Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 4 of 4 items for

  • Author or Editor: Dennis Vasquez-Montes x
  • All content x
Clear All Modify Search
Full access

Max Vaynrub, Brandon P. Hirsch, Jared Tishelman, Dennis Vasquez-Montes, Aaron J. Buckland, Thomas J. Errico, and Themistocles S. Protopsaltis

OBJECTIVE

Verifying the adequacy of surgical correction of adult spinal sagittal deformity (SSD) leads to improved postoperative alignment and clinical outcomes. Traditionally, surgeons relied on intraoperative measurements of lumbar lordosis (LL) correction. However, T-1 pelvic angle (TPA) and its component angles more reliably predict postoperative alignment. While TPA is readily measured on standing radiographs, intraoperative radiographs offer poor resolution of the bicoxofemoral axis. A method to recreate this radiographic landmark by extrapolating preoperative measurements has been described. The authors aimed to assess the reliability of measurements of global spinal alignment obtained via geometrical reconstitution of the bicoxofemoral axis on prone intraoperative radiographs.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed. Twenty sets of preoperative standing full-length and intraoperative prone 36-inch lateral radiographs were analyzed. Pelvic incidence (PI) and sacral to bicoxofemoral axis distance (SBFD) were recorded on preoperative films. A perpendicular line was drawn on the intraoperative radiograph from the midpoint of the sacral endplate. This was used as one limb of the PI, and the second limb was digitally drawn at an angle that reproduced the preoperatively obtained PI, extending for a distance that matched the preoperative SBFD. This final point marked the obscured bicoxofemoral axis. These landmarks were used to measure the L-1, T-9, T-4, and T-1 pelvic angles (LPA, T9PA, T4PA, and TPA, respectively) and LL. Two spine fellows and 2 attending spine surgeons made independent measurements and repeated the process in 1 month. Mixed-model 2-way intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Cronbach’s α values were calculated to assess interobserver, intraobserver, and scale reliability.

RESULTS

Interobserver reliability was excellent for preoperative PI and intraoperative LPA, T9PA, and T4PA (ICC = 0.88, 0.84, 0.84, and 0.93, respectively), good for intraoperative TPA (ICC = 0.68), and fair for preoperative SBFD (ICC = 0.60) and intraoperative LL (ICC = 0.50). Cronbach’s α was ≥ 0.80 for all measurements. Measuring PI on preoperative standing images had excellent intraobserver reliability for all raters (ICC = 0.89, range 0.80–0.93). All raters but one showed excellent reliability for measuring the SBFD. Reliability for measuring prone LL was good for all raters (ICC = 0.71, range 0.64–0.76). The LPA demonstrated good to excellent reliability for each rater (ICC = 0.76, range 0.65–0.81). The thoracic pelvic angles tended to be more reliable at more distal vertebrae (T9PA ICC = 0.71, range 0.49–0.81; T4PA ICC = 0.62, range 0.43–0.83; TPA ICC = 0.56, range 0.31–0.86).

CONCLUSIONS

Intraoperative assessment of global spinal alignment with TPA and component angles is more reliable than intraoperative measurements of LL. Reconstruction of preoperatively measured PI and SBFD on intraoperative radiographs effectively overcomes poor visualization of the bicoxofemoral axis. This method is easily adopted and produces accurate and reliable prone intraoperative measures of global spinal alignment.

Full access

M. Burhan Janjua, Jared C. Tishelman, Dennis Vasquez-Montes, Max Vaynrub, Thomas J. Errico, Aaron J. Buckland, and Themistocles Protopsaltis

Sitting radiographs are a valuable tool to consider the thoracic compensatory mechanism in patients who are candidates for thoracolumbar correction surgery.

Restricted access

Jared C. Tishelman, Dennis Vasquez-Montes, David S. Jevotovsky, Nicholas Stekas, Michael J. Moses, Raj J. Karia, Thomas Errico, Aaron J. Buckland, and Themistocles S. Protopsaltis

OBJECTIVE

The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) has become increasingly popular due to computer adaptive testing methodology. This study aims to validate the association between PROMIS and legacy outcome metrics and compare PROMIS to legacy metrics in terms of ceiling and floor effects and questionnaire burden.

METHODS

A retrospective review of an outcomes database was performed at a single institution from December 2016 to April 2017. Inclusion criteria were age > 18 years and a chief complaint of back pain or neck pain. The PROMIS computer adaptive testing Pain Interference, Physical Function (PF), and Pain Intensity domains; Oswestry Disability Index (ODI); Neck Disability Index (NDI); and visual analog scale (VAS) back, VAS leg, VAS neck, and VAS arm were completed in random order. PROMIS was compared to legacy metrics in terms of the average number of questions needed to complete each questionnaire and the score distributions in the lower and higher bounds of scores.

RESULTS

A total of 494 patients with back pain and 130 patients with neck pain were included. For back pain, ODI showed a strong correlation with PROMIS-PF (R = −0.749, p < 0.001), Pain Intensity (R = 0.709, p < 0.001), and Pain Interference (R = 0.790, p < 0.001) domains. Additionally, the PROMIS Pain Intensity domain correlated to both VAS back and neck pain (R = 0.642, p < 0.001 for both). PROMIS-PF took significantly fewer questions to complete compared to the ODI (4.123 vs 9.906, p < 0.001). When assessing for instrument sensitivity, neither survey presented a significant ceiling and floor effect in the back pain population (ODI: 0.40% and 2.63%; PROMIS-PF: 0.60% and 1.41%). In the neck pain cohort, NDI showed a strong correlation with PROMIS-PF (R = 0.771, p < 0.001). Additionally, PROMIS Pain Intensity correlated to VAS neck (R = 0.642, p < 0.001). The mean number of questions required to complete the questionnaire was much lower for PROMIS-PF compared to NDI (4.417 vs 10, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences found in terms of ceiling and floor effects for neck complaints (NDI: 2.3% and 6.92%; PROMIS-PF: 0.00% and 5.38%) or back complaints (ODI: 0.40% and 2.63%; PROMIS-PF: 1.41% and 0.60%).

CONCLUSIONS

PROMIS correlates strongly with traditional disability measures in patients with back pain and neck pain. For both back and neck pain, the PROMIS-PF required patients to answer significantly fewer questions to achieve similar granularity. There were no significant differences in ceiling and floor effects for NDI or ODI when compared with the PROMIS-PF instrument.

Restricted access

Devon J. Ryan, Nicholas D. Stekas, Ethan W. Ayres, Mohamed A. Moawad, Eaman Balouch, Dennis Vasquez-Montes, Charla R. Fischer, Aaron J. Buckland, Thomas J. Errico, and Themistocles S. Protopsaltis

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study was to reliably predict sagittal and coronal spinal alignment with clinical photographs by using markers placed at easily localized anatomical landmarks.

METHODS

A consecutive series of patients with adult spinal deformity were enrolled from a single center. Full-length standing radiographs were obtained at the baseline visit. Clinical photographs were taken with reflective markers placed overlying C2, S1, the greater trochanter, and each posterior-superior iliac spine. Sagittal radiographic parameters were C2 pelvic angle (CPA), T1 pelvic angle (TPA), and pelvic tilt. Coronal radiographic parameters were pelvic obliquity and T1 coronal tilt. Linear regressions were performed to evaluate the relationship between radiographic parameters and their photographic “equivalents.” The data were reanalyzed after stratifying the cohort into low–body mass index (BMI) (< 30) and high-BMI (≥ 30) groups. Interobserver and intraobserver reliability was assessed for clinical measures via intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs).

RESULTS

A total of 38 patients were enrolled (mean age 61 years, mean BMI 27.4 kg/m2, 63% female). All regression models were significant, but sagittal parameters were more closely correlated to photographic parameters than coronal measurements. TPA and CPA had the strongest associations with their photographic equivalents (both r2 = 0.59, p < 0.001). Radiographic and clinical parameters tended to be more strongly correlated in the low-BMI group. Clinical measures of TPA and CPA had high intraobserver reliability (all ICC > 0.99, p < 0.001) and interobserver reliability (both ICC > 0.99, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The photographic measures of spinal deformity developed in this study were highly correlated with their radiographic counterparts and had high inter- and intraobserver reliability. Clinical photography can not only reduce radiation exposure in patients with adult spinal deformity, but also be used to assess deformity when full-spine radiographs are unavailable.