| Literature DB >> 33781244 |
Chengyue Ji1, Yuluo Rong1, Jiaxing Wang1, Guoyong Yin1, Jin Fan1, Pengyu Tang1, Dongdong Jiang1, Wei Liu1, Xuhui Ge1, Shunzhi Yu2, Weihua Cai3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: For a long time, surgical difficulty is mainly evaluated based on subjective perception rather than objective indexes. Moreover, the lack of systematic research regarding the evaluation of surgical difficulty potentially has a negative effect in this field. This study was aimed to evaluate the risk factors for the surgical difficulty of anterior cervical spine surgery (ACSS).Entities:
Keywords: Anterior cervical spine surgery; Nomogram; Surgical difficulty
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33781244 PMCID: PMC8008533 DOI: 10.1186/s12893-020-01022-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Surg ISSN: 1471-2482 Impact factor: 2.102
Fig. 1Sagittal radiograph showing that the cervical length was measured as the distance between the sternum and gnathion. Sagittal and coronal cervical circumferences were defined as the distance between the intersection of the line parallel to the endplate through the midpoint of C5 and soft tissue shadow
Fig. 2At the most compressed level, the anteroposterior diameter was defined as the distance between the posterior edge of vertebral body and spinal canal (a, b). The shortest diameter was the distance between the posterior edge of compression and spinal canal (b, c). Spinal canal occupational ratio = (anteroposterior diameter-shortest diameter) / anteroposterior diameter
Comparison of the low-difficulty and high-difficulty groups
| Factor | Low-difficulty group (N = 151) | High-difficulty group (N = 140) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age*(years) | 50.99 ± 10.60 | 53.84 ± 9.62 | 0.017 |
| Sex* (male: female) | 82:69 | 98:42 | 0.006 |
| BMI | 24.15 ± 3.07 | 24.74 ± 2.82 | 0.154 |
| Number of operation levels* | |||
| 1 | 86 | 7 | |
| 2 | 56 | 77 | |
| 3 | 9 | 53 | |
| 4 | 0 | 3 | < 0.001 |
| High signal intensity of spinal cord* | |||
| Yes | 52 | 96 | < 0.001 |
| No | 94 | 49 | |
| OPLL* | |||
| Yes | 17 | 74 | < 0.001 |
| No | 136 | 64 | |
| Sagittal Cervical Circumference | 14.36 ± 1.99 | 14.86 ± 2.14 | 0.053 |
| Coronal Cervical Circumference | 12.41 ± 1.41 | 12.74 ± 1.38 | 0.057 |
| Cervical Length | 14.56 ± 2.10 | 14.63 ± 1.83 | 0.819 |
| Occupying Ratio* | 0.37 ± 0.15 | 0.49 ± 0.11 | < 0.001 |
| PT | 11.70 ± 0.66 | 11.74 ± 0.71 | 0.708 |
| INR | 1.01 ± 0.05 | 1.02 ± 0.06 | 0.660 |
| APTT | 28.06 ± 2.50 | 27.90 ± 2.71 | 0.684 |
| FIB | 2.64 ± 0.98 | 2.44 ± 0.73 | 0.130 |
| TT | 18.26 ± 1.03 | 18.50 ± 1.46 | 0.189 |
| DD2 | 0.32 ± 0.37 | 0.33 ± 0.59 | 0.924 |
| PLT | 213.82 ± 79.45 | 201.49 ± 51.96 | 0.210 |
BMI body mass index, OPLL ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament
*Statistically significant difference
Multivariate logistic regression analysis
| Factor | Odds ratio (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|
| Age > 55 | 1.507 (0.505–4.494) | 0.462 |
| Sex | 0.708 (0.224–2.241) | 0.557 |
| Number of operation levels | 5.224 (2.125–12.843) | < 0.001 |
| High signal intensity | 4.994 (1.636–15.245) | 0.005 |
| OPLL | 6.358 (1.932–20.931) | 0.002 |
| Occupying Ratio > 0.45 | 3.988 (1.343–11.840) | 0.013 |
CI indicates confidence interval
OPLL ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament
Fig. 3A predictive nomogram was established by combining the four risk factors
Fig. 4The ROC curve (a) demonstrated that the C-index was 0.906. b The calibration curve showed that the probability of high-difficulty predicted by the nomogram agreed well with actual practice