Multicenter external validation of prediction models for clinical outcomes after spinal fusion for lumbar degenerative disease.

BACKGROUND: Clinical prediction models (CPM), such as the SCOAP-CERTAIN tool, can be utilized to enhance decision-making for lumbar spinal fusion surgery by providing quantitative estimates of outcomes, aiding surgeons in assessing potential benefits and risks for each individual patient. External validation is crucial in CPM to assess generalizability beyond the initial dataset. This ensures performance in diverse populations, reliability and real-world applicability of the results. Therefore, we externally validated the tool for predictability of improvement in oswestry disability index (ODI), back and leg pain (BP, LP). METHODS: Prospective and retrospective data from multicenter registry was obtained. As outcome measure minimum clinically important change was chosen for ODI with ≥ 15-point and ≥ 2-point reduction for numeric rating scales (NRS) for BP and LP 12 months after lumbar fusion for degenerative disease. We externally validate this tool by calculating discrimination and calibration metrics such as intercept, slope, Brier Score, expected/observed ratio, Hosmer-Lemeshow (HL), AUC, sensitivity and specificity. RESULTS: We included 1115 patients, average age 60.8 ± 12.5 years. For 12-month ODI, area-under-the-curve (AUC) was 0.70, the calibration intercept and slope were 1.01 and 0.84, respectively. For NRS BP, AUC was 0.72, with calibration intercept of 0.97 and slope of 0.87. For NRS LP, AUC was 0.70, with calibration intercept of 0.04 and slope of 0.72. Sensitivity ranged from 0.63 to 0.96, while specificity ranged from 0.15 to 0.68. Lack of fit was found for all three models based on HL testing. CONCLUSIONS: Utilizing data from a multinational registry, we externally validate the SCOAP-CERTAIN prediction tool. The model demonstrated fair discrimination and calibration of predicted probabilities, necessitating caution in applying it in clinical practice. We suggest that future CPMs focus on predicting longer-term prognosis for this patient population, emphasizing the significance of robust calibration and thorough reporting.

FUSE-ML: development and external validation of a clinical prediction model for mid-term outcomes after lumbar spinal fusion for degenerative disease.

BACKGROUND: Indications and outcomes in lumbar spinal fusion for degenerative disease are notoriously heterogenous. Selected subsets of patients show remarkable benefit. However, their objective identification is often difficult. Decision-making may be improved with reliable prediction of long-term outcomes for each individual patient, improving patient selection and avoiding ineffective procedures. METHODS: Clinical prediction models for long-term functional impairment [Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) or Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI)], back pain, and leg pain after lumbar fusion for degenerative disease were developed. Achievement of the minimum clinically important difference at 12 months postoperatively was defined as a reduction from baseline of at least 15 points for ODI, 2.2 points for COMI, or 2 points for pain severity. RESULTS: Models were developed and integrated into a web-app ( https://neurosurgery.shinyapps.io/fuseml/ ) based on a multinational cohort [N = 817; 42.7% male; mean (SD) age: 61.19 (12.36) years]. At external validation [N = 298; 35.6% male; mean (SD) age: 59.73 (12.64) years], areas under the curves for functional impairment [0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.59-0.74], back pain (0.72, 95%CI: 0.64-0.79), and leg pain (0.64, 95%CI: 0.54-0.73) demonstrated moderate ability to identify patients who are likely to benefit from surgery. Models demonstrated fair calibration of the predicted probabilities. CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes after lumbar spinal fusion for degenerative disease remain difficult to predict. Although assistive clinical prediction models can help in quantifying potential benefits of surgery and the externally validated FUSE-ML tool may aid in individualized risk-benefit estimation, truly impacting clinical practice in the era of "personalized medicine" necessitates more robust tools in this patient population.

Neurosurgical emergency management during the lockdown period in health care regions in Spain with different COVID-19 impact: lessons learned to improve outcomes on the future waves.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has overloaded health care systems, testing the capacity and response in every European region. Concerns were raised regarding the impact of resources' reorganization on certain emergency pathology management. The aim of the present study was to assess the impact of the outbreak (in terms of reduction of neurosurgical emergencies) during lockdown in different regions of Spain. METHODS: We analyzed the impact of the outbreak in four different affected regions by descriptive statistics and univariate comparison with same period of two previous years. These regions differed in their incidence level (high/low) and in the time of excess mortality with respect to lockdown declaration. That allowed us to analyze their influence on the characteristics of neurosurgical emergencies registered for every region. RESULTS: 1185 patients from 18 neurosurgical centers were included. Neurosurgical emergencies that underwent surgery dropped 24.41% and 28.15% in 2020 when compared with 2019 and 2018, respectively. A higher reduction was reported for the most affected regions by COVID-19. Non-traumatic spine experienced the most significant decrease in number of cases. Life-threatening conditions did not suffer a reduction in any health care region. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 affected dramatically the neurosurgical emergency management. The most significant reduction in neurosurgical emergencies occurred on those regions that were hit unexpectedly by the pandemic, as resources were focused on fighting the virus. As a consequence, life-threating and non-life-threatening conditions' mortality raised. Results in regions who had time to prepare for the hit were congruent with an organized and sensible neurosurgical decision-making.