File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

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

TitleHow Reliable is the Assessment of Fusion Status Following ACDF Using Dynamic Flexion-Extension Radiographs?
Authors
KeywordsACDF
fusion
interspinous process motion
Issue Date1-May-2025
PublisherSAGE Publications
Citation
Global Spine Journal, 2025, v. 15, n. 4, p. 2450-2457 How to Cite?
AbstractStudy 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.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/356773
ISSN
2023 Impact Factor: 2.6
2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.264
ISI Accession Number ID

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorMartin, Christopher T.-
dc.contributor.authorYoon, Sangwook Tim-
dc.contributor.authorAlluri, Ram Kiran-
dc.contributor.authorBenzel, Edward C.-
dc.contributor.authorBono, Chris M.-
dc.contributor.authorCho, Samuel K.-
dc.contributor.authorChou, Dean-
dc.contributor.authorChen, Xiaolong-
dc.contributor.authorCheung, Jason P.Y.-
dc.contributor.authorCabrera, Juan P.-
dc.contributor.authorĆorluka, Stipe-
dc.contributor.authorDemetriades, Andreas K.-
dc.contributor.authorGary, Matthew F.-
dc.contributor.authorGhogawala, Zoher-
dc.contributor.authorHamouda, Waeel-
dc.contributor.authorHan, Inbo-
dc.contributor.authorHauri, Dimitri-
dc.contributor.authorHsieh, Patrick C.-
dc.contributor.authorJain, Amit-
dc.contributor.authorKim, Jun S.-
dc.contributor.authorLe, Hai V.-
dc.contributor.authorLouie, Philip K.-
dc.contributor.authorLuo, Zhuojing-
dc.contributor.authorMeisel, Hans Jörg-
dc.contributor.authorMuthu, Sathish-
dc.contributor.authorRyu, Dal Sung-
dc.contributor.authorSansur, Charles A.-
dc.contributor.authorSchoenfeld, Andrew J.-
dc.contributor.authorScaramuzzo, Laura-
dc.contributor.authorSchroeder, Gregory D.-
dc.contributor.authorRajasekaran, Shanmuganathan-
dc.contributor.authorSotiris, Veranis-
dc.contributor.authorVadalà, Gianluca-
dc.contributor.authorVergroesen, Pieter Paul A.-
dc.contributor.authorWang, Jeffrey C.-
dc.contributor.authorWu, Yabin-
dc.contributor.authorRiew, K. Daniel-
dc.date.accessioned2025-06-16T00:35:05Z-
dc.date.available2025-06-16T00:35:05Z-
dc.date.issued2025-05-01-
dc.identifier.citationGlobal Spine Journal, 2025, v. 15, n. 4, p. 2450-2457-
dc.identifier.issn2192-5682-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/356773-
dc.description.abstractStudy 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.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.publisherSAGE Publications-
dc.relation.ispartofGlobal Spine Journal-
dc.rightsThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.-
dc.subjectACDF-
dc.subjectfusion-
dc.subjectinterspinous process motion-
dc.titleHow Reliable is the Assessment of Fusion Status Following ACDF Using Dynamic Flexion-Extension Radiographs?-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.identifier.doi10.1177/21925682241303107-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-85211760080-
dc.identifier.volume15-
dc.identifier.issue4-
dc.identifier.spage2450-
dc.identifier.epage2457-
dc.identifier.eissn2192-5690-
dc.identifier.isiWOS:001371908600001-
dc.identifier.issnl2192-5682-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats