Literature DB >> 32090136

SpineCloud: image analytics for predictive modeling of spine surgery outcomes.

Tharindu De Silva1, S Swaroop Vedula2, Alexander Perdomo-Pantoja3, Rohan Vijayan1, Sophia A Doerr1, Ali Uneri1, Runze Han1, Michael D Ketcha1, Richard L Skolasky4, Timothy Witham3, Nicholas Theodore3, Jeffrey H Siewerdsen1,2,3.   

Abstract

Purpose: Data-intensive modeling could provide insight on the broad variability in outcomes in spine surgery. Previous studies were limited to analysis of demographic and clinical characteristics. We report an analytic framework called "SpineCloud" that incorporates quantitative features extracted from perioperative images to predict spine surgery outcome. Approach: A retrospective study was conducted in which patient demographics, imaging, and outcome data were collected. Image features were automatically computed from perioperative CT. Postoperative 3- and 12-month functional and pain outcomes were analyzed in terms of improvement relative to the preoperative state. A boosted decision tree classifier was trained to predict outcome using demographic and image features as predictor variables. Predictions were computed based on SpineCloud and conventional demographic models, and features associated with poor outcome were identified from weighting terms evident in the boosted tree.
Results: Neither approach was predictive of 3- or 12-month outcomes based on preoperative data alone in the current, preliminary study. However, SpineCloud predictions incorporating image features obtained during and immediately following surgery (i.e., intraoperative and immediate postoperative images) exhibited significant improvement in area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUC): AUC = 0.72 ( CI 95 = 0.59 to 0.83) at 3 months and AUC = 0.69 ( CI 95 = 0.55 to 0.82) at 12 months. Conclusions: Predictive modeling of lumbar spine surgery outcomes was improved by incorporation of image-based features compared to analysis based on conventional demographic data. The SpineCloud framework could improve understanding of factors underlying outcome variability and warrants further investigation and validation in a larger patient cohort.
© 2020 Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE).

Entities:  

Keywords:  data analytics; image analytics; lumbar spine surgery; machine learning; outcome modeling; prediction models

Year:  2020        PMID: 32090136      PMCID: PMC7026518          DOI: 10.1117/1.JMI.7.3.031502

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)        ISSN: 2329-4302


  39 in total

1.  The effects of hospital and surgeon volume on postoperative complications after LumbarSpine surgery.

Authors:  Payam Farjoodi; Richard L Skolasky; Lee H Riley
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2011-11-15       Impact factor: 3.468

2.  The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) developed and tested its first wave of adult self-reported health outcome item banks: 2005-2008.

Authors:  David Cella; William Riley; Arthur Stone; Nan Rothrock; Bryce Reeve; Susan Yount; Dagmar Amtmann; Rita Bode; Daniel Buysse; Seung Choi; Karon Cook; Robert Devellis; Darren DeWalt; James F Fries; Richard Gershon; Elizabeth A Hahn; Jin-Shei Lai; Paul Pilkonis; Dennis Revicki; Matthias Rose; Kevin Weinfurt; Ron Hays
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2010-08-04       Impact factor: 6.437

3.  2001 Volvo Award Winner in Clinical Studies: Lumbar fusion versus nonsurgical treatment for chronic low back pain: a multicenter randomized controlled trial from the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group.

Authors:  P Fritzell; O Hägg; P Wessberg; A Nordwall
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2001-12-01       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  Factors influencing radiographic and clinical outcomes in adult scoliosis surgery: a study of 448 European patients.

Authors:  Heiko Koller; Conny Pfanz; Oliver Meier; Wolfgang Hitzl; Michael Mayer; Viola Bullmann; Tobias L Schulte
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-04-28       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Criteria for successful correction of thoracolumbar/lumbar curves in AIS patients: results of risk model calculations using target outcomes and failure analysis.

Authors:  Heiko Koller; Oliver Meier; Wolfgang Hitzl
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-06-18       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  Variability in the utility of predictive models in predicting patient-reported outcomes following spine surgery for degenerative conditions: a systematic review.

Authors:  Nicholas Dietz; Mayur Sharma; Ahmad Alhourani; Beatrice Ugiliweneza; Dengzhi Wang; Miriam A Nuño; Doniel Drazin; Maxwell Boakye
Journal:  Neurosurg Focus       Date:  2018-11-01       Impact factor: 4.047

7.  A Randomized, Controlled Trial of Fusion Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.

Authors:  Peter Försth; Gylfi Ólafsson; Thomas Carlsson; Anders Frost; Fredrik Borgström; Peter Fritzell; Patrik Öhagen; Karl Michaëlsson; Bengt Sandén
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2016-04-14       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  Lumbar spinal fusion. Outcome in relation to surgical methods, choice of implant and postoperative rehabilitation.

Authors:  Finn Bjarke Christensen
Journal:  Acta Orthop Scand Suppl       Date:  2004-10

9.  Spinal pedicle screw planning using deformable atlas registration.

Authors:  J Goerres; A Uneri; T De Silva; M Ketcha; S Reaungamornrat; M Jacobson; S Vogt; G Kleinszig; G Osgood; J-P Wolinsky; J H Siewerdsen
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2017-02-08       Impact factor: 4.174

Review 10.  SF-36 total score as a single measure of health-related quality of life: Scoping review.

Authors:  Liliane Lins; Fernando Martins Carvalho
Journal:  SAGE Open Med       Date:  2016-10-04
View more
  4 in total

1.  Automatic analysis of global spinal alignment from simple annotation of vertebral bodies.

Authors:  Sophia A Doerr; Tharindu De Silva; Rohan Vijayan; Runze Han; Ali Uneri; Michael D Ketcha; Xiaoxuan Zhang; Nishanth Khanna; Erick Westbroek; Bowen Jiang; Corinna Zygourakis; Nafi Aygun; Nicholas Theodore; Jeffrey H Siewerdsen
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2020-05-13

Review 2.  Surgical data science - from concepts toward clinical translation.

Authors:  Lena Maier-Hein; Matthias Eisenmann; Duygu Sarikaya; Keno März; Toby Collins; Anand Malpani; Johannes Fallert; Hubertus Feussner; Stamatia Giannarou; Pietro Mascagni; Hirenkumar Nakawala; Adrian Park; Carla Pugh; Danail Stoyanov; Swaroop S Vedula; Kevin Cleary; Gabor Fichtinger; Germain Forestier; Bernard Gibaud; Teodor Grantcharov; Makoto Hashizume; Doreen Heckmann-Nötzel; Hannes G Kenngott; Ron Kikinis; Lars Mündermann; Nassir Navab; Sinan Onogur; Tobias Roß; Raphael Sznitman; Russell H Taylor; Minu D Tizabi; Martin Wagner; Gregory D Hager; Thomas Neumuth; Nicolas Padoy; Justin Collins; Ines Gockel; Jan Goedeke; Daniel A Hashimoto; Luc Joyeux; Kyle Lam; Daniel R Leff; Amin Madani; Hani J Marcus; Ozanan Meireles; Alexander Seitel; Dogu Teber; Frank Ückert; Beat P Müller-Stich; Pierre Jannin; Stefanie Speidel
Journal:  Med Image Anal       Date:  2021-11-18       Impact factor: 13.828

3.  Prediction Models in Degenerative Spine Surgery: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Daniel Lubelski; Andrew Hersh; Tej D Azad; Jeff Ehresman; Zachary Pennington; Kurt Lehner; Daniel M Sciubba
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2021-04

Review 4.  Brain Imaging Biomarkers for Chronic Pain.

Authors:  Zhengwu Zhang; Jennifer S Gewandter; Paul Geha
Journal:  Front Neurol       Date:  2022-01-03       Impact factor: 4.003

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.