Browse

You are looking at 1 - 5 of 5 items for

  • By Author: Fu, Kai-Ming G. x
  • By Author: Gupta, Munish x
Clear All
Free access

Christopher P. Ames, Justin S. Smith, Robert Eastlack, Donald J. Blaskiewicz, Christopher I. Shaffrey, Frank Schwab, Shay Bess, Han Jo Kim, Gregory M. Mundis Jr., Eric Klineberg, Munish Gupta, Michael O’Brien, Richard Hostin, Justin K. Scheer, Themistocles S. Protopsaltis, Kai-Ming G. Fu, Robert Hart, Todd J. Albert, K. Daniel Riew, Michael G. Fehlings, Vedat Deviren, Virginie Lafage and International Spine Study Group

OBJECT

Despite the complexity of cervical spine deformity (CSD) and its significant impact on patient quality of life, there exists no comprehensive classification system. The objective of this study was to develop a novel classification system based on a modified Delphi approach and to characterize the intra- and interobserver reliability of this classification.

METHODS

Based on an extensive literature review and a modified Delphi approach with an expert panel, a CSD classification system was generated. The classification system included a deformity descriptor and 5 modifiers that incorporated sagittal, regional, and global spinopelvic alignment and neurological status. The descriptors included: “C,” “CT,” and “T” for primary cervical kyphotic deformities with an apex in the cervical spine, cervicothoracic junction, or thoracic spine, respectively; “S” for primary coronal deformity with a coronal Cobb angle ≥ 15°; and “CVJ” for primary craniovertebral junction deformity. The modifiers included C2–7 sagittal vertical axis (SVA), horizontal gaze (chin-brow to vertical angle [CBVA]), T1 slope (TS) minus C2–7 lordosis (TS–CL), myelopathy (modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association [mJOA] scale score), and the Scoliosis Research Society (SRS)-Schwab classification for thoracolumbar deformity. Application of the classification system requires the following: 1) full-length standing posteroanterior (PA) and lateral spine radiographs that include the cervical spine and femoral heads; 2) standing PA and lateral cervical spine radiographs; 3) completed and scored mJOA questionnaire; and 4) a clinical photograph or radiograph that includes the skull for measurement of the CBVA. A series of 10 CSD cases, broadly representative of the classification system, were selected and sufficient radiographic and clinical history to enable classification were assembled. A panel of spinal deformity surgeons was queried to classify each case twice, with a minimum of 1 intervening week. Inter- and intrarater reliability measures were based on calculations of Fleiss k coefficient values.

RESULTS

Twenty spinal deformity surgeons participated in this study. Interrater reliability (Fleiss k coefficients) for the deformity descriptor rounds 1 and 2 were 0.489 and 0.280, respectively, and mean intrarater reliability was 0.584. For the modifiers, including the SRS-Schwab components, the interrater (round 1/round 2) and intrarater reliabilities (Fleiss k coefficients) were: C2–7 SVA (0.338/0.412, 0.584), horizontal gaze (0.779/0.430, 0.768), TS-CL (0.721/0.567, 0.720), myelopathy (0.602/0.477, 0.746), SRS-Schwab curve type (0.590/0.433, 0.564), pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis (0.554/0.386, 0.826), pelvic tilt (0.714/0.627, 0.633), and C7-S1 SVA (0.071/0.064, 0.233), respectively. The parameter with the poorest reliability was the C7–S1 SVA, which may have resulted from differences in interpretation of positive and negative measurements.

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed classification provides a mechanism to assess CSD within the framework of global spinopelvic malalignment and clinically relevant parameters. The intra- and interobserver reliabilities suggest moderate agreement and serve as the basis for subsequent improvement and study of the proposed classification.

Free access

Justin S. Smith, Christopher I. Shaffrey, Virginie Lafage, Frank Schwab, Justin K. Scheer, Themistocles Protopsaltis, Eric Klineberg, Munish Gupta, Richard Hostin, Kai-Ming G. Fu, Gregory M. Mundis Jr., Han Jo Kim, Vedat Deviren, Alex Soroceanu, Robert A. Hart, Douglas C. Burton, Shay Bess, Christopher P. Ames and the International Spine Study Group

OBJECT

Although recent studies suggest that average clinical outcomes are improved following surgery for selected adult spinal deformity (ASD) patients, these outcomes span a broad range. Few studies have specifically addressed factors that may predict favorable clinical outcomes. The objective of this study was to compare patients with ASD with best versus worst clinical outcomes following surgical treatment to identify distinguishing factors that may prove useful for patient counseling and optimization of clinical outcomes.

METHODS

This is a retrospective review of a prospectively collected, multicenter, database of consecutively enrolled patients with ASD who were treated operatively. Inclusion criteria were age > 18 years and ASD. For patients with a minimum of 2-year follow-up, those with best versus worst outcomes were compared separately based on Scoliosis Research Society-22 (SRS-22) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores. Only patients with a baseline SRS-22 ≤ 3.5 or ODI ≥ 30 were included to minimize ceiling/floor effects. Best and worst outcomes were defined for SRS-22 (≥ 4.5 and ≤ 2.5, respectively) and ODI (≤ 15 and ≥ 50, respectively).

RESULTS

Of 257 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 227 (88%) had complete baseline and 2-year follow-up SRS-22 and ODI outcomes scores and radiographic imaging and were analyzed in the present study. Of these 227 patients, 187 had baseline SRS-22 scores ≤ 3.5, and 162 had baseline ODI scores ≥ 30. Forthe SRS-22, best and worst outcomes criteria were met at follow-up for 25 and 27 patients, respectively. For the ODI, best and worst outcomes criteria were met at follow-up for 43 and 51 patients, respectively. With respect to the SRS-22, compared with best outcome patients, those with worst outcomes had higher baseline SRS-22 scores (p < 0.0001), higher prevalence of baseline depression (p < 0.001), more comorbidities (p = 0.012), greater prevalence of prior surgery (p = 0.007), a higher complication rate (p = 0.012), and worse baseline deformity (sagittal vertical axis [SVA], p = 0.045; pelvic incidence [PI] and lumbar lordosis [LL] mismatch, p = 0.034). The best-fit multivariate model for SRS-22 included baseline SRS-22 (p = 0.033), baseline depression (p = 0.012), and complications (p = 0.030). With respect to the ODI, compared with best outcome patients, those with worst outcomes had greater baseline ODI scores (p < 0.001), greater baseline body mass index (BMI; p = 0.002), higher prevalence of baseline depression (p < 0.028), greater baseline SVA (p = 0.016), a higher complication rate (p = 0.02), and greater 2-year SVA (p < 0.001) and PI-LL mismatch (p = 0.042). The best-fit multivariate model for ODI included baseline ODI score (p < 0.001), 2-year SVA (p = 0.014) and baseline BMI (p = 0.037). Age did not distinguish best versus worst outcomes for SRS-22 or ODI (p > 0.1).

CONCLUSIONS

Few studies have specifically addressed factors that distinguish between the best versus worst clinical outcomes for ASD surgery. In this study, baseline and perioperative factors distinguishing between the best and worst outcomes for ASD surgery included several patient factors (baseline depression, BMI, comorbidities, and disability), as well as residual deformity (SVA), and occurrence of complications. These findings suggest factors that may warrant greater awareness among clinicians to achieve optimal surgical outcomes for patients with ASD.