Flynn, John M.

Study Design. Prospective multicenter study data were used for model derivation and externally validated using retrospective cohort data. Objective. Derive and validate a prognostic model of benefit from bracing for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). Summary of Background Data. The Bracing in Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis Trial (BrAIST) demonstrated the superiority of bracing over observation to prevent curve progression to the surgical threshold; 42% of untreated subjects had a good outcome, and 28% progressed to the surgical threshold despite bracing, likely due to poor adherence. To avoid over-treatment and to promote patient goal setting and adherence, bracing decisions (who and how much) should be based on physician and patient discussions informed by individual-level data from high-quality predictive models. Materials and Methods. Logistic regression was used to predict curve progression to <45° at skeletal maturity (good prognosis) in 269 BrAIST subjects who were observed or braced. Predictors included age, sex, body mass index, Risser stage, Cobb angle, curve pattern, and treatment characteristics (hours of brace wear and in-brace correction). Internal and external validity were evaluated using jackknifed samples of the BrAIST data set and an independent cohort (n=299) through estimates of discrimination and calibration. Results. The final model included age, sex, body mass index, Risser stage, Cobb angle, and hours of brace wear per day. The model demonstrated strong discrimination ( c -statistics 0.83–0.87) and calibration in all data sets. Classifying patients as low risk (high probability of a good prognosis) at the probability cut point of 70% resulted in a specificity of 92% and a positive predictive value of 89%. Conclusion. This externally validated model can be used by clinicians and families to make informed, individualized decisions about when and how much to brace to avoid progression to surgery. If widely adopted, this model could decrease overbracing of AIS, improve adherence, and, most importantly, decrease the likelihood of spinal fusion in this population.

Background: Prior “best practice guidelines” (BPG) have identified strategies to reduce the risk of acute deep surgical site infection (SSI), but there still exists large variability in practice. Further, there is still no consensus on which patients are “high risk” for SSI and how SSI should be diagnosed or treated in pediatric spine surgery. We sought to develop an updated, consensus-based BPG informed by available literature and expert opinion on defining high-SSI risk in pediatric spine surgery and on prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of SSI in this high-risk population. Materials and Methods: After a systematic review of the literature, an expert panel of 21 pediatric spine surgeons was selected from the Harms Study Group based on extensive experience in the field of pediatric spine surgery. Using the Delphi process and iterative survey rounds, the expert panel was surveyed for current practices, presented with the systematic review, given the opportunity to voice opinions through a live discussion session and asked to vote regarding preferences privately. Two survey rounds were conducted electronically, after which a live conference was held to present and discuss results. A final electronic survey was then conducted for final voting. Agreement ≥70% was considered consensus. Items near consensus were revised if feasible to achieve consensus in subsequent surveys. Results: Consensus was reached for 17 items for defining high-SSI risk, 17 items for preventing, 6 for diagnosing, and 9 for treating SSI in this high-risk population. After final voting, all 21 experts agreed to the publication and implementation of these items in their practice. Conclusions: We present a set of updated consensus-based BPGs for defining high-risk and preventing, diagnosing, and treating SSI in high-risk pediatric spine surgery. We believe that this BPG can limit variability in practice and decrease the incidence of SSI in pediatric spine surgery. Level of Evidence: Not applicable.