The Postoperative Airway Compromise Score-First Steps to Developing a Postoperative Tool for the Assessment of Upper Airway-Related Complications Following Anterior Cervical Spine Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Acute upper airway compromise is a rare but catastrophic complication after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. This study aims to develop a score to identify patients at risk of acute postoperative airway compromise (PAC). METHODS: Potential risk factors for acute PAC were selected by a modified Delphi process. Ten patients with acute PAC were identified of 1466 patients who underwent elective anterior cervical discectomy and fusion between July 2014 and May 2019. A comparison group was created by a randomized selection process (non-PAC group). Factors associated with PAC and a P value of < 0.10 were entered into a logistic regression model and coefficients contributed to each risk factor's overall score. Calibration of the model was evaluated using the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test. Quantitative discrimination was calculated, and the final model was internally validated with bootstrap sampling. RESULTS: We identified 18 potential risk factors from our Delphi process, of which 6 factors demonstrated a significant association with airway compromise: age >65 years, current smoking status, American Society of Anesthesiologists class >2, history of a bleeding disorder, surgery of upper subaxial cervical spine (above C4), and duration of surgery >179 minutes. The final prediction model included 5 predictors with very strong performance characteristics. These 5 factors formed the PAC score, with a range from 0 to 100. A score of 20 yielded the greatest balance of sensitivity (80%) and specificity (88%). CONCLUSIONS: The acute PAC score demonstrates strong performance characteristics. The PAC score might help identify patients at risk of upper airway compromise caused by surgical site abnormalities.

Ongoing decision-making dilemma for treatment of de novo spinal infections: a comparison of the Spinal Infection Treatment Evaluation Score with the Spinal Instability Spondylodiscitis Score and Spine Instability Neoplastic Score.

OBJECTIVE: De novo spinal infections are an increasing medical problem. The decision-making for surgical or nonsurgical treatment for de novo spinal infections is often a non-evidence-based process and commonly a case-by-case decision by single physicians. A scoring system based on the latest evidence might help improve the decision-making process compared with other purely radiology-based scoring systems or the judgment of a single senior physician. METHODS: Patients older than 18 years with an infection of the spine who underwent nonsurgical or surgical treatment between 2019 and 2021 were identified. Clinical data for neurological status, pain, and existing comorbidities were gathered and transferred to an anonymous spreadsheet. Patients without an MR image and a CT scan of the affected spine region were excluded from the investigation. A multidisciplinary expert panel used the Spine Instability Neoplastic Score (SINS), Spinal Instability Spondylodiscitis Score (SISS), and Spinal Infection Treatment Evaluation Score (SITE Score), previously developed by the authors' group, on every clinical case. Each physician of the expert panel gave an individual treatment recommendation for surgical or nonsurgical treatment for each patient. Treatment recommendations formed the expert panel opinion, which was used to calculate predictive validities for each score. RESULTS: A total of 263 patients with spinal infections were identified. After the exclusion of doubled patients, patients without de novo infections, or those without CT and MRI scans, 123 patients remained for the investigation. Overall, 70.70% of patients were treated surgically and 29.30% were treated nonoperatively. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for the SITE Score, SINS, and SISS were 0.94 (95% CI 0.91-0.95, p < 0.01), 0.65 (95% CI 0.91-0.83, p < 0.01), and 0.80 (95% CI 0.91-0.89, p < 0.01). In comparison with the expert panel decision, the SITE Score reached a sensitivity of 96.97% and a specificity of 81.90% for all included patients. For potentially unstable and unstable lesions, the SISS and the SINS yielded sensitivities of 84.42% and 64.07%, respectively, and specificities of 31.16% and 56.52%, respectively. The SITE Score showed higher overall sensitivity with 97.53% and a higher specificity for patients with epidural abscesses (75.00%) compared with potentially unstable and unstable lesions for the SINS and the SISS. The SITE Score showed a significantly higher agreement for the definitive treatment decision regarding the expert panel decision, compared with the decision by a single physician for patients with spondylodiscitis, discitis, or spinal osteomyelitis. CONCLUSIONS: The SITE Score shows high sensitivity and specificity regarding the treatment recommendation by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The SITE Score shows higher predictive validity compared with radiology-based scoring systems or a single physician and demonstrates a high validity for patients with epidural abscesses.