Radiological diagnostic accuracy study comparing Lenke, Bridwell, BSF, and CT-HU fusion grading scales for minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion spine surgery and its correlation to clinical outcome

José Antonio Soriano Sánchez, Sergio Soriano Solís, Manuel Eduardo Soto García, Héctor Antonio Soriano Solís, Briscia Yazmin Aranda Torres, José Alberto Israel Romero Rangel, José Antonio Soriano Sánchez, Sergio Soriano Solís, Manuel Eduardo Soto García, Héctor Antonio Soriano Solís, Briscia Yazmin Aranda Torres, José Alberto Israel Romero Rangel

Abstract

Prospective randomized double-blinded diagnostic accuracy study about radiological grading of fusion after minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion procedures (MI-LIFP).To determinate the intra and the inter-observer correlation between different radiological lumbar interbody fusion grading scales (RLIFGS) in patients undergoing MI-LIFP and their correlation to clinical outcome.Besides technological improvements in medical diagnosis and the many existing RLIFGS, surgical exploration continues to be the gold-standard to assess fusion in patients with radiological pseudarthrosis, with little if any research on the relationship between RLIFGS and clinical outcome.We collected data from patients undergoing MI-LIFP procedures operated by a single surgeon from 2009 to 2017, which had follow-up and CT-scan control greater than 12 months, whose clinical registers specified lumbar and radicular visual analogue scale (L and R-VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score preoperatively and at the end of follow-up. Interbody fusion levels were coded for blinded evaluation by three different minimally invasive spine (MIS) surgeons, using Lenke, Bridwell, BSF (Brantigan, Steffe, Fraser), and CT-HU RLIFGS. We established fusion criteria, as described in their original papers. Another independent spine surgeon blindly evaluated successful clinical outcome (SCO), defined as a significant improvement in 2 of 3 of the following issues: L-VAS, R-VAS, or ODI score at follow-up; otherwise, rated as clinical pseudarthrosis. Radiological and clinical data was coded and statistically analyzed using Student T-Test, Pearson P-Test, and ANOVA with statistical package for the social sciences 21 by another blinded researcher, positive and negative predictive values were also calculated for each RLFGS.We found a significant clinical improvement with a moderate intra-observer correlation between scales and no inter-observer or clinical correlation, with no sub-group statistically significant differences.This paper represents the first study about the diagnostic accuracy of RLFGS, we concluded that their diagnostic accuracy is pretty low to determine fusion or pseudoarthrosis based on its low correlation to clinical outcome, we recommend surgeons rely on clinical findings to decide whether a patient has clinical fusion or pseudoarthrosis based on successful clinical outcome.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no funding and conflicts of interest to disclose.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
T-Student comparing lumbar VAS at baseline vs the end of follow-up.
Figure 2
Figure 2
T-Student comparing radicular VAS at baseline vs the end of follow-up.
Figure 3
Figure 3
T-Student comparing Oswestry Disability Index at baseline vs the end of follow-up.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Example of non-agreement for inter-observer grading to the L3-L4 lumbar interbody fusion procedure (Image Center). Observer1: Bridwell I, BSF 3, Lenke A; observer2 Bridwell III, BSF 2, Lenke A, observer3: Bridwell IV, BSF 1, Lenke B. It demonstrates the moderate intra-observer correlation and the lack of inter-observer correlation.

References

    1. Wang X, Borgman B, Vertuani S, et al. A systematic literature review of time to return to work and narcotic use after lumbar spinal fusion using minimal invasive and open surgery techniques. BMC Health Serv Res 2017;17:446.doi:10.1186/s12913-017-2398-6. Accessed November 5, 2017.
    1. Ajler P, Hem S, Bendersky D, et al. Posterolateral lumbar fusion: Relationship between computed tomography Hounsfield units and symptomatic pseudoarthrosis. Surg Neurol Int 2015;6:611.doi:10.4103/2152-7806.170443.
    1. Fogel GR, Toohey JS, Neidre A, et al. Fusion assessment of posterior lumbar interbody fusion using radiolucent cages: X-ray films and helical computed tomography scans compared with surgical exploration of fusion. Spine J 2008;8:570–7.
    1. Nayak MT, Sannegowda RB. Clinical and radiological outcome in cases of posterolateral fusion with instrumentation for lumbar spondylolisthesis. J Clin Diagn Res 2015;9:C17–21.
    1. Tullberg T, Brandt B, Rydberg J, et al. Fusion rate after posterior lumbar interbody fusion with carbon fiber implant: 1-year follow-up of 51 patients. Eur Spine J 1996;5:178–82.
    1. Phan K, Thayaparan GK, Mobbs RJ. Anterior lumbar interbody fusion versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion – systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Neurosurg 2015;29:705–11.
    1. Deukmedjian A, Cianciabella A, Cutright J, et al. Combined transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with posterolateral instrumented fusion for degenerative disc disease can be a safe and effective treatment for lower back pain. J Craniovertebr Junction Spine 2015;6:183.
    1. Sethi A, Lee S, Vaidya R. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using unilateral pedicle screws and a translaminar screw. Eur Spine J 2009;18:430–4.
    1. Lara-Almunia M, Gomez-Moreta JA, Hernandez-Vicente J. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion with instrumented posterolateral fusion in adult spondylolisthesis: description and association of clinico-surgical variables with prognosis in a series of 36 cases. Int J Spine Surg 2015;9:22.
    1. Seng C, Siddiqui MA, Wong KPL, et al. Five-Year Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Versus Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2013;38:2049–55.
    1. Lee C-P, Fu T-S, Liu C-Y, et al. Psychometric evaluation of the Oswestry Disability Index in patients with chronic low back pain: factor and Mokken analyses. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2017;15:192.doi:10.1186/s12955-017-0768-8. Accessed November 5, 2017.
    1. Yoo JS, Min SH, Yoon SH. Fusion rate according to mixture ratio and volumes of bone graft in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: minimum 2-year follow-up. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2015;25:183–9.
    1. Tan GH, Goss BG, Thorpe PJ, et al. CT-based classification of long spinal allograft fusion. Eur Spine J 2007;16:1875–81.
    1. Min S-H, Yoo J-S. The clinical and radiological outcomes of multilevel minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Eur Spine J 2013;22:1164–72.
    1. Deng Q, Ou Y, Zhu Y, et al. Clinical outcomes of two types of cages used in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar diseases: n-HA/PA66 cages versus PEEK cages. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2016;27:102.doi:10.1007/s10856-016-5712-7.
    1. Irmak R, Baltaci G, Ergun N. Long term test-retest reliability of Oswestry Disability Index in male office workers. Work 2016;53:639–42.

Source: PubMed

3
Předplatit