Methods: The KID was used to identify all pediatric inpatients with CM and scoliosis. The patients were stratified into three groups: those with concomitant CM and scoliosis (CMS group), those with only CM (CM group), and those with only scoliosis (Sc group). Multivariate logistic regressions were used to assess association between surgical characteristics and diagnosis with complication rate. Results: A total of 90,707 spine patients were identified (61.8% Sc, 37% CM, 1.2% CMS). Sc patients were older, had a higher invasiveness score, and higher Charlson comorbidity index (all p<0.001). CMS patients had significantly higher rates of surgical decompression (36.7%). Sc patients had significantly higher rates of fusions (35.3%) and osteotomies (1.2%, all p<0.001). Controlling for age and invasiveness, postoperative complications were significantly associated with spine fusion surgery for Sc patients (odds ratio [OR], 1.8; p<0.05). Specifically, posterior spinal fusion in the thoracolumbar region had a greater risk of complications (OR, 4.9) than an anterior approach (OR, 3.6; all p<0.001). CM patients had a significant risk of complications when an osteotomy was performed as part of their surgery (OR, 2.9) and if a spinal fusion was concurrently performed (OR, 1.8; all p<0.05). Patients in the CMS cohort were significantly likely to develop postoperative complications if they underwent a spinal fusion from both anterior (OR, 2.5) and posterior approach (OR, 2.7; all p<0.001). Conclusions Having concurrent scoliosis and CM increases operative risk for fusion surgeries despite approach. Being independently inflicted with scoliosis or Chiari leads to increased complication rate when paired with thoracolumbar fusion and osteotomies; respectively.

Methods: Patients ASD having 2-year data were included and divided into 3CO and non-3CO (remaining ASD cohort) groups. For the subanalysis, patients were stratified based on whether they were undergoing primary (P3CO) or revision (R3CO) surgery. Multivariate analysis controlling for age, Charlson comorbidity index, body mass index, baseline pelvic incidence–lumbar lordosis, and fused levels evaluated the complication rates and radiographic and patient-reported outcomes between the 3CO and non-3CO groups. Results: Of the 436 patients included, 20% had 3COs. 3COs were performed in 16% of P3COs and 51% of R3COs. Both 3CO groups had greater severity in deformity and disability at baseline; however, only R3COs improved more than non-3COs. Despite greater segmental correction, 3COs had much lower rates of aligning in the lumbar distribution index (LDI), higher mechanical complications, and more reoperations when performed below L3. When comparing P3COs and R3COs, baseline lumbopelvic and global alignments, as well as disability, were different. The R3CO group had greater clinical improvements and global correction (both p<0.04), although the P3CO group achieved alignment in LDI more often (odds ratio, 3.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.3–6.2; p=0.006). The P3CO group had more neurological complications (30% vs. 13%, p=0.042), whereas the R3CO tended to have higher mechanical complication rates (25% vs. 15%, p=0.2). Conclusions 3COs showed greater improvements in realignment while failing to demonstrate the same clinical improvement as primaries without a 3CO. Overall, when suitably indicated, a 3CO offers superior utility for achieving optimal realignment across primary and revision surgeries for ASD correction.

Methods: Patients ASD having 2-year data were included and divided into 3CO and non-3CO (remaining ASD cohort) groups. For the subanalysis, patients were stratified based on whether they were undergoing primary (P3CO) or revision (R3CO) surgery. Multivariate analysis controlling for age, Charlson comorbidity index, body mass index, baseline pelvic incidence–lumbar lordosis, and fused levels evaluated the complication rates and radiographic and patient-reported outcomes between the 3CO and non-3CO groups. Results: Of the 436 patients included, 20% had 3COs. 3COs were performed in 16% of P3COs and 51% of R3COs. Both 3CO groups had greater severity in deformity and disability at baseline; however, only R3COs improved more than non-3COs. Despite greater segmental correction, 3COs had much lower rates of aligning in the lumbar distribution index (LDI), higher mechanical complications, and more reoperations when performed below L3. When comparing P3COs and R3COs, baseline lumbopelvic and global alignments, as well as disability, were different. The R3CO group had greater clinical improvements and global correction (both p<0.04), although the P3CO group achieved alignment in LDI more often (odds ratio, 3.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.3–6.2; p=0.006). The P3CO group had more neurological complications (30% vs. 13%, p=0.042), whereas the R3CO tended to have higher mechanical complication rates (25% vs. 15%, p=0.2). Conclusions 3COs showed greater improvements in realignment while failing to demonstrate the same clinical improvement as primaries without a 3CO. Overall, when suitably indicated, a 3CO offers superior utility for achieving optimal realignment across primary and revision surgeries for ASD correction.

Methods: Patients ASD having 2-year data were included and divided into 3CO and non-3CO (remaining ASD cohort) groups. For the subanalysis, patients were stratified based on whether they were undergoing primary (P3CO) or revision (R3CO) surgery. Multivariate analysis controlling for age, Charlson comorbidity index, body mass index, baseline pelvic incidence–lumbar lordosis, and fused levels evaluated the complication rates and radiographic and patient-reported outcomes between the 3CO and non-3CO groups. Results: Of the 436 patients included, 20% had 3COs. 3COs were performed in 16% of P3COs and 51% of R3COs. Both 3CO groups had greater severity in deformity and disability at baseline; however, only R3COs improved more than non-3COs. Despite greater segmental correction, 3COs had much lower rates of aligning in the lumbar distribution index (LDI), higher mechanical complications, and more reoperations when performed below L3. When comparing P3COs and R3COs, baseline lumbopelvic and global alignments, as well as disability, were different. The R3CO group had greater clinical improvements and global correction (both p<0.04), although the P3CO group achieved alignment in LDI more often (odds ratio, 3.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.3–6.2; p=0.006). The P3CO group had more neurological complications (30% vs. 13%, p=0.042), whereas the R3CO tended to have higher mechanical complication rates (25% vs. 15%, p=0.2). Conclusions 3COs showed greater improvements in realignment while failing to demonstrate the same clinical improvement as primaries without a 3CO. Overall, when suitably indicated, a 3CO offers superior utility for achieving optimal realignment across primary and revision surgeries for ASD correction.

Methods: Patients ASD having 2-year data were included and divided into 3CO and non-3CO (remaining ASD cohort) groups. For the subanalysis, patients were stratified based on whether they were undergoing primary (P3CO) or revision (R3CO) surgery. Multivariate analysis controlling for age, Charlson comorbidity index, body mass index, baseline pelvic incidence–lumbar lordosis, and fused levels evaluated the complication rates and radiographic and patient-reported outcomes between the 3CO and non-3CO groups. Results: Of the 436 patients included, 20% had 3COs. 3COs were performed in 16% of P3COs and 51% of R3COs. Both 3CO groups had greater severity in deformity and disability at baseline; however, only R3COs improved more than non-3COs. Despite greater segmental correction, 3COs had much lower rates of aligning in the lumbar distribution index (LDI), higher mechanical complications, and more reoperations when performed below L3. When comparing P3COs and R3COs, baseline lumbopelvic and global alignments, as well as disability, were different. The R3CO group had greater clinical improvements and global correction (both p<0.04), although the P3CO group achieved alignment in LDI more often (odds ratio, 3.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.3–6.2; p=0.006). The P3CO group had more neurological complications (30% vs. 13%, p=0.042), whereas the R3CO tended to have higher mechanical complication rates (25% vs. 15%, p=0.2). Conclusions 3COs showed greater improvements in realignment while failing to demonstrate the same clinical improvement as primaries without a 3CO. Overall, when suitably indicated, a 3CO offers superior utility for achieving optimal realignment across primary and revision surgeries for ASD correction.