World neurosurgery · 2022
Are Minimally Invasive Spine Surgeons or Classical Open Spine Surgeons More Consistent with Their Treatment of Adult Spinal Deformity?
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Uribe Juan S, Koffie Robert M, Wang Michael Y, Mundis Gregory M, Kanter Adam S, Eastlack Robert K, Anand Neel, Park Paul, Smith Justin S, Burton Douglas C, Chou Dean, Kelly Michael P, Kim Han Jo, Bess Shay, Shaffrey Christopher I, Schwab Frank J, Lenke Lawrence G, Mummaneni Praveen V
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Spine surgeons have a heuristic sense of how to surgically restore alignment and address adult spinal deformity (ASD) symptoms, but consensus on the extent of treatment remains unclear. We sought to determine the variability of surgical approaches in treating ASD.
METHODS: Sixteen spine surgeons were surveyed on treatment approaches in 10 select ASD cases. We repeated the survey with the same surgeons 4 weeks later, with cases ordered differently. We examined the variability in length of construct, use of interbody spacers, osteotomies, and pelvic fixation frequency.
RESULTS: Treatment approaches for each case varied by surgeon, with some surgeons opting for long fusion constructs in cases for which others offered no surgery. There was no consensus among surgeons on the number of levels fused, interbody spacer use, or anterior/posterior osteotomies. Intersurgeon and intrasurgeon variability was 48% (kappa = 0.31) and 59% (kappa = 0.44) for surgeons performing minimally invasive surgery (MIS) versus 37% (kappa = 0.21) and 47% (kappa = 0.30) for those performing open surgery. In the second-round survey, 8 of 15 (53%) surgeons substantially changed the construct length, number of interbody spacers, and osteotomies in at least half the cases they previously reviewed. Surgeons performing MIS versus open surgery were less likely to extend constructs to the pelvis (42.5% vs. 67.5%; P = 0.02), but construct length was not correlated with whether a surgeon performed MIS or open surgery.
CONCLUSIONS: Spinal deformity surgeons lack consensus on the optimal surgical approach for treating ASD. Classifying surgeons as performing MIS or open surgery does not mitigate this variability.
METHODS: Sixteen spine surgeons were surveyed on treatment approaches in 10 select ASD cases. We repeated the survey with the same surgeons 4 weeks later, with cases ordered differently. We examined the variability in length of construct, use of interbody spacers, osteotomies, and pelvic fixation frequency.
RESULTS: Treatment approaches for each case varied by surgeon, with some surgeons opting for long fusion constructs in cases for which others offered no surgery. There was no consensus among surgeons on the number of levels fused, interbody spacer use, or anterior/posterior osteotomies. Intersurgeon and intrasurgeon variability was 48% (kappa = 0.31) and 59% (kappa = 0.44) for surgeons performing minimally invasive surgery (MIS) versus 37% (kappa = 0.21) and 47% (kappa = 0.30) for those performing open surgery. In the second-round survey, 8 of 15 (53%) surgeons substantially changed the construct length, number of interbody spacers, and osteotomies in at least half the cases they previously reviewed. Surgeons performing MIS versus open surgery were less likely to extend constructs to the pelvis (42.5% vs. 67.5%; P = 0.02), but construct length was not correlated with whether a surgeon performed MIS or open surgery.
CONCLUSIONS: Spinal deformity surgeons lack consensus on the optimal surgical approach for treating ASD. Classifying surgeons as performing MIS or open surgery does not mitigate this variability.