Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 5 of 5 items for

  • Author or Editor: Christopher Michael x
  • By Author: Hart, Robert x
  • By Author: Eastlack, Robert x
Clear All Modify Search
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

Gregory W. Poorman, Peter G. Passias, Samantha R. Horn, Nicholas J. Frangella, Alan H. Daniels, D. Kojo Hamilton, Hanjo Kim, Daniel Sciubba, Bassel G. Diebo, Cole A. Bortz, Frank A. Segreto, Michael P. Kelly, Justin S. Smith, Brian J. Neuman, Christopher I. Shaffrey, Virginie LaFage, Renaud LaFage, Christopher P. Ames, Robert Hart, Gregory M. Mundis Jr. and Robert Eastlack

OBJECTIVE

Depression and anxiety have been demonstrated to have negative impacts on outcomes after spine surgery. In patients with cervical deformity (CD), the psychological and physiological burdens of the disease may overlap without clear boundaries. While surgery has a proven record of bringing about significant pain relief and decreased disability, the impact of depression and anxiety on recovery from cervical deformity corrective surgery has not been previously reported on in the literature. The purpose of the present study was to determine the effect of depression and anxiety on patients’ recovery from and improvement after CD surgery.

METHODS

The authors conducted a retrospective review of a prospective, multicenter CD database. Patients with a history of clinical depression, in addition to those with current self-reported anxiety or depression, were defined as depressed (D group). The D group was compared with nondepressed patients (ND group) with a similar baseline deformity determined by propensity score matching of the cervical sagittal vertical axis (cSVA). Baseline demographic, comorbidity, clinical, and radiographic data were compared among patients using t-tests. Improvement of symptoms was recorded at 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year postoperatively. All health-related quality of life (HRQOL) scores collected at these follow-up time points were compared using t-tests.

RESULTS

Sixty-six patients were matched for baseline radiographic parameters: 33 with a history of depression and/or current depression, and 33 without. Depressed patients had similar age, sex, race, and radiographic alignment: cSVA, T-1 slope minus C2–7 lordosis, SVA, and T-1 pelvic angle (p > 0.05). Compared with nondepressed individuals, depressed patients had a higher incidence of osteoporosis (21.2% vs 3.2%, p = 0.028), rheumatoid arthritis (18.2% vs 3.2%, p = 0.012), and connective tissue disorders (18.2% vs 3.2%, p = 0.012). At baseline, the D group had greater neck pain (7.9 of 10 vs 6.6 on a Numeric Rating Scale [NRS], p = 0.015), lower mean EQ-5D scores (68.9 vs 74.7, p < 0.001), but similar Neck Disability Index (NDI) scores (57.5 vs 49.9, p = 0.063) and myelopathy scores (13.4 vs 13.9, p = 0.546). Surgeries performed in either group were similar in terms of number of levels fused, osteotomies performed, and correction achieved (baseline to 3-month measurements) (p < 0.05). At 3 months, EQ-5D scores remained lower in the D group (74.0 vs 78.2, p = 0.044), and NDI scores were similar (48.5 vs 39.0, p = 0.053). However, neck pain improved in the D group (NRS score of 5.0 vs 4.3, p = 0.331), and modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA) scores remained similar (14.2 vs 15.0, p = 0.211). At 6 months and 1 year, all HRQOL scores were similar between the 2 cohorts. One-year measurements were as follows: NDI 39.7 vs 40.7 (p = 0.878), NRS neck pain score of 4.1 vs 5.0 (p = 0.326), EQ-5D score of 77.1 vs 78.2 (p = 0.646), and mJOA score of 14.0 vs 14.2 (p = 0.835). Anxiety/depression levels reported on the EQ-5D scale were significantly higher in the depressed cohort at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months (all p < 0.05), but were similar between groups at 1 year postoperatively (1.72 vs 1.53, p = 0.416).

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical depression was observed in many of the study patients with CD. After matching for baseline deformity, depression symptomology resulted in worse baseline EQ-5D and pain scores. Despite these baseline differences, both cohorts achieved similar results in all HRQOL assessments 6 months and 1 year postoperatively, demonstrating no clinical impact of depression on recovery up until 1 year after CD surgery. Thus, a history of depression does not appear to have an impact on recovery from CD surgery.