How Reliable is the Assessment of Fusion Status Following ACDF Using Dynamic Flexion-Extension Radiographs?
Christopher T. Martin,Sangwook Tim Yoon,Ram Kiran Alluri,Edward C. Benzel,Chris M. Bono,Samuel K. Cho,Dean Chou,Xiaolong Chen,Jason P.Y. Cheung,Juan P. Cabrera,Stipe Ćorluka,Andreas K. Demetriades,Matthew F. Gary,Zoher Ghogawala,Waeel Hamouda,Inbo Han,Dimitri Hauri,Patrick C. Hsieh,Amit Jain,Jun S. Kim,Hai V. Le,Philip K. Louie,Zhuojing Luo,Hans-Jörg Meisel,Sathish Muthu,Dal-Sung Ryu,Charles A. Sansur,Andrew J. Schoenfeld,Laura Scaramuzzo,Gregory D. Schroeder,Shanmuganathan Rajasekaran,Veranis Sotiris,Gianluca VadalÃ,Pieter-Paul A. Vergroesen,Jeffrey C. Wang,Yabin Wu,K. Daniel Riew
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/21925682241303107
2024-12-07
Global Spine Journal
Abstract:Global Spine Journal, Ahead of Print. Study DesignReliability study.ObjectivesThe radiographic diagnosis of non-union is not standardized. Prior authors have suggested using a cutoff of .9. The ICC from these high performing reviewers was .94 (.9; .97), SEM was .45 mm, and MD was 1.26 mm.ConclusionsThe 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.
clinical neurology,orthopedics