Advertisement

Adult spinal deformity surgical decision-making score. Part 2: development and validation of a scoring system to guide the selection of treatment modalities for patients above 40 years with adult spinal deformity

  • Takashi FujishiroEmail author
  • Louis Boissière
  • Derek Thomas Cawley
  • Daniel Larrieu
  • Olivier Gille
  • Jean-Marc Vital
  • Ferran Pellisé
  • Francisco Javier Sanchez Pérez-Grueso
  • Frank Kleinstück
  • Emre Acaroglu
  • Ahmet Alanay
  • Ibrahim Obeid
  • European Spine Study Group, ESSG
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

We aimed to develop and internally validate a scoring system, the adult spinal deformity surgical decision-making (ASD-SDM) score, to guide the decision-making process for ASD patients aged above 40 years.

Methods

A multicentre prospective ASD database was retrospectively reviewed. The scoring system was developed using data from a derivation set and was internally validated in a validation set. The performance of the ASD-SDM score for predicting surgical management was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC).

Results

A total of 702 patients were included for analysis in the present study. The scoring system developed based on 562 patients, ranging from 0 to 12 points, included five parameters: leg pain scored by the numerical rating scale; pain and self-image domains in the Scoliosis Research Society-22 score; coronal Cobb angle; and relative spinopelvic alignment. Surgical indication was graded as low (score 0 to 4), moderate (score 5 to 7), and high (score 8 to 12) groups. In the validation set of 140 patients, the AUC for predicting surgical management according to the ASD-SDM score was 0.797 (standard error = 0.037, P < 0.001, 95% confidence interval = 0.714 to 0.861), and in the low, moderate, and high surgical indication groups, 23.7%, 43.5%, and 80.4% of the patients, respectively, were treated surgically.

Conclusions

The ASD-SDM score demonstrated reliability, with higher scores indicating a higher probability of surgery. This index could aid in the selection of surgery for ASD patients in clinical settings.

Graphic abstract

These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Keywords

Adult spinal deformity Decision-making process Surgical indication Surgical management Adult scoliosis Scoring system 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

586_2019_6068_MOESM1_ESM.docx (28 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 28 kb)
586_2019_6068_MOESM2_ESM.pptx (2 mb)
Supplementary material 2 (PPTX 2028 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Schwab F, Dubey A, Gamez L et al (2005) Adult scoliosis: prevalence, SF-36, and nutritional parameters in an elderly volunteer population. Spine 30:1082–1085CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schwab F, Dubey A, Pagala M et al (2003) Adult scoliosis: a health assessment analysis by SF-36. Spine 28:602–606.  https://doi.org/10.1097/01.BRS.0000049924.94414.BB Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schwab FJ, Smith VA, Biserni M et al (2002) Adult scoliosis: a quantitative radiographic and clinical analysis. Spine 27:387–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pellisé F, Vila-Casademunt A, Ferrer M et al (2015) Impact on health related quality of life of adult spinal deformity (ASD) compared with other chronic conditions. Eur Spine J 24:3–11.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-014-3542-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Aebi M (2005) The adult scoliosis. Eur Spine J 14:925–948.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-005-1053-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lowe T, Berven SH, Schwab FJ et al (2006) The SRS classification for adult spinal deformity: building on the King/Moe and Lenke classification systems. Spine 31:S119–S125.  https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000232709.48446.be CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Terran J, Schwab F, Shaffrey CI et al (2013) The SRS-Schwab adult spinal deformity classification. Neurosurgery 73:559–568.  https://doi.org/10.1227/NEU.0000000000000012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Liu S, Diebo BG, Henry JK et al (2016) The benefit of nonoperative treatment for adult spinal deformity: identifying predictors for reaching a minimal clinically important difference. Spine J 16:210–218.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2015.10.043 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Glassman SD, Berven S, Kostuik J et al (2006) Nonsurgical resource utilization in adult spinal deformity. Spine 31:941–947.  https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000209318.32148.8b CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Acaroglu RE, Dede Ö, Pellisé F et al (2016) Adult spinal deformity: a very heterogeneous population of patients with different needs. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 50:57–62.  https://doi.org/10.3944/AOTT.2016.14.0421 Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Acaroglu E, Guler UO, Olgun ZD et al (2015) Multiple regression analysis of factors affecting health-related quality of life in adult spinal deformity. Spine Deform 3:360–366.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspd.2014.11.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bradford DS, Tay BK, Hu SS (1999) Adult scoliosis: surgical indications, operative management, complications, and outcomes. Spine 24:2617–2629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fujishiro T, Boissiere L, Cawley DT et al (2018) Decision-making factors in the treatment of adult spinal deformity. Eur Spine J 27:2312–2321.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-018-5572-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bess S, Boachie-Adjei O, Burton D et al (2009) Pain and disability determine treatment modality for older patients with adult scoliosis, while deformity guides treatment for younger patients. Spine 34:2186–2190.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181b05146 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bridwell KH, Berven S, Glassman S et al (2007) Is the SRS-22 instrument responsive to change in adult scoliosis patients having primary spinal deformity surgery? Spine 32:2220–2225.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31814cf120 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fujishiro T, Boissiere L, Cawley DT et al (2019) Adult spinal deformity surgical decision-making score. Part 1: development and validation of a scoring system to guide the selection of treatment modalities for patients below 40 years with adult spinal deformity. Eur Spine J.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-019-05932-3 Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Boissiere L, Yilgor C, Larrieu D et al (2017) A single sagittal parameter for decision making in ASD? Eur Spine J 26:S258–S259.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-017-5224-2 Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Smith JS, Fu K-M, Urban P et al (2008) Neurological symptoms and deficits in adults with scoliosis who present to a surgical clinic: incidence and association with the choice of operative versus nonoperative management. J Neurosurg Spine 9:326–331.  https://doi.org/10.3171/SPI.2008.9.10.326 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Neuman BJ, Baldus C, Zebala LP et al (2016) Patient factors that influence decision making: randomization versus observational nonoperative versus observational operative treatment for adult symptomatic lumbar scoliosis. Spine 41:E349–E358.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000001222 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fu K-MG, Smith JS, Sansur CA et al (2010) Standardized measures of health status and disability and the decision to pursue operative treatment in elderly patients with degenerative scoliosis. Neurosurgery 66:42–47.  https://doi.org/10.1227/01.NEU.0000361999.29279.E6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pekmezci M, Berven SH, Hu SS et al (2009) The factors that play a role in the decision-making process of adult deformity patients. Spine 34:813–817.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181851ba6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Glassman SD, Schwab FJ, Bridwell KH et al (2007) The selection of operative versus nonoperative treatment in patients with adult scoliosis. Spine 32:93–97.  https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000251022.18847.77 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL et al (1987) A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 40:373–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Haher TR, Gorup JM, Shin TM et al (1999) Results of the scoliosis research society instrument for evaluation of surgical outcome in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. a multicenter study of 244 patients. Spine 24:1435–1440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bridwell KH, Cats-Baril W, Harrast J et al (2005) The validity of the SRS-22 instrument in an adult spinal deformity population compared with the Oswestry and SF-12: a study of response distribution, concurrent validity, internal consistency, and reliability. Spine 30:455–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Yilgor C, Sogunmez N, Boissiere L et al (2017) Global alignment and proportion (GAP) score: development and validation of a new method of analyzing spinopelvic alignment to predict mechanical complications after adult spinal deformity surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am 99:1661–1672.  https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.16.01594 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Obeid I, Boissiere L, Yilgor C et al (2016) Global tilt: a single parameter incorporating spinal and pelvic sagittal parameters and least affected by patient positioning. Eur Spine J 25:3644–3649.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4649-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Guler UO, Yuksel S, Yakici S et al (2016) Analysis of the reliability of surgeons’ ability to differentiate between idiopathic and degenerative spinal deformity in adults radiologically. What descriptive parameters help them decide? Eur Spine J 25:2401–2407.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-4366-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Takemoto M, Boissiere L, Novoa F et al (2016) Sagittal malalignment has a significant association with postoperative leg pain in adult spinal deformity patients. Eur Spine J 25:2442–2451.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4616-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cawley DT, Larrieu D, Fujishiro T et al (2018) NRS20: combined back and leg pain score: a simple and effective assessment of adult spinal deformity. Spine 43:1184–1192.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000002633 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Smith JS, Shaffrey CI, Glassman SD et al (2013) Clinical and radiographic parameters that distinguish between the best and worst outcomes of scoliosis surgery for adults. Eur Spine J 22:402–410.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2547-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Takashi Fujishiro
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Louis Boissière
    • 2
  • Derek Thomas Cawley
    • 2
  • Daniel Larrieu
    • 2
  • Olivier Gille
    • 2
  • Jean-Marc Vital
    • 2
  • Ferran Pellisé
    • 3
  • Francisco Javier Sanchez Pérez-Grueso
    • 4
  • Frank Kleinstück
    • 5
  • Emre Acaroglu
    • 6
  • Ahmet Alanay
    • 7
  • Ibrahim Obeid
    • 2
  • European Spine Study Group, ESSG
  1. 1.Department of Orthopedic SurgeryOsaka Medical CollegeTakatsuki-shiJapan
  2. 2.L’Institut de la Colonne VertébraleBordeaux University HospitalBordeauxFrance
  3. 3.Spine Surgery UnitHospital Universitario Val HebronBarcelonaSpain
  4. 4.Spine Surgery UnitHospital Universitario La PazMadridSpain
  5. 5.Spine CenterSchulthess KlinikZurichSwitzerland
  6. 6.Ankara Spine CenterAnkaraTurkey
  7. 7.Spine Surgery UnitAcibadem Maslak HospitalIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations