• J Neurosurg Spine · Sep 2013

    A standardized nomenclature for cervical spine soft-tissue release and osteotomy for deformity correction: clinical article.

    • Christopher P Ames, Justin S Smith, Justin K Scheer, Christopher I Shaffrey, Virginie Lafage, Vedat Deviren, Bertrand Moal, Themistocles Protopsaltis, Praveen V Mummaneni, Gregory M Mundis, Richard Hostin, Eric Klineberg, Douglas C Burton, Robert Hart, Shay Bess, Frank J Schwab, and International Spine Study Group.
    • Department of Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, USA.
    • J Neurosurg Spine. 2013 Sep 1;19(3):269-78.

    ObjectCervical spine osteotomies are powerful techniques to correct rigid cervical spine deformity. Many variations exist, however, and there is no current standardized system with which to describe and classify cervical osteotomies. This complicates the ability to compare outcomes across procedures and studies. The authors' objective was to establish a universal nomenclature for cervical spine osteotomies to provide a common language among spine surgeons.MethodsA proposed nomenclature with 7 anatomical grades of increasing extent of bone/soft tissue resection and destabilization was designed. The highest grade of resection is termed the major osteotomy, and an approach modifier is used to denote the surgical approach(es), including anterior (A), posterior (P), anterior-posterior (AP), posterior-anterior (PA), anterior-posterior-anterior (APA), and posterior-anterior-posterior (PAP). For cases in which multiple grades of osteotomies were performed, the highest grade is termed the major osteotomy, and lower-grade osteotomies are termed minor osteotomies. The nomenclature was evaluated by 11 reviewers through 25 different radiographic clinical cases. The review was performed twice, separated by a minimum 1-week interval. Reliability was assessed using Fleiss kappa coefficients.ResultsThe average intrarater reliability was classified as "almost perfect agreement" for the major osteotomy (0.89 [range 0.60-1.00]) and approach modifier (0.99 [0.95-1.00]); it was classified as "moderate agreement" for the minor osteotomy (0.73 [range 0.41-1.00]). The average interrater reliability for the 2 readings was the following: major osteotomy, 0.87 ("almost perfect agreement"); approach modifier, 0.99 ("almost perfect agreement"); and minor osteotomy, 0.55 ("moderate agreement"). Analysis of only major osteotomy plus approach modifier yielded a classification that was "almost perfect" with an average intrarater reliability of 0.90 (0.63-1.00) and an interrater reliability of 0.88 and 0.86 for the two reviews.ConclusionsThe proposed cervical spine osteotomy nomenclature provides the surgeon with a simple, standard description of the various cervical osteotomies. The reliability analysis demonstrated that this system is consistent and directly applicable. Future work will evaluate the relationship between this system and health-related quality of life metrics.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…