Prevention of Proximal Junctional Kyphosis Using Proximal Fixation Techniques
=============================================================================

* Eric Solomon
* Rachel S. Bronheim
* Hamid Hassanzadeh

## Abstract

**Background** Adult spinal deformity (ASD) is a disorder characterized by abnormal curvature of the spine resulting from progressive degeneration of spinal elements. Although operative intervention for ASD is commonplace, it is associated with several complications, including proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK) and proximal junctional failure (PJF). The objective of this review is to outline the role of proximal fixation in preventing PJK and PJF.

**Methods** We conducted a literature search using the Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, CINHAL, Cochrane Library, and PubMed MEDLINE databases. We considered only studies focusing on adult patients and selected clinical studies investigating proximal fixation techniques.

**Results** There was mixed evidence of the efficacy of hooks and other instrumentation methods in preventing PJK, although most studies supported the use of hooks. Selection of lower thoracic vertebrae was associated with higher rates of PJK and PJF in several studies, although the relationship was inconsistent, and many studies reported no significant difference in rates of PJK or PJF between different upper instrumented vertebra (UIV) levels. Other techniques that are not related to specific instrumentation or vertebral selection, such as adjusting UIV screw trajectory, were also referenced. However, the evidence supporting these techniques was limited.

**Discussion** Despite the presence of numerous studies in the literature discussing proximal fixation strategies to reduce the incidence of PJK/PJF, the lack of prospective studies and high variability in study methods make direct comparison challenging. We could not draw strong conclusions regarding the superiority of any one technique, despite promising clinical results with a strong biomechanical basis in several studies.

**Clinical Relevance** This systematic literature review showed that a variety of proximal fixation techniques have been used to prevent PJK/PJF without clear evidence in favor of any particular technique.

**Level of Evidence** 3.

*   proximal junctional kyphosis
*   outcomes
*   prevention

## Introduction

Over the next several decades, as the US population continues to age, the prevalence of adult spinal deformity (ASD) is expected to rise considerably. While operative intervention for ASD has been shown to be beneficial, it has been associated with relatively high rates of complications, including proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK). The prevalence of PJK among patients who have had ASD correction is generally thought to be between 17% and 39%, with some studies reporting incidence as high as 69% at 3-year follow-up.1,2 Many patients ultimately require revision surgery for proximal junctional failure (PJF), which can incur significant morbidity and cost for patients. Furthermore, there remains a risk for recurrence of PJK even after revision surgery, with one study reporting a recurrence rate of 44% among 70 patients.3 Because of the numerous challenges PJK presents, there has been considerable research on prevention. Several patient-specific, radiographic, and surgical risk factors for PJK have been identified.4 Various prevention strategies have been adopted to address these risk factors, but a widely accepted algorithm has yet to emerge. One area under investigation is surgical prevention through proximal fixation. The underlying theory of this strategy is that a more gradual transition of forces to the noninstrumented spine, with less disruption of natural spine biomechanics, can prevent PJK. The objective of this review is to assess the current literature to understand the role of proximal fixation techniques in preventing PJK. We consider the options that have been studied to date, the strength of their supporting evidence, and their efficacy.

## Definition, Risk Factors, and Timing

The original definition of PJK was proposed by Glattes et al5 in a retrospective study of 81 adult patients with ASD. PJK was established as a sagittal Cobb angle of ≥10° between the upper instrumented vertebrae (UIVs) and the superior 2 levels (UIV+2) and an angle ≥10° greater than the preoperative baseline. PJF is commonly recognized as any form of PJK requiring revision surgery. This can be due to UIV or UIV+1 fracture, posterior osseo-ligamentous disruption, or failure of instrumentation at the UIV.6 Many risk factors have been identified as possible contributors to PJK. Patient-specific risk factors such as age, body mass index, bone density, smoking, and the presence of other medical comorbidities have all been proposed. Older age has been linked to higher rates of PJK in numerous studies.5,7–11 Several surgical risk factors are also thought to contribute to PJK. These are generally related to disruption of surrounding supportive soft tissues,12 excessive construct rigidity,13 choice of UIV,14 or magnitude of deformity correction.9 Finally, radiographic risk factors include a high preoperative sagittal vertical axis15,16 and a high degree of thoracic kyphosis.17,18 

PJK generally becomes apparent within the first 1 to 2 years after surgery. Kim et al10 reported that 59% of proximal junctional angle (PJA) progression occurs within the first 8 weeks postoperatively. However, in the same study, 35% of the total PJA progression occurred more than 2 years after surgery, suggesting PJK has a progressive component as well. In contrast, PJF is often a relatively early complication. Yagi et al19 reported that 87% of patients with PJF had undergone revision surgery within 2 years after surgery, with a mean time to revision of 10 months. Other studies have reported similar findings, with average times to revision of approximately 6 months.6,20 There remains controversy over the clinical significance of PJK; although a considerable proportion of patients are asymptomatic, many studies report poorer functional scores and worse patient-reported pain in patients with PJK.8,21 Patients who require revision surgery are subject to perioperative complications and considerable costs. Hart et al22 estimated an average cost of $77,432 for revision of PJF.

## Prevention through Proximal Fixation

The Table summarizes selected studies. These studies were reviewed independently by 2 of the authors, and their subject matter was deemed relevant to the current review. Conflicts were resolved via discussion. Studies were classified according to the author, study type, quality assessment based on the Newcastle-Ottawa Score, number of patients included, type of operative treatment utilized, mean age of included patients, minimum follow-up (if specified), prophylactic technique or implant investigated, and relationship to PJK incidence.

View this table:
[Table](http://ijssurgery.com//content/17/S2/S47/T1)

Table 
Selected clinical studies of proximal fixation techniques in adult patients.

### Hooks

The use of various hooks at the UIV has been investigated as a preventive measure. The underlying theory of this technique is that, compared with pedicle screws (PSs), hooks at the UIV provide a more gradual transition of construct stiffness to the upper, noninstrumented vertebrae and less mechanical stress. This theory has been supported by numerous biomechanical studies that demonstrate a better range of motion and less construct stiffness with the use of hooks in a multitude of animal and cadaveric models.40–42 Photographs of PS and laminar hook constructs in a porcine model are shown in Figure 1 for reference.43 Several clinical studies support the use of hooks at the UIV. Cazzulino et al25 describe a “soft-landing technique” in which they used unilateral preservation of the soft-tissue sleeve combined with one or more hooks on the contralateral side in 39 patients. They observed an incidence of radiographic PJK (which they defined as PJA greater than 10°, differing from the traditional definitions) of 41% over an average of 2.2 years of follow-up. Four patients (10%) required an extension of the construct and met the criteria for PJF. They did not have a control group for comparison. Hassanzadeh et al21 used transverse process hooks (TPHs) in 47 patients undergoing long spinal fusion, with 20 receiving a TPH and 27 receiving a PS alone as a control cohort. The minimum follow-up was set at 2 years. None of the patients in the TPH group developed PJK, while 8 patients in the PS group developed PJK (*P* = 0.01). The TPH group also had significantly higher functional scores compared with the PS group at the final follow-up (*P* < 0.05). In a multicenter study of 625 patients, Line et al32 analyzed the effect on PJF rates with no supplementary fixation vs various implant options. Augmentation methods included TPHs, cement vertebroplasty, and tethering. PJF occurred at a rate of 20.3% in the no-augmentation group and 10.3% in the augmentation group. TPHs had the lowest rate of PJF at 7% (*n* = 115).

![Figure 1](http://ijssurgery.com//https://www.ijssurgery.com/content/ijss/17/S2/S47/F1.medium.gif)

[Figure 1](http://ijssurgery.com//content/17/S2/S47/F1)

Figure 1 
Posterior (A) and superior (B) views of porcine spinal constructs instrumented with traditional pedicle screws, left, and laminar hooks, right. *Source:* Reprinted from Figure 4 in Tai et al. Biomechanical comparison of different combinations of hook and screw in one spine motion unit–an experiment in porcine model. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2014;15:19743 under Creative Commons CC BY license.

Despite several promising clinical studies, there is also evidence showing no association and even a negative association between hooks and PJK incidence. Matsumura et al33 compared TPH with PS in 39 patients; 17 patients received a TPH and 22 received a PS at the UIV. The incidence of PJK (defined solely as a change in the PJA of >20°) was 17.6% in the TPH group and 27.3% in the PS group, but this difference was not found to be statistically significant. They did find a larger change in PJA in the PS group compared with the TPH group, 19° vs 5° (*P* = 0.04). Only a single study found that TPHs were associated with higher rates of PJK. Tsutsui et al37 performed a retrospective review of 28 patients with a TPH and 25 with a PS at the UIV at either T-9 or T-10. They found a significantly higher incidence of PJK in the TPH group compared with the PS group (25.7% vs 8.0%) at a 1-year follow-up. Ultimately, there is a lack of high-quality evidence supporting the use of hooks as a definitive PJK prevention measure, albeit with several promising clinical studies and sound underlying biomechanical evidence. Larger trials are needed to investigate this method further.

Another prophylactic option for PJK prevention is the use of vertebral tethers around the UIV. Operating on a similar principle as TPHs, vertebral tethers are hypothesized to provide a more gradual transition of forces from the UIV to the noninstrumented vertebrae above, therefore reducing the incidence of PJK. This effect has been demonstrated in several biomechanical studies and finite element analyses.44–46 There is promising recent clinical evidence that suggests that various tethering techniques are effective in reducing the incidence of PJK.47,48 However, despite this evidence, a variety of tethering techniques are under investigation, and some studies have shown that certain methods are not associated with significantly different PJK incidence.49 Other studies have shown that tethering, while effective at reducing PJK incidence, is not demonstrably superior to other methods such as the use of hooks,32 with an optimal instrumentation configuration remaining unclear.

### Screw Techniques

Alternative screw techniques at the UIV have been implemented to achieve a similar reduction in construct stiffness. One such technique involves cranially directed transvertebral screws, which are inserted at the inferolateral aspect of the most superior pedicles. The screw is then directed obliquely and superiorly across one or more vertebral levels, depending on the technique. Sandquist et al35 reported on PJF in a sample of 15 patients who received screws placed with this technique, termed multilevel stabilization screws (MLSSs), with at least 1-year follow-up. A 3-dimensional reconstruction of this technique is shown in Figure 2.35 None of the 15 patients experienced PJF, and there was an average change in their sagittal Cobb angle of 4°, ranging from −0.92° to 9.13°. The same researchers published a later study of 76 patients, including 26 controls receiving standard instrumentation.29 The MLSS group had a significantly lower incidence of PJK when compared with the control group, 10.0% vs 30.8% (*P* = 0.023), as well as a significantly lower PJA (1.3° ± 5.3° vs 5.2° ± 6.3°, *P* = 0.014). Another study investigated the role of polyaxial vs monoaxial screws as another means of reducing construct stiffness. Wang et al38 used monoaxial screws (MAS) instead of the more frequently used polyaxial screws (PAS) in a sample of 242 patients, observing no difference in PJK rates when compared with the polyaxial screw technique (22.2% and 24.0%, respectively).

![Figure 2](http://ijssurgery.com//https://www.ijssurgery.com/content/ijss/17/S2/S47/F2.medium.gif)

[Figure 2](http://ijssurgery.com//content/17/S2/S47/F2)

Figure 2 
Three-dimensional reconstruction demonstrating a multilevel stabilization screw construct. *Source:* Reprinted from Figure 3 in Sandquist et al. Preventing proximal junctional failure in long segmental instrumented cases of adult degenerative scoliosis using a multilevel stabilization screw technique. *Surg Neurol Int*. 2015;6:11235 under Creative Commons license CC BY.

### Implant Orientation and Trajectory

It is well known that PS angle modulates mechanical stress and screw pullout strength in biomechanical models,50 and this has led some to postulate that screw trajectory may also influence PJK. Harris et al51 studied PS trajectory as a risk factor for PJK and found that screws angled greater than 3° cranially were associated with significantly increased incidence of PJK and PJF. The authors hypothesized that this was a result of the creation of a larger bone channel when using a caudally directed trajectory, decreasing stress and increasing pullout strength. This benefit was balanced against the risk of facet joint violation with additional caudal angulation.

In addition to screw trajectory, the mismatch between proximal rod contour and PJA has been analyzed in several studies. Yan et al52 found that greater angle mismatch between the PJA and proximal rod contour was associated with higher rates of postoperative PJK compared with constructs with rod contours that more closely matched the PJA. Numerous additional studies support this finding. For example, in a retrospective case series, Yang et al53 found that the cohort of patients with PJK included a significantly higher proportion of individuals with poorly matched (greater than 5°) proximal rod contouring compared with the cohort without PJK (69% vs 25%).53 However, many of these studies were conducted with populations that included adolescent patients, making their generalizability to entirely adult populations questionable.

### Soft Tissue Preservation

Violation of and excessive damage to soft tissues around the UIV are believed to contribute to the development of PJK.54,55 Various methodologies to preserve local soft-tissue envelopes and ligamentous support have been described. These techniques are typically combined with additional instrumentation prophylaxis as opposed to being used as standalone methods. The increased use of minimally invasive surgical (MIS) techniques has led several groups to investigate MIS and hybrid fixation options for preserving soft tissue integrity. Mummaneni et al56 compared PJK rates in circumferential MIS (cMIS) with a hybrid approach for ASD and found lower rates of PJK in the cMIS group but no difference when controlling for a number of levels fused. Burks et al24 studied percutaneous fixation at the upper 2 instrumented levels in hybrid-MIS ASD correction in a case series of 36 patients.24 They observed rates of PJK that were similar to those in the generally published literature but did not have a control group for comparison. Thus far, there has not been a consistently demonstrated advantage of MIS techniques compared with traditional open surgery for the prevention of PJK.

### UIV Selection

The influence of UIV level on the incidence of PJK has long been debated. Generally, it is important to select a stable, neutral vertebra and a level that allows for the inclusion of spinal segments with significant baseline kyphosis. However, these decisions are not always straightforward; extension of the construct to the upper thoracic (UT) levels may be associated with its own perioperative complications and may increase overall construct stiffness. Furthermore, the involvement of higher vertebral levels may increase the risk for catastrophic PJK and devastating neurological injuries compared with shorter fusions. The literature has not yet provided clear guidance on an optimal strategy, and there is mixed evidence about a consistent relationship between the UIV level and the development of PJK.

In several studies, the selection of a more caudal UIV was related to higher rates of PJK, PJF, and the need for surgical revision. Daniels et al27 retrospectively analyzed 303 patients and observed significantly lower rates of PJK (odds ratio [OR] 0.49, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.24–0.99) and lower rates of PJF (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.24–1.22) for a UT UIV compared with a lower thoracic (LT) UIV at 2-year follow-up. Cho et al26 observed 51 patients with 2 years of follow-up and found that the rates of PJK were greater when the UIV was at or below the upper-end vertebra of the deformity, with all 5 cases (5 of 51, 10%) of PJK occurring in this group. A larger cohort study of 165 patients treated with pedicle subtraction osteotomy found a greater number of patients requiring surgical revision for PJK based on UIV location, with 2 of 11 in the UT group and 9 of 11 in the thoracolumbar (TL) group (*P* = 0.0274). However, overall rates of PJK were not significantly different between the groups.36 In a case-control study of 252 ASD patients who underwent posterior instrumentation and fusion, Lafage et al31 found that 63.5% of patients in the TL group developed PJK, compared with 49.2% in the UT group (*P* = 0.02). Another aspect to consider in UIV selection is the position in which patients are evaluated during preoperative imaging. Typically, patients are evaluated in a standing position for radiographs, yet many patients spend significantly larger portions of their lives sitting. Yoshida et al39 performed a study in which both sitting and standing preoperative radiographs were used to determine the relationship of PJK to various parameters, including coronal distance to C2 and C7 plumb lines. They hypothesized that a sitting radiograph would be a better predictor of PJK as it better represents resting biomechanics. They found that a UIV that was greater than 115 mm from the C2 plumb line on sitting radiographs was significantly associated with a higher incidence of PJK on logistic regression analysis. This finding was not replicated with standing radiographs. The distance to the C7 plumb line was also investigated in this study but was not found to be significantly associated with PJK.

There have been several studies showing no relationship between UIV level and PJK incidence. In a retrospective cohort study of 58 patients, O’Shaughnessy et al34 found no significant difference in either PJK incidence or surgical revision rates between the UT and LT groups with a minimum of 2 years follow-up. Similarly, Kim et al9 followed 198 patients undergoing long instrumentation (>5 levels) for ASD for 2 years. When the patients were divided into UT and LT groups, their measured PJK angles and surgical revision rates were not significantly different at follow-up. Buell et al23 conducted a retrospective analysis of 560 patients who underwent surgical correction for ASD with 2 years of follow-up. They found similar rates of reoperation for PJK in the UT and LT groups, 9.8% vs 8.6%, respectively (*P* = 0.810). Ha et al28 compared the incidence of PJK in patients with upper fixation at either proximal thoracic (PT) or distal thoracic (DT) levels. Among the 89 patients, there were no significant differences between the PT and DT cohorts in rates of PJK, PJF, or other measured clinical outcomes. They did find, however, that vertebral compression fracture was more prevalent in the DT group, while subluxation was more prevalent in the PT group. Kim et al,30 in a study of patients undergoing instrumentation and fusion for ASD, established 3 retrospective cohorts based on UIV location (T9-T10, T11-T12, and L1-L2) with 2 years of follow-up. There was no significant difference in overall rates of PJK (51%, 55%, and 36% for T9-T10, T11-T12, and L1-L2, respectively, *P* = 0.2). There were also no significant differences in the total change in the PJA from preoperative measurement to final follow-up (*P* = 0.46).

## Summary

PJK and PJF are potentially severe complications of corrective surgery for ASD, with a prevalence that is expected to increase in the United States as the population ages. Prevention of PJK and PJF will be of great importance in providing effective, high-value care and will require the development of well-defined prevention strategies. Proximal fixation techniques and surgical planning represent one subset of these strategies, although effective PJK prophylaxis will undoubtedly require a mix of surgical and patient-specific strategies. While there is compelling biomechanical and clinical data to support more in-depth clinical investigation into proximal fixation techniques such as PJK prophylaxis, current data are insufficient to draw firm conclusions about the superiority of any one method.

## Acknowledgments

For editorial assistance, we thank Denise Di Salvo, MS; Sandra Crump, MPH; and Rachel Box, MS, in the Editorial Services group of The Johns Hopkins Department of Orthopaedic Surgery.

## Footnotes

*   **Funding** This article was supported in part by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS) of the National Institutes of Health under award number T32 AR07708-08 (RSB).

*   **Declaration of Conflicting Interests** Dr. Hassanzadeh discloses that he is a paid consultant and presenter/speaker for Nuvasive and has stock or stock options for that company. He is also a paid presenter/speaker for and receives research support from Orthofix. Dr. Bronheim and Mr. Solomon have nothing to disclose.

*   This manuscript is generously published free of charge by ISASS, the International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery. Copyright © 2023 ISASS. To see more or order reprints or permissions, see [http://ijssurgery.com](http://ijssurgery.com).

## References

1.  1. Smith JS , Shaffrey CI , Klineberg E , et al . Complication rates associated with 3-column osteotomy in 82 adult spinal deformity patients: retrospective review of a prospectively collected multicenter consecutive series with 2-year follow-up. J Neurosurg Spine. 2017;27(4):444–457. doi:10.3171/2016.10.SPINE16849 
    
    [CrossRef](http://ijssurgery.com//lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3171/2016.10.SPINE16849&link_type=DOI) 

2.  2. Segreto FA , Passias PG , Lafage R , et al . Incidence of acute, progressive, and delayed proximal junctional kyphosis over an 8-year period in adult spinal deformity patients. Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown). 2020;18(1):75–82. doi:10.1093/ons/opz128 
    
    [CrossRef](http://ijssurgery.com//lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/ons/opz128&link_type=DOI) 

3.  3. Kim HJ , Wang S-J , Lafage R , et al . Recurrent proximal junctional kyphosis: incidence, risk factors, revision rates, and outcomes at 2-year minimum follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2020;45(1):E18–E24. doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000003202 
    
    [CrossRef](http://ijssurgery.com//lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/BRS.0000000000003202&link_type=DOI) 

4.  4. Kim HJ , Iyer S . Proximal junctional kyphosis. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2016;24(5):318–326. doi:10.5435/JAAOS-D-14-00393 
    
    [CrossRef](http://ijssurgery.com//lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.5435/JAAOS-D-14-00393&link_type=DOI) 

5.  5. Glattes RC , Bridwell KH , Lenke LG , Kim YJ , Rinella A , Edwards C . 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(14):1643–1649. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000169451.76359.49 
    
    [CrossRef](http://ijssurgery.com//lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/01.brs.0000169451.76359.49&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://ijssurgery.com//lookup/external-ref?access_num=16025035&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fijss%2F17%2FS2%2FS47.atom) 

6.  6. Hostin R , McCarthy I , O’Brien M , et al . Incidence, mode, and location of acute proximal junctional failures after surgical treatment of adult spinal deformity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38(12):1008–1015. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e318271319c 
    
    [CrossRef](http://ijssurgery.com//lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/BRS.0b013e318271319c&link_type=DOI) 

7.  7. Kim HJ , Lenke LG , Shaffrey CI , Van Alstyne EM , Skelly AC . Proximal junctional kyphosis as a distinct form of adjacent segment pathology after spinal deformity surgery: a systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37(22 Suppl):S144–S164. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31826d611b 
    
    [CrossRef](http://ijssurgery.com//lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/BRS.0b013e31826d611b&link_type=DOI) 

8.  8. Kim HJ , Bridwell KH , Lenke LG , et al . Proximal junctional kyphosis results in inferior SRS pain subscores in adult deformity patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38(11):896–901. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182815b42 
    
    [CrossRef](http://ijssurgery.com//lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182815b42&link_type=DOI) 

9.  9. Kim HJ , Bridwell KH , Lenke LG , et al . Patients with proximal junctional kyphosis requiring revision surgery have higher postoperative lumbar lordosis and larger sagittal balance corrections. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014;39(9):E576–E580. doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000000246 
    
    [CrossRef](http://ijssurgery.com//lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/BRS.0000000000000246&link_type=DOI) 

10. 10. Kim YJ , Bridwell KH , Lenke LG , Glattes CR , Rhim S , Cheh G . Proximal junctional kyphosis in adult spinal deformity after segmental posterior spinal instrumentation and fusion: minimum five-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008;33(20):2179–2184. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31817c0428 
    
    [CrossRef](http://ijssurgery.com//lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/BRS.0b013e31817c0428&link_type=DOI) 

11. 11. Liu FY , Wang T , Yang SD , Wang H , Yang DL , Ding WY . Incidence and risk factors for proximal junctional kyphosis: a meta-analysis. Eur Spine J. 2016;25(8):2376–2383. doi:10.1007/s00586-016-4534-0 
    
    [CrossRef](http://ijssurgery.com//lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s00586-016-4534-0&link_type=DOI) 

12. 12. Kim YJ , Lenke LG , Bridwell KH , et al . Proximal junctional kyphosis in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis after 3 different types of posterior segmental spinal instrumentation and fusions: incidence and risk factor analysis of 410 cases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32(24):2731–2738. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31815a7ead 
    
    [CrossRef](http://ijssurgery.com//lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/BRS.0b013e31815a7ead&link_type=DOI) 

13. 13. Lau D , Clark AJ , Scheer JK , et al . Proximal junctional kyphosis and failure after spinal deformity surgery: a systematic review of the literature as a background to classification development. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014;39(25):2093–2102. doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000000627 
    
    [CrossRef](http://ijssurgery.com//lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/BRS.0000000000000627&link_type=DOI) 

14. 14. Bridwell KH , Lenke LG , Cho SK , et al . Proximal junctional kyphosis in primary adult deformity surgery: evaluation of 20 degrees as a critical angle. Neurosurgery. 2013;72(6):899–906. doi:10.1227/NEU.0b013e31828bacd8 
    
    [CrossRef](http://ijssurgery.com//lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1227/NEU.0b013e31828bacd8&link_type=DOI) 

15. 15. Annis P , Lawrence BD , Spiker WR , et al . Predictive factors for acute proximal junctional failure after adult deformity surgery with upper instrumented vertebrae in the thoracolumbar spine. Evid Based Spine Care J. 2014;5(2):160–162. doi:10.1055/s-0034-1386755 
    
    [CrossRef](http://ijssurgery.com//lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1055/s-0034-1386755&link_type=DOI) 

16. 16. Smith MW , Annis P , Lawrence BD , Daubs MD , Brodke DS . Early proximal junctional failure in patients with preoperative sagittal imbalance. Evid Based Spine Care J. 2013;4(2):163–164. doi:10.1055/s-0033-1357366 
    
    [CrossRef](http://ijssurgery.com//lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1055/s-0033-1357366&link_type=DOI) 

17. 17. Maruo K , Ha Y , Inoue S , et al . Predictive factors for proximal junctional kyphosis in long fusions to the sacrum in adult spinal deformity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38(23):E1469–E1476. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182a51d43 
    
    [CrossRef](http://ijssurgery.com//lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182a51d43&link_type=DOI) 

18. 18. Mendoza-Lattes S , Ries Z , Gao Y , Weinstein SL . Proximal junctional kyphosis in adult reconstructive spine surgery results from incomplete restoration of the lumbar lordosis relative to the magnitude of the thoracic kyphosis. Iowa Orthop J. 2011;31:199–206.
    
    [PubMed](http://ijssurgery.com//lookup/external-ref?access_num=22096442&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fijss%2F17%2FS2%2FS47.atom) 

19. 19. Yagi M , Rahm M , Gaines R , et al . Characterization and surgical outcomes of proximal junctional failure in surgically treated patients with adult spinal deformity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014;39(10):E607–E614. doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000000266 
    
    [CrossRef](http://ijssurgery.com//lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/BRS.0000000000000266&link_type=DOI) 

20. 20. Watanabe K , Lenke LG , Bridwell KH , Kim YJ , Koester L , Hensley M . Proximal junctional vertebral fracture in adults after spinal deformity surgery using pedicle screw constructs: analysis of morphological features. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010;35(2):138–145. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181c8f35d 
    
    [CrossRef](http://ijssurgery.com//lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181c8f35d&link_type=DOI) 

21. 21. Hassanzadeh H , Gupta S , Jain A , El Dafrawy MH , Skolasky RL , Kebaish KM . Type of anchor at the proximal fusion level has a significant effect on the incidence of proximal junctional kyphosis and outcome in adults after long posterior spinal fusion. Spine Deform. 2013;1(4):299–305. doi:10.1016/j.jspd.2013.05.008 
    
    [CrossRef](http://ijssurgery.com//lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jspd.2013.05.008&link_type=DOI) 

22. 22. Hart RA , Prendergast MA , Roberts WG , Nesbit GM , Barnwell SL . Proximal junctional acute collapse cranial to multi-level lumbar fusion: a cost analysis of prophylactic vertebral augmentation. Spine J. 2008;8(6):875–881. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2008.01.015 
    
    [CrossRef](http://ijssurgery.com//lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.spinee.2008.01.015&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://ijssurgery.com//lookup/external-ref?access_num=18375188&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fijss%2F17%2FS2%2FS47.atom) 

23. 23. Buell TJ , Shaffrey CI , Kim HJ , et al . Global coronal decompensation and adult spinal deformity surgery: comparison of upper-thoracic versus lower-thoracic proximal fixation for long fusions. J Neurosurg Spine. 2021;35(6):761–773. doi:10.3171/2021.2.SPINE201938 
    
    [CrossRef](http://ijssurgery.com//lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3171/2021.2.SPINE201938&link_type=DOI) 

24. 24. Burks SS , Uribe JS , Kolcun JPG , et al . Proximal fusion constructs in minimally invasive scoliosis surgery are successful without interbody or intertransverse fusion. J Neurosurg. 31(6):851–856. doi:10.3171/2019.5.SPINE19192 
    
    [CrossRef](http://ijssurgery.com//lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3171/2019.5.SPINE19192&link_type=DOI) 

25. 25. Cazzulino A , Gandhi R , Woodard T , et al . Soft landing technique as a possible prevention strategy for proximal junctional failure following adult spinal deformity surgery. J Spine Surg. 2021;7(1):26–36. doi:10.21037/jss-20-622 
    
    [CrossRef](http://ijssurgery.com//lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.21037/jss-20-622&link_type=DOI) 

26. 26. Cho K-J , Suk S-I , Park S-R , Kim J-H , Jung J-H . Selection of proximal fusion level for adult degenerative lumbar scoliosis. Eur Spine J. 2013;22(2):394–401. doi:10.1007/s00586-012-2527-1 
    
    [CrossRef](http://ijssurgery.com//lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s00586-012-2527-1&link_type=DOI) 

27. 27. Daniels AH , Reid DBC , Durand WM , et al . Upper-thoracic versus lower-thoracic upper Instrumented vertebra in adult spinal deformity patients undergoing fusion to the pelvis: surgical decision-making and patient outcomes. J Neurosurg Spine. 2019;32(4):1–7. doi:10.3171/2019.9.SPINE19557 
    
    [CrossRef](http://ijssurgery.com//lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3171/2019.9.SPINE19557&link_type=DOI) 

28. 28. Ha Y , Maruo K , Racine L , et al . Proximal junctional kyphosis and clinical outcomes in adult spinal deformity surgery with fusion from the thoracic spine to the sacrum: a comparison of proximal and distal upper instrumented vertebrae. J Neurosurg Spine. 2013;19(3):360–369. doi:10.3171/2013.5.SPINE12737 
    
    [CrossRef](http://ijssurgery.com//lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3171/2013.5.SPINE12737&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://ijssurgery.com//lookup/external-ref?access_num=23848349&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fijss%2F17%2FS2%2FS47.atom) 

29. 29. Kaufmann A , Claus C , Tong D , et al . Multilevel stabilization screws prevent proximal junctional failure and kyphosis in adult spinal deformity surgery: a comparative cohort study. Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown). 2022;22(3):150–157. doi:10.1227/ONS.0000000000000076 
    
    [CrossRef](http://ijssurgery.com//lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1227/ONS.0000000000000076&link_type=DOI) 

30. 30. Kim YJ , Bridwell KH , Lenke LG , Rhim S , Kim Y-W . 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). 2007;32(24):2653–2661. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31815a5a9d 
    
    [CrossRef](http://ijssurgery.com//lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/BRS.0b013e31815a5a9d&link_type=DOI) 

31. 31. Lafage R , Line BG , Gupta S , et al . Orientation of the upper-most instrumented segment influences proximal junctional disease following adult spinal deformity surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2017;42(20):1570–1577. doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000002191 
    
    [CrossRef](http://ijssurgery.com//lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/BRS.0000000000002191&link_type=DOI) 

32. 32. Line BG , Bess S , Lafage R , et al . Effective prevention of proximal junctional failure in adult spinal deformity surgery requires a combination of surgical implant prophylaxis and avoidance of sagittal alignment overcorrection. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2020;45(4):258–267. doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000003249 
    
    [CrossRef](http://ijssurgery.com//lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/BRS.0000000000003249&link_type=DOI) 

33. 33. Matsumura A , Namikawa T , Kato M , et al . Effect of different types of upper instrumented vertebrae instruments on proximal junctional kyphosis following adult spinal deformity surgery: pedicle screw versus transverse process hook. Asian Spine J. 2018;12(4):622–631. doi:10.31616/asj.2018.12.4.622 
    
    [CrossRef](http://ijssurgery.com//lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.31616/asj.2018.12.4.622&link_type=DOI) 

34. 34. O’Shaughnessy BA , Bridwell KH , Lenke LG , et al . 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). 2012;37(10):884–890. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182376414 
    
    [CrossRef](http://ijssurgery.com//lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182376414&link_type=DOI) 

35. 35. Sandquist L , Carr D , Tong D , Gonda R , Soo TM . Preventing proximal junctional failure in long segmental instrumented cases of adult degenerative scoliosis using a multilevel stabilization screw technique. Surg Neurol Int. 2015;6:112. doi:10.4103/2152-7806.159383 
    
    [CrossRef](http://ijssurgery.com//lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.4103/2152-7806.159383&link_type=DOI) 

36. 36. Scheer JK , Lafage V , Smith JS , et al . Maintenance of radiographic correction at 2 years following lumbar pedicle subtraction osteotomy is superior with upper thoracic compared with thoracolumbar junction upper instrumented vertebra. Eur Spine J. 2015;24(S1):S121–S130. doi:10.1007/s00586-014-3391-y 
    
    [CrossRef](http://ijssurgery.com//lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s00586-014-3391-y&link_type=DOI) 

37. 37. Tsutsui S , Hashizume H , Yukawa Y , et al . Optimal anchor at the uppermost Instrumented vertebra in long fusion from the pelvis to the lower thoracic spine in elderly patients with degenerative spinal deformity: hook versus pedicle screw. Clin Spine Surg. 2022;35(1):E280–E284. doi:10.1097/BSD.0000000000001204 
    
    [CrossRef](http://ijssurgery.com//lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/BSD.0000000000001204&link_type=DOI) 

38. 38. 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;101:405–415. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2017.02.013 
    
    [CrossRef](http://ijssurgery.com//lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.wneu.2017.02.013&link_type=DOI) 

39. 39. Yoshida G , Ushirozako H , Hasegawa T , et al . Preoperative and postoperative sitting radiographs for adult spinal deformity surgery: upper Instrumented vertebra selection using sitting C2 plumb line distance to prevent proximal junctional kyphosis. Spine. 1976:E950–E958. doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000003452 
    
    [CrossRef](http://ijssurgery.com//lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/BRS.0000000000003452&link_type=DOI) 

40. 40. Thawrani DP , Glos DL , Coombs MT , Bylski-Austrow DI , Sturm PF . Transverse process hooks at upper instrumented vertebra provide more gradual motion transition than pedicle screws. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014;39(14):E826–E832. doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000000367 
    
    [CrossRef](http://ijssurgery.com//lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/BRS.0000000000000367&link_type=DOI) 

41. 41. Doodkorte RJP , Roth AK , Jacobs E , Arts JJC , Willems PC . Biomechanical evaluation of semi-rigid junctional fixation using a novel cable anchor system to prevent proximal junctional failure in adult spinal deformity surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2022;47(9):E415–E422. doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000004228 
    
    [CrossRef](http://ijssurgery.com//lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/BRS.0000000000004228&link_type=DOI) 

42. 42. Doodkorte RJP , Roth AK , Arts JJ , Lataster LMA , van Rhijn LW , Willems PC . Biomechanical comparison of semirigid junctional fixation techniques to prevent proximal junctional failure after thoracolumbar adult spinal deformity correction. Spine J. 2021;21(5):855–864. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2021.01.017 
    
    [CrossRef](http://ijssurgery.com//lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.spinee.2021.01.017&link_type=DOI) 

43. 43. Tai C-L , Chen L-H , Lee D-M , Liu M-Y , Lai P-L . Biomechanical comparison of different combinations of hook and screw in one spine motion unit--an experiment in porcine model. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2014;15:197. doi:10.1186/1471-2474-15-197 
    
    [CrossRef](http://ijssurgery.com//lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/1471-2474-15-197&link_type=DOI) 

44. 44. Bess S , Harris JE , Turner AWL , et al . The effect of posterior polyester tethers on the biomechanics of proximal junctional kyphosis: a finite element analysis. J Neurosurg Spine. 2017;26(1):125–133. doi:10.3171/2016.6.SPINE151477 
    
    [CrossRef](http://ijssurgery.com//lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3171/2016.6.SPINE151477&link_type=DOI) 

45. 45. Buell TJ , Bess S , Xu M , et al . Optimal tether configurations and preload tensioning to prevent proximal junctional kyphosis: a finite element analysis. J Neurosurg Spine. 2019;30(5):1–11. doi:10.3171/2018.10.SPINE18429 
    
    [CrossRef](http://ijssurgery.com//lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3171/2018.10.SPINE18429&link_type=DOI) 

46. 46. Mar DE , Burton DC , McIff TE . Biomechanics of prophylactic tethering for proximal junctional kyphosis: comparison of posterior tether looping techniques. Spine Deform. 2019;7(2):197–202. doi:10.1016/j.jspd.2018.07.001 
    
    [CrossRef](http://ijssurgery.com//lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jspd.2018.07.001&link_type=DOI) 

47. 47. Buell TJ , Buchholz AL , Quinn JC , et al . A pilot study on posterior polyethylene tethers to prevent proximal junctional kyphosis after multilevel spinal instrumentation for adult spinal deformity. Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown). 2019;16(2):256–266. doi:10.1093/ons/opy065 
    
    [CrossRef](http://ijssurgery.com//lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/ons/opy065&link_type=DOI) 

48. 48. Buell TJ , Chen C-J , Quinn JC , et al . Alignment risk factors for proximal junctional kyphosis and the effect of lower thoracic junctional tethers for adult spinal deformity. World Neurosurg. 2019;121:e96–e103. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2018.08.242 
    
    [CrossRef](http://ijssurgery.com//lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.wneu.2018.08.242&link_type=DOI) 

49. 49. Iyer S , Lovecchio F , Elysée JC , et al . Posterior ligamentous reinforcement of the upper instrumented vertebrae +1 does not decrease proximal junctional kyphosis in adult spinal deformity. Global Spine J. 2020;10(6):692–699. doi:10.1177/2192568219868472 
    
    [CrossRef](http://ijssurgery.com//lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1177/2192568219868472&link_type=DOI) 

50. 50. Bianco RJ , Arnoux PJ , Wagnac E , Mac-Thiong JM , Aubin CÉ . Minimizing pedicle screw pullout risks: a detailed biomechanical analysis of screw design and placement. Clin Spine Surg. 2017;30(3):E226–E232. doi:10.1097/BSD.0000000000000151 
    
    [CrossRef](http://ijssurgery.com//lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/BSD.0000000000000151&link_type=DOI) 

51. 51. Harris AB , Kebaish FN , Puvanesarajah V , et al . Caudally directed upper-Instrumented vertebra pedicle screws associated with minimized risk of proximal junctional failure in patients with long posterior spinal fusion for adult spinal deformity. Spine J. 2021;21(7):1072–1079. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2021.03.009 
    
    [CrossRef](http://ijssurgery.com//lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.spinee.2021.03.009&link_type=DOI) 

52. 52. Yan P , Bao H , Qiu Y , et al . Mismatch between proximal rod contouring and proximal junctional angle: a predisposed risk factor for proximal junctional kyphosis in degenerative scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2017;42(5):E280–E287. doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000001883 
    
    [CrossRef](http://ijssurgery.com//lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/BRS.0000000000001883&link_type=DOI) 

53. 53. Yang B , Xu L , Wang M , et al . Unmatched rod contouring at the proximal end predisposes to occurrence of junctional kyphosis in early-onset Scoliosis patients undergoing traditional growing rods treatment. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2022;23(1):624. doi:10.1186/s12891-022-05564-7 
    
    [CrossRef](http://ijssurgery.com//lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s12891-022-05564-7&link_type=DOI) 

54. 54. Arlet V , Aebi M . Junctional spinal disorders in operated adult spinal deformities: present understanding and future perspectives. Eur Spine J. 2013;22(Suppl 2):S276–S295. doi:10.1007/s00586-013-2676-x 
    
    [CrossRef](http://ijssurgery.com//lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s00586-013-2676-x&link_type=DOI) 

55. 55. Cammarata M , Aubin C-É , Wang X , Mac-Thiong J-M . Biomechanical risk factors for proximal junctional kyphosis: a detailed numerical analysis of surgical instrumentation variables. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014;39(8):E500–E507. doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000000222 
    
    [CrossRef](http://ijssurgery.com//lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/BRS.0000000000000222&link_type=DOI) 

56. 56. Mummaneni PV , Park P , Fu K-M , et al . Does minimally invasive percutaneous posterior instrumentation reduce risk of proximal junctional Kyphosis in adult spinal deformity surgery? A propensity-matched cohort analysis. Neurosurgery. 2016;78(1):101–108. doi:10.1227/NEU.0000000000001002 
    
    [CrossRef](http://ijssurgery.com//lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1227/NEU.0000000000001002&link_type=DOI)