-
Journal of neurosurgery · May 2021
External validation of current prediction systems of improvement after decompression surgery in Chiari malformation type I patients: can we do better?
- James Feghali, Yangyiran Xie, Yuxi Chen, Sean Li, and Judy Huang.
- 1Department of Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.
- J. Neurosurg. 2021 May 1; 134 (5): 146614711466-1471.
ObjectiveThe Chiari Severity Index (CSI) and points-based algorithm of Thakar et al. are two prognostic tools that have been developed to predict the likelihood of improvement after suboccipital decompression in adult patients with Chiari malformation type I (CM-I). This study aimed to externally validate and critically evaluate these algorithms in the interest of guiding the development of improved prediction systems.MethodsA consecutive cohort of CM-I patients undergoing suboccipital decompression between September 2006 and September 2018 were included. The CSI and Thakar point score were computed for all patients, and associations with improvement were analyzed. The ability of both prediction systems to predict improvement as measured by different Chicago Chiari Outcome Scale (CCOS) cutoffs was assessed using receiver operating curve analysis. Post hoc correlations between the algorithms and different CCOS subcomponents were also assessed.ResultsThe surgical cohort was composed of 149 adult CM-I patients, of whom 39 (26%) had a syrinx. Most patients experienced improvement after surgery (80% CCOS ≥ 13; 96% CCOS ≥ 11). The proportion of patients improving decreased with increasing CSI, but the results were not statistically significant (p = 0.246). No statistically significant difference in the mean Thakar point score was identified between improved and nonimproved patients using both CCOS cutoffs (p = 0.246 for a cutoff of 13 and p = 0.480 for a cutoff of 11). The CSI had a poor ability in identifying improved patients at a CCOS cutoff of 13 (area under the curve [AUC] 0.582) and 11 (AUC 0.646). The Thakar point score similarly had poor discrimination at a cutoff of 13 (AUC 0.467) and 11 (AUC 0.646). Neither algorithm had significant correlation with any of the CCOS subcomponents except for CSI and nonpain symptom improvement (coefficient = -0.273, p = 0.001).ConclusionsPreviously published algorithms failed to provide prediction value with regard to clinically meaningful improvement following suboccipital decompression in adult CM-I patients. Future models and practical scoring systems are still required to improve the decision-making process.
Notes
Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?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.
.