How Reliable is the Assessment of Fusion Status Following ACDF Using Dynamic Flexion-Extension Radiographs?

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Christopher T Martin, Sangwook Tim Yoon, Ram Kiran Alluri, Edward C Benzel, Chris M Bono, Samuel K Cho, Dean Chou, Xiaolong Chen, Jason P Y Cheung, Juan P Cabrera, Stipe Ćorluka, Andreas K Demetriades, Matthew F Gary, Zoher Ghogawala, Waeel Hamouda, Inbo Han, Dimitri Hauri, Patrick C Hsieh, Amit Jain, Jun S Kim, Hai V Le, Philip K Louie, Zhuojing Luo, Hans-Jörg Meisel, Sathish Muthu, Dal-Sung Ryu, Charles A Sansur, Andrew J Schoenfeld, Laura Scaramuzzo, Gregory D Schroeder, Shanmuganathan Rajasekaran, Veranis Sotiris, Gianluca Vadalà, Pieter-Paul A Vergroesen, Jeffrey C Wang, Yabin Wu, K Daniel Riew
{"title":"How Reliable is the Assessment of Fusion Status Following ACDF Using Dynamic Flexion-Extension Radiographs?","authors":"Christopher T Martin, Sangwook Tim Yoon, Ram Kiran Alluri, Edward C Benzel, Chris M Bono, Samuel K Cho, Dean Chou, Xiaolong Chen, Jason P Y Cheung, Juan P Cabrera, Stipe Ćorluka, Andreas K Demetriades, Matthew F Gary, Zoher Ghogawala, Waeel Hamouda, Inbo Han, Dimitri Hauri, Patrick C Hsieh, Amit Jain, Jun S Kim, Hai V Le, Philip K Louie, Zhuojing Luo, Hans-Jörg Meisel, Sathish Muthu, Dal-Sung Ryu, Charles A Sansur, Andrew J Schoenfeld, Laura Scaramuzzo, Gregory D Schroeder, Shanmuganathan Rajasekaran, Veranis Sotiris, Gianluca Vadalà, Pieter-Paul A Vergroesen, Jeffrey C Wang, Yabin Wu, K Daniel Riew","doi":"10.1177/21925682241303107","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>Reliability study.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The radiographic diagnosis of non-union is not standardized. Prior authors have suggested using a cutoff of <1 mm interspinous process motion (ISPM) on flexion-extension radiographs, but the ability of practicing surgeons to make these measurements reliably is not clear.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>29 practicing spine surgeons measured ISPM on 19 levels of ACDF from 9 patients. Surgeons relied on these measurements to report on fusion status. Inter-observer correlation co-efficients (ICC), standard error (SEM) and the minimum detectable difference (MD) of these measurements were calculated. We screened for clerical errors by checking measurements more than one standard deviation from the group mean.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The ICC for ISPM was .76 (.64; .88) with a SEM of 1 mm and a MD of 2.76 mm. Agreement on fusion status was moderate, with an ICC of .6 (.44; .76). After screening for and removing clerical errors, the ICC improved to .82 (.71; .91), SEM improved to .83 mm, and MD improved to 2.29 mm. Six reviewers had an ICC >.9. The ICC from these high performing reviewers was .94 (.9; .97), SEM was .45 mm, and MD was 1.26 mm.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The MD of 2.29 mm in our study group was not precise enough to support a cutoff of <1 mm ISPM as the sole measurement technique in screening for non-union after ACDF, and there was only moderate agreement amongst surgeons on fusion status based on dynamic radiographs. More stringent techniques are necessary to avoid mis-diagnosing non-union in clinical studies. Future studies should consider auditing measurements to identify clerical errors.</p>","PeriodicalId":12680,"journal":{"name":"Global Spine Journal","volume":" ","pages":"21925682241303107"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11622210/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Spine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/21925682241303107","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Study design: Reliability study.

Objectives: The radiographic diagnosis of non-union is not standardized. Prior authors have suggested using a cutoff of <1 mm interspinous process motion (ISPM) on flexion-extension radiographs, but the ability of practicing surgeons to make these measurements reliably is not clear.

Methods: 29 practicing spine surgeons measured ISPM on 19 levels of ACDF from 9 patients. Surgeons relied on these measurements to report on fusion status. Inter-observer correlation co-efficients (ICC), standard error (SEM) and the minimum detectable difference (MD) of these measurements were calculated. We screened for clerical errors by checking measurements more than one standard deviation from the group mean.

Results: The ICC for ISPM was .76 (.64; .88) with a SEM of 1 mm and a MD of 2.76 mm. Agreement on fusion status was moderate, with an ICC of .6 (.44; .76). After screening for and removing clerical errors, the ICC improved to .82 (.71; .91), SEM improved to .83 mm, and MD improved to 2.29 mm. Six reviewers had an ICC >.9. The ICC from these high performing reviewers was .94 (.9; .97), SEM was .45 mm, and MD was 1.26 mm.

Conclusions: The MD of 2.29 mm in our study group was not precise enough to support a cutoff of <1 mm ISPM as the sole measurement technique in screening for non-union after ACDF, and there was only moderate agreement amongst surgeons on fusion status based on dynamic radiographs. More stringent techniques are necessary to avoid mis-diagnosing non-union in clinical studies. Future studies should consider auditing measurements to identify clerical errors.

动态屈伸x线片评估ACDF术后融合状态有多可靠?
研究设计:可靠性研究。目的:骨不连的影像学诊断不规范。先前的作者建议使用截断方法:29名执业脊柱外科医生测量了9名患者的19个ACDF水平的ISPM。外科医生依靠这些测量来报告融合状态。计算了这些测量值的观察者间相关系数(ICC)、标准误差(SEM)和最小可检测差(MD)。我们通过检查超过一个标准差的测量值来筛选笔误。结果:ISPM的ICC为0.76 (0.64;.88),扫描电镜为1毫米,MD为2.76毫米。融合状态的一致性中等,ICC为0.6 (0.44;.76)。在筛选和消除文书错误后,ICC提高到0.82 (0.71;0.91), SEM提高到0.83 mm, MD提高到2.29 mm。6位评论者的ICC评分为0.9。这些高绩效审稿人的ICC为0.94 (0.9;0.97), SEM为0.45 mm, MD为1.26 mm。结论:我们研究组中2.29 mm的MD不够精确,不足以支持截断
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Global Spine Journal
Global Spine Journal Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
8.30%
发文量
278
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: Global Spine Journal (GSJ) is the official scientific publication of AOSpine. A peer-reviewed, open access journal, devoted to the study and treatment of spinal disorders, including diagnosis, operative and non-operative treatment options, surgical techniques, and emerging research and clinical developments.GSJ is indexed in PubMedCentral, SCOPUS, and Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信