Literature DB >> 28430052

Predicting complication risk in spine surgery: a prospective analysis of a novel risk assessment tool.

Anand Veeravagu1, Amy Li1, Christian Swinney1, Lu Tian2, Adrienne Moraff1, Tej D Azad1, Ivan Cheng3, Todd Alamin3, Serena S Hu3, Robert L Anderson4, Lawrence Shuer1, Atman Desai1, Jon Park1, Richard A Olshen2, John K Ratliff1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE The ability to assess the risk of adverse events based on known patient factors and comorbidities would provide more effective preoperative risk stratification. Present risk assessment in spine surgery is limited. An adverse event prediction tool was developed to predict the risk of complications after spine surgery and tested on a prospective patient cohort. METHODS The spinal Risk Assessment Tool (RAT), a novel instrument for the assessment of risk for patients undergoing spine surgery that was developed based on an administrative claims database, was prospectively applied to 246 patients undergoing 257 spinal procedures over a 3-month period. Prospectively collected data were used to compare the RAT to the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) and the American College of Surgeons National Surgery Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) Surgical Risk Calculator. Study end point was occurrence and type of complication after spine surgery. RESULTS The authors identified 69 patients (73 procedures) who experienced a complication over the prospective study period. Cardiac complications were most common (10.2%). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were calculated to compare complication outcomes using the different assessment tools. Area under the curve (AUC) analysis showed comparable predictive accuracy between the RAT and the ACS NSQIP calculator (0.670 [95% CI 0.60-0.74] in RAT, 0.669 [95% CI 0.60-0.74] in NSQIP). The CCI was not accurate in predicting complication occurrence (0.55 [95% CI 0.48-0.62]). The RAT produced mean probabilities of 34.6% for patients who had a complication and 24% for patients who did not (p = 0.0003). The generated predicted values were stratified into low, medium, and high rates. For the RAT, the predicted complication rate was 10.1% in the low-risk group (observed rate 12.8%), 21.9% in the medium-risk group (observed 31.8%), and 49.7% in the high-risk group (observed 41.2%). The ACS NSQIP calculator consistently produced complication predictions that underestimated complication occurrence: 3.4% in the low-risk group (observed 12.6%), 5.9% in the medium-risk group (observed 34.5%), and 12.5% in the high-risk group (observed 38.8%). The RAT was more accurate than the ACS NSQIP calculator (p = 0.0018). CONCLUSIONS While the RAT and ACS NSQIP calculator were both able to identify patients more likely to experience complications following spine surgery, both have substantial room for improvement. Risk stratification is feasible in spine surgery procedures; currently used measures have low accuracy.

Entities:  

Keywords:  ACS NSQIP = American College of Surgeons National Surgery Quality Improvement Program; AUC = area under the ROC curve; BMI = body mass index; BMP = bone morphogenetic protein; CCI = Charlson Comorbidity Index; RAT = Risk Assessment Tool; ROC = receiver operating characteristic; complications; risk assessment; spine surgery

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28430052     DOI: 10.3171/2016.12.SPINE16969

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine        ISSN: 1547-5646


  17 in total

1.  Development and Validation of a Prediction Model for Pain and Functional Outcomes After Lumbar Spine Surgery.

Authors:  Sara Khor; Danielle Lavallee; Amy M Cizik; Carlo Bellabarba; Jens R Chapman; Christopher R Howe; Dawei Lu; A Alex Mohit; Rod J Oskouian; Jeffrey R Roh; Neal Shonnard; Armagan Dagal; David R Flum
Journal:  JAMA Surg       Date:  2018-07-01       Impact factor: 14.766

2.  Development of a machine learning algorithm predicting discharge placement after surgery for spondylolisthesis.

Authors:  Paul T Ogink; Aditya V Karhade; Quirina C B S Thio; Stuart H Hershman; Thomas D Cha; Christopher M Bono; Joseph H Schwab
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2019-03-27       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  How Do Spinal Surgeons Perceive The Impact of Factors Used in Post-Surgical Complication Risk Scores?

Authors:  Enea Parimbelli; Wilk Szymon; Dympna O'Sullivan; Stephen Kingwell; Wojtek Michalowski; Martin Michalowski
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2020-03-04

4.  Predicting medical complications in spine surgery: evaluation of a novel online risk calculator.

Authors:  Maximilian F Kasparek; Friedrich Boettner; Anna Rienmueller; Michael Weber; Philipp T Funovics; Petra Krepler; Reinhard Windhager; Josef Grohs
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2018-07-28       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Impact of resolved early major complications on 2-year follow-up outcome following adult spinal deformity surgery.

Authors:  Susana Núñez-Pereira; Ferran Pellisé; Alba Vila-Casademunt; Ahmet Alanay; Emre Acaraglou; Ibrahim Obeid; Francisco Javier Sánchez Pérez-Grueso; Frank Kleinstück
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2019-06-27       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  External Validation of the European Spine Study Group-International Spine Study Group Calculator Utilizing a Single Institutional Experience for Adult Spinal Deformity Corrective Surgery.

Authors:  Peter G Passias; Sara Naessig; Ashok Para; Katherine Pierce; Waleed Ahmad; Bassel G Diebo; Renaud Lafage; Virginie Lafage; Justin S Smith; Burhan Janjua
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2022-07-31

7.  Surgeons' risk perception in ASD surgery: The value of objective risk assessment on decision making and patient counselling.

Authors:  Ferran Pellisé; Alba Vila-Casademunt; Susana Núñez-Pereira; Sleiman Haddad; Justin S Smith; Michael P Kelly; Ahmet Alanay; Christopher Shaffrey; Javier Pizones; Çaglar Yilgor; Ibrahim Obeid; Douglas Burton; Frank Kleinstück; Tamas Fekete; Shay Bess; Munish Gupta; Markus Loibl; Eric O Klineberg; Francisco J Sánchez Pérez-Grueso; Miquel Serra-Burriel; Christopher P Ames
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2022-03-28       Impact factor: 2.721

8.  Epidemiological Relevance of Elevated Preoperative Patient Health Questionnaire-9 Scores on Clinical Improvement Following Lumbar Decompression.

Authors:  James M Parrish; Nathaniel W Jenkins; Elliot D K Cha; Conor P Lynch; Cara E Geoghegan; Caroline N Jadczak; Shruthi Mohan; Kern Singh
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2022-02

9.  Prediction of Major Complications and Readmission After Lumbar Spinal Fusion: A Machine Learning-Driven Approach.

Authors:  Akash A Shah; Sai K Devana; Changhee Lee; Amador Bugarin; Elizabeth L Lord; Arya N Shamie; Don Y Park; Mihaela van der Schaar; Nelson F SooHoo
Journal:  World Neurosurg       Date:  2021-05-28       Impact factor: 2.210

10.  Administrative Data Are Unreliable for Ranking Hospital Performance Based on Serious Complications After Spine Fusion.

Authors:  Jacob K Greenberg; Margaret A Olsen; John Poe; Christopher F Dibble; Ken Yamaguchi; Michael P Kelly; Bruce L Hall; Wilson Z Ray
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2021-09-01       Impact factor: 3.241

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.