E Quarto1, A Zanirato2, M Pellegrini2, S Vaggi2, F Vitali2, S Bourret3, J C Le Huec3, M Formica2. 1. Clinica Ortopedica, IRCCS Policlinico San Martino, Largo Rosanna Benzi 10, 16132, Genoa, GE, Italy. emanuelequarto88@gmail.com. 2. Clinica Ortopedica, IRCCS Policlinico San Martino, Largo Rosanna Benzi 10, 16132, Genoa, GE, Italy. 3. Vertebra, Polyclinique Bordeaux Nord Aquitaine, 15 Rue Boucher, 33300, Bordeaux, France.
Abstract
PURPOSE: In 2017, the GAP score was proposed as a tool to reduce mechanical complications (MC) in adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery: the reported MC rate for the GAP proportioned category was only 6%, which is clearly lower to the MC rate reported in the literature. The aim of this study is to analyse if the most recent literature confirms the promising results of the original article. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using the PRISMA flow chart, we reviewed the literature to analyse GAP score capacity in predicting MC occurrence. We included articles clearly reporting ASD surgery MC stratified by GAP categories and the score's overall capacity to predict MC using the area under the curve (AUC). The quality of the included studies was evaluated using GRADE and MINORS systems. RESULTS: Eleven retrospective articles (1,517 patients in total) were included. The MC distribution per GAP category was as follows: GAP-P, 32.8%; GAP-MD, 42.3%; GAP-SD, 55.4%. No statistically significant difference was observed between the different categories using the Kruskal-Wallis test (p = 0.08) and the two-by-two Pearson-Chi square test (P Vs MD, p = 0.300; P Vs SD, p = 0.275; MD Vs SD, p = 0.137). The global AUC was 0.68 ± 0.2 (moderate accuracy). The included studies were of poor quality according to the GRADE system and had a high risk of bias based on the MINORS criteria. CONCLUSION: The actual literature does not corroborate the excellent results reported by the original GAP score article. Further prospective studies, possibly stratified by type of MC and type of surgery, are necessary to validate this score.
PURPOSE: In 2017, the GAP score was proposed as a tool to reduce mechanical complications (MC) in adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery: the reported MC rate for the GAP proportioned category was only 6%, which is clearly lower to the MC rate reported in the literature. The aim of this study is to analyse if the most recent literature confirms the promising results of the original article. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using the PRISMA flow chart, we reviewed the literature to analyse GAP score capacity in predicting MC occurrence. We included articles clearly reporting ASD surgery MC stratified by GAP categories and the score's overall capacity to predict MC using the area under the curve (AUC). The quality of the included studies was evaluated using GRADE and MINORS systems. RESULTS: Eleven retrospective articles (1,517 patients in total) were included. The MC distribution per GAP category was as follows: GAP-P, 32.8%; GAP-MD, 42.3%; GAP-SD, 55.4%. No statistically significant difference was observed between the different categories using the Kruskal-Wallis test (p = 0.08) and the two-by-two Pearson-Chi square test (P Vs MD, p = 0.300; P Vs SD, p = 0.275; MD Vs SD, p = 0.137). The global AUC was 0.68 ± 0.2 (moderate accuracy). The included studies were of poor quality according to the GRADE system and had a high risk of bias based on the MINORS criteria. CONCLUSION: The actual literature does not corroborate the excellent results reported by the original GAP score article. Further prospective studies, possibly stratified by type of MC and type of surgery, are necessary to validate this score.
Authors: Frank Schwab; Benjamin Ungar; Benjamin Blondel; Jacob Buchowski; Jeffrey Coe; Donald Deinlein; Christopher DeWald; Hossein Mehdian; Christopher Shaffrey; Clifford Tribus; Virginie Lafage Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2012-05-20 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Christopher P Ames; Justin K Scheer; Virginie Lafage; Justin S Smith; Shay Bess; Sigurd H Berven; Gregory M Mundis; Rajiv K Sethi; Donald A Deinlein; Jeffrey D Coe; Lloyd A Hey; Michael D Daubs Journal: Spine Deform Date: 2016-06-16
Authors: M Formica; E Quarto; A Zanirato; L Mosconi; M Lontaro-Baracchini; M Alessio-Mazzola; L Felli Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2020-09-15 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Andrea Zanirato; Marco Damilano; Matteo Formica; Andrea Piazzolla; Alessio Lovi; Jorge Hugo Villafañe; Pedro Berjano Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2018-03-01 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Michael G Fehlings; Lindsay Tetreault; Anick Nater; Ted Choma; James Harrop; Tom Mroz; Carlo Santaguida; Justin S Smith Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Steven D Glassman; Keith Bridwell; John R Dimar; William Horton; Sigurd Berven; Frank Schwab Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2005-09-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Justin S Smith; Virginie Lafage; Christopher I Shaffrey; Frank Schwab; Renaud Lafage; Richard Hostin; Michael OʼBrien; Oheneba Boachie-Adjei; Behrooz A Akbarnia; Gregory M Mundis; Thomas Errico; Han Jo Kim; Themistocles S Protopsaltis; D Kojo Hamilton; Justin K Scheer; Daniel Sciubba; Tamir Ailon; Kai-Ming G Fu; Michael P Kelly; Lukas Zebala; Breton Line; Eric Klineberg; Munish Gupta; Vedat Deviren; Robert Hart; Doug Burton; Shay Bess; Christopher P Ames Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2016-06 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Keith H Bridwell; Steven Glassman; William Horton; Christopher Shaffrey; Frank Schwab; Lukas P Zebala; Lawrence G Lenke; Joan F Hilton; Michael Shainline; Christine Baldus; David Wootten Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2009-09-15 Impact factor: 3.468