Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Advance Online Publication
    • Archive
  • About Us
    • About ISASS
    • About the Journal
    • Author Instructions
    • Editorial Board
    • Reviewer Guidelines & Publication Criteria
  • More
    • Advertise
    • Subscribe
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Join Us
  • Reprints & Permissions
  • Sponsored Content
  • Other Publications
    • ijss

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
International Journal of Spine Surgery
  • My alerts
International Journal of Spine Surgery

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Advance Online Publication
    • Archive
  • About Us
    • About ISASS
    • About the Journal
    • Author Instructions
    • Editorial Board
    • Reviewer Guidelines & Publication Criteria
  • More
    • Advertise
    • Subscribe
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Join Us
  • Reprints & Permissions
  • Sponsored Content
  • Follow ijss on Twitter
  • Visit ijss on Facebook
Research ArticleComplications

Comparing the Upper Instrumented Vertebrae Tilt Angle vs Screw Angle in the Development of Proximal Junction Kyphosis After Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery: Which Matters More?

Keyan Peterson, Hani Chanbour, Michael Longo, Jeffrey W. Chen, Soren Jonzzon, Steven G. Roth, Jacquelyn S. Pennings, Amir M. Abtahi, Byron F. Stephens and Scott L. Zuckerman
International Journal of Spine Surgery June 2024, 8607; DOI: https://doi.org/10.14444/8607
Keyan Peterson
1 Department of Neurological Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
MD, MBA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Hani Chanbour
1 Department of Neurological Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michael Longo
1 Department of Neurological Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jeffrey W. Chen
2 Vanderbilt University, School of Medicine, Nashville, TN, USA
BA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Soren Jonzzon
1 Department of Neurological Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Steven G. Roth
1 Department of Neurological Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jacquelyn S. Pennings
3 Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
4 Center for Musculoskeletal Research, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
5 Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Osher Center for Integrative Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
PʜD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Amir M. Abtahi
1 Department of Neurological Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
3 Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Byron F. Stephens
1 Department of Neurological Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
3 Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
MD, MSCI
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Scott L. Zuckerman
1 Department of Neurological Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
3 Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
MD, MPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: scott.zuckerman@vumc.org
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Figure 1
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1

    Illustration of positive (A), neural (B), and negative (C) upper instrumented vertebrae (UIV) tilt angle.

  • Figure 2
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 2

    Illustration of positive (A), neural (B), and negative (C) upper instrumented vertebrae (UIV) screw angle.

  • Figure 3
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 3

    Distribution of upper instrumented vertebrae (UIV) tilt angle (A) and UIV screw angle (B). Abbreviation: IQR, interquartile range.

  • Figure 4
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 4

    Distribution of upper instrumented vertebrae (UIV) tilt angle (A) and UIV screw angle (B) with proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK) occurrence.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1

    Demographics, operative variables, radiographic measurements, and PROMs of the total cohort.

    Variables N = 117
    Age, y, mean ± SD65.6 ± 9.2
    Women, n (%)92 (78.6)
    Body mass index, mean ± SD30.0 ± 6.4
    Charlson Comorbidity Index, mean ± SD2.1 ± 2.8
    Comorbidities, n (%)
     Diabetes28 (23.9)
     Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease37 (31.6)
     Congestive heart failure13 (11.1)
     Hypertension88 (75.2)
     Osteopenia/osteoporosis47 (40.1)
     Dependent15 (12.8)
    Hounsfield unit average, mean ± SD151.3 ± 53.4
    Prior fusion, n (%)46 (39.3)
    Fused to sacrum, n (%)111 (94.9)
    Total instrumented levels, mean ± SD8.9 ± 1.7
    Three-column osteotomy, n (%)21 (18.0%)
    Sagittal malalignment (SVA > 5 cm), n (%)56 (47.8%)
    Coronal malalignment (CVA > 3 cm), n (%)21 (17.9%)
    Neutral alignment, n (%)22 (18.8%)
    Mixed malalignment, n (%)18 (15.3%)
    Upper instrumented vertebra, n (%)
      T79 (7.7)
     T819 (16.2)
     T912 (10.3)
     T1033 (28.2)
     T1120 (17.1)
     T1215 (12.8)
      L14 (3.4)
     L25 (4.3)
    Preoperative radiographic measurements, mean ± SD
     Pelvic incidence51.6 ± 10.8
     Pelvic tilt25.9 ± 8.9
     Thoracic kyphosis32.3 ± 15.8
     SVA88.0 ± 73.5
     CVA23.9 ± 25.2
     Pelvic incidence lumbar lordosis mismatch21.9 ± 16.5
     L1–S1 lordosis29.7 ± 18.0
     L4–S1 lordosis27.9 ± 12.1
     Lordosis distribution index96.0 ± 158.6
    Preoperative PROMs, mean ± SD
     NRS-Back7.3 ± 1.7
     NRS-Leg6.3 ± 2.4
     Oswestry Disability Index51.6 ± 11.5
    EQ-5D0.485 ± 0.204
    • Abbreviations: CVA, coronal vertical axis; NRS, Numeric Rating Scale; PROM, patient-reported outcome measure; SVA, sagittal vertical axis.

    • View popup
    Table 2

    Summary of outcome variables.

    OutcomesTotal Sample
    N = 117
    Complications, n (%)
     Mechanical complications70 (59.8)
     Proximal junctional kyphosis41 (35.0)
     Proximal junctional failure26 (22.2)
     Rod fracture/pseudarthrosis46 (39.3)
     Distal junctional kyphosis1 (0.9)
     Implant related8 (6.8)
     Reoperations54 (46.2)
    Postoperative radiographic measurements, mean ± SD
     Pelvic tilt23.9 ± 9.2
     Thoracic kyphosis40.9 ± 14.4
     Sagittal vertical axis66.3 ± 58.4
     Coronal vertical axis19.2 ± 17.5
     Pelvic incidence lumbar lordosis mismatch11.3 ± 14.2
     L1–S1 lordosis40.3 ± 14.4
     L4–S1 lordosis26.9 ± 9.1
     Lordosis distribution index70.1 ± 29.1
     Sagittal vertical axis correction47.9 ± 41.97
     Coronal vertical axis correction29.2 ± 30.8
    Patient-reported outcome measures, n (%)
     MCID NRS-Back47 (51.1)
     MCID NRS-Leg59 (68.6)
     MCID Oswestry Disability Index51 (55.4)
    • Abbreviations: MCID, minimal clinically important difference; NRS, Numeric Rating Scale.

    • View popup
    Table 3

    Comparison of the UIV tilt angle and UIV screw angle in patients with and without proximal junctional kyphosis.

    VariablesWith PJKWithout PJK P
    UIV tilt angle
     Mean ± SD13.6° ± 14.1°12.5° ± 13.4°0.689
     Lordotic UIV tilt angle, n (%)34 (36.9)58 (63.1)0.405
     Neutral/kyphotic UIV tilt angle, n (%)7 (28.0)18 (72.0)
    UIV screw angle
     Mean ± SD–0.4° ± 7.9°–4.7° ± 7.7° 0.005
     Cranially directed screws, n (%) (N = 32)17 (53.1)15 (46.9) 0.012
     Neutral/caudally directed screws, n (%) (N = 85)24 (28.2)61 (71.8)
    • Abbreviation: UIV, upper instrumented vertebrae.

    • View popup
    Table 4

    Univariate and multivariable logistic regression predicting PJK. Multivariable regression model included age, body mass index, osteopenia/osteoporosis, postoperative sagittal vertical axis, postoperative pelvic incidence lumbar lordosis, UIV tilt angle, and UIV screw angle.

    VariableUnivariateMultivariable
    OR (95% CI)Wald-df P OR (95% CI)Wald-df P
    Mechanical Complications
     UIV tilt angle0.99 (0.96–1.02)–0.760.6211.01 (0.97–1.05)–0.310.405
     UIV screw angle1.01 (0.96–1.06)–0.640.5451.06 (0.98–1.15)1.700.100
    PJK
     UIV tilt angle1.00 (0.97–1.03)–0.850.6861.06 (1.01–1.12)4.420.020
     UIV screw angle1.07 (1.01–1.12)6.230.0071.19 (1.07–1.33)9.400.001
    PJK
     UIV tilt angle1.00 (0.97–1.03)–0.970.8461.06 (1.01–1.12)2.860.049
     UIV screw angle1.07 (1.01–1.14)5.440.0111.14 (1.02–1.27)5.130.013
    Rod Fracture/Pseudarthrosis
     UIV tilt angle0.98 (0.96–1.02)–0.330.4120.99 (0.95–1.03)–0.930.785
     UIV screw angle0.97 (0.93–1.02)–0.060.3340.95 (0.89–1.02)0.580.208
    Implant Related
     UIV tilt angle1.00 (0.95–1.05)–0.990.9261.03 (0.95–1.12)–0.390.435
     UIV screw angle0.96 (0.88–1.06)–0.460.4660.97 (0.82–1.15)–0.910.768
    Reoperations
     UIV tilt angle0.98 (0.96–1.01)–0.380.4301.00 (0.96–1.04)–0.950.831
     UIV screw angle0.99 (0.95–1.04)–0.990.9620.99 (0.92–1.06)–0.930.785
    MCID NRS-Back
     UIV tilt angle0.98 (0.96–1.01)–0.500.4800.96 (0.92–1.01)1.130.144
     UIV screw angle1.04 (0.99–1.10)1.600.1061.08 (0.99–1.18)2.110.077
    MCID NRS-Leg
     UIV tilt angle0.99 (0.96–1.03)–0.990.9590.99 (0.94–1.03)–0.820.671
     UIV screw angle1.02 (0.97–1.09)–0.080.3371.01 (0.92–1.10)–0.970.859
    MCID Oswestry Disability Index
     UIV tilt angle1.00 (0.97–1.03)0.090.7531.01 (0.96–1.04)–1.000.961
     UIV screw angle1.02 (0.97–1.07)–0.240.3841.05 (0.96–1.14)0.450.228
    • Abbreviations: MCID, minimal clinically important difference; NRS, Numeric Rating Scale; PJK, proximal junctional kyphosis; UIV, upper instrumented vertebrae.

    • Note. UIV tilt angle and UIV screw angle were treated as continuous variables.

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

International Journal of Spine Surgery: 19 (S2)
International Journal of Spine Surgery
Vol. 19, Issue S2
1 Apr 2025
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on International Journal of Spine Surgery.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Comparing the Upper Instrumented Vertebrae Tilt Angle vs Screw Angle in the Development of Proximal Junction Kyphosis After Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery: Which Matters More?
(Your Name) has sent you a message from International Journal of Spine Surgery
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the International Journal of Spine Surgery web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Comparing the Upper Instrumented Vertebrae Tilt Angle vs Screw Angle in the Development of Proximal Junction Kyphosis After Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery: Which Matters More?
Keyan Peterson, Hani Chanbour, Michael Longo, Jeffrey W. Chen, Soren Jonzzon, Steven G. Roth, Jacquelyn S. Pennings, Amir M. Abtahi, Byron F. Stephens, Scott L. Zuckerman
International Journal of Spine Surgery Jun 2024, 8607; DOI: 10.14444/8607

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Comparing the Upper Instrumented Vertebrae Tilt Angle vs Screw Angle in the Development of Proximal Junction Kyphosis After Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery: Which Matters More?
Keyan Peterson, Hani Chanbour, Michael Longo, Jeffrey W. Chen, Soren Jonzzon, Steven G. Roth, Jacquelyn S. Pennings, Amir M. Abtahi, Byron F. Stephens, Scott L. Zuckerman
International Journal of Spine Surgery Jun 2024, 8607; DOI: 10.14444/8607
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusion
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Higher Incidence of Thrombotic Complications in Thoracic Spine Surgery
  • Postmyelography Acute Paraplegia in Patients With Spinal Cord Stimulators: Case Series and Review of Literature
  • Spinopelvic Fixation Using an Osseointegrative Implant: Analysis of Postmarket Surveillance to Determine the Failure Rate
Show more Complications

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • adult spinal deformity
  • vertebral tilt angle
  • upper instrumented vertebra
  • screw angle
  • proximal junctional kyphosis
  • mechanical complications
  • patient-reported outcomes

Content

  • Current Issue
  • Latest Content
  • Archive

More Information

  • About IJSS
  • About ISASS
  • Privacy Policy

More

  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Feedback

Other Services

  • Author Instructions
  • Join ISASS
  • Reprints & Permissions

© 2025 International Journal of Spine Surgery

International Journal of Spine Surgery Online ISSN: 2211-4599

Powered by HighWire