Browsing by Subject "Neurosurgeons"
Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Open Access Assessment of Surgical Treatment Strategies for Moderate to Severe Cervical Spinal Deformity Reveals Marked Variation in Approaches, Osteotomies, and Fusion Levels.(World neurosurgery, 2016-07) Smith, Justin S; Klineberg, Eric; Shaffrey, Christopher I; Lafage, Virginie; Schwab, Frank J; Protopsaltis, Themistocles; Scheer, Justin K; Ailon, Tamir; Ramachandran, Subaraman; Daniels, Alan; Mundis, Gregory; Gupta, Munish; Hostin, Richard; Deviren, Vedat; Eastlack, Robert; Passias, Peter; Hamilton, D Kojo; Hart, Robert; Burton, Douglas C; Bess, Shay; Ames, Christopher P; International Spine Study GroupObjective
Although previous reports suggest that surgery can improve the pain and disability of cervical spinal deformity (CSD), techniques are not standardized. Our objective was to assess for consensus on recommended surgical plans for CSD treatment.Methods
Eighteen CSD cases were assembled, including a clinical vignette, cervical imaging (radiography, computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging), and full-length standing radiography. Fourteen deformity surgeons (10 orthopedic, 4 neurosurgery) were queried regarding recommended surgical plans.Results
There was marked variation in treatment plans across all deformity types. Even for the least complex deformities (moderate midcervical apex kyphosis), there was lack of agreement on approach (50% combined anterior-posterior, 25% anterior only, 25% posterior only), number of anterior (range, 2-6) and posterior (range, 4-16) fusion levels, and types of osteotomies. As the kyphosis apex moved caudally (cervical-thoracic junction/upper thoracic spine) and for cases with chin-on-chest kyphosis, >80% of surgeons agreed on a posterior-only approach and >70% recommended a pedicle subtraction osteotomy or vertebral column resection, but the range in number of anterior (4-8) and posterior (4-27) fusion levels was exceptionally broad. Cases of cervical/cervical-thoracic scoliosis had the least agreement for approach (48% posterior only, 33% combined anterior-posterior, 17% anterior-posterior-anterior or posterior-anterior-posterior, 2% anterior only) and had broad variation in the number of anterior (2-5) and posterior (6-19) fusion levels, and recommended osteotomies (41% pedicle subtraction osteotomy/vertebral column resection).Conclusions
Among a panel of deformity surgeons, there was marked lack of consensus on recommended surgical approach, osteotomies, and fusion levels for CSD. Further study is warranted to assess whether specific surgical treatment approaches are associated with better outcomes.Item Open Access Inter- and Intra-rater Reliability of the Hart-ISSG Proximal Junctional Failure Severity Scale.(Spine, 2018-04) Hart, Robert A; Rastegar, Farbod; Contag, Alec; Kane, Marie; Daniels, Alan; Klineberg, Eric; Eastlack, Robert; Smith, Justin S; Hostin, Richard; Hamilton, D Kojo; Gum, Jeffrey L; Burton, Douglas C; Sheer, Justin K; Ames, Christopher; Schwab, Frank; Lafage, Virginie; Bess, Shay; Shaffrey, Christopher; Kebaish, Khaled; and the International Spine Study GroupStudy design
Reliability/external validation study.Objective
Investigate inter- and intrarater reliability of the Hart-International Spine Study Group (ISSG) Proximal Junctional Failure Severity Scale (PJFSS) and its correlation with operative revision in patients with proximal junctional failure (PJF).Summary of background data
The Hart-ISSG PJFSS is a validated classification system for PJF. Reliability of the PJFSS has not been assessed.Methods
Sixteen detailed clinical scenarios were assessed using the ISSG PJFSS classification in six categories: neurologic status, axial pain, instrumentation issue, proximal kyphotic angle, level of upper instrumented vertebrae (UIV), and severity of UIV/UIV+1 fracture. Eleven spine surgeons evaluated each case in all six categories during two different assessments, and provided recommendations regarding operative revision or observation for each case. Inter- and intrarater reliability were calculated based on intraclass correlation coefficients.Results
All intraclass correlation coefficients demonstrated "almost perfect"' (0.817-0.988) inter-rater agreement for both assessments, except UIV/UIV+1 fracture severity during the second assessment, which demonstrated "substantial" agreement' (0.692). Five of six categories had "almost perfect" mean intrarater reliability (0.805-0.981), while "instrumentation issue" demonstrated "substantial" mean agreement (0.757). Inter-rater reliability for recommendation of surgical intervention was "almost perfect" during both assessments (0.911 and 0.922, respectively). Mean PJFSS scores between the two assessments were significantly higher for cases recommended for operative revision (8.43 ± 0.90) versus cases recommended for observation (P < 0.0001).Conclusion
The ISSG PJFSS is a reliable and repeatable classification system for assessing patients with PJF. Higher PJFSS scales correlate with recommendation for operative revision, extending prior external validation of the PJFSS.Level of evidence
3.Item Open Access Spine Surgical Subspecialty and Its Effect on Patient Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.(Spine, 2023-05) Lambrechts, Mark J; Canseco, Jose A; Toci, Gregory R; Karamian, Brian A; Kepler, Christopher K; Smith, Michael L; Schroeder, Gregory D; Hilibrand, Alan S; Heller, Joshua E; Grasso, Giovanni; Gottfried, Oren; Kebaish, Khaled M; Harrop, James S; Shaffrey, Christopher; Vaccaro, Alexander RStudy design
Systematic review and meta-analysis.Objective
To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify if intraoperative or postoperative differences in outcomes exist between orthopedic and neurological spine surgeons.Summary of background data
Spine surgeons may become board certified through orthopedic surgery or neurosurgical residency training, and recent literature has compared surgical outcomes between surgeons based on residency training background with conflicting results.Materials and methods
Using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines, a search of PubMed and Scopus databases was conducted and included articles comparing outcomes between orthopedic spine surgeons and neurosurgeons. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to determine the quality of studies. Forest plots were generated using mean differences (MD) for continuous variables and odds ratios (OR) for binomial variables, and 95% CI was reported.Results
Of 615 search term results, 16 studies were identified for inclusion. Evaluation of the studies found no differences in readmission rates [OR, ref: orthopedics: 0.99 (95% CI: 0.901, 1.09); I2 = 80%], overall complication rates [OR, ref: orthopedics: 1.03 (95% CI: 0.97, 1.10); I2 = 70%], reoperation rates [OR, ref: orthopedics: 0.91 (95% CI: 0.82, 1.00); I2 = 86%], or overall length of hospital stay between orthopedic spine surgeons and neurosurgeons [MD: -0.19 days (95% CI: -0.38, 0.00); I2 = 98%]. However, neurosurgeons ordered a significantly lower rate of postoperative blood transfusions [OR, ref: orthopedics: 0.49 (95% CI: 0.41, 0.57); I2 = 75%] while orthopedic spine surgeons had shorter operative times [MD: 14.28 minutes, (95% CI: 8.07, 20.49), I2 = 97%].Conclusions
Although there is significant data heterogeneity, our meta-analysis found that neurosurgeons and orthopedic spine surgeons have similar readmission, complication, and reoperation rates regardless of the type of spine surgery performed.Item Open Access The medicolegal impact of misplaced pedicle and lateral mass screws on spine surgery in the United States.(Neurosurgical focus, 2020-11) Sankey, Eric W; Mehta, Vikram A; Wang, Timothy Y; Than, Tracey T; Goodwin, C Rory; Karikari, Isaac O; Shaffrey, Christopher I; Abd-El-Barr, Muhammad M; Than, Khoi DSpine surgery has been disproportionately impacted by medical liability and malpractice litigation, with the majority of claims and payouts related to procedural error. One common area for the potential avoidance of malpractice claims and subsequent payouts involves misplaced pedicle and/or lateral mass instrumentation. However, the medicolegal impact of misplaced screws on spine surgery has not been directly reported in the literature. The authors of the current study aimed to describe this impact in the United States, as well as to suggest a potential method for mitigating the problem.This retrospective analysis of 68 closed medicolegal cases related to misplaced screws in spine surgery showed that neurosurgeons and orthopedic spine surgeons were equally named as the defendant (n = 32 and 31, respectively), and cases were most commonly due to misplaced lumbar pedicle screws (n = 41, 60.3%). Litigation resulted in average payouts of $1,204,422 ± $753,832 between 1995 and 2019, when adjusted for inflation. The median time to case closure was 56.3 (35.2-67.2) months when ruled in favor of the plaintiff (i.e., patient) compared to 61.5 (51.4-77.2) months for defendant (surgeon) verdicts (p = 0.117).