Comparison of a Newer Versus Older Protocol for Circumferential Minimally Invasive Surgical (CMIS) Correction of Adult Spinal Deformity (ASD)—Evolution Over a 10-Year Experience

Abstract Study Design Retrospective. Objectives Compare circumferential minimally invasive surgical (CMIS) correction outcomes of patients treated for adult spinal deformity (ASD) with a newer versus older protocol Summary of Background Data CMIS techniques have become increasingly popular. Increasing experience and learning curve may help improve outcomes. Methods A prospectively collected database was queried for all patients who underwent CMIS correction of ASD (Cobb angle >20° or sagittal vertical axis [SVA] >50 mm or pelvic incidence–lumbar lordosis mismatch >10) at 3+ levels. Those without a full-length radiograph or 2-year follow-up were excluded. Patients were compared based on treatment using our original or newer protocol. Results The original protocol had 76 patients with an average age of 66.99 years (range 46–81, standard deviation [SD] 9.03), and the new protocol had 53 patients with average age of 65.85 years (range 48–85, SD 8.08). Preoperative and latest visual analog scale (VAS) scores in the original were 6.85 and 3.45 (p = .001) and in the new were 6.19 and 2.27 (p = .004). Delta-VAS scores were 3.27 and 4.27. The Oswestry disability index (ODI) reduced from 45.84 to 32.91 (p = .041) in the original and from 44.21 to 25.39 (p = .017) in the new. Average delta-ODIs were 22.25 and 24.01. Preoperative, latest, and delta-SF physical component scores for the original were 35.38, 42.42, and 10.06 and for the new, 30.89, 39.49, and 11.93. SF mental component scores were 50.96, 55.19, and 12.84 and 50.12, 52.99, and 8.85. The original and new protocols had latest Cobb angles of 11.54° and 11.12° (p = .789), delta-Cobb angles of 14.51° and 20.03° (p Conclusion Improvements in radiographic scores, functional outcomes, and limits of SVA correction and lower complication rates suggest that the new protocol may help improve outcomes. These findings may be a reflection of our 10-year experience and advances in the learning curve. Level of Evidence Level IV.