Using Clinical Vignettes and a Modified Expert Delphi Panel to Determine Parameters for Identifying Non-Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury in Health Administrative and Electronic Medical Record Databases.

OBJECTIVE: To obtain expert consensus on the parameters and etiologic conditions required to retrospectively identify cases of non-traumatic spinal cord injury (NTSCI) in health administrative and electronic medical record (EMR) databases based on the rating of clinical vignettes. DESIGN: A modified Delphi process included 2 survey rounds and 1 remote consensus panel. The surveys required the rating of clinical vignettes, developed after chart reviews and expert consultation. Experts who participated in survey rounds were invited to participate in the Delphi Consensus Panel. SETTING: An international collaboration using an online meeting platform. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-one expert physicians and/or clinical researchers in the field of spinal cord injury (SCI). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Agreement on clinical vignettes as NTSCI. Parameters to classify cases of NTSCI in health administrative and EMR databases. RESULTS: In health administrative and EMR databases, cauda equina syndromes should be considered SCI and classified as a NTSCI or TSCI based on the mechanism of injury. A traumatic event needs to be listed for injury to be considered TSCI. To be classified as NTSCI, neurologic sufficient impairments (motor, sensory, bowel, and bladder) are required, in addition to an etiology. It is possible to have both a NTSCI and a TSCI, as well as a recovered NTSCI. If information is unavailable or missing in health administrative and EMR databases, the case may be listed as "unclassifiable" depending on the purpose of the research study. CONCLUSION: The Delphi panel provided guidelines to appropriately classify cases of NTSCI in health administrative and EMR databases.

Allogeneic blood transfusions and infection risk in lumbar spine surgery: An American College of Surgeons National Surgery Quality Improvement Program Study.

BACKGROUND: Allogenic blood transfusions can lead to immunomodulation. Our purpose was to investigate whether perioperative transfusions were associated with postoperative infections and any other adverse events (AEs), after adjusting for potential confounding factors, following common elective lumbar spinal surgery procedures. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We performed a multivariate, propensity-score matched, regression-adjusted retrospective analysis of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database between 2012 and 2016. All lumbar spinal surgery procedures were identified (n = 174,891). A transfusion group (perioperative transfusion within 72 h before, during, or after principal surgery; n = 1992) and a control group (no transfusion; n = 1992) were formed. Following adjustment for between-group baseline features, adjusted odds ratios (aOR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated using a multivariate logistic regression model for any surgical site infection (SSI), superficial SSI, deep SSI, wound dehiscence, pneumonia, urinary tract infection, sepsis, any infection, mortality, and any AEs. RESULTS: Transfusion was associated with an increased risk of each specific infection, mortality, and any AEs. Statistically significant between-group differences were demonstrated with respect to any SSI (aOR: 1.48; 95% CI: 1.01-2.16), deep SSI (aOR: 1.66; 95% CI: 0.98-2.85), sepsis (aOR: 2.69; 95% CI: 1.43-5.03), wound dehiscence (aOR: 2.27; 95% CI: 0.86-6.01), any infection (aOR: 1.46; 95% CI: 1.13-1.88), any AEs (aOR: 1.80; 95% CI: 1.48-2.18), and mortality (aOR: 2.17; 95% CI: 0.77-6.36). CONCLUSION: We showed an association between transfusion and infection in lumbar spine surgery after adjustment for various applicable covariates. Sepsis had the highest association with transfusion. Our results reinforce a growing trend toward minimizing perioperative transfusions, which may lead to reduced infections following lumbar spine surgery.

Capturing adverse events in elective orthopedic surgery: comparison of administrative, surgeon and reviewer reporting

Summary: Ensuring adverse event (AE) recording is standardized and accurate is paramount for patient safety. In this discussion, we outline our comparison of AE data collected by orthopedic surgeons and independent clinical reviewers using the Spine Adverse Events Severity System (SAVES) and Orthopedic Surgical Adverse Events Severity System (OrthoSAVES) against AE data recorded by hospital administrative discharge abstract coders. In 164 spine, hip, knee and shoulder patients, reviewers recorded significantly more AEs than coders, and coders recorded significantly more AEs than surgeons. The AEs were recorded similarly by reviewers using SAVES and OrthoSAVES in 48 spine patients. Despite our small sample size and use of different AE tools, we believe it is important to highlight that coders, surgeons and reviewers recorded AEs differently. While further investigations on its utility and cost-effectiveness are necessary, we assert that it is feasible to use Ortho-SAVES to prospectively record AEs across all orthopedic subspecialties.

A technique for approximating transition rates from published survival analyses.

BACKGROUND: Quality-adjusted-life-years (QALYs) are used to concurrently quantify morbidity and mortality within a single parameter. For this reason, QALYs can facilitate the discussion of risks and benefits during patient counseling regarding treatment options. QALYs are often calculated using partitioned-survival modelling. Alternatively, QALYs can be calculated using more flexible and informative state-transition models populated with transition rates estimated using multistate modelling (MSM) techniques. Unfortunately the latter approach is considered not possible when only progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) analyses are reported. METHODS: We have developed a method that can be used to estimate approximate transition rates from published PFS and OS analyses (we will refer to transition rates estimated using full multistate methods as true transition rates). RESULTS: The approximation method is more accurate for estimating the transition rates out of health than the transition rate out of illness. The method tends to under-estimate true transition rates as censoring increases. CONCLUSIONS: In this article we present the basis for and use of the transition rate approximation method. We then apply the method to a case study and evaluate the method in a simulation study.

Back to Bayesian: A strategy to enhance prognostication of metastatic spine disease.

AIMS: Clinicians must consider prognosis when offering treatment to patients with spine metastases. Although several prognostic indices have been developed and validated for this purpose, they may not be applicable in the current era of targeted systemic therapies. Even before the introduction of targeted therapies, these prognostic indices should not have been directly used for individual patient decision making without contextualising with other sources of data. By contextualising, we mean that prognostic estimates should not be based on these scores alone and formally incorporate clinically relevant factors not part of prognostic indices. Contextualisation requires the use of Bayesian statistics which may be unfamiliar to many readers. In this paper we show readers how to correctly apply prognostic scores to individual patients using Bayesian statistics. Through Bayesian analysis, we explore the impact of new targeted therapies on prognostic estimates obtained using the Tokuhashi score. METHODS: We provide a worked calculation for the probability of a patient surviving up to 6 months using dichotomous prognostication. We then demonstrate how to calculate a patient's expected survival using continuous prognostication. Sensitivity of the posterior distribution to prior assumptions is illustrated through effective sample size adjustment. RESULTS: When the predicted prognosis from the Tokuhashi score is contextualised with data on contemporary systemic treatments, patients previously deemed non-surgical candidates may be eligible for surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Bayesian prognostication generates intuitive results and allows multiple data points to be synthesised transparently. These techniques can extend the usefulness of existing prognostic scores in the era of targeted systemic therapies.

A comparison of outcomes between Canada and the United States in patients recovering from hip fracture repair: secondary analysis of the FOCUS trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if adjusted mortality, walking ability or return home differed after hip fracture surgery between Canada and the USA. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of the Functional Outcomes in Cardiovascular Patients Undergoing Surgical Hip Fracture Repair (FOCUS) trial data. SETTING: Data were collected from 47 American and Canadian hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Overall, 2016 subjects with a hip fracture (USA = 1222 (60.6%); Canada = 794 (39.4%)) were randomized to a liberal or restrictive transfusion strategy. Subjects were 50 years and older, with cardiovascular disease and/or risk factors and hemoglobin <100 g/L within 3 days post-surgery. The average age was 82 years and 1527(76%) subjects were females. INTERVENTION: Demographics, health status and health services data were collected up to 60 days post-surgery and mortality to a median of 3 years post-surgery. MAIN OUTCOMES: Mortality, inability to walk and return home. RESULTS: US subjects had higher adjusted mortality than Canadians at 30 days (odds ratio = 1.78; 95% confidence interval: 1.09-2.90), 60 days (1.53; 1.02-2.29) and up to 3 years (hazard ratio = 1.25; 1.07-1.45). There were no differences in adjusted outcomes for walking ability or return home at 30 or 60 days post-surgery. Median hospital length of stay was longer (P < 0.0001) in Canada (9 days; interquartile range: 5-18 days) than the US (3 days; 2-5 days). US subjects (52.9%) were more likely than Canadians (16.8%) to be discharged to nursing homes for rehabilitation (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Adjusted survival favored Canadians post hip fracture while walking ability and return home were not different between countries. The reason(s) for mortality differences warrant further investigation.

Can Surgeons Adequately Capture Adverse Events Using the Spinal Adverse Events Severity System (SAVES) and OrthoSAVES?

BACKGROUND: Physicians have consistently shown poor adverse-event reporting practices in the literature and yet they have the clinical acumen to properly stratify and appraise these events. The Spine Adverse Events Severity System (SAVES) and Orthopaedic Surgical Adverse Events Severity System (OrthoSAVES) are standardized assessment tools designed to record adverse events in orthopaedic patients. These tools provide a list of prespecified adverse events for users to choose from-an aid that may improve adverse-event reporting by physicians. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: The primary objective was to compare surgeons' adverse-event reporting with reporting by independent clinical reviewers using SAVES Version 2 (SAVES V2) and OrthoSAVES in elective orthopaedic procedures. METHOD: This was a 10-week prospective study where SAVES V2 and OrthoSAVES were used by six orthopaedic surgeons and two independent, non-MD clinical reviewers to record adverse events after all elective procedures to the point of patient discharge. Neither surgeons nor reviewers received specific training on adverse-event reporting. Surgeons were aware of the ongoing study, and reported adverse events based on their clinical interactions with the patients. Reviewers recorded adverse events by reviewing clinical notes by surgeons and other healthcare professionals (such as nurses and physiotherapists). Adverse events were graded using the severity-grading system included in SAVES V2 and OrthoSAVES. At discharge, adverse events recorded by surgeons and reviewers were recorded in our database. RESULTS: Adverse-event data for 164 patients were collected (48 patients who had spine surgery, 51 who had hip surgery, 34 who had knee surgery, and 31 who had shoulder surgery). Overall, 99 adverse events were captured by the reviewers, compared with 14 captured by the surgeons (p < 0.001). Surgeons adequately captured major adverse events, but failed to record minor events that were captured by the reviewers. A total of 93 of 99 (94%) adverse events reported by reviewers required only simple or minor treatment and had no long-term adverse effect. Three patients experienced adverse events that resulted in use of invasive or complex treatment that had a temporary adverse effect on outcome. CONCLUSION: Using SAVES V2 and OrthoSAVES, independent reviewers reported more minor adverse events compared with surgeons. The value of third-party reviewers requires further investigation in a detailed cost-benefit analysis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, therapeutic study.

Association between the ESR1 -351A>G single nucleotide polymorphism (rs9340799) and adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: A single nucleotide polymorphism in the promoter region of the estrogen receptor alpha gene (ESR1), rs9340799, has been linked with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) in several association studies with limited sample size and inconsistent findings. A systematic review can provide a comprehensive appraisal of literature evidence and a meta-analysis can obtain a more precise estimate of any association. The purpose of the present study was to assess and synthesize the currently available evidence on the association between rs9340799 and AIS by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: This review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses guidelines. PubMed (MEDLINE), EMBASE, Scopus and HuGE Literature Finder databases were systematically searched to identify relevant studies following a sensitive strategy. Summary odds ratios and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95 % CI) were estimated using the fixed-effect inverse variance model for allelic (G vs. A) and genotypic comparisons. RESULTS: Meta-analysis of four studies (n = 1,827 AIS cases and n = 1,253 controls) found a non-significant association between rs9340799 and AIS (allelic odds ratio 1.09, 95 % CI 0.96-1.23, p = 0.17). CONCLUSIONS: When examined in isolation, the rs9340799 polymorphism does not appear to be a likely susceptibility variant for AIS predisposition. However, rs9340799 may be associated with AIS severity, progression and treatment; further investigation is necessary to confirm these potential associations.

A pilot evaluation of the role of bracing in stable thoracolumbar burst fractures without neurological deficit.

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, 2-center, observer-blinded, randomized controlled trial. OBJECTIVE: Investigate clinical and radiologic outcomes of bracing versus no-bracing in the treatment of stable thoracolumbar burst fractures. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Management of thoracolumbar burst fractures depends upon clinical presentation of neurological deficit and radiographic features of fracture severity. Neurologically intact patients with mild deformity and biomechanical stability may be treated with conservative therapy. METHODS: Patients with stable (AO type A3), single level, thoracolumbar burst fractures between T12 and L2 with no neurological deficit were randomized to nonoperative treatment with a customized thoracolumbosacral orthosis (TLSO) or no-brace. Self-reported clinical outcomes of pain, disability, and health-related quality of life, and radiographic outcomes of kyphotic progression and loss of vertebral height, assessed by 2 independent reviewers blinded to treatment group, were measured at 6 months follow-up. RESULTS: Twenty-three consecutive eligible patients were included (TLSO: n=12; no-brace: n=11). There were no between-group differences regarding level of injury (P=0.75) and baseline spine geometry including fractional canal compromise (P=0.49), anterior loss of vertebral body height (P=0.28), and sagittal Cobb angle (P=0.13). In-hospital stay was significantly shorter in the no-brace group (mean: 2.8±3.0 d) compared with the TLSO group (mean: 6.3±2.1 d; P=0.004). At follow-up there were no differences in anterior loss of vertebral body height (TLSO: 12.5%±10.2% vs. no-brace: 11.9%±8.1%; P=0.88), kyphotic progression (TLSO: 5.3±4.4 degrees vs. no-brace 5.2±3.6 degrees; P=0.93), adverse events, or self-reported clinical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Neurologically intact patients with stable thoracolumbar burst fractures treated with or without bracing had similar radiographic and clinical outcomes at 6 months follow-up. The no-brace group had shorter in-hospital lengths of stay. Conservative therapy involving early mobilization without brace immobilization may be warranted. Further studies with a larger series of patients and longer follow-up are required for conclusive findings.

Multivariable Prediction Models for Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury: A Systematic Review.

Background: Traumatic spinal cord injuries (TSCI) greatly affect the lives of patients and their families. Prognostication may improve treatment strategies, health care resource allocation, and counseling. Multivariable clinical prediction models (CPMs) for prognosis are tools that can estimate an absolute risk or probability that an outcome will occur. Objectives: We sought to systematically review the existing literature on CPMs for TSCI and critically examine the predictor selection methods used. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and IEEE for English peer-reviewed studies and relevant references that developed multivariable CPMs to prognosticate patient-centered outcomes in adults with TSCI. Using narrative synthesis, we summarized the characteristics of the included studies and their CPMs, focusing on the predictor selection process. Results: We screened 663 titles and abstracts; of these, 21 full-text studies (2009-2020) consisting of 33 distinct CPMs were included. The data analysis domain was most commonly at a high risk of bias when assessed for methodological quality. Model presentation formats were inconsistently included with published CPMs; only two studies followed established guidelines for transparent reporting of multivariable prediction models. Authors frequently cited previous literature for their initial selection of predictors, and stepwise selection was the most frequent predictor selection method during modelling. Conclusion: Prediction modelling studies for TSCI serve clinicians who counsel patients, researchers aiming to risk-stratify participants for clinical trials, and patients coping with their injury. Poor methodological rigor in data analysis, inconsistent transparent reporting, and a lack of model presentation formats are vital areas for improvement in TSCI CPM research.

Morphable models of the lumbar spine to vary geometry based on pathology, demographics, and anatomical measurements.

The shape of the lumbar spine influences its function and dysfunction. Yet examining the influence of geometric differences associated with pathology or demographics on lumbar biomechanics is challenging in vivo where these effects cannot be isolated, and the use of simple anatomical measurements does not fully capture the complex three-dimensional geometry. The goal of this work was to develop and share morphable models of the lumbar spine that allow geometry to be varied according to pathology, demographics, or anatomical measurements. Partial least squares regression was used to generate statistical shape models that quantify geometric differences associated with pathology, demographics, and anatomical measurements from the lumbar spines of 87 patients. To determine if the morphable models detected meaningful geometric differences, the ability of the morphable models to classify spines was compared with models generated from random labels. The models for disc herniation (p < 0.04), spondylolisthesis (p < 0.001), and sex (p < 0.01) all performed significantly better than the random models. Age was predicted with a root mean square error of 14.1 years using the age-based model. The morphable models for anatomical measurements were able to produce instances with root mean square errors less than 0.8°, 0.3 cm2, and 0.7 mm between desired and resulting measurements. This method can be used to produce morphable models that enable further analysis of the relationship among shape, pathology, demographics, and function through computational simulations. The morphable models and code are available at https://github.com/aclouthier/morphable-lumbar-model.

Enabling knowledge translation: implementation of a web-based tool for independent walking prediction after traumatic spinal cord injury.

Introduction: Several clinical prediction rules (CPRs) have been published, but few are easily accessible or convenient for clinicians to use in practice. We aimed to develop, implement, and describe the process of building a web-based CPR for predicting independent walking 1-year after a traumatic spinal cord injury (TSCI). Methods: Using the published and validated CPR, a front-end web application called "Ambulation" was built using HyperText Markup Language (HTML), Cascading Style Sheets (CSS), and JavaScript. A survey was created using QualtricsXM Software to gather insights on the application's usability and user experience. Website activity was monitored using Google Analytics. Ambulation was developed with a core team of seven clinicians and researchers. To refine the app's content, website design, and utility, 20 professionals from different disciplines, including persons with lived experience, were consulted. Results: After 11 revisions, Ambulation was uploaded onto a unique web domain and launched (www.ambulation.ca) as a pilot with 30 clinicians (surgeons, physiatrists, and physiotherapists). The website consists of five web pages: Home, Calculation, Team, Contact, and Privacy Policy. Responses from the user survey (n = 6) were positive and provided insight into the usability of the tool and its clinical utility (e.g., helpful in discharge planning and rehabilitation), and the overall face validity of the CPR. Since its public release on February 7, 2022, to February 28, 2023, Ambulation had 594 total users, 565 (95.1%) new users, 26 (4.4%) returning users, 363 (61.1%) engaged sessions (i.e., the number of sessions that lasted 10 seconds/longer, had one/more conversion events e.g., performing the calculation, or two/more page or screen views), and the majority of the users originating from the United States (39.9%) and Canada (38.2%). Discussion: Ambulation is a CPR for predicting independent walking 1-year after TSCI and it can assist frontline clinicians with clinical decision-making (e.g., time to surgery or rehabilitation plan), patient education and goal setting soon after injury. This tool is an example of adapting a validated CPR for independent walking into an easily accessible and usable web-based tool for use in clinical practice. This study may help inform how other CPRs can be adopted into clinical practice.

Beneficial Effects of Preoperative Exercise on the Outcomes of Lumbar Fusion Spinal Surgery.

Purpose: To determine whether there was an association between self-reported preoperative exercise and postoperative outcomes after lumbar fusion spinal surgery. Method: We performed a retrospective multivariable analysis of the prospective Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network (CSORN) database of 2,203 patients who had elective single-level lumbar fusion spinal surgeries. We compared adverse events and hospital length of stay between patients who reported regular exercise (twice or more per week) prior to surgery ("Regular Exercise") to those exercising infrequently (once or less per week) ("Infrequent Exercise") or those who did no exercise ("No Exercise"). For all final analyses, we compared the Regular Exercise group to the combined Infrequent Exercise or No Exercise group. Results: After making adjustments for known confounding factors, we demonstrated that patients in the Regular Exercise group had fewer adverse events (adjusted odds ratio 0.72; 95% CI: 0.57, 0.91; p = 0.006) and significantly shorter lengths of stay (adjusted mean 2.2 vs. 2.5 d, p = 0.029) than the combined Infrequent Exercise or No Exercise group. Conclusions: Patients who exercised regularly twice or more per week prior to surgery had fewer postoperative adverse events and significantly shorter hospital lengths of stay compared to patients that exercised infrequently or did no exercise. Further study is required to determine effectiveness of a targeted prehabilitation programme.

Objectif : déterminer s'il y avait une association entre les exercices préopératoires autodéclarés et les résultats postopératoires après une chirurgie de fusion lombaire. Méthodologie : analyse multivariable rétrospective de la base de données prospective Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network (CSORN) composée de 2 203 patients qui avaient subi une chirurgie de fusion lombaire univertébrale non urgente. Les chercheurs ont comparé les événements indésirables et la durée du séjour hospitalier entre les patients qui déclaraient faire de l'exercice régulier (au moins deux fois par semaine) avant l'opération (« exercice régulier ¼) à ceux qui n'en faisaient pas souvent (une fois ou moins par semaine; « exercice peu fréquent ¼) et qui n'en faisaient pas du tout (« absence d'exercice ¼). Pour toutes les analyses définitives, ils ont comparé le groupe qui faisait de l'exercice régulier aux groupes combinés d'exercice peu fréquent et d'absence d'exercice. Résultats : après correction pour tenir compte des facteurs confusionnels connus, les chercheurs ont démontré que les patients du groupe faisant de l'exercice régulier présentaient moins d'événements indésirables (rapport de cotes rajusté 0,72; IC à 95 % : 0,57, 0,91; p = 0,006) et leur séjour à l'hôpital était significativement plus court (moyenne corrigée 2,2 jours par rapport à 2,5 jours, p = 0,029) que dans le groupe combiné d'exercice peu fréquent et d'absence d'exercice. Conclusions : les patients qui faisaient de l'exercice régulièrement au moins deux fois par semaine avant l'opération présentaient moins d'événements indésirables après l'opération et étaient hospitalisés beaucoup moins longtemps que ceux qui ne faisaient pas beaucoup d'exercice ou n'en faisaient pas du tout. Il faudra réaliser d'autres études pour déterminer l'efficacité d'un programme de préréadaptation ciblé.

Subsidence of Spinal Fusion Cages: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Although many research studies investigating subsidence of intervertebral fusion cages have been published, to our knowledge, no study has comprehensively compared cage subsidence among all lumbar intervertebral fusion (LIF) techniques. This study aimed to review the literature reporting evidence of cage subsidence linked to LIF. The amount of subsidence was compared and associated with the procedures and corresponding implants used, and the effect of cage subsidence on clinical outcomes was investigated. METHODS: For this systematic review, the MEDLINE and PubMed databases were used to identify relevant studies. Search terms included lumbar, lumbar vertebrae, lumbar spine, cage, spinal fusion, prosthesis, prosthesis implantation, implantation, implants, interbody, spacer, and subsidence. Studies included in this review were those having more than 10 patients and reporting the amount of subsidence observed using computed tomography or x-ray imaging after surgery and at follow-up visits after a minimum of 6 weeks postsurgery. Data and scale definitions related to subsidence were extracted from articles for comparison of subsidence prevalence between the 5 LIF surgical procedures. RESULTS: Forty articles were identified for inclusion. The review included data from 390 anterior lumbar intervertebral fusions (ALIFs), 2130 lateral lumbar intervertebral fusions (LLIFs), 560 posterior lumbar intervertebral fusions (PLIFs), 245 oblique lumbar intervertebral fusions (OLIFs), and 1634 transverse lumbar intervertebral fusions (TLIFs) for a total of 4959 patients who underwent LIF surgery. The minimum and maximum percentages of the number of patients having subsidence for each procedure in the included studies were as follows: ALIF stand-alone, 6% and 23.1%; LLIF stand-alone, 8.7% and 39.6%; LLIF with posterior fixation, 3.3% and 20.7%; OLIF with posterior fixation, 4.4% and 36.9%; PLIF with posterior fixation, 7.4% and 31.8%; and TLIF, 0.0% and 51.2%. CONCLUSIONS: The number of patients experiencing subsidence varied between studies within each fusion procedure. Our findings indicate that all 5 surgical methods are at risk of subsidence. Overall, ALIF without posterior fixation resulted in the lowest reported subsidence occurrence among the 5 surgical approaches. There is conflicting evidence on the association between subsidence and negative clinical outcomes. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This review defines and compares subsidence incidence between all LIF procedures and investigates the risk of symptomatic clinical outcomes.

A scoping review of complication prediction models in spinal surgery: An analysis of model development, validation and impact.

Background: Predictive analytics are being used increasingly in the field of spinal surgery with the development of models to predict post-surgical complications. Predictive models should be valid, generalizable, and clinically useful. The purpose of this review was to identify existing post-surgical complication prediction models for spinal surgery and to determine if these models are being adequately investigated with internal/external validation, model updating and model impact studies. Methods: This was a scoping review of studies pertaining to models for the prediction of post-surgical complication after spinal surgery published over 10 years (2010-2020). Qualitative data was extracted from the studies to include study classification, adherence to Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) guidelines and risk of bias (ROB) assessment using the Prediction model study Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). Model evaluation was determined using area under the curve (AUC) when available. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement was used as a basis for the search methodology in four different databases. Results: Thirty studies were included in the scoping review and 80% (24/30) included model development with or without internal validation. Twenty percent (6/30) were exclusively external validation studies and only one study included an impact analysis in addition to model development and internal validation. Two studies referenced the TRIPOD guidelines and there was a high ROB in 100% of the studies using the PROBAST tool. Conclusions: The majority of post-surgical complication prediction models in spinal surgery have not undergone standardized model development and internal validation or adequate external validation and impact evaluation. As such there is uncertainty as to their validity, generalizability, and clinical utility. Future efforts should be made to use existing tools to ensure standardization in development and rigorous evaluation of prediction models in spinal surgery.