Comprehensive classification system for multirod constructs across three-column osteotomies: a reliability study

View More View Less
  • 1 Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Chicago Medicine & Biological Sciences, Chicago, Illinois;
  • 2 Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern Medical School, Dallas, Texas;
  • 3 OrthoCarolina, Winston-Salem Spine Center, Winston-Salem, North Carolina;
  • 4 Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Stony Brook Medicine, Stony Brook, New York;
  • 5 Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri; and
  • 6 Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
Restricted access

Purchase Now

USD  $45.00

Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $369.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $600.00
Print or Print + Online

OBJECTIVE

In this study, the authors’ goal was to determine the intra- and interobserver reliability of a new classification system that allows the description of all possible constructs used across three-column osteotomies (3COs) in terms of rod configuration and density.

METHODS

Thirty-five patients with multirod constructs (MRCs) across a 3CO were classified by two spinal surgery fellows according to the new system, and then were reclassified 2 weeks later. Constructs were classified as follows: the number of rods across the osteotomy site followed by a letter corresponding to the type of rod configuration: “M” is for a main rod configuration, defined as a single rod spanning the osteotomy. “L” is for linked rod configurations, defined as 2 rods directly connected to each other at the osteotomy site. “S” is for satellite rod configurations, which were defined as a short rod independent of the main rod with anchors above and below the 3CO. “A” is for accessory rods, defined as an additional rod across the 3CO attached to main rods but not attached to any anchors across the osteotomy site. “I” is for intercalary rod configurations, defined as a rod connecting 2 separate constructs across the 3CO, without the intercalary rod itself attached to any anchors across the osteotomy site. The intra- and interobserver reliability of this classification system was determined.

RESULTS

A sample estimation for validation assuming two readers and 35 subjects results in a two-sided 95% confidence interval with a width of 0.19 and a kappa value of 0.8 (SD 0.3). The Fleiss kappa coefficient (κ) was used to calculate the degree of agreement between interrater and intraobserver reliability. The interrater kappa coefficient was 0.3, and the intrarater kappa coefficient was 0.63 (good reliability). This scenario represents a high degree of agreement despite a low kappa coefficient. Correct observations by both observers were 34 of 35 and 33 of 35 at both time points. Misclassification was related to difficulty in determining connectors versus anchors.

CONCLUSIONS

MRCs across 3COs have variable rod configurations. Currently, no classification system or agreement on nomenclature exists to define the configuration of rods across 3COs. The authors present a new, comprehensive MRC classification system with good inter- and intraobserver reliability and a high degree of agreement that allows for a standardized description of MRCs across 3COs.

ABBREVIATIONS ASD = adult spinal deformity; MRC = multirod construct; 3CO = three-column osteotomy.

Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $369.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $600.00

Contributor Notes

Correspondence Mostafa H. El Dafrawy: University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, IL. m.hassib@gmail.com; eldafrawy@uchicago.edu.

INCLUDE WHEN CITING Published online October 9, 2020; DOI: 10.3171/2020.6.SPINE20678.

Disclosures Dr. Kelly: support of non–study-related clinical or research support from DePuy/Synthes Spine.

  • 1

    Lertudomphonwanit T, Kelly MP, Bridwell KH, Rod fracture in adult spinal deformity surgery fused to the sacrum: prevalence, risk factors, and impact on health-related quality of life in 526 patients. Spine J. 2018;18(9):16121624.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2

    Kim YJ, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, Pseudarthrosis in long adult spinal deformity instrumentation and fusion to the sacrum: prevalence and risk factor analysis of 144 cases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006;31(20):23292336.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3

    Smith JS, Klineberg E, Lafage V, Prospective multicenter assessment of perioperative and minimum 2-year postoperative complication rates associated with adult spinal deformity surgery. J Neurosurg Spine. 2016;25(1):114.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    Smith JS, Shaffrey CI, Ames CP, Assessment of symptomatic rod fracture after posterior instrumented fusion for adult spinal deformity. Neurosurgery. 2012;71(4):862867.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5

    Hamilton DK, Buza JA III, Passias P, The fate of patients with adult spinal deformity incurring rod fracture after thoracolumbar fusion. World Neurosurg. 2017;106:905911.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6

    Cho W, Mason JR, Smith JS, Failure of lumbopelvic fixation after long construct fusions in patients with adult spinal deformity: clinical and radiographic risk factors: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine. 2013;19(4):445453.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7

    Dick JC, Bourgeault CA. Notch sensitivity of titanium alloy, commercially pure titanium, and stainless steel spinal implants. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001;26(15):16681672.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8

    Smith JS, Shaffrey E, Klineberg E, Prospective multicenter assessment of risk factors for rod fracture following surgery for adult spinal deformity. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014;21(6):9941003.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

    Berjano P, Xu M, Damilano M, Supplementary delta-rod configurations provide superior stiffness and reduced rod stress compared to traditional multiple-rod configurations after pedicle subtraction osteotomy: a finite element study. Eur Spine J. 2019;28(9):21982207.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10

    Jager ZS, İnceoğlu S, Palmer D, Preventing instrumentation failure in three-column spinal osteotomy: biomechanical analysis of rod configuration. Spine Deform. 2016;4(1):39.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11

    Kelly BP, Shen FH, Schwab JS, Biomechanical testing of a novel four-rod technique for lumbo-pelvic reconstruction. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008;33(13):E400E406.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12

    Scheer JK, Tang JA, Deviren V, Biomechanical analysis of revision strategies for rod fracture in pedicle subtraction osteotomy. Neurosurgery. 2011;69(1):164172.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13

    Seyed Vosoughi A, Joukar A, Kiapour A, Optimal satellite rod constructs to mitigate rod failure following pedicle subtraction osteotomy (PSO): a finite element study. Spine J. 2019;19(5):931941.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14

    Shen FH, Harper M, Foster WC, A novel “four-rod technique” for lumbo-pelvic reconstruction: theory and technical considerations. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006;31(12):13951401.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15

    Gupta S, Eksi MS, Ames CP, A novel 4-rod technique offers potential to reduce rod breakage and pseudarthrosis in pedicle subtraction osteotomies for adult spinal deformity correction. Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown). 2018;14(4):449456.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16

    Gupta S, Gupta MC. The nuances of pedicle subtraction osteotomies. Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2018;29(3):355363.

  • 17

    Hyun SJ, Lenke LG, Kim YC, Comparison of standard 2-rod constructs to multiple-rod constructs for fixation across 3-column spinal osteotomies. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014;39(22):18991904.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18

    Merrill RK, Kim JS, Leven DM, Multi-rod constructs can prevent rod breakage and pseudarthrosis at the lumbosacral junction in adult spinal deformity. Global Spine J. 2017;7(6):514520.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19

    Palumbo MA, Shah KN, Eberson CP, Outrigger rod technique for supplemental support of posterior spinal arthrodesis. Spine J. 2015;15(6):14091414.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20

    Shen FH, Qureshi R, Tyger R, Use of the “dual construct” for the management of complex spinal reconstructions. Spine J. 2018;18(3):482490.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21

    Feinstein AR, Cicchetti DV. High agreement but low kappa: I. The problems of two paradoxes. J Clin Epidemiol. 1990:43(6):543549.

  • 22

    Cicchetti DV, Feinstein AR. High agreement but low kappa: II. Resolving the paradoxes. J Clin Epidemiol. 1990;43(6):551558.

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 146 146 146
Full Text Views 18 18 18
PDF Downloads 13 13 13
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0