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

This study evaluates the long-term survival of spinal implants after surgical site infection (SSI) and the risk factors associated with treatment failure. . A Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was carried out on 43 patients who had undergone a posterior spinal fusion with instrumentation between January 2006 and December 2008, and who consecutively developed an acute deep surgical site infection. All were appropriately treated by surgical debridement with a tailored antibiotic program based on culture results for a minimum of eight weeks. A ‘terminal event’ or failure of treatment was defined as implant removal or death related to the SSI. The mean follow-up was 26 months (1.03 to 50.9). A total of ten patients (23.3%) had a terminal event. The rate of survival after the first debridement was 90.7% (95% confidence interval (CI) 82.95 to 98.24) at six months, 85.4% (95% CI 74.64 to 96.18) at one year, and 73.2% (95% CI 58.70 to 87.78) at two, three and four years. Four of nine patients required re-instrumentation after implant removal, and two of the four had a recurrent infection at the surgical site. There was one recurrence after implant removal without re-instrumentation. Multivariate analysis revealed a significant risk of treatment failure in patients who developed sepsis (hazard ratio (HR) 12.5 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.6 to 59.9); p < 0.001) or who had > three fused segments (HR 4.5 (95% CI 1.25 to 24.05); p = 0.03). Implant survival is seriously compromised even after properly treated surgical site infection, but progressively decreases over the first 24 months. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1121–6

Between January 1990 and December 2000 we carried out 226 SB Charité III disc replacements for lumbar disc degeneration in 160 patients. They were reviewed at a mean follow-up of 79 months (31 to 161) to determine the clinical and radiological outcome. The clinical results were collected by an independent observer, who was not involved in patient selection, treatment or follow-up, using a combination of outcome measures, including the Oswestry Disability Index. Pain was recorded using a visual analogue score, and the most recent radiographs were reviewed.

Survival of the device was analysed by the Kaplan-Meier method and showed a cumulative survival of 35% at 156 months when radiological failure was taken as the endpoint. The mean improvement in the Oswestry disability index scores after disc replacement was 14% (6% to 21%) and the mean improvement in the pain score was 1.6 (0.46 to 2.73), both falling below the clinically significant threshold. Removal of the implant was required in 12 patients, four because of implant failure.

These poor results indicate that further use of this implant is not justified.