Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Revision surgery in proximal junctional kyphosis

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK) is a relatively common complication following spinal deformity surgery that may require reoperation. Although isolating the incidence is highly variable, in part due to the inconsistency in how PJK is defined, previous studies have reported the incidence to be as high as 39% with revision surgery performed in up to 47% of those with PJK. Despite the discordance in reported incidence, PJK remains a constant challenge that can result in undesirable outcomes following adult spine deformity surgery.

Methods

A comprehensive literature review using Medline and PubMed was performed. Keywords included “proximal junctional kyphosis,” “postoperative complications,” “spine deformity surgery,” “instrumentation failure,” and “proximal junctional failure” used separately or in conjunction.

Results

While the characterization of PJK is variable, a postoperative proximal junction sagittal Cobb angle at least 10°, 15°, or 20° greater than the measurement preoperatively, it is a consistent radiographic phenomenon that is well defined in the literature. While particular studies in the current literature may ascertain certain variables as significantly associated with the development of proximal junctional kyphosis where other studies do not, it is imperative to note that they are not all one in the same. Different patient populations, outcome variables assessed, statistical methodology, surgeon/surgical characteristics, etc. often make these analyses not completely comparable nor generalizable.

Conclusions

The goal of adult spine deformity surgery is to optimize patient outcomes and mitigate postoperative complications whenever possible. Due to the multifactorial nature of this complication, further research is required to enhance our understanding and eradicate the pathology. Patient optimization is the principal guideline in not only PJK prevention, but overall postoperative complication prevention.

Graphic abstract

These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kim YJ, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, Glattes CR, Rhim S, Cheh G (2008) Proximal junctional kyphosis in adult spinal deformity after segmental posterior spinal instrumentation and fusion: minimum 5-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33(20):2179–2184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Hart R, McCarthy I, O’Brien M et al (2013) Identification of decision criteria for revision surgery among patients with proximal junctional failure after surgical treatment of spinal deformity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38:E1223–E1227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Lee GA, Betz RR, Clements III DH, Huss GK (1999) Proximal kyphosis after posterior spinal fusion in patients with idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 24:795–799

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Glattes RC, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, Kim YJ, Rinella II A, Edwards C (2005) Proximal junctional kyphosis in adult spinal deformity following long instrumented posterior spinal fusion: incidence, outcomes, and risk factor analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30(14):1643–1649

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Hostin R, McCarthy I, O’Brien M et al (2013) Incidence, mode, and location of acute proximal junctional failures after surgical treatment of adult spinal deformity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38:1008–1015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. O’Shaughnessy BA, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG et al (2012) Does a long-fusion “T3-sacrum” portend a worse outcome than a short-fusion “T10-sacrum” in primary surgery for adult scoliosis? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37:884–890

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, Cho SK et al (2013) Proximal junctional kyphosis in primary adult deformity surgery: evaluation of 20 degrees as a critical angle. Neurosurgery 72:899–906

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Yagi M, Akilah KB, Boachie-Adjei O (2011) Incidence, risk factors and classification of proximal junctional kyphosis: surgical outcomes review of adult idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36(1):E60–E68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Yagi M, King AB, Boachie-Adjei O (2012) Incidence, risk factors, and natural course of proximal junctional kyphosis: surgical outcomes review of adult idiopathic scoliosis. Minimum 5 years of follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37(17):1479–1489

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Yagi M, Rahm M, Gaines R et al (2014) Characterization and surgical outcomes of proximal junctional failure in surgically treated patients with adult spinal deformity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 39(10):E607–E614

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kim YJ, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, Rhim S, Kim YW (2007) Is the T9, T11, or L1 the more reliable proximal level after adult lumbar or lumbosacral instrumented fusion to L5 or S1? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32(24):2653–2661

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Kim HJ, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG et al (2013) Proximal junctional kyphosis results in inferior SRS pain subscores in adult deformity patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38(11):896–901

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Smith MW, Annis P, Lawrence BD, Daubs MD, Brodke DS (2015) Acute proximal junctional failure in patients with preoperative sagittal imbalance. Spine J 15(10):2142–2148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kim HJ, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG et al (2014) Patients with proximal junctional kyphosis requiring revision surgery have higher postoperative lumbar lordosis and larger sagittal balance corrections. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 39(9):E576–E580

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kim HJ, Yagi M, Nyugen J, Cunningham ME, Boachie-Adjei O (2012) Combined anterior-posterior surgery is the most important risk factor for developing proximal junctional kyphosis in idiopathic scoliosis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 470(6):1633–1639

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Maruo K, Ha Y, Inoue S et al (2013) Predictive factors for proximal junctional kyphosis in long fusions to the sacrum in adult spinal deformity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38(23):E1469–E1476

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Hyun SJ, Kim YJ, Rhim SC (2016) Patients with proximal junctional kyphosis after stopping at thoracolumbar junction have lower muscularity, fatty degeneration at the thoracolumbar area. Spine J 16(9):1095–1101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kebaish KM, Martin CT, O’Brien JR, LaMotta IE, Voros GD, Belkoff SM (2013) Use of vertebroplasty to prevent proximal junctional fractures in adult deformity surgery: a biomechanical cadaveric study. Spine J 13(12):1897–1903

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Martin CT, Skolasky RL, Mohamed AS, Kebaish KM (2013) Preliminary results of the effect of prophylactic vertebroplasty on the incidence of proximal junctional complications after posterior spinal fusion to the low thoracic spine. Spine Deform 1(2):132–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Raman T, Miller E, Martin CT, Kebaish KM (2017) The effect of prophylactic vertebroplasty on the incidence of proximal junctional kyphosis and proximal junctional failure following posterior spinal fusion in adult spinal deformity: a 5-year follow-up study. Spine J 17(10):1489–1498

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Cahill PJ, Wang W, Asghar J et al (2012) The use of a transition rod may prevent proximal junctional kyphosis in the thoracic spine after scoliosis surgery: a finite element analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37(12):E687–E695

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Liu FY, Wang T, Yang SD, Wang H, Yang DL, Ding WY (2016) Incidence and risk factors for proximal junctional kyphosis: a meta-analysis. Eur Spine J 25(8):2376–2383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Yilgor C, Sogunmez N, Boissiere L et al (2017) Global alignment and proportion (GAP) score: development and validation of a new method of analyzing spinopelvic alignment to predict mechanical complications after adult spinal deformity surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am 99(19):1661–1672

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Bari TJ, Ohrt-Nissen S, Hansen LV, Dahl B, Gehrchen M (2019) Ability of the global alignment and proportion score to predict mechanical failure following adult spinal deformity surgery-validation in 149 patients with two-year follow-up. Spine Deform 7(2):331–337

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Och Spine Hospital at New York-Presbyterian/Columbia University Medical Center, 5141 Broadway, New York, NY, 10034, USA

    Meghan Cerpa, Zeeshan Sardar & Lawrence Lenke

Authors
  1. Meghan Cerpa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Zeeshan Sardar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lawrence Lenke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Meghan Cerpa.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

LGL has received royalties, travel/meeting accommodations, and consultancy fees from Medtronic.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PPTX 267 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cerpa, M., Sardar, Z. & Lenke, L. Revision surgery in proximal junctional kyphosis. Eur Spine J 29 (Suppl 1), 78–85 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-020-06320-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-020-06320-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation