Can Machine Learning Accurately Predict Postoperative Compensation for the Uninstrumented Thoracic Spine and Pelvis After Fusion From the Lower Thoracic Spine to the Sacrum?. Issue 4 (May 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Lee, Nathan J.; Sardar, Zeeshan M.; Boddapati, Venkat; Mathew, Justin; Cerpa, Meghan; Leung, Eric; Lombardi, Joseph; Lenke, Lawrence G.; Lehman, Ronald A.
• Is Part Of: Global spine journal. Volume 12:Issue 4(2022)
• Page Start: 559
• Page End: 566
• Publication Date: 2022-05
• Subjects: deformity -- machine learning -- pelvic tilt -- thoracic kyphosis -- spinopelvic -- compensation -- uninstrumented spine -- proximal junctional kyphosis -- adult spinal deformity; Spine -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Spine -- Diseases -- Treatment -- Periodicals; Spine -- Abnormalities -- Periodicals; Spine -- Surgery -- Periodicals; 616.73
• DOI: 10.1177/2192568220956978
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2192-5682

Abstract

Study Design: Consecutively collected cases. Objective: To determine if a machine-learning (ML) program can accurately predict the postoperative thoracic kyphosis through the uninstrumented thoracic spine and pelvic compensation in patients who undergo fusion from the lower thoracic spine (T10 or T11) to the sacrum. Methods: From 2015 to 2019, a consecutive series of adult (≥18 years old) patients with adult spinal deformity underwent corrective spinal fusion from the lower thoracic spine (T10 or T11) to the sacrum. Deidentified data was processed by a ML system-based platform to predict the postoperative thoracic kyphosis (TK) and pelvic tilt (PT) for each patient. To validate the ML model, the postoperative TK (T4-T12, instrumented thoracic, and uninstrumented thoracic) and the pelvic tilt were compared against the predicted values. Results: A total of 20 adult patients with a minimum 6-month follow-up (mean: 22.4 ± 11.3 months) were included in this study. No significant differences were observed for TK (predicted 37.6° vs postoperative 38.3°, P = .847), uninstrumented TK (predicted 33.9° vs postoperative 29.8°, P = .188), and PT (predicted 23.4° vs postoperative 22.7°, P = .754). The predicted PT and the TK of the uninstrumented thoracic spine correlated well with postoperative values (uninstrumented TK: R 2 = 0.764, P < .001; PT: R 2 = 0.868, P < .001). The mean error with which kyphosis through the uninstrumented thoracic spine can be measured was 4.8° ± 4.0°. The mean error for predicting PT was 2.5° ± 1.7°. Conclusion: ML algorithms can accurately predict the spinopelvic compensation after spinal fusion from the lower thoracic spine to the sacrum. These findings suggest that surgeons may be able to leverage this technology to reduce the risk of proximal junctional kyphosis in this population.