Browsing by Author "Dailey, Andrew"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Frequency and Acceptability of Adverse Events After Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Survey Study From the Cervical Spine Research Society.
    (Clinical spine surgery, 2018-06) Wilson, Jefferson R; Radcliff, Kris; Schroeder, Gregory; Booth, Madison; Lucasti, Christopher; Fehlings, Michael; Ahmad, Nassr; Vaccaro, Alexander; Arnold, Paul; Sciubba, Daniel; Ching, Alex; Smith, Justin; Shaffrey, Christopher; Singh, Kern; Darden, Bruce; Daffner, Scott; Cheng, Ivan; Ghogawala, Zoher; Ludwig, Steven; Buchowski, Jacob; Brodke, Darrel; Wang, Jeffrey; Lehman, Ronald A; Hilibrand, Alan; Yoon, Tim; Grauer, Jonathan; Dailey, Andrew; Steinmetz, Michael; Harrop, James S
    PURPOSE:Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion has a low but well-established profile of adverse events. The goal of this study was to gauge surgeon opinion regarding the frequency and acceptability of these events. METHODS:A 2-page survey was distributed to attendees at the 2015 Cervical Spine Research Society (CSRS) meeting. Respondents were asked to categorize 18 anterior cervical discectomy and fusion-related adverse events as either: "common and acceptable," "uncommon and acceptable," "uncommon and sometimes acceptable," or "uncommon and unacceptable." Results were compiled to generate the relative frequency of these responses for each complication. Responses for each complication event were also compared between respondents based on practice location (US vs. non-US), primary specialty (orthopedics vs. neurosurgery) and years in practice. RESULTS:Of 150 surveys distributed, 115 responses were received (76.7% response rate), with the majority of respondents found to be US-based (71.3%) orthopedic surgeons (82.6%). Wrong level surgery, esophageal injury, retained drain, and spinal cord injury were considered by most to be unacceptable and uncommon complications. Dysphagia and adjacent segment disease occurred most often, but were deemed acceptable complications. Although surgeon experience and primary specialty had little impact on responses, practice location was found to significantly influence responses for 12 of 18 complications, with non-US surgeons found to categorize events more toward the uncommon and unacceptable end of the spectrum as compared with US surgeons. CONCLUSIONS:These results serve to aid communication and transparency within the field of spine surgery, and will help to inform future quality improvement and best practice initiatives.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Reliability and reproducibility of subaxial cervical injury description system: a standardized nomenclature schema.
    (Spine, 2011-08) Bono, Christopher M; Schoenfeld, Andrew; Gupta, Giri; Harrop, James S; Anderson, Paul; Patel, Alpesh A; Dimar, John; Aarabi, Bizhan; Dailey, Andrew; Vaccaro, Alexander R; Gahr, Ralf; Shaffrey, Christopher; Anderson, David G; Rampersaud, Raj

    Study design

    Radiographic measurement study.

    Objective

    To develop a standardized cervical injury nomenclature system to facilitate description, communication, and classification among health care providers. The reliability and reproducibility of this system was then examined.

    Summary of background data

    Description of subaxial cervical injuries is critical for treatment decision making and comparing scientific reports of outcomes. Despite a number of available classification systems, surgeons, and researchers continue to use descriptive nomenclature, such as "burst" and "teardrop" fractures, to describe injuries. However, there is considerable inconsistency with use of such terms in the literature.

    Methods

    Eleven distinct injury types and associated definitions were established for the subaxial cervical spine and subsequently refined by members of the Spine Trauma Study Group. A series of 18 cases of patients with a broad spectrum of subaxial cervical spine injuries was prepared and distributed to surgeon raters. Each rater was provided with the full nomenclature document and asked to select primary and secondary injury types for each case. After receipt of the raters' first round of classifications, the cases were resorted and returned to the raters for a second round of review. Interrater and intrarater reliabilities were calculated as percent agreement and Cohen kappa (κ) values. Intrarater reliability was assessed by comparing a given rater's diagnosis from the first and second rounds.

    Results

    Nineteen surgeons completed the first and second rounds of the study. Overall, the system demonstrated 56.4% interrater agreement and 72.8% intrarater agreement. Overall, interrater κ values demonstrated moderate agreement while intrarater κ values showed substantial agreement. Analyzed by injury types, only four (burst fractures, lateral mass fractures, flexion teardrop fractures, and anterior distraction injuries) demonstrated greater than 50% interrater agreement.

    Conclusion

    This study demonstrated that, even in ideal circumstances, there is only moderate agreement among raters regarding cervical injury nomenclature. It is hoped that more familiarity with the proposed system will increase reproducibility in the future. Additional research is required to establish the clinical utility of this novel nomenclature schema.