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. L'Institut de la Colonne Vertébrale, Bordeaux University Hospital, Bordeaux, France. ort167@osaka-med.ac.jp. 3. L'Institut de la Colonne Vertébrale, Bordeaux University Hospital, 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 scoring system, the adult spinal deformity surgical decision-making (ASD-SDM) score, to guide the decision-making process for ASD patients aged above 40 years. METHODS: A multicentre prospective ASD database was retrospectively reviewed. The scoring system was developed using data from a derivation set and was internally validated in a validation set. The performance of the ASD-SDM score for predicting surgical management was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). RESULTS: A total of 702 patients were included for analysis in the present study. The scoring system developed based on 562 patients, ranging from 0 to 12 points, included five parameters: leg pain scored by the numerical rating scale; pain and self-image domains in the Scoliosis Research Society-22 score; coronal Cobb angle; and relative spinopelvic alignment. Surgical indication was graded as low (score 0 to 4), moderate (score 5 to 7), and high (score 8 to 12) groups. In the validation set of 140 patients, the AUC for predicting surgical management according to the ASD-SDM score was 0.797 (standard error = 0.037, P < 0.001, 95% confidence interval = 0.714 to 0.861), and in the low, moderate, and high surgical indication groups, 23.7%, 43.5%, and 80.4% of the patients, respectively, were treated surgically. CONCLUSIONS: The ASD-SDM score demonstrated reliability, with higher scores indicating a higher probability of surgery. This index could aid in the selection of surgery for ASD patients in clinical settings. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
PURPOSE: We aimed to develop and internally validate a scoring system, the adult spinal deformity surgical decision-making (ASD-SDM) score, to guide the decision-making process for ASDpatients aged above 40 years. METHODS: A multicentre prospective ASD database was retrospectively reviewed. The scoring system was developed using data from a derivation set and was internally validated in a validation set. The performance of the ASD-SDM score for predicting surgical management was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). RESULTS: A total of 702 patients were included for analysis in the present study. The scoring system developed based on 562 patients, ranging from 0 to 12 points, included five parameters: leg pain scored by the numerical rating scale; pain and self-image domains in the Scoliosis Research Society-22 score; coronal Cobb angle; and relative spinopelvic alignment. Surgical indication was graded as low (score 0 to 4), moderate (score 5 to 7), and high (score 8 to 12) groups. In the validation set of 140 patients, the AUC for predicting surgical management according to the ASD-SDM score was 0.797 (standard error = 0.037, P < 0.001, 95% confidence interval = 0.714 to 0.861), and in the low, moderate, and high surgical indication groups, 23.7%, 43.5%, and 80.4% of the patients, respectively, were treated surgically. CONCLUSIONS: The ASD-SDM score demonstrated reliability, with higher scores indicating a higher probability of surgery. This index could aid in the selection of surgery for ASDpatients in clinical settings. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
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: Emre Acaroglu; Umit O Guler; Z Deniz Olgun; Yalcin Yavuz; Ferran Pellise; Montse Domingo-Sabat; Sule Yakici; Ahmet Alanay; Francesco Sanchez Perez-Grueso; Yasemin Yavuz Journal: Spine Deform Date: 2015-06-11
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: Brian J Neuman; Christine Baldus; Lukas P Zebala; Michael P Kelly; Christopher Shaffrey; Charles Edwards; Tyler Koski; Frank Schwab; Steven Glassman; Stefan Parent; Stephen Lewis; Lawrence G Lenke; Jacob M Buchowski; Justin S Smith; Charles H Crawford; Han Jo Kim; Virginia Lafage; Jon Lurie; Leah Carreon; Keith H Bridwell Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2016-03 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Mitsuru Takemoto; Louis Boissière; Felipe Novoa; Jean-Marc Vital; Ferran Pellisé; Francisco Javier Sanchez Pérez-Grueso; Frank Kleinstück; Emre R Acaroglu; Ahmet Alanay; Ibrahim Obeid; Ibrahim Obeid Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2016-05-25 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: D T Cawley; M Takemoto; L Boissiere; D Larrieu; D C Kieser; T Fujishiro; K Hayashi; A Bourghli; C Yilgor; A Alanay; F J Perez Grueso; F Pelisse; F Kleinstück; J M Vital; I Obeid Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2021-04-26 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