Advertisement

European Spine Journal

, Volume 28, Issue 7, pp 1652–1660 | Cite as

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
  • 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 simple scoring system: the adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgical decision-making (ASD-SDM) score, which is specific to the decision-making process for ASD patients aged below 40 years.

Methods

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

Results

A total of 316 patients were randomly divided into derivation (253 patients, 80%) and validation (63 patients, 20%) cohorts. A 10-point scoring system was created from four variables: self-image score in the Scoliosis Research Society-22 score, coronal Cobb angle, pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis mismatch, and relative spinopelvic alignment, and the surgical indication was graded into low (score 0–4), moderate (score 5–7), and high (score 8–10) surgical indication groups. In the validation cohort, the AUC for selecting surgical management according to the ASD-SDM score was 0.789 (SE 0.057, P < 0.001, 95% CI 0.655–0.880). The percentage of patients treated surgically were 21.1%, 55.0%, and 80.0% in the low, moderate, and high surgical indication groups, respectively.

Conclusions

The ASD-SDM score, to the best of our knowledge, is the first algorithm to guide the decision-making process for the ASD population and could be one of the indices for aiding the selection of treatment for ASD.

Graphical abstract

These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Keywords

Adult spinal deformity Surgical indication Decision-making process Scoliosis Scoring system 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Grants/research support: Cawley DT: Irish Orthopaedic Association, Irish Institute of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, Société Francaise de Chirurgie Orthopédique et Traumatologique; Pellise F: Depuy Synthes, K2M; Perez-Grueso F.S: Depuy Synthes, K2M; Acaroglu E: Fondation Cotrel, Deputy Synthes, Medtronic, Consultant: Medtronic, AOSpine; Alanay A; Depuy Synthes Consultant: Depuy Spine, Stryker, Medtronic; Obeid I: Depuy Synthes; ESSG: Depuy Synthes.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

586_2019_5932_MOESM1_ESM.pptx (23.2 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (PPTX 23742 kb)
586_2019_5932_MOESM2_ESM.docx (39 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 39 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Smith JS, Shaffrey CI, Kuntz C IV et al (2008) Classification systems for adolescent and adult scoliosis. Neurosurgery 63:A16–A24.  https://doi.org/10.1227/01.NEU.0000320447.61835.EA CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    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
  3. 3.
    Aebi M (2005) The adult scoliosis. Eur Spine J 14:925–948.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-005-1053-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    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
  5. 5.
    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
  6. 6.
    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
  7. 7.
    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
  8. 8.
    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
  9. 9.
    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
  10. 10.
    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
  11. 11.
    Takemoto M, Obeid I, Boissiere L et al (2016) Surgical versus non-surgical treatment in adult spinal deformity: an observational study and propensity-adjusted analysis. In: Proceedings of the 51st annual meeting of the Scoliosis Research Society, Prague, Czech RepublicGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Smith JS, Lafage V, Shaffrey CI et al (2016) Outcomes of operative and nonoperative treatment for adult spinal deformity. Neurosurgery 78:851–861.  https://doi.org/10.1227/NEU.0000000000001116 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    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
  14. 14.
    Slobodyanyuk K, Poorman CE, Smith JS et al (2014) Clinical improvement through nonoperative treatment of adult spinal deformity: Who is likely to benefit? Neurosurg Focus 36:E2.  https://doi.org/10.3171/2014.3.FOCUS1426 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    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
  16. 16.
    Acaroglu E, 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
  17. 17.
    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
  18. 18.
    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
  19. 19.
    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
  20. 20.
    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
  21. 21.
    Berven S, Deviren V, Demir-Deviren S et al (2003) Studies in the modified Scoliosis Research Society outcomes instrument in adults: validation, reliability, and discriminatory capacity. Spine 28:2164–2169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    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 Jt Surg Am 99:1661–1672.  https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.16.01594 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Boachie-Adjei O, Gupta MC (1999) Adult scoliosis + deformity. AAOS Instr Course Lect 48(39):377–391Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    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
  25. 25.
    Bradford DS, Tay BK, Hu SS (1999) Adult scoliosis: surgical indications, operative management, complications, and outcomes. Spine 24:2617–2629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    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
  27. 27.
    Clement J-L, Geoffray A, Yagoubi F et al (2013) Relationship between thoracic hypokyphosis, lumbar lordosis and sagittal pelvic parameters in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Eur Spine J 22:2414–2420.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-013-2852-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Abelin-Genevois K, Sassi D, Verdun S et al (2018) Sagittal classification in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: original description and therapeutic implications. Eur Spine J.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-018-5613-1 Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pasha S, Baldwin K (2018) Preoperative sagittal spinal profile of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis Lenke types and non-scoliotic adolescents. Spine 1:1–26.  https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000002748 Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Weinstein SL, Ponseti IV (1983) Curve progression in idiopathic scoliosis. J Bone Jt Surg Am 65:447–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Weinstein SL, Zavala DC, Ponseti IV (1981) Idiopathic scoliosis: long-term follow-up and prognosis in untreated patients. J Bone Jt Surg Am 63:702–712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    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

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 CollegeOsakaJapan
  2. 2.Bordeaux University HospitalL’Institut de la Colonne VertébraleBordeauxFrance
  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