Development and Validation of a Novel Adult Spinal Deformity Surgical Invasiveness Score: Analysis of 464 Patients. Issue 6 (June 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Neuman, Brian J; Ailon, Tamir; Scheer, Justin K; Klineberg, Eric; Sciubba, Daniel M; Jain, Amit; Zebala, Lukas P; Passias, Peter G; Daniels, Alan H; Burton, Douglas C; Protopsaltis, Themi S; Hamilton, Kojo D; Ames, Christopher P
• Is Part Of: Neurosurgery. Volume 82:Issue 6(2018)
• Publication Date: 2018-06
• Subjects: Adult spinal deformity -- Risk stratification -- Estimated blood loss -- Operative time -- Surgical complexity -- Surgical invasiveness index; Nervous system -- Surgery -- Periodicals; 617.48005
• DOI: 10.1093/neuros/nyx303
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0148-396X

Abstract

Abstract: BACKGROUND : A surgical invasiveness index (SII) has been validated in general spine procedures but not adult spinal deformity (ASD). OBJECTIVE : To assess the ability of the SII to determine the invasiveness of ASD surgery and to create and validate a novel ASD index incorporating deformity‐specific factors, which could serve as a standardized metric to compare outcomes and risk stratification of different ASD procedures for a given deformity. METHODS : Four hundred sixty‐four patients who underwent ASD surgery between 2009 and 2012 were identified in 2 multicenter prospective registries. Multivariable models of estimated blood loss (EBL) and operative time were created using deformity‐specific factors. Beta coefficients derived from these models were used to attribute points to each component. Scoring was iteratively refined to determine the R 2 value of multivariate models of EBL and operative time using adult spinal deformity‐surgical (ASD‐S) as an independent variable. Similarly, we determined weighting of postoperative changes in radiographical parameters, which were incorporated into another index (adult spinal deformity‐surgical and radiographical [ASD‐SR]). The ability of these models to predict surgical invasiveness was assessed in a validation cohort. RESULTS : Each index was a significant, independent predictor of EBL and operative time ( P < .001). On multivariate analysis, ASD‐S and ASD‐SR explained more variability in EBL and operative time than did the SII ( P < .001). The ASD‐SR explained 21% of the variation in EBL and 10% of the variation in operative time, whereas the SII explained 17% and 3.2% respectively. CONCLUSION : The ASD‐SR, which incorporates deformity‐specific components, more accurately predicts the magnitude of ASD surgery than does the SII.