Assessment shows poor discrimination in predicting complications in adult spinal deformity surgery, indicating potential calculator limits.
Background/Objectives: The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) and SpineSageTM risk calculators are automated online tools to predict short-term complications for surgical procedures. The objective of this study was to assess the validity of ACS-NSQIP and SpineSageTM risk calculators to predict short-term complications after adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery. Methods: We included ASD patients who had surgery between 2017 and 2020 (≥5 levels, single-stage, posterior-only). Patient factors were entered into the risk calculators to generate probabilities for 30-day outcomes. Calibration and discrimination were assessed using Brier scores and C-statistics, respectively. Results: A total of 198 patients were included (67 male, 131 female) who underwent posterior spinal fusion for ASD surgery. The ACS-NSQIP risk calculator had strong calibration for all complications (Brier score < 0.09) except non-home discharge (Brier score 0.2). Discrimination was poor for all complications except surgical site infection (C-statistic 0.86), venous thromboembolism (C-statistic 0.84), and readmission (C-statistic 0.7). The SpineSageTM risk calculator had strong calibration for all complications (Brier score < 0.09) aside from the “any complications” subset (Brier score 0.36). The discrimination capacity was poor for all complications (C-statistic < 0.7). Conclusions: The ACS-NSQIP calculator had strong calibration and poor discrimination for most complications. The SpineSageTM calculator had strong calibration for most complications and a poor discrimination capacity for all complications. NSQIP calculation deficits may be due to the reliance on a single CPT code to calculate risk. The deficient discriminatory capacity of the SpineSageTM calculator may be due to the inclusion of common perioperative occurrences as complications.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Samuel et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: