Takashi Fujishiro1,2, Louis Boissière3, Derek Thomas Cawley3, Daniel Larrieu3, Olivier Gille3, Jean-Marc Vital3, Ferran Pellisé4, Francisco Javier Sanchez Pérez-Grueso5, Frank Kleinstück6, Emre Acaroglu7, Ahmet Alanay8, Ibrahim Obeid3. 1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Osaka Medical College, 2-7, Daigakumachi, Takatsuki-shi, Osaka, 569-8686, Japan. ort167@osaka-med.ac.jp. 2. Bordeaux University Hospital, L'Institut de la Colonne Vertébrale, Bordeaux, France. ort167@osaka-med.ac.jp. 3. Bordeaux University Hospital, L'Institut de la Colonne Vertébrale, Bordeaux, France. 4. Spine Surgery Unit, Hospital Universitario Val Hebron, Barcelona, Spain. 5. Spine Surgery Unit, Hospital Universitario La Paz, Madrid, Spain. 6. Spine Center, Schulthess Klinik, Zurich, Switzerland. 7. Ankara Spine Center, Ankara, Turkey. 8. Spine Surgery Unit, Acibadem Maslak Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We aimed to develop and internally validate a simple scoring system: the adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgical decision-making (ASD-SDM) score, which is specific to the decision-making process for ASD patients aged below 40 years. METHODS: A multicentre prospective ASD database was retrospectively reviewed. The scoring system was developed using data from a derivation cohort and was internally validated in a validation cohort. The accuracy of the ASD-SDM score was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). RESULTS: A total of 316 patients were randomly divided into derivation (253 patients, 80%) and validation (63 patients, 20%) cohorts. A 10-point scoring system was created from four variables: self-image score in the Scoliosis Research Society-22 score, coronal Cobb angle, pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis mismatch, and relative spinopelvic alignment, and the surgical indication was graded into low (score 0-4), moderate (score 5-7), and high (score 8-10) surgical indication groups. In the validation cohort, the AUC for selecting surgical management according to the ASD-SDM score was 0.789 (SE 0.057, P < 0.001, 95% CI 0.655-0.880). The percentage of patients treated surgically were 21.1%, 55.0%, and 80.0% in the low, moderate, and high surgical indication groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The ASD-SDM score, to the best of our knowledge, is the first algorithm to guide the decision-making process for the ASD population and could be one of the indices for aiding the selection of treatment for ASD. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
PURPOSE: We aimed to develop and internally validate a simple scoring system: the adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgical decision-making (ASD-SDM) score, which is specific to the decision-making process for ASDpatients aged below 40 years. METHODS: A multicentre prospective ASD database was retrospectively reviewed. The scoring system was developed using data from a derivation cohort and was internally validated in a validation cohort. The accuracy of the ASD-SDM score was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). RESULTS: A total of 316 patients were randomly divided into derivation (253 patients, 80%) and validation (63 patients, 20%) cohorts. A 10-point scoring system was created from four variables: self-image score in the Scoliosis Research Society-22 score, coronal Cobb angle, pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis mismatch, and relative spinopelvic alignment, and the surgical indication was graded into low (score 0-4), moderate (score 5-7), and high (score 8-10) surgical indication groups. In the validation cohort, the AUC for selecting surgical management according to the ASD-SDM score was 0.789 (SE 0.057, P < 0.001, 95% CI 0.655-0.880). The percentage of patients treated surgically were 21.1%, 55.0%, and 80.0% in the low, moderate, and high surgical indication groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The ASD-SDM score, to the best of our knowledge, is the first algorithm to guide the decision-making process for the ASD population and could be one of the indices for aiding the selection of treatment for ASD. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
Authors: Keith H Bridwell; William Cats-Baril; John Harrast; Sigurd Berven; Steven Glassman; Jean-Pierre Farcy; William C Horton; Lawrence G Lenke; Christine Baldus; Terri Radake Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2005-02-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Steven D Glassman; Sigurd Berven; John Kostuik; John R Dimar; William C Horton; Keith Bridwell Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2006-04-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Steven D Glassman; Frank J Schwab; Keith H Bridwell; Stephen L Ondra; Sigurd Berven; Lawrence G Lenke Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2007-01-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: T R Haher; J M Gorup; T M Shin; P Homel; A A Merola; D P Grogan; L Pugh; T G Lowe; M Murray Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 1999-07-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Keith H Bridwell; Sigurd Berven; Steven Glassman; Christopher Hamill; William C Horton; Lawrence G Lenke; Frank Schwab; Christine Baldus; Michael Shainline Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2007-09-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Takashi Fujishiro; Louis Boissière; Derek Thomas Cawley; Daniel Larrieu; Olivier Gille; Jean-Marc Vital; Ferran Pellisé; Francisco Javier Sanchez Pérez-Grueso; Frank Kleinstück; Emre Acaroglu; Ahmet Alanay; Ibrahim Obeid Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2019-07-17 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: D C Kieser; S Yuksel; L Boissiere; C Yilgor; D T Cawley; K Hayashi; A Alanay; F S Kleinstueck; F Pellise; F J S Perez-Grueso; Vital Jean-Marc; A Bourghli; E R Acaroglu; I Obeid Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2022-01-21 Impact factor: 2.721
Authors: D C Kieser; A Bourghli; D Larrieu; D T Cawley; K Hayashi; S Jakinapally; J Pizones; L Boissiere; I Obeid Journal: Spine Deform Date: 2021-03-02