An International Consensus on the Appropriate Treatment for Adults with Spinal Deformity: An AOSpine Knowledge Forum Deformity Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction Appropriate care for adults with spinal deformity should be responsive to considerations of the patient, care provider, and healthcare system. The healthcare burden of adult spinal deformity is increasing significantly and re-operation rates are high (up to 50%). The objective of this study was to identify goals of care and management strategies that are appropriate, reasonable, and inappropriate to guide decision-making and patients’ informed choice. Material and Methods The AOSpine Knowledge Forum Deformity performed a modified Delphi survey of 53 experienced spine deformity surgeons (panelists) from 24 countries. Panelists rated appropriateness of procedures and management strategies for multiple clinical scenarios. Strategies were rated on a 9-point rating scale, collapsed into three categories: ‘inappropriate’ - expected negative consequences exceed the expected health benefit; ‘reasonable’ -balance of risk and benefit is unknown, but there is a reasonable chance of positive benefit; and ‘appropriate’ -expected health benefit exceeds the expected negative consequences by a wide margin. There were three anonymous web-based surveys and one physical meeting. Consensus was defined as ≥70% agreement. Results Panelists ranked the most important goals of surgery as; improvement of function, pain, and neural symptoms. Regarding preoperative evaluation, there was consensus that: it is appropriate to record severity and duration of symptoms, previous spinal surgeries, comorbidities (94%), and smoking status (87%) as part of the history; and perform a physical examination including, neurologic examination (96%), vascular status (77%), and hip ROM (92%). Pulmonary and cardiovascular tests are appropriate for patients at risk. It is appropriate to obtain full spine standing radiographs (89%) and MRI for all indications, and BMD (DEXA) for patients with risk factors for osteoporosis (≥89%). Intraoperatively: it is inappropriate to perform a decompression alone where there is a progressive (72%) or large curve (70%) or sagittal imbalance (75%). When long fusion is performed, it is appropriate to instrument to the ilium in large curves, osteoporotic bone, and sagittal imbalance; and inappropriate to fuse to L5 in case of L5-S1 disc degeneration (88%). It is inappropriate to augment the UIV (81%) or UIV+1 (79%) with cement if there is no osteoporosis. Long fusion is appropriate when there is sagittal imbalance (85%) or large curves (87%), when performed; L5-S1 interbody support is appropriate (90%). There was no consensus whether a unilateral decompression alone should be performed in a stable sagittally balanced 30° curve. Grafting with local bone is appropriate, as is neuromonitoring with MEP and SSEP. Postoperatively: mechanical DVT prophylaxis is appropriate for all patients and chemical prophylaxis for high-risk. Return to sedentary work is appropriate within 3 months where < 5 segments are fused. Conclusion Management of adult spinal deformity is characterized by significant variability. We have been able to identify several pre-, intra- and post-operative management strategies that constitute (in-) appropriate care based on the consensus of experienced surgeons. Decision-making is driven not only by features of the deformity (e.g., curve magnitude, sagittal imbalance), but also by patient characteristics (e.g., osteoporosis, cardiac comorbidities, smoking) and some factors may indicate that surgery is not appropriate.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,083 | 0,093 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,005 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,008 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».