Tomoyuki Asada, Eric R. Zhao, Adin M. Ehrlich, Adrian Lui, Andrea Pezzi, Sereen Halayqeh, Tarek Harhash, Olivia C. Tuma, Kasra Araghi, Todd J. Albert, James Farmer, Russel C. Huang, Harvinder Sandhu, Han Jo Kim, Francis C. Lovecchio, James E. Dowdell, Sravisht Iyer, Sheeraz A. Qureshi
Neurospine 2025;22(1):3-13. Published online March 31, 2025
Objective While minimally invasive-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) has shown superiority in key clinical metrics over the open approach, evidence regarding patient-reported outcomes remains limited. This study compared postoperative recovery trajectories and symptomatic improvement phases between MIS and open TLIF.
Methods This retrospective review included patients who underwent single-level MIS or open TLIF. Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for back and leg pain were collected preoperatively and postoperatively. Segmented regression analysis with mixed-effects modeling, allowing for identification of distinct recovery phases, compared symptomatic trends between approaches.
Results Of 324 patients (268 MIS, 56 open), baseline demographics were similar except for greater preoperative leg pain in the MIS group (NRS: 6.0 vs. 5.0, p = 0.027). A segmented regression model identified 4 ODI recovery phases: postoperative disability phase (PDP, day 0 to 13), early improvement phase (day 13 to 28), late improvement phase (day 28 to 110), and plateau phase (later than day 110). The MIS group exhibited significantly lower disability exacerbation during PDP (β = 0.93 vs. 1.42 points per day, p = 0.008). Additionally, the plateau of NRS back occurred significantly earlier in the MIS group than in the open group (MIS, 26.7 ± 2.6 days vs. open, 51.7 ± 6.6 days, p < 0.001).
Conclusion MIS-TLIF resulted in lower postoperative disability during the first 2 weeks compared to the open approach. Furthermore, low back pain achieved an earlier plateau in back pain by about 4 weeks in the MIS approach.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Multifidus Muscle Atrophy Predicts Spinal Cage Subsidence After Lumbar Fusion Cong Zhang, Chengming Li, Xiaotao Wu, Xiaozhi Sun Journal of Pain Research.2026; Volume 19: 1. CrossRef
Biomaterials and Noncoding RNA: The “Repair‐Alliance” Perspective in Intervertebral Disc Degeneration Chen Liu, Zhengguang Li, Yongbo Zhang, Tianyi Ji, Hua Sun, Gen Wei, Liang Zhang, Juqun Xi Advanced Healthcare Materials.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Modified Integrated Health State Suggests Lower Cumulative Neck Pain–Related Disability After Cervical Disk Replacement Compared With Anterior Cervical Diskectomy and Fusion Tomoyuki Asada, Adin M. Ehrlich, Sereen Halayqeh, Eric R. Zhao, Adrian T. H. Lui, Andrea Pezzi, Austin C. Kaidi, Kasra Araghi, Vishaal Nayagam, Roger Freeman, Olivia C. Tuma, Tarek Harhash, Harvinder S. Sandhu, Todd J. Albert, Han Jo Kim, James C. Farmer, Neurosurgery.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Efficacy of low-dose Escherichia coli-derived recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion Tae Hoon Kang, Jeongwoon Han, Minjoon Cho, Jae Hyup Lee European Spine Journal.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Justin K. Scheer, Justin S. Smith, Peter G. Passias, Han Jo Kim, Shay Bess, Douglas C. Burton, Eric O. Klineberg, Virginie Lafage, Munish Gupta, Christopher P. Ames, The International Spine Study Group
Neurospine 2023;20(3):837-848. Published online September 30, 2023
Objective The goal of this study was to determine if patients with mild scoliosis and age-appropriate sagittal alignment have favorable outcomes following surgical correction.
Methods Retrospective review of a prospective, multicenter adult spinal deformity database. Inclusion criteria: operative patients age ≥18 years, and preoperative pelvic tilt, mismatch between pelvic incidence and lumbar lordosis (PI–LL), and C7 sagittal vertical axis all within established age-adjusted thresholds with minimum 2-year follow-up. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) scores: Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), 36-item Short Form health survey (SF-36), Scoliosis Research Society-22R (SRS22R), back/leg pain Numerical Rating Scale and minimum clinically important difference (MCID)/substantial clinical benefit (SCB). Two-year and preoperative HRQoL radiographic data were compared. Patients with mild scoliosis (Mild Scoli, Max coronal Cobb 10°–30°) were compared to those with larger curves (Scoli).
Results One hundred fifty-one patients included from 667 operative patients (82.8% women; average age, 56.4 ± 16.2 years). Forty-two patients (27.8%) included in Mild Scoli group. Mild Scoli group had significantly worse baseline leg pain, ODI, and physical composite scores (p < 0.02). Mean 2-year maximum coronal Cobb angle was significantly improved compared to baseline (p < 0.001). All 2-year HRQoL measures were significantly improved compared to (p < 0.001) except mental composite score, SRS activity and SRS mental for the Mild Scoli group (p > 0.05). From the mild Scoli group, 36%–74% met either MCID or SCB for the HRQoL measures. Sixty-four point three percent had minimum 1 complication, 28.6% had a major complication, 35.7% had reoperation.
Conclusion Mild scoliosis patients with age-appropriate sagittal alignment benefit from surgical correction, decompression, and stabilization at 2 years postoperative despite having a high complication rate.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Subject‐Specific Musculoskeletal Modeling: The Future of Predicting and Preventing Proximal Junctional Failure in Adult Spinal Deformity Nima Ashjaee, Alexa Semonche, Anthony L. Mikula, Laszlo Kiss, Dennis E. Anderson, Dominika Ignasiak, Stephen H. M. Brown, John Street, Sidney Fels, Samuel R. Ward, Christopher Ames, Thomas R. Oxland JOR SPINE.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Cervical spine deformities (CSD) are complex surgical issues with currently heterogenous management strategies. The classification of CSD is still an evolving field. Rudimentary classification schemas were initially proposed in the late 20th century but were largely informal and based on the underlying etiology (i.e. , postsurgical, traumatic, or inflammatory). The first formal classification schema was proposed by Ames et al. in 2015 who established a standard nomenclature for describing these deformities. This classification system established 5 deformity descriptors based on curve apex location (cervical, cervicothoracic, thoracic, craniovertebral junctional, and coronal deformities) and 5 deformity modifiers which helped surgeons utilize a standard language when discussing CSD patients. Koller et al. in 2019 subsequently established a classification system for patients with rigid cervical kyphosis based on regional and global sagittal alignment. Most recently, Kim et al. in 2020 proposed an updated classification system utilizing dynamic cervical spine imaging to guide surgical treatment of CSD patients. It identified 4 major groups of deformities – (1) those with “flat-neck” deformities caused by cervical lordosis T1 slope mismatch; (2) those with focal kyphotic deformities between 2 cervical vertebrae; (3) those with cervicothoracic deformities caused by large T1 slope; and (4) those with coronal deformities. Group 2 deformities most often required combined anterior-posterior approaches with short constructs, and group 3 deformities most often required posterior-only approaches with 3-column osteotomies.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Current Concepts of Sagittal Alignment in Adult Cervical Deformity Zeeshan M. Sardar, Justin L. Reyes, Josephine R. Coury, K. Daniel Riew Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.2026; 34(2): e176. CrossRef
Atlantoaxial rotatory fixation Peter M. Cirrincione, Jessica H. Heyer Current Opinion in Pediatrics.2026; 38(1): 73. CrossRef
Surgical management of congenital C2 over C3 spondyloptosis with severe cervical kyphosis: two case reports Shaodong Mo, Yuanquan Chen, Zhen Che, Jing Xu, Rald Groven, Frank Hildebrand, Honglei Yi, Hu Chen, Fuzhi Ai European Spine Journal.2026; 35(6): 3612. CrossRef
Multi-Level Uncinatectomies and Posterior Column Osteotomies to Correct a Cervical Kyphotic Deformity: Case Instruction With Intraoperative Picture and Video Harsh Jain, Hani Chanbour, Tyler Zeoli, Aaron M. Yengo-Kahn, Scott L. Zuckerman Neurosurgery Practice.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Pediatric Syndromic Cervical Kyphosis – Tips and Tricks: A Case-based Review Manoj Phalak, Vivek Yadav, Sachin Borkar, Shashank Sharad Kale Journal of Spinal Surgery.2026; 13(1): 53. CrossRef
Bibliometric analysis of the top 50 most-cited articles on cervical deformities: a web of science database study Julia Diamandi, Amelia Stepniak, Hannah Tetreault, Regan M. Shanahan, Qazi Zeeshan, David T. Fernandes Cabral, Nitin Agarwal, D. Kojo Hamilton Spine Deformity.2026; 14(4): 1147. CrossRef
Proposal of a Cervical Sagittal Classification System to Guide Surgical Treatment for Adult Cervical Deformity Zeeshan M. Sardar, Roy Miller, Justin L. Reyes, Alexandra C. Dionne, Josephine R. Coury, Fthimnir M. Hassan, Jean-Charles Le Huec, Stephane Bourret, Kazuhiro Hasegawa, Hee Kit Wong, Gabriel Liu, Hwee Weng Dennis Hey, Michael P. Kelly, Lawrence G. Lenke Spine.2026; 51(11): 773. CrossRef
Risk factors associated with distal junctional kyphosis and failure after surgical management of adult cervical deformity: a systematic review Davin C. Gong, Anthony N. Baumann, Zhaorui Wang, Omkar S. Anaspure, Muhammad Waheed, Evan J. Beck, Rakesh D. Patel, Ilyas S. Aleem European Spine Journal.2025; 34(8): 3430. CrossRef
Post-MVC Cervical Kyphosis Deformity Reduction Using Chiropractic BioPhysics Protocols: 1-Year Follow-Up Case Report Nicholas J. Smith, Thomas J. Woodham, Miles O. Fortner Healthcare.2025; 13(19): 2459. CrossRef
A Narrative Review of Cervical Spinal Deformity Srikanth N. Divi, Tyler M. Compton, Daniel E. Herrera, Wellington K. Hsu, Alpesh A. Patel Clinical Spine Surgery.2025; 38(9): 393. CrossRef
Reducing Chronic Spine Pain in an Adult Male by Decreasing Lumbar Scoliosis and Increasing Cervical Lordosis Using Chiropractic BioPhysics® Protocols: A 26-Month Follow-Up Case Report Jason W Haas, Miles O Fortner, Thomas J Woodham, Deed E Harrison Cureus.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Atlantoaxial Instability in the Course of Rheumatoid Arthritis in Relation to Selected Parameters of Sagittal Balance Robert Wróblewski, Małgorzata Mańczak, Robert Gasik Journal of Clinical Medicine.2024; 13(15): 4441. CrossRef
So Close yet So Far: The impact of undercorrection of cervical sagittal alignment during adult cervical deformity surgery − An Incremental correction analysis Ankita Das, Anthony Yung, Oluwatobi Onafowokan, Jamshaid Mir, Max R. Fisher, Tyler K. Williamson, Ethan J. Cottrill, Zorica Buser, Peter S. Tretiakov, Khoi D. Than, Neil V. Shah, Christopher I. Shaffrey, Peter G. Passias Journal of Clinical Neuroscience.2024; 130: 110869. CrossRef
Reply to Commentary on “Classification(s) of Cervical Deformity” Austin C. Kaidi, Han Jo Kim Neurospine.2023; 20(1): 408. CrossRef
Commentary on “Classification(s) of Cervical Deformity” Atul Goel Neurospine.2023; 20(1): 405. CrossRef
From the Spinopelvic Parameters to Global Alignment and Proportion Scores in Adult Spinal Deformity Yongjae Cho, Dae Jean Jo, Seung-Jae Hyun, Jin Hoon Park, Na Rae Yang Neurospine.2023; 20(2): 467. CrossRef
Optimizing Surgical Strategy for Cervical Spinal Deformity: Global Alignment and Surgical Targets Jae-Koo Lee, Seung-Jae Hyun, Ki-Jeong Kim Neurospine.2023; 20(4): 1246. CrossRef
Cervical deformity is a challenging condition to treat and requires complex decision-making. Apart from a thorough history and physical examination, a thoughtful and quantitative analysis of multiple imaging modalities is critical for understanding the nature and driver of the cervical deformity. A few classification schemes have emerged, and it is now clear that dynamic films are invaluable as they capture the extension reserve that patients can use to compensate for malalignment. These classification systems can help guide surgical planning, because the various subgroups have different properties that lend themselves to specific treatment paradigms. Here we review the clinical and radiographic evaluation, classification, and surgical planning for cervical deformity.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Multi-Level Uncinatectomies and Posterior Column Osteotomies to Correct a Cervical Kyphotic Deformity: Case Instruction With Intraoperative Picture and Video Harsh Jain, Hani Chanbour, Tyler Zeoli, Aaron M. Yengo-Kahn, Scott L. Zuckerman Neurosurgery Practice.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Progressive Acquired Cervical Deformity With Myelopathy Managed by Occipitocervicothoracic
Fusion: A Case Report Kyle Molinari, Nicolas A Siegelman, Steven Leckie Cureus.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Infinity: A Prospective Trial for Safety and Accuracy of Navigated Posterior Cervical and Thoracic Instrumentation in Long-segment Fusions Joshua L. Wang, Ryan G. Eaton, Joravar Dhaliwal, Chi Shing Lam, David S. Xu, Stephanus V. Viljoen, Andrew J. Grossbach Spine.2025; 50(4): 224. CrossRef
Are Patient-Reported drug allergies associated with perioperative complications following adult cervical deformity correction? Stephane Owusu-Sarpong, Tyler K. Williamson, Lauren Holladay, Nina Fisher, Andrew Bi, Peter G. Passias Journal of Orthopaedic Reports.2025; 4(3): 100604. CrossRef
Lower C2 slope and milder uncovertebral joint degeneration are risk factors for pseudarthrosis after single-level anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF): retrospective study of 102 patients with minimum 2-year follow-up Haoxiang Wang, Tian Xia, Ruomu Qu, Hanbo Geng, Yu Sun, Fengshan Zhang, Shengfa Pan, Xin Chen, Yanbin Zhao, Feifei Zhou Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Exploring “Intoxicated Syndrome”: A rare case of cervical kyphoscoliosis due to drug abuse Majid Rezvani, Seyedali Modarres Sadeghi, Farid Masaeli, Anish Thapa, Ashani Shah, Farhad Mahmoudi Clinical Case Reports.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
A Systematic Review of the Effect of Osteoporosis on Radiographic Outcomes, Complications, and Reoperation Rate in Cervical Deformity Ishan Shah, Elizabeth A. Lechtholz-Zey, Mina Ayad, Brandon S. Gettleman, Emily Mills, Hannah Shelby, Andy Ton, William J. Karakash, Apurva Prasad, Jeffrey C. Wang, Ram K. Alluri, Raymond J. Hah Journal of Clinical Medicine.2025; 14(17): 6196. CrossRef
Clinical Classification of Adolescent Cervicothoracic Hemivertebra Treated with Surgical Intervention Incorporating Shoulder Balance Considerations Jinhui Wu, Biao Yang, Yefeng Zhao, Ce Wang, Xuhui Zhou World Neurosurgery.2025; 202: 124362. CrossRef
Management of cervical kyphotic deformity after intradural tumor resection in pediatric patients PAULA DE CAMPOS CALASSARA, GIANCARLO JORIO ALMEIDA, MARIANA CHANTRE-JUSTINO, ALDERICO GIRãO CAMPOS DE BARROS, LUíS E. CARELLI Coluna/Columna.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
The Role of Enabling Technologies in the Surgical Management of Cervical Spine Deformity Rahul Bhale, Hania Shahzad, Richard Price, Wilson Z. Ray, Frank Phillips, Hai V. Le, Yashar Javidan, Safdar N. Khan Clinical Spine Surgery.2025; 38(9): 459. CrossRef
The Evolution of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Peter G. Passias, Peter S. Tretiakov, Oluwatobi O. Onafowokan, Matthew Galetta, Nathan Lorentz, Jamshaid M. Mir, Ankita Das, Pooja Dave, Renaud Lafage, Timothy Yee, Bassel Diebo, Shaleen Vira, Pawel P. Jankowski, Aaron Hockley, Alan Daniels, Andrew J. Sch Clinical Spine Surgery.2024; 37(4): 182. CrossRef
Is the disappearance of the cervical flexion-relaxation phenomenon associated with cervical degeneration in healthy people? Peifeng He, Yunbo Yang, Minglang Wang, Dan Li, Hao Yuan, Jianxiong Wang, Qiang He, Daxiong Feng, Xuanwen Liu European Spine Journal.2024; 33(8): 2997. CrossRef
Expectations of clinical improvement following corrective surgery for adult cervical deformity based on functional disability at presentation Peter G. Passias, Oluwatobi O. Onafowokan, Rachel Joujon-Roche, Justin Smith, Peter Tretiakov, Thomas Buell, Bassel G. Diebo, Alan H. Daniels, Jeffrey L. Gum, D. Kojo Hamiltion, Alex Soroceanu, Justin Scheer, Robert K. Eastlack, Richard G. Fessler, Eric O Spine Deformity.2024; 12(5): 1431. CrossRef
SOP Ventrale Stabilisierung der subaxialen HWS Jonathan Neuhoff, Alexander Wengert, Philipp Schleicher, Andreas Pingel, Frank Kandziora Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie up2date.2024; 19(05): 429. CrossRef
So Close yet So Far: The impact of undercorrection of cervical sagittal alignment during adult cervical deformity surgery − An Incremental correction analysis Ankita Das, Anthony Yung, Oluwatobi Onafowokan, Jamshaid Mir, Max R. Fisher, Tyler K. Williamson, Ethan J. Cottrill, Zorica Buser, Peter S. Tretiakov, Khoi D. Than, Neil V. Shah, Christopher I. Shaffrey, Peter G. Passias Journal of Clinical Neuroscience.2024; 130: 110869. CrossRef
Factors related to T1 slope: spinopelvic balance and thoracic compensation Chengxin Liu, Yongjin Li, Xiangyu Li, Bin Shi, Shibao Lu BMC Surgery.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
Odontoid Incidence: A Novel Cervical Parameter Influencing Cervical Alignment From Top to Bottom Jae-Koo Lee, Seung-Jae Hyun, Ki-Jeong Kim Neurospine.2022; 19(2): 463. CrossRef
Does the asymmetry and extension function of the preoperative cervical paraspinal extensor predict postoperative cervical sagittal deformity in patients who undergo modified laminoplasty? Sibo Lin, Taotao Lin, Zhengru Wu, Gang Chen, Zhitao Shangguan, Zhenyu Wang, Wenge Liu The Spine Journal.2022; 22(12): 1953. CrossRef
Classification(s) of Cervical Deformity Austin C. Kaidi, Han Jo Kim Neurospine.2022; 19(4): 862. CrossRef
Defining Cervical Sagittal Plane Deformity – When Are Sagittal Realignment Procedures Necessary in Patients Presenting Primarily With Radiculopathy or Myelopathy? Venu M. Nemani, Philip K. Louie, Caroline E. Drolet, John M. Rhee Neurospine.2022; 19(4): 876. CrossRef
Regional Anesthesia for Lumbar Spine Surgery: Can It Be a Standard in the Future? Jae-Koo Lee, Jong Hwa Park, Seung-Jae Hyun, Daniel Hodel, Oliver N. Hausmann Neurospine.2021; 18(4): 733. CrossRef
First
Prev
