctional kyphosis; PJF, proximal junctional failure; NA, aOR, adjusted odds ratio; VBQ, vertebral body quality; FCRV, first coronal reverse vertebrae; ASD, adult spinal deformity.

Table 2
Study and demographics
Authors Country Study design No. of participants Patient characteristics Gender (%) Mean age (yr) Overall follow-up time (mo)
Total Patients with MC
Chanbour et al. [21] (2023) USA Case control study 145 85 ASD patients F (81.4) 63.9±11.3 Median 26.5
Chanbour et al. [22] (2023) USA Retrospective cohort study 145 42 (PJK), 74 (overall MC) ASD patients F (83.4) 64.4±10.7 Min 24
Hills et al. [23] (2022) USA Retrospective cohort study 145 47 (PJK) ASD patients F (81.4) Median 66.2 Median 26.5
Cho et al. [24] (2023) USA Retrospective cohort study 165 31 (PJK), 57 (rod fracture) ASD patients undergoing 3CO F (66.6) 63.2±12.6 45.9±23.9
Cho et al. [25] (2023) Korea Retrospective cohort study 74 27 ASD patient F (87.8) 69.2±5.6 32.1±22.1
Duan et al. [26] (2020) USA Retrospective cohort study 54 29 ASD patients F (64.8) 64.9±7.6 38.3±13.7
Hiyama et al. [27] (2022) Japan Retrospective cohort study 52 13 ASD patients F (100.0) 70.2±9.2 17.7±9.5
Hiyama et al. [28] (2023) Japan Retrospective cohort study 53 14 ASD patients F (100.0) 70.2±9.2 32.3±14.3
Kuo et al. [29] (2023) USA Retrospective cohort study 116 34 ASD patients F (65.6) 64.1±6.8 25.6±13.1
Kurra et al. [30] (2022) USA Case control study 92 22 (PJK), 11 (PJK with fracture) ASD patients F (53.3) 64 (range, 42–81) 18 (range, 2.4–48)
Maruo et al. [31] (2023) Japan Retrospective cohort study 57 7 (in TPTD group) ASD patients F (76.0) 73.5±6.8 Min 12
Yoshie et al. [32] (2023) Japan Retrospective cohort study 60 26 ASD patients F (75.0) 71.7±7.3 37.1±14.5
Mikula et al. [33] (2021) USA Retrospective cohort study 150 47 Patients with instrumentation from pelvis to T10–L2 F (53.3) 66±7.4 31.8±20.2
Mikula et al. [34] (2022) USA Retrospective cohort study 81 27 Patients with instrumentation from pelvis to T1–6 F (74.0) 66±6.9 38±25
Pinter et al. [35] (2023) USA Retrospective cohort study 150 28 (PJK), 19 (PJF) Patients with instrumentation from pelvis to T10–L2 F (53.3) 67±7.4 Min 24
Penalosa et al. [36] (2021) USA Retrospective cohort study 46 9 ASD patients F (63.0) 51±15.3 44 (range, 8–84)
Uei et al. [37] (2018) Japan Retrospective cohort study 54 14 ASD patients F (92.6) 73.9±5.8 38.2±19.2
Wang et al. [38] (2020) China Retrospective cohort study 104 23 Patients with instrumented fusion of ≥4 levels F (82.7) 63.2±8.0 35.7±7.0
Wang et al. [39] (2023) China Retrospective cohort study 116 30 ASD patients F (75.9) 63.9±7.0 Min 24
Yao et al. [40] (2021) USA Retrospective cohort study 108 23 ASD patients F (70.0) 58.4±14.9 13.1

Values are presented as number or mean±standard deviation, unless otherwise stated.

MC, mechanical complications; ASD, adult spinal deformity; F, female; PJK, proximal junctional kyphosis; 3CO, three-column osteotomy; TPTD, teriparatide; PJF, proximal junctional failure.

Table 3
The quality assessment according to Newcastle Ottawa Score
Authors Selection Comparability Outcome Total
Chanbour et al. [21] (2023) 4 1 3 8
Chanbour et al. [22] (2023) 4 1 2 7
Hills et al. [23] (2022) 4 1 2 7
Cho et al. [24] (2023) 4 1 2 7
Cho et al. [25] (2023) 4 1 2 7
Duan et al. [26] (2020) 4 1 2 7
Hiyama et al. [27] (2022) 4 1 2 7
Hiyama et al. [28] (2023) 4 1 2 7
Kuo et al. [29] (2023) 4 1 2 7
Kurra et al. [30] (2022) 4 1 1 6
Maruo et al. [31] (2023) 4 1 2 7
Yoshie et al. [32] (2023) 4 1 2 7
Mikula et al. [33] (2021) 4 1 2 7
Mikula et al. [34] (2022) 4 1 2 7
Pinter et al. [35] (2023) 4 1 2 7
Penalosa et al. [36] (2021) 4 1 1 6
Uei et al. [37] (2018) 4 1 3 8
Wang et al. [38] (2021) 4 1 2 7
Wang et al. [39] (2023) 4 1 2 7
Yao et al. [40] (2021) 4 1 2 7

References

1. Nicholls FH, Bae J, Theologis AA, et al. Factors associated with the development of and revision for proximal junctional kyphosis in 440 consecutive adult spinal deformity patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2017;42:1693–8.
crossref pmid
2. Safaee MM, Dalle Ore CL, Zygourakis CC, Deviren V, Ames CP. The unreimbursed costs of preventing revision surgery in adult spinal deformity: analysis of cost-effectiveness of proximal junctional failure prevention with ligament augmentation. Neurosurg Focus 2018;44:E13.
crossref pmid pmc
3. McDonnell JM, Evans SR, Ahern DP, et al. Risk factors for distal junctional failure in long-construct instrumentation for adult spinal deformity. Eur Spine J 2022;31:3654–61.
crossref pmid pdf
4. Martin CT, Holton KJ, Elder BD, et al. Catastrophic acute failure of pelvic fixation in adult spinal deformity requiring revision surgery: a multicenter review of incidence, failure mechanisms, and risk factors. J Neurosurg Spine 2022;38:98–106.
crossref pmid
5. McDonnell JM, Ahern DP, Wagner SC, et al. A systematic review of risk factors associated with distal junctional failure in adult spinal deformity surgery. Clin Spine Surg 2021;34:347–54.
crossref pmid
6. Krol O, McFarland K, Owusu-Sarpong S, et al. Impact of frailty on the development of proximal junctional failure: does frailty supersede achieving optimal realignment? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2023;48:1348–53.
pmid
7. Ryu SJ, So JY, Ha Y, et al. Risk factors for unplanned reoperation after corrective surgery for adult spinal deformity. Bone Joint Res 2023;12:245–55.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
8. Watts NB. Fundamentals and pitfalls of bone densitometry using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). Osteoporos Int 2004;15:847–54.
crossref pmid pdf
9. Lovecchio F, Ang B, Louie PK, et al. Bone density distribution in the cervical spine. Global Spine J 2024;14:169–76.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
10. Schreiber JJ, Anderson PA, Rosas HG, Buchholz AL, Au AG. Hounsfield units for assessing bone mineral density and strength: a tool for osteoporosis management. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011;93:1057–63.
crossref pmid
11. Ehresman J, Pennington Z, Schilling A, et al. Novel MRI-based score for assessment of bone density in operative spine patients. Spine J 2020;20:556–62.
crossref pmid
12. Glattes RC, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, Kim YJ, Rinella A, Edwards C 2nd. Proximal junctional kyphosis in adult spinal deformity following long instrumented posterior spinal fusion: incidence, outcomes, and risk factor analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005;30:1643–9.
pmid
13. Stang A. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol 2010;25:603–5.
crossref pmid pdf
14. Chen JW, McCandless MG, Bhandarkar AR, et al. The association between bone mineral density and proximal junctional kyphosis in adult spinal deformity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Neurosurg Spine 2023;39:82–91.
crossref pmid
15. Xiao SW, Jiang H, Yang LJ, Xiao ZM. Anterior cervical discectomy versus corpectomy for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a meta-analysis. Eur Spine J 2015;24:31–9.
crossref pmid pdf
16. Moniz-Garcia D, Stoloff D, Akinduro O, et al. Two- versus multi-rod constructs for adult spinal deformity: a systematic review and random-effects and Bayesian meta-analysis. J Clin Neurosci 2023;107:9–15.
crossref pmid
17. Kim JS, Phan K, Cheung ZB, et al. Surgical, radiographic, and patient-related risk factors for proximal junctional kyphosis: a meta-analysis. Global Spine J 2019;9:32–40.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
18. Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.3 [Internet] London: Cochrane. 2023 [cited 2023 Jul 5]. Available from: https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current

19. Patel A, Cooper N, Freeman S, Sutton A. Graphical enhancements to summary receiver operating characteristic plots to facilitate the analysis and reporting of meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy data. Res Synth Methods 2021;12:34–44.
crossref pmid pdf
20. Freeman SC, Kerby CR, Patel A, Cooper NJ, Quinn T, Sutton AJ. Development of an interactive web-based tool to conduct and interrogate meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies: MetaDTA. BMC Med Res Methodol 2019;19:81.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
21. Chanbour H, Roth SG, LaBarge ME, et al. The postoperative course of mechanical complications in adult spinal deformity surgery. Spine Deform 2023;11:175–85.
crossref pmid pdf
22. Chanbour H, Steinle AM, Chen JW, et al. The importance of Hounsfield units in adult spinal deformity surgery: finding an optimal threshold to minimize the risk of mechanical complications. J Spine Surg 2023;9:149–58.
crossref pmid pmc
23. Hills JM, Weisenthal BM, Wanner JP, et al. A patient-specific approach to alignment and proximal junctional kyphosis risk assessment in adult spinal deformity surgery: development and validation of a predictive tool. Clin Spine Surg 2022;35:256–63.
pmid
24. Cho JH, Lau D, Ashayeri K, Deviren V, Ames CP. Association between the bone density of posterior fusion mass and mechanical complications after thoracolumbar three-column osteotomy for adult spinal deformity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2023;48:672–82.
crossref pmid
25. Cho J, Ryu S, Jang HJ, et al. Clinical effect of transverse process hook with K-means clustering-based stratification of computed tomography Hounsfield unit at upper instrumented vertebra level in adult spinal deformity patients. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 2023;66:44–52.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
26. Duan PG, Mummaneni PV, Rivera J, et al. The association between lower Hounsfield units of the upper instrumented vertebra and proximal junctional kyphosis in adult spinal deformity surgery with a minimum 2-year follow-up. Neurosurg Focus 2020;49:E7.
crossref
27. Hiyama A, Sakai D, Katoh H, Sato M, Watanabe M. Relationship between Hounsfield units of upper instrumented vertebrae, proximal junctional failure, and global alignment and proportion score in female patients with adult spinal deformity. World Neurosurg 2022;164:e706–17.
crossref pmid
28. Hiyama A, Sakai D, Katoh H, Sato M, Watanabe M. Comparative analysis of Hounsfield units and vertebral bone quality scores for predicting proximal junctional failure in female adult spinal deformity patients undergoing planned 2-stage corrective surgery with lateral lumbar interbody fusion. World Neurosurg 2023 Jul 8 [Epub]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2023.07.006
crossref
29. Kuo CC, Soliman MA, Aguirre AO, et al. Vertebral bone quality score independently predicts proximal junctional kyphosis and/or failure after adult spinal deformity surgery. Neurosurgery 2023;92:945–54.
crossref pmid
30. Kurra S, Farhadi HF, Metkar U, et al. CT based bone mineral density as a predictor of proximal junctional fractures. N Am Spine Soc J 2022;11:100130.
crossref pmid pmc
31. Maruo K, Arizumi F, Kishima K, Yoshie N, Kusukawa T, Tachibana T. Effects of perioperative teriparatide treatment on the Hounsfield unit values at the upper instrumented vertebra in adult spinal deformity surgery. Clin Spine Surg 2023;36:E234–8.
crossref pmid
32. Yoshie N, Maruo K, Arizumi F, Kishima K, Kusukawa T, Tachibana T. The relationship between the Hounsfield units value of the upper instrumented vertebra and the severity of proximal junctional fracture after adult spinal deformity surgery. Medicina (Kaunas) 2023;59:1086.
crossref pmid pmc
33. Mikula AL, Fogelson JL, Lakomkin N, et al. Lower Hounsfield units at the upper instrumented vertebrae are significantly associated with proximal junctional kyphosis and failure near the thoracolumbar junction. Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown) 2021;21:270–5.
crossref pmid pdf
34. Mikula AL, Lakomkin N, Pennington Z, et al. Association between lower Hounsfield units and proximal junctional kyphosis and failure at the upper thoracic spine. J Neurosurg Spine 2022;37:694–702.
crossref pmid
35. Pinter ZW, Mikula AL, Townsley SE, et al. Lower Hounsfield units and severe multifidus sarcopenia are independent predictors of increased risk for proximal junctional kyphosis and failure following thoracolumbar fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2023;48:223–31.
crossref pmid
36. Penalosa BS, Ramos O, Patel SS, Cheng WK, Danisa OA. Pedicle subtraction osteotomy in adult spinal deformity correction: clinical and radiographic risk factors for early instrumentation failure. J Clin Neurosci 2021;94:266–70.
crossref pmid
37. Uei H, Tokuhashi Y, Maseda M, et al. Exploratory analysis of predictors of revision surgery for proximal junctional kyphosis or additional postoperative vertebral fracture following adult spinal deformity surgery in elderly patients: a retrospective cohort study. J Orthop Surg Res 2018;13:252.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
38. Wang Q, Wang C, Zhang X, et al. Correlation of vertebral trabecular attenuation in Hounsfield units and the upper instrumented vertebra with proximal junctional failure after surgical treatment of degenerative lumbar disease. J Neurosurg Spine 2020;34:456–63.
crossref pmid
39. Wang H, Sun Z, Wang L, Zou D, Li W. Proximal fusion level above first coronal reverse vertebrae: an essential factor decreasing the risk of adjacent segment degeneration in degenerative lumbar scoliosis. Global Spine J 2023;13:149–55.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
40. Yao YC, Elysee J, Lafage R, et al. Preoperative Hounsfield units at the planned upper instrumented vertebrae may predict proximal junctional kyphosis in adult spinal deformity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2021;46:E174–80.
crossref pmid
41. Hyun SJ, Lee BH, Park JH, Kim KJ, Jahng TA, Kim HJ. Proximal junctional kyphosis and proximal junctional failure following adult spinal deformity surgery. Korean J Spine 2017;14:126–32.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
42. Gupta A, Cha T, Schwab J, et al. Osteoporosis increases the likelihood of revision surgery following a long spinal fusion for adult spinal deformity. Spine J 2021;21:134–40.
crossref pmid
43. Yagi M, Fujita N, Tsuji O, et al. Low bone-mineral density is a significant risk for proximal junctional failure after surgical correction of adult spinal deformity: a propensity score-matched analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2018;43:485–91.
pmid
44. Hyun SJ, Kim YJ, Rhim SC. Patients with proximal junctional kyphosis after stopping at thoracolumbar junction have lower muscularity, fatty degeneration at the thoracolumbar area. Spine J 2016;16:1095–101.
crossref pmid
45. Li QD, Yang JS, He BR, et al. Risk factors for proximal junctional kyphosis after posterior long-segment internal fixation for chronic symptomatic osteoporotic thoracolumbar fractures with kyphosis. BMC Surg 2022;22:189.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
46. Yuan L, Zeng Y, Chen Z, Li W, Zhang X, Mai S. Degenerative lumbar scoliosis patients with proximal junctional kyphosis have lower muscularity, fatty degeneration at the lumbar area. Eur Spine J 2021;30:1133–43.
crossref pmid pdf
47. Wang H, Ma L, Yang D, et al. Incidence and risk factors for the progression of proximal junctional kyphosis in degenerative lumbar scoliosis following long instrumented posterior spinal fusion. Medicine (Baltimore) 2016;95:e4443.
crossref pmid pmc
48. Lee KY, Lee JH, Kang KC, Shin WJ, Im SK, Cho SJ. Preliminary report on the flexible rod technique for prevention of proximal junctional kyphosis following long-segment fusion to the sacrum in adult spinal deformity. J Neurosurg Spine 2019;31:703–10.
crossref pmid
49. Wang H, Ding W, Ma L, Zhang L, Yang D. Prevention of proximal junctional kyphosis: are polyaxial pedicle screws superior to monoaxial pedicle screws at the upper instrumented vertebrae? World Neurosurg 2017;101:405–15.
crossref pmid
50. Chen Z, Lei F, Ye F, Yuan H, Li S, Feng D. MRI-based vertebral bone quality score for the assessment of osteoporosis in patients undergoing surgery for lumbar degenerative diseases. J Orthop Surg Res 2023;18:257.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
51. Salzmann SN, Okano I, Jones C, et al. Preoperative MRI-based vertebral bone quality (VBQ) score assessment in patients undergoing lumbar spinal fusion. Spine J 2022;22:1301–8.
crossref pmid
52. Kim AY, Lyons K, Sarmiento M, Lafage V, Iyer S. MRI-based score for assessment of bone mineral density in operative spine patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2023;48:107–12.
crossref pmid
53. Ahern DP, McDonnell JM, Riffault M, et al. A meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of Hounsfield units on computed topography relative to dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry for the diagnosis of osteoporosis in the spine surgery population. Spine J 2021;21:1738–49.
crossref pmid

Appendices

Appendix 1

Search strategy

PubMed

  1. ([“adult spinal deformity” or “ASD” or “scoliosis” or “spine surgery”] and [“Hounsfield unit” or “QCT”] not [“adolescent” or “congenital” or “child”])

  2. ([“adult spinal deformity” or “ASD” or “scoliosis” or “spine surgery”] and ([“vertebral bone quality” or “VBQ”]) not [“adolescent” or “congenital” or “child”])

  3. ([“adult spinal deformity” or “ASD” or “scoliosis” or “spine surgery”] and ([“bone density” or “bone quality” or “bone mineral density” or “BMD”] and [“CT scan” or “quantitative computed tomography” or “MRI” or “magnetic resonance imaging” or]) not [“adolescent” or “congenital” or “child”])

Embase

  1. (‘adult spinal deformity’/exp or ‘ASD’/exp or ‘scoliosis’/exp or ‘spine surgery’/exp) and (‘Hounsfield unit’/exp or ‘QCT’/exp) not (‘adolescent’/exp or ‘congenital’/exp or ‘child’/exp)

  2. (‘adult spinal deformity’/exp or ‘ASD’/exp or ‘scoliosis’/exp or ‘spine surgery’/exp) and (‘vertebral bone quality’/exp or ‘VBQ’/exp) not (‘adolescent’/exp or ‘congenital’/exp or ‘child’/exp)

  3. (‘adult spinal deformity’/exp or ‘ASD’/exp or ‘scoliosis’/exp) and (‘bone density’/exp or ‘bone quality’/exp or ‘bone mineral density’/exp or ‘BMD’/exp) and (‘CT scan’/exp or ‘MRI’/exp or ‘magnetic resonance imaging/exp) not (‘adolescent’/exp or ‘congenital’/exp or ‘child’/exp)

Cochrane library

  1. ([“adult spinal deformity” or “ASD” or “scoliosis” or “spine surgery”] and [“Hounsfield unit” or “QCT”]) nat (“adolescent” or “congenital” or “child”)

  2. ([“adult spinal deformity” or “ASD” or “scoliosis” or “spine surgery”] and [“vertebral bone quality” or “VBQ”]) not (“adolescent” or “congenital” or “child”)

  3. ([“adult spinal deformity” or “ASD” or “scoliosis” or “spine surgery”] and ([“bone density” or “bone quality” or “bone mineral density” or “BMD”] and [“CT scan” or “quantitative computed tomography” or “MRI” or “magnetic resonance imaging”]) not (“adolescent” or “congenital” or “child”)

TOOLS
Share :
Facebook Twitter Linked In Google+ Line it
METRICS Graph View
  • 0 Crossref
  •   Scopus
  • 644 View
  • 158 Download
Related articles in ASJ

The kickstand rod technique for correction of coronal malalignment in patients with adult spinal deformity: a systematic review and pooled analysis of 97 cases2024 June;18(3)

Incidence and Risk Factors of the Caudal Screw Loosening after Pelvic Fixation for Adult Spinal Deformity: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis2024 February;18(1)

Multiple-Rod Constructs in Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis2023 October;17(5)

ABOUT
ARTICLE CATEGORY

Browse all articles >

BROWSE ARTICLES
EDITORIAL POLICY
FOR CONTRIBUTORS
Editorial Office
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine
88, Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul 05505, Korea
Tel: +82-2-3010-3530    Fax: +82-2-3010-8555    E-mail: asianspinejournal@gmail.com                
Korean Society of Spine Surgery
27, Dongguk-ro, Ilsandong-gu, Goyang-si 10326, Korea
Tel: +82-31-966-3413    Fax: +82-2-831-3414    E-mail: office@spine.or.kr                

Copyright © 2024 by Korean Society of Spine Surgery.

Developed in M2PI

Close layer
prev next