Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 2 of 2
Results per page:
The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 107-B, Issue 3 | Pages 337 - 345
1 Mar 2025
Wang D Wang Q Cui P Wang S Han D Chen X Lu S

Aims. Adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery can reduce pain and disability. However, the actual surgical efficacy of ASD in doing so is far from desirable, with frequent complications and limited improvement in quality of life. The accurate prediction of surgical outcome is crucial to the process of clinical decision-making. Consequently, the aim of this study was to develop and validate a model for predicting an ideal surgical outcome (ISO) two years after ASD surgery. Methods. We conducted a retrospective analysis of 458 consecutive patients who had undergone spinal fusion surgery for ASD between January 2016 and June 2022. The outcome of interest was achievement of the ISO, defined as an improvement in patient-reported outcomes exceeding the minimal clinically important difference, with no postoperative complications. Three machine-learning (ML) algorithms – LASSO, RFE, and Boruta – were used to identify key variables from the collected data. The dataset was randomly split into training (60%) and test (40%) sets. Five different ML models were trained, including logistic regression, random forest, XGBoost, LightGBM, and multilayer perceptron. The primary model evaluation metric was area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). Results. The analysis included 208 patients (mean age 64.62 years (SD 8.21); 48 male (23.1%), 160 female (76.9%)). Overall, 42.8% of patients (89/208) achieved the ideal surgical outcome. Eight features were identified as key variables affecting prognosis: depression, osteoporosis, frailty, failure of pelvic compensation, relative functional cross-sectional area of the paraspinal muscles, postoperative sacral slope, pelvic tilt match, and sagittal age-adjusted score match. The best prediction model was LightGBM, achieving the following performance metrics: AUROC 0.888 (95% CI 0.810 to 0.966); accuracy 0.843; sensitivity 0.829; specificity 0.854; positive predictive value 0.806; and negative predictive value 0.872. Conclusion. In this prognostic study, we developed a machine-learning model that accurately predicted outcome after surgery for ASD. The model is built on routinely modifiable indicators, thereby facilitating its integration into clinical practice to promote optimized decision-making. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2025;107-B(3):337–345


Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 12, Issue 4 | Pages 245 - 255
3 Apr 2023
Ryu S So J Ha Y Kuh S Chin D Kim K Cho Y Kim K

Aims. To determine the major risk factors for unplanned reoperations (UROs) following corrective surgery for adult spinal deformity (ASD) and their interactions, using machine learning-based prediction algorithms and game theory. Methods. Patients who underwent surgery for ASD, with a minimum of two-year follow-up, were retrospectively reviewed. In total, 210 patients were included and randomly allocated into training (70% of the sample size) and test (the remaining 30%) sets to develop the machine learning algorithm. Risk factors were included in the analysis, along with clinical characteristics and parameters acquired through diagnostic radiology. Results. Overall, 152 patients without and 58 with a history of surgical revision following surgery for ASD were observed; the mean age was 68.9 years (SD 8.7) and 66.9 years (SD 6.6), respectively. On implementing a random forest model, the classification of URO events resulted in a balanced accuracy of 86.8%. Among machine learning-extracted risk factors, URO, proximal junction failure (PJF), and postoperative distance from the posterosuperior corner of C7 and the vertical axis from the centroid of C2 (SVA) were significant upon Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. Conclusion. The major risk factors for URO following surgery for ASD, i.e. postoperative SVA and PJF, and their interactions were identified using a machine learning algorithm and game theory. Clinical benefits will depend on patient risk profiles. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2023;12(4):245–255