| Literature DB >> 35265345 |
Abstract
The aim of the study was to assess clinical decision support system (CDSS) in spinal surgery for personalized minimally invasive technologies on lumbar spine. Materials andEntities:
Keywords: artificial intelligence; clinical decision support systems; degenerative lumbar diseases; machine learning; minimally invasive spinal neurosurgery
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 35265345 PMCID: PMC8858415 DOI: 10.17691/stm2021.13.5.02
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sovrem Tekhnologii Med ISSN: 2076-4243
Figure 1.Study design flowchart
Here: IVD — intervertebral disc; FJ — facet joint; ADC — apparent diffusion coefficient
Clinical data of retrospective groups, Me [Q1; Q3]
| Parameter | ТDR (n=42) | p | MI-TLIF (n=79) | p | O-TLIF (n=75) | p | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Good outcomes | Poor outcomes | Good outcomes | Poor outcomes | Good outcomes | Poor outcomes | ||||
| (n=35) | (n=7) | (n=64) | (n=15) | (n=62) | (n=13) | ||||
| ODI after 24 months (points) | 6 [6; 8] | 16 [16; 18] | 0.008 | 8 [6; 8] | 26 [20; 28] | 0.001 | 8 [8; 10] | 32 [28; 36 | 0.003 |
| VAS after 24 months (mm): | |||||||||
| lumbar spine | 6 [5; 8] | 14 [14; 16] | 0.007 | 9 [8; 10] | 24 [22; 26] | 0.009 | 10 [10; 12] | 29 [27; 30] | 0.001 |
| lower limbs | 4 [3; 5] | 16 [14; 18] | 0.006 | 6 [5; 7] | 22 [21; 23] | 0.002 | 7 [7; 8] | 24 [22; 25] | 0.001 |
| Linear translation (mm): | |||||||||
| before surgery | 2 [1; 4] | 6 [5; 7] | 0.001 | 7 [4; 11] | 3 [2; 3] | 0.001 | 7 [5; 10] | 3 [2; 4] | 0.003 |
| after surgery | 1 [1; 2] | 2 [1; 2] | 0.005 | 2 [1; 3] | 5 [4; 7] | 0.006 | 2 [1; 3] | 6 [4; 8] | 0.001 |
| Sagittal angulation (degrees): | |||||||||
| before surgery | 4 [3; 5] | 7 [6; 8] | 0.002 | 8 [6; 9] | 3 [2; 3] | 0.005 | 8 [6; 9] | 3 [2; 4] | 0.004 |
| after surgery | 4 [4; 5] | 3 [3; 5] | 0.001 | 2 [1; 2] | 3 [3; 4] | 0.009 | 1 [1; 2] | 3 [3; 5] | 0.008 |
| General lordosis (degrees): | |||||||||
| before surgery | 30 [28; 36] | 30 [26; 38] | 0.003 | 32 [28; 36] | 32 [23; 38] | 0.45 | 34 [29; 41] | 30 [26; 39] | 0.26 |
| after surgery | 54 [48; 64] | 34 [32; 36] | 0.007 | 52 [44; 66] | 37 [32; 38] | 0.006 | 56 [42; 68] | 35 [31; 39] | 0.006 |
| Intervertebral disc height (mm): | |||||||||
| before surgery | 10 [9; 13] | 6 [5; 9] | 0.001 | 6 [5; 8] | 10 [9; 12] | 0.007 | 4 [3; 7] | 10 [8; 14] | 0.003 |
| after surgery | 12 [10; 12] | 10 [10; 12] | 0.004 | 13 [11; 15] | 11 [10; 13] | 0.005 | 12 [11; 14] | 10 [6; 11] | 0.009 |
| Apparent diffusion coefficient | 1540 | 1050 | 1180 | 1320 | 670 | 1170 | |||
| before surgery (s/mm2) | [1280; 1760] | [800; 1150] | 0.003 | [980; 1230] | [1240; 1520] | 0.001 | [450; 930] | [1080; 1660] | 0.002 |
| Facet joint angulation before surgery (degrees) | 50 [44; 59] | 69 [62; 74] | 0.003 | 70 [62; 78] | 52 [48; 56] | 0.006 | 69 [61; 82] | 52 [49; 56] | 0.008 |
| Facet joint tropism before surgery | +/– | +/– | 0.15 | + | +/– | 0.001 | – | + | 0.002 |
| Degradation degree according to: | |||||||||
| C. Pfirmann | II (I; II) | III (III; IV) | 0.22 | III (III; IV) | III (III; V) | 0.008 | III (III; V) | III (II; III) | 0.004 |
| A. Fujiwara | I (I; II) | II (I; II) | 0.22 | III (II; III) | III (III; IV) | 0.008 | III (III; IV) | III (II; III) | 0.004 |
Common data on patients’ groups under study
| Parameter | ТDR | р | MI-TLIF | р | O-TLIF | р | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prospective | Retrospective | Prospective | Retrospective | Prospective | Retrospective | ||||
| (n=11) | (n=42) | (n=25) | (n=79) | (n=23) | (n=75) | ||||
| Age (years), | |||||||||
| Me [Q1; Q3] | 34 [30; 39] | 35 [32; 42] | 0.54 | 36 [34; 41] | 37 [33; 48] | 0.31 | 45 [37; 55] | 43 [35; 54] | 0.68 |
| Sex, n (%): | |||||||||
| male | 8 (72.7) | 29 (69) | 0.81 | 16 (64) | 57 (72.2) | 0.43 | 14 (60.9) | 51 (68) | 0.52 |
| female | 3 (27.3) | 13 (31) | 9 (36) | 22 (27.8) | 9 (39.1) | 24 (32) | |||
| Body mass index, | 24.5 | 25.6 | 26.4 | 26.1 | 27.0 | 26.5 | |||
| Me [Q1; Q3] | [23.0; 28.8] | [23.1; 29.6] | 0.29 | [23.7; 29.2] | [23.3; 29.6] | 0.15 | [24.1; 29.2] | [23.6; 29.9] | 0.77 |
| Localization of operated segments, n (%): | |||||||||
| L2–L3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1 (1.3) | — |
| L3–L4 | — | 1 (2.4) | — | 2 (8) | 9 (11.4) | — | 2 (8.7) | 8 (10.7) | — |
| L4–L5 | 4 (36.4) | 17 (40.5) | — | 9 (36) | 28 (35.4) | — | 9 (39.1) | 27 (36.0) | — |
| L5–S1 | 7 (63.6) | 24 (57.1) | — | 14 (56) | 34 (43.1) | — | 12 (52.2) | 36 (48.0) | — |
| L5–L6 | — | — | — | — | 3 (3.8) | — | — | — | — |
| L6–S1 | — | — | — | — | 5 (6.3) | — | — | 3 (4.0) | — |
Figure 2.Clinical parameters in patients’ groups under study after lumbar total disk replacement
Figure 3.Clinical parameters in patients’ groups under study after minimally invasive transforaminal interbody fusion
Figure 4.Clinical parameters in patients’ groups under study after open transforaminal interbody fusion