No correlation between patient outcome and abnormal lumbar MRI findings 21 years after posterior or posterolateral fusion for isthmic spondylolisthesis in children and adolescents

Validation of the AO Spine CROST (Clinician Reported Outcome Spine Trauma) in the clinical setting

PURPOSE

To evaluate feasibility, internal consistency, inter-rater reliability, and prospective validity of AO Spine CROST (Clinician Reported Outcome Spine Trauma) in the clinical setting.

METHODS

Patients were included from four trauma centers. Two surgeons with substantial amount of experience in spine trauma care were included from each center. Two separate questionnaires were administered at baseline, 6-months and 1-year: one to surgeons (mainly CROST) and another to patients (AO Spine PROST-Patient Reported Outcome Spine Trauma). Descriptive statistics were used to analyze patient characteristics and feasibility, Cronbach's α for internal consistency. Inter-rater reliability through exact agreement, Kappa statistics and Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC). Prospective analysis, and relationships between CROST and PROST were explored through descriptive statistics and Spearman correlations.

RESULTS

In total, 92 patients were included. CROST showed excellent feasibility results. Internal consistency (α = 0.58-0.70) and reliability (ICC = 0.52 and 0.55) were moderate. Mean total scores between surgeons only differed 0.2-0.9 with exact agreement 48.9-57.6%. Exact agreement per CROST item showed good results (73.9-98.9%). Kappa statistics revealed moderate agreement for most CROST items. In the prospective analysis a trend was only seen when no concerns at all were expressed by the surgeon (CROST = 0), and moderate to strong positive Spearman correlations were found between CROST at baseline and the scores at follow-up (rs = 0.41-0.64). Comparing the CROST with PROST showed no specific association, nor any Spearman correlations (rs = -0.33-0.07).

CONCLUSIONS

The AO Spine CROST showed moderate validity in a true clinical setting including patients from the daily clinical practice.

Development and reliability of the AOSpine CROST (Clinician Reported Outcome Spine Trauma): a tool to evaluate and predict outcomes from clinician's perspective

PURPOSE

To report on the development of AOSpine CROST (Clinician Reported Outcome Spine Trauma) and results of an initial reliability study.

METHODS

The AOSpine CROST was developed using an iterative approach of multiple cycles of development, review, and revision including an expert clinician panel. Subsequently, a reliability study was performed among an expert panel who were provided with 20 spine trauma cases, administered twice with 4-week interval. The results of the developmental process were analyzed using descriptive statistics, the reliability per parameter using Kappa statistics, inter-rater rater agreement using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and internal consistency using Cronbach's α.

RESULTS

The AOSpine CROST was developed and consisted of 10 parameters, 2 of which are only applicable for surgically treated patents ('Wound healing' and 'Implants'). A dichotomous scoring system ('yes' or 'no' response) was incorporated to express expected problems for the short term and long term. In the reliability study, 16 (84.2%) participated in the first round and 14 (73.7%) in the second. Intra-rater reliability was fair to good for both time points (κ = 0.40-0.80 and κ = 0.31-0.67). Results of inter-rater reliability were lower (κ = 0.18-0.60 and κ = 0.16-0.46). Inter-rater agreement for total scores showed moderate results (ICC = 0.52-0.60), and the internal consistency was acceptable (α = 0.76-0.82).

CONCLUSIONS

The AOSpine CROST, an outcome tool for the surgeons, was developed using an iterative process. An initial reliability analysis showed fair to moderate results and acceptable internal consistency. Further clinical validation studies will be performed to further validate the tool.

The Need of Validated Disease-Specific Outcome Instruments for Spine Trauma

This article focuses on patient-reported and clinician-reported outcome measures in spine trauma care. The measurement of the quality of care and functional and health-related quality of life outcomes of spine trauma patients has become increasingly important. However, no outcome instrument is specifically designed, validated, or universally adapted for this specific patient population. Issues specific to spinal trauma patients may not be adequately addressed by the instruments that are currently used in the literature and the daily clinical practice. The AOSpine Knowledge Forum Trauma initiated a project to develop and validate such instruments for spine trauma patients. To reflect the different perspectives of patients and the treating surgeons, 2 separate tools are being developed: the Patient Reported Outcome Spine Trauma (AOSpine PROST) and Clinician Reported Outcome Spine Trauma (AOSpine CROST). These tools hold promise, as useful instruments to measure the outcomes of spine trauma patients with and without neurological deficit, making it more feasible for clinical use as well. Treating surgeons around the world are encouraged to use the AOSpine PROST and AOSpine CROST in daily clinical practice and for research purposes to create and contribute to evidence-based and patient-centered care. Using the same outcome measures that are specifically developed and validated for traumatic spine injuries will allow us to compare the outcomes of various treatments in a valid and reproducible fashion. This contributes to a reduction of the ongoing controversies and providing the best treatments for our patients.

Surgeon Reported Outcome Measure for Spine Trauma: An International Expert Survey Identifying Parameters Relevant for the Outcome of Subaxial Cervical Spine Injuries

STUDY DESIGN

International web-based survey.

OBJECTIVE

To identify clinical and radiological parameters that spine surgeons consider most relevant when evaluating clinical and functional outcomes of subaxial cervical spine trauma patients.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Although an outcome instrument that reflects the patients' perspective is imperative, there is also a need for a surgeon reported outcome measure to reflect the clinicians' perspective adequately.

METHODS

A cross-sectional online survey was conducted among a selected number of spine surgeons from all five AOSpine International world regions. They were asked to indicate the relevance of a compilation of 21 parameters, both for the short term (3 mo-2 yr) and long term (≥2 yr), on a five-point scale. The responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics, frequency analysis, and Kruskal-Wallis test.

RESULTS

Of the 279 AOSpine International and International Spinal Cord Society members who received the survey, 108 (38.7%) participated in the study. Ten parameters were identified as relevant both for short term and long term by at least 70% of the participants. Neurological status, implant failure within 3 months, and patient satisfaction were most relevant. Bony fusion was the only parameter for the long term, whereas five parameters were identified for the short term. The remaining six parameters were not deemed relevant. Minor differences were observed when analyzing the responses according to each world region, or spine surgeons' degree of experience.

CONCLUSION

The perspective of an international sample of highly experienced spine surgeons was explored on the most relevant parameters to evaluate and predict outcomes of subaxial cervical spine trauma patients. These results form the basis for the development of a disease-specific surgeon reported outcome measure, which will be a helpful tool in research and clinical practice.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4.

Adjacent level disk disease--is it really a fusion disease?

Adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) is a relatively common phenomenon after spinal fusion surgery. Whether ASD is a consequence of the previous fusion or an individual's predisposition to continued degeneration remains unsolved to date. This article summarizes the existing biomechanical and clinical literature on the causes and clinical impact of ASD, as well as possible risk factors. Further, the theoretical advantage of motion-preserving technologies that aim to preserve the adjacent segment is discussed.

Uninstrumented posterolateral spinal arthrodesis: is it the gold standard technique for I degrees and II degrees grade spondylolisthesis in adolescence?

We retrospectively reviewed the outcome of uninstrumented posterolateral spinal arthrodesis in 49 patients with lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis grades I degrees and II degrees in adolescent patients in the time of surgery, who participate at follow-up, between 1980 and 1995. The goal of our study is to analyse the clinical and radiographic imaging at long follow-up in uninstrumented posterolateral arthrodesis and to evaluate the efficiency and the validity of surgical technique in young patients (<18 years). All patients had failed previous conservative treatment. The average age at follow-up was 33.5 years (range 25-42 years) and the average follow-up time was 19.7 years (range 12-27 years). The clinical outcome measures were the Oswestry Disability Index, the SF-36, and the visual analogic score. All measures assessed the endpoint outcomes at 20 years after surgery. The outcome of spinal fusion was good with 43 (87.7%) patients attaining solid fusion, pseudoarthrosis in 6 patients (12.3%). None of our patients complained of excessive postoperative wound pain. Additionally, no complications, such as wound infection, were encountered. Satisfactory results were obtained in 94% of patients and this was closely associated with the rate of successful fusion. The results suggest that clinical outcome is closely related to the attainment of solid fusion.

Scientific basis for the treatment of low back pain

Disc degeneration causes back pain because the function of the disc as a load transferring structure is abnormal, producing abnormal patterns of load which cause pain. Fusion has been unpredictable because it only fortuitously addresses loading. A fusion may be in such a position that it takes load from the disc, and this may be reflected in the way the fusion models, demonstrating a weight bearing pattern, but this is unpredictable. Recognition that we are dealing with a problem of load transfer allows us to design any surgical implant to solve this problem, without stopping movement.

Uninstrumented in situ fusion for high-grade childhood and adolescent isthmic spondylolisthesis: long-term outcome

BACKGROUND

Intermediate-term radiographic studies have shown that anterior and circumferential techniques result in high fusion rates in patients with high-grade spondylolisthesis, whereas posterolateral fusion is less successful. We are not aware of any long-term comparative studies in which these three methods have been evaluated with regard to functional outcome, including systematic spinal mobility and trunk strength measurements.

METHODS

Sixty-nine of eighty-three consecutive patients with high-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis who underwent posterolateral (twenty-one), anterior (twenty-three), or circumferential (twenty-five) uninstrumented spondylodesis between 1977 and 1991 participated in the study. The average duration of follow-up was 17.2 years. Radiographs that were made preoperatively and at the time of the most recent follow-up were assessed with regard to fusion quality and degenerative changes. Outcome was assessed at the time of the most recent follow-up by independent observers on the basis of a physical examination, spinal mobility and nondynamometric trunk strength measurements, and Oswestry Disability Index scores.

RESULTS

The mean preoperative vertebral slip was 61% in the posterolateral fusion group, 63% in the anterior fusion group, and 71% in the circumferential fusion group. The final fusion rate was 86% (eighteen of twenty-one) in the posterolateral fusion group, 100% (twenty-three of twenty-three) in the anterior fusion group, and 96% (twenty-four of twenty-five) in the circumferential fusion group. A decrease in lumbar intervertebral disc height at the first mobile level superior to the fusion was noted in five patients in the posterolateral fusion group, seven patients in the anterior fusion group, and one patient in the circumferential fusion group (p = 0.037). The mean Oswestry Disability Index score was 9.7 for the posterolateral fusion group, 8.9 for the anterior fusion group, and 3.0 for the circumferential fusion group (p = 0.035). Nondynamometric trunk strength measurements corresponded with referential values. Abnormally low lumbar flexion affected the posterolateral and circumferential fusion groups more often than the anterior fusion group (p = 0.0015). The percentage of slip showed inverse correlations with lumbar flexion, lumbar extension, and trunk side-bending.

CONCLUSIONS

As assessed on the basis of patient-based outcomes, circumferential in situ fusion provided slightly better long-term results than did posterolateral or anterior in situ fusion. When the radiographic and functional results were combined with the patient-based outcomes, the overall differences between the three groups were small.