1. Steinmetz MP, Stewart TJ, Kager CD, et al. Cervical deformity correction. Neurosurgery 2007 60(1 Supp1 1):S90-7.
2. Ames CP, Smith JS, Eastlack R, et al. Reliability assessment of a novel cervical spine deformity classification system. J Neurosurg Spine 2015 23:673-83.
3. Smith JS, Line B, Bess S, et al. The health impact of adult cervical deformity in patients presenting for surgical treatment: comparison to united states population norms and chronic disease states based on the EuroQuol-5 Dimensions questionnaire. Neurosurgery 2017 80:716-25.
4. Pierce K, Alas H, Brown A, et al. PROMIS physical health domain scores are related to cervical deformity severity. J Craniovertebral Junction Spine 2019 10:179.
5. Kim HJ, Piyaskulkaew C, Riew KD. Comparison of smith-petersen osteotomy versus pedicle subtraction osteotomy versus anterior-posterior osteotomy types for the correction of cervical spine deformities. Spine 2015 40:143-6.
6. Lau D, Ziewacz JE, Le H, et al. A controlled anterior sequential interbody dilation technique for correction of cervical kyphosis. J Neurosurg Spine 2015 23:263-73.
8. European Spine Study Group; International Spine Study Group; Ames CP, et al. Development of predictive models for all individual questions of SRS-22R after adult spinal deformity surgery: a step toward individualized medicine. Eur Spine J 2019 28:1998-2011.
9. Asher AL, Devin CJ, Kerezoudis P, et al. Comparison of outcomes following anterior vs posterior fusion surgery for patients with degenerative cervical myelopathy: an analysis from quality outcomes database. Neurosurgery 2019 84:919-26.
10. Crawford CH, Glassman SD, Bridwell KH, et al. The minimum clinically important difference in SRS-22R total score, appearance, activity and pain domains after surgical treatment of adult spinal deformity. Spine 2015 40:377-81.
12. Veritas Health Innovation. Covidence systematic review software. Melbourne: Veritas Health Innovation; 2016.
13. Stang A. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol 2010 25:603-5.
14. Ailon T, Smith JS, Shaffrey CI, et al. Outcomes of operative treatment for adult cervical deformity: a prospective multicenter assessment with 1-year follow-up. Neurosurgery 2018 83:1031-9.
15. Poorman GW, Passias PG, Horn SR, et al. Despite worse baseline status depressed patients achieved outcomes similar to those in nondepressed patients after surgery for cervical deformity. Neurosurg Focus 2017 43:E10.
16. Passias PG, Horn SR, Bortz CA, et al. The relationship between improvements in myelopathy and sagittal realignment in cervical deformity surgery outcomes. Spine 2018 43:1117-24.
17. Passias PG, Segreto FA, Lafage R, et al. Recovery kinetics following spinal deformity correction: a comparison of isolated cervical, thoracolumbar, and combined deformity morphometries. Spine J 2019 19:1422-33.
18. Virk S, Passias P, Lafage R, et al. Intraoperative alignment goals for distinctive sagittal morphotypes of severe cervical deformity to achieve optimal improvements in health-related quality of life measures. Spine J 2020 20:1267-75.
19. Horn SR, Passias PG, Oh C, et al. Predicting the combined occurrence of poor clinical and radiographic outcomes following cervical deformity corrective surgery. J Neurosurg Spine 2020 32:182-90.
20. Segreto FA, Lafage V, Lafage R, et al. Recovery kinetics: comparison of patients undergoing primary or revision procedures for adult cervical deformity using a novel area under the curve methodology. Neurosurgery 2019 85:E40-51.
21. Protopsaltis TS, Ramchandran S, Tishelman JC, et al. The importance of C2-slope, a singular marker of cervical deformity, correlates with patient-reported outcomes. Spine J 2017 17:S48.
22. Johnson B, Stekas N, Ayres E, et al. PROMIS correlates with legacy outcome measures in patients with neck pain and improves upon NDI when assessing disability in cervical deformity. Spine 2019 44:982-8.
23. Grosso MJ, Hwang R, Mroz T, et al. Relationship between degree of focal kyphosis correction and neurological outcomes for patients undergoing cervical deformity correction surgery: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 2013 18:537-44.
24. Bao H, Varghese J, Lafage R, et al. Principal radiographic characteristics for cervical spinal deformity: a health-related quality-of-life analysis. Spine 2017 42:1375-82.
25. Bakouny Z, Khalil N, Otayek J, et al. Are the sagittal cervical radiographic modifiers of the Ames-ISSG classification specific to adult cervical deformity? J Neurosurg Spine 2018 29:483-90.
27. Lee JS, Youn MS, Shin JK, et al. Relationship between cervical sagittal alignment and quality of life in ankylosing spondylitis. Eur Spine J 2015 24:1199-203.
28. Hyun SJ, Han S, Kim KJ, et al. Assessment of T1 slope minus cervical lordosis and C2-7 sagittal vertical axis criteria of a cervical spine deformity classification system using long-term follow-up data after multilevel posterior cervical fusion surgery. Oper Neurosurg 2019 16:20-6.
29. Zhong J, Pan Z, Chen Y, et al. Postoperative cervical sagittal realignment improves patient-reported outcomes in chronic atlantoaxial anterior dislocation. Oper Neurosurg 2018 15:643-50.
30. Protopsaltis TS, Ramchandran S, Hamilton DK, et al. Analysis of successful versus failed radiographic outcomes after cervical deformity surgery. Spine 2018 43:E773-81.
32. Passias PG, Jalai CM, Smith JS, et al. Characterizing adult cervical deformity and disability based on existing cervical and adult deformity classification schemes at presentation and following correction. Neurosurgery 2018 82:192-201.
33. Iyer S, Nemani VM, Nguyen J, et al. Impact of cervical sagittal alignment parameters on neck disability. Spine 2016 41:371-7.
34. Cella D, Yount S, Rothrock N, et al. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS): progress of an NIH roadmap cooperative group during its first two years. Med Care 2007 45(Suppl 1):S3-11.
35. Brodke DJ, Saltzman CL, Brodke DS. PROMIS for orthopaedic outcomes measurement. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2016 24:744-9.
37. Miller EK, Ailon T, Neuman BJ, et al. Assessment of a novel adult cervical deformity frailty index as a component of preoperative risk stratification. World Neurosurg 2018 109:e800-6.
38. Martini ML, Neifert SN, Chapman EK, et al. Cervical spine alignment in the sagittal axis: a review of the best validated measures in clinical practice. Global Spine J 2020 Nov 18 2192568220972076.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2192568220972076. [Epub].
39. Tang JA, Scheer JK, Smith JS, et al. The impact of standing regional cervical sagittal alignment on outcomes in posterior cervical fusion surgery. Neurosurgery 2015 76 Suppl 1:S14-21.
40. Staub BN, Lafage R, Kim HJ, et al. Cervical mismatch: the normative value of T1 slope minus cervical lordosis and its ability to predict ideal cervical lordosis. J Neurosurg Spine 2019 30:31-7.
41. Lan Z, Huang Y, Xu W. Relationship between T1 slope minus C2-7 lordosis and cervical alignment parameters after adjacent 2-level anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion of lower cervical spine. World Neurosurg 2019 122:e1195-201.
42. Scheer JK, Tang JA, Smith JS, et al. Cervical spine alignment, sagittal deformity, and clinical implications: a review. J Neurosurg Spine 2013 19:141-59.
43. Ames CP, Blondel B, Scheer JK, et al. Cervical radiographical alignment: comprehensive assessment techniques and potential importance in cervical myelopathy. Spine 2013 38:S149-60.