Variation in care among spinal deformity surgeons: results of a survey of the Shriners hospitals for children.

STUDY DESIGN: Survey. OBJECTIVE: To understand the variation in scoliosis surgery and perioperative care among spinal deformity surgeons. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: While variation in care has been well described in many spinal disorders, the degree of variation has not been described for spinal deformity. METHODS: Clinical histories and radiographs of 4 typical spinal deformity patients were sent to spinal deformity surgeons for review. The cases consisted of idiopathic thoracolumbar, double major, and right thoracic curves and a neuromuscular lumbar curve. The survey queried choice of surgical approach, levels fused and instrumented, type of instrumentation, preoperative testing, intraoperative neurologic monitoring, blood and antibiotic use, and postoperative care, including pain control and patient mobilization. Cost estimates for each case were obtained from the individual hospitals' pricing. RESULTS: There was wide variation in the specific fusion levels and instrumentation for the idiopathic curves. The variation was greatest for the thoracolumbar curve. The double major and right thoracic curves differed primarily in their choice of instrumenting secondary curves. The neuromuscular curve had the least variation. Costs estimates were widely disparate between centers. Perioperative care had much less disparity. CONCLUSIONS: Agreement appears common in areas with readily identifiable outcomes such as shorter length of stay and rapid postoperative mobilization. However, agreement is poor in areas where outcomes are difficult to measure and require long-term follow-up such as instrumentation fusion and levels.

A prospective evaluation of the WeeFIM in patients with cerebral palsy undergoing orthopaedic surgery.

PURPOSE: Although frequently used in pediatric rehabilitation settings, the WeeFIM has not been tested in surgical pediatric orthopaedic patients. METHODS: The WeeFIM was administered to patients with surgical cerebral palsy at defined intervals preoperatively and at both 6 and 12 months postoperatively. The age-adjusted change scores from baseline to follow-up were tested both parametrically and nonparametrically. RESULTS: Four hundred sixty-eight patients had baseline evaluations. There were 161 six-month follow-up assessments and 108 twelve-month follow-up assessments. The baseline WeeFIM was able to separate children with different patterns of cerebral palsy. Hemiplegic patients had higher scores than diplegic and tetraplegic patients. Overall age-adjusted scores were improved at both 6 (mean increase 2.0) and 12 months (mean increase 2.2). The instrument showed significant ceiling effects for diplegic and hemiplegic patients with lower or upper extremity surgery and limited responsiveness for lower extremity surgery in tetraplegic patients. Parametrically, it showed improvements in mobility for both rhizotomy and tetraplegic upper extremity surgery. Nonparametric tests were not significant for rhizotomy mobility improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Although the WeeFIM adequately reflects the severity of neurological involvement in pediatric orthopaedic patients with cerebral palsy, it has a significant ceiling effect in diplegic and hemiplegic patients limiting responsiveness and lacks content validity for tetraplegic patients. The instrument may have some use in tetraplegic patients with upper extremity surgery and in rhizotomy patients. We recommend against its general use for orthopaedic surgery in patients with cerebral palsy lower extremity or spine surgery and in hemiplegic patients with upper extremity surgery.