Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2024 Mar 7;19(3):e0300065. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0300065

Impact of spinal fusion on severity health status in scoliotic adolescents with polyhandicap

Hugo Bessaguet 1,2,*, Marie-Christine Rousseau 3,4, Vincent Gautheron 1,2, Etienne Ojardias 1,5, Bruno Dohin 2,6
Editor: Kentaro Yamada7
PMCID: PMC10919586  PMID: 38451892

Abstract

Background

Scoliosis constitutes a prevalent comorbidity in adolescents with polyhandicap and frequently leads to other severe impairments, impacting abilities and requiring complex caregiving strategies. Therefore, spinal fusion surgeries are commonly performed to alleviate pain and provide more comfort. However, spine stabilization has not previously been proven to improve the severity health status of adolescents with polyhandicap according to specific clinical scales.

Objective

This study describes and compares the severity health status of adolescents with polyhandicap before and after they underwent spinal fusion.

Methods

A monocentric retrospective observational study was conducted in the university hospital centre of Saint-Etienne, France. We included between 2009 to 2020, 30 scoliotic adolescents with polyhandicap who underwent spinal fusion performed with the same surgical technique and the same surgeon. The main outcome was the variation in the Polyhandicap Severity Scale (PSS) score after surgery. Secondary outcomes were variations in PSS subscores, quality of life scores, fronto-sagittal X-ray parameters, and measures of surgical complication rates and lengths of stay.

Results

Among 30 adolescents, 27 PSS analyses were performed. We found a significant improvement between pre- and postoperative PSS scores, mainly for pain and respiratory, digestive, and skin disabilities. These improvements were accompanied by significant reductions in pelvic obliquity, in frontal and sagittal curves. The mean hospital length of stay was 45 days. During postoperative period, patients received a personalized postoperative rehabilitation procedure with spasticity and pain treatments, physiotherapy, and verticalization (wheelchair sitting and positioning devices such as contoured seat intended to increase postural stability). The mortality rate was estimated at 7%. At least 1 complication per patient occurred.

Conclusions

We show that spinal fusion surgeries confer a significant improvement in the severity health status in scoliotic adolescents with polyhandicap.

Introduction

Polyhandicap (PLH) is currently defined as a complex disability condition corresponding to a chronic affliction occurring in an immature brain [1], leading to the combination of severe/profound mental retardation and serious motor impairment, resulting in an extreme restriction of autonomy and communication [2,3].

As comorbidities accumulate in patients with PLH throughout their lives, impairments, activity limitations and health-related quality of life (QoL) worsen [4]. Among comorbidities in patients with PLH, scoliosis represents one of the most prevalent conditions with chronic respiratory insufficiency [57], chronic digestive disorders, or epilepsy [8]. Indeed, Rousseau et al. [9] estimated that the prevalence of severe scoliosis (scoliosis with Cobb angle >50°) prevalence was 60.2%, accounting for a large proportion of deaths induced by respiratory failure. The latter, represents the main cause of death in adults with PLH [9] (63.2%).

Even if the natural history [10], risk factors, treatments [11,12] and complications [13] of scoliosis with Cobb angle >50° are well known in nonambulant cerebral palsy (CP) patients (Gross Motor Function Classification System—GMFCS level 5), few data are available in PLH [3].

Hodgkinson et al. [14] found severe neuro-orthopaedic impairments in adolescents with PLH were associated with poor general condition. They hypothesized that multidisciplinary therapeutic strategies must include surgical scoliosis treatment to improve pain, comfort, and positioning. However, Cassidy et al. [15] found no differences in terms of pain, function, or time for daily care when comparing adolescents with PLH who underwent thoracolumbar spinal fusion with the nonoperated control group. De Lattre et al. [16] also failed to demonstrate improvements in health status between non operated and operated adolescents with PLH. They also reported a high rate of per- and postoperative complications (93,7%). McCarthy et al. [17] reported a rate of perioperative death up to 7% in nonambulant CP patients.

Previous studies estimated that 12% to 32% of subjects with PLH underwent scoliosis surgery [9]. Thus, there is still considerable interest in investigating whether scoliosis surgery truly confers measurable benefits on subsequent health and daily life comfort in adolescents with PLH. If it is hypothesized that surgeries lead to measurable clinical and radiological benefits, valid clinical evaluations are lacking.

The aims of this study were first to evaluate whether the health status variation in adolescents with PLH was improved after scoliosis surgery and second to evaluate the incidence of perioperative complications.

Material and methods

Study design

We conducted a monocentric retrospective observational study, reviewing charts of adolescents with PLH who underwent surgery for severe neurologic scoliosis. Recruitment occurred in paediatric orthopedic surgery and physical rehabilitation medicine departments of the University Hospital Centre of Saint-Etienne. This study, conducted from September 2020 to June 2021, was approved by the institutional review board (Institutional Review Board: IORG0007394—IRBN492021/CHUSTE–“Terre d’Ethique” Research Committee–Hospital Centre of Saint-Etienne). All familial caregivers received written information about the study, according to French law, for retrospective studies. A written consent was collected from all caregivers. STROBE guidelines were followed to report this study.

Participants

All adolescents with PLH who underwent definitive spinal fusion surgery for scoliosis with Cobb angle >50° were eligible. Additionally, surgical indication was determined through a multidisciplinary evaluation, considering various parameters including respiratory and abdominal disorders, complications in wheelchair installation, and severe axial hypotonia. PLH was defined as a combination of cerebral lesions onseted under 3 years old and responsible for severe motor deficiency with restricted mobility (GMFCS V), associated with profound intellectual impairment, and daily life dependence (Functional Independence Measure—FIM < 55) [18]. A minimum of 12 months follow-up was required for inclusion and postoperative data collection, except in adolescents presenting lethal complications during procedure or in the immediate follow-up, who were also considered in the analysis. Patients were operated on by one surgeon to ensure population homogeneity. Surgery consisted in all patients in an hybrid instrumentation of the spine: patients in supine position; pelvic fixation to correct the pelvis obliquity; instrumentation of the lumbar area with pedicular screws; thoracic area with sublaminar ligaments and hook-claw at the upper part of the instrumentation; rods were self-bowing by surgeon during the procedure; all implants from Medtronic (Medicrea, Rillieux la Pape 69140, France).

Postoperative care systematically included one night in ICU for monitoring. Pain medication started peroperatively with intrathecal injection of morphine (5 μg/kg). A peridural catheter was maintained during 48h to 5 days with continual perfusion of low dose ropivacaine 0.2% (related to patient weight), and if necessary, paracetamol, ketoprofen, diazepam and oral morphine (related to patient weight and respiratory status) could be used. Esomeprazole for gastric ulcer prevention, lactulose per oral for constipation prevention, and enoxaparin if necessary (related to risk factors) were also administered. Feeding started one day after spinal fusion, through various modalities depending on patients. Lower limbs mobilizations were started two days postoperatively in sitting position, then performed every day. Analysis of targeted medical, paramedical records and X-ray data prior to (in the 6 months preceding) and after surgery (12 months postoperative) in patients operated on between 2009 and 2020 was performed (see Fig 1).

Fig 1. Study design.

Fig 1

M Months; PSS Polyhandicap Severity Score; mCDS modified Clavien-Dindo-Sink classification; FCA Frontal Cobb Angle; FB Frontal Balance; OBL Pelvic Obliquity; SCA Sagittal Cobb Angle; SB Sagittal Balance; PI Pelvic Incidence; SS Sacral Slope; PT Pelvic Tilt.

Data

Data were collected by independent evaluators using a specific research algorithm corresponding to the French nomenclature of surgically performed acts. All variables of interest were subsequently extracted from the eligible charts. In addition, we contacted families through phone calls to document parent’s feelings about their adolescent’s QoL after surgery. Two independent evaluators (HB and EO) performed X-ray measurements to reduce ascertainment bias. In cases of disagreement (>6° or >7° differences between two measurements, respectively in frontal and sagittal planes), the referring surgeon (BD) arbitrated the decision. For all outcomes, we only considered the earliest preoperative measurements and the latest postoperative ones.

Data extraction was completed from computerized charts by the first author (HB) who was not involved in the surgical procedure nor medical postoperative follow-up. Method for fulfilling evaluation form was as exhaustive as possible to limit risk of bias. Age at surgery, sex, care facility, preoperative FIM, past surgical history, PLH aetiology, type of physical disability, pain, body mass index (BMI), spontaneous posture, communication level, feeding strategies, and presence of medical devices were extracted. These data were compiled to rate the severity health status of each participant [19] according to the Polyhandicap Severity Scale (PSS). The PSS provides an accurate evaluation of health status regarding abilities, comorbidities and impairments, and assesses the level of global severity of the health status of persons with PLH. This scale ranges scores from 0 to 129, from less to higher levels of severity. A global PSS score was calculated as the sum of the two PSS subscores, respectively “comorbidities and impairments” (coPSS, ranging from 0 to 69) and “abilities” (abPSS, ranging from 0 to 60), according to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Semi structured interviews (see Fig 2) were conducted with families to collect verbatim interviews. We also rated pre- and postoperative PolyQoL scores [20]. This validated short-scale is composed of two domains called health and social, ranging QoL scores from 0 (worst) to 100 (better).

Fig 2. Semi structured interviews (phone calls).

Fig 2

X-ray parameters were extracted from pre- and postoperative X-rays (sagittal and frontal). A specific software program (Surgimap Spine® 2021, Nemaris, Inc.) was used for all spinal and pelvic measurements, as it offers semiautomatic procedures with good inter- and intraobserver reliability, even on instrumented spines. Frontal X-ray data included skeletal maturity (Risser test), frontal Cobb angles (FCA), pelvic obliquity (OBL) and frontal balance (FB). Sagittal parameters included sagittal Cobb angles (SCA) and sagittal balance (SB). Using the same software, we measured pelvic incidence (PI), pelvic tilt (PT) and sacral slope (SS). Frontal and sagittal curves were added separately to obtain a “full curvature degree” for each participant, reflecting the amount of deformity.

Peri- and postoperative complications ranged according to the modified Clavien-Dindo-Sink classification [21] (mCDS). We collected blood loss data (loss of more than 1 blood volume), deep wound infections (DWI) and operative durations. We also calculated hospital lengths of stay, composed of the sum of paediatric surgery, intensive care unit (ICU), and rehabilitation department stays (days of hospitalization).

Statistical analysis

We first checked if variables followed a normal distribution. Descriptive statistics were reported as means with standard deviation (SD) for quantitative variables and frequencies for qualitative variables (%). We used paired t tests for normally distributed variables for comparison of pre- and postoperative variables. Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank tests were used for nonparametric repartitions. Univariate analysis was conducted for postoperative PSS scores and PSS score variations and their related subscores, using Mann-Whitney tests for qualitative variables and Spearman correlation matrices for quantitative data (Prism GraphPad® software for Windows, version 5.03, San Diego California USA, www.graphpad.com). Significance threshold was set at p < 0.05.

Results

Participants

We registered 116 patients presenting with a neuromuscular disease or CP who underwent a surgical procedure for scoliosis. Among them, 30 patients (19 women, 11 men) met the definition of PLH (see flow chart—Fig 3).

Fig 3. Flow chart.

Fig 3

Descriptive data

The mean age at surgery was 15 (3) years old. The preoperative mean FIM was 22 (10). PLH aetiology was unknown for 8 adolescents and progressive for 6 adolescents. Twenty patients had undergone previous orthopaedic surgery, mainly multilevel tenotomy surgery (n = 9). The mean BMI before surgery was 17.4 (3.9) kg/m². Descriptive data are reported in Table 1.

Table 1. Descriptive data.

n %
Mean age at surgery
(+/-sd)
15.2 (+/-2.8) NA
Median age at surgery
[Interquartile Interval]
14.7 [13.0;16.2] NA
Gender
Female 19 63%
Male 11 37%
Aetiology
Unknown 8 27%
Known 22 73%
•Progressive 6 20%
•Non progressive 16 53%
Past surgical history
No previous surgery 10 33%
At least one surgery 20 67%
•Bone surgery 5 17%
•Musculo tendinous surgery 9 30%
•Combined surgery 6 20%
Medical devices
Gastrostomy
•With 14 47%
•Without 16 53%
IT Baclofen pump
•With 7 23%
•Without 23 77%
Type of care facility
Home (only) 2 7%
Rehabilitation facilities 28 93%

The mean preoperative scores were 53 (17), 14 (5), and 39 (13) for PSS (/129), coPSS (/69) and abPSS (/60) respectively. For postoperative scores, we found a score of 49 (16) for PSS, a score of 12 (4) for coPSS and a score of 37 (13) for abPSS. Data were missing in 3 cases: 1 adolescent died during surgery and 2 medical records were insufficient for exhaustive PSS grading before and after surgery. Another adolescent died 7 days after surgery, but postoperative PSS scoring was possible. Seven caregivers agreed to answer semistructured interviews. The mean preoperative PolyQoL score was 64 (12). Mean postoperative PolyQoL score was 77 (10). Pre- and postoperative data, with related means of difference, are shown in Table 2. A scatter plot of individual preoperative versus postoperative PSS scores is provided in Fig 4.

Table 2. Variations in clinical and X-ray parameters, 6 months before and 12 months after spinal fusion.

Preoperative Postoperative Mean of difference p values CI
PSS (/129) 56.5 [39.5;65.5] 55 [39;62.5] -2.8 (3.5) 3. 10 −4 1.5 to 4.2
coPSS (/69) 13.5 [11.3;19.5] 11.5 [10;15] -2.2 (2.9) 6. 10 −4 1.0 to 3.3
abPSS (/60) 45 [27;50] 40 [26;49] -0.7 (0.9) 9. 10 −4 0.3 to 1.0
PolyQoL (/100) 71 [62;81] 85 [71;94] 12.2 (12.7) 0.09 NA
BMI (kg/m²) 16.8 [15.1;19.4] 18.3 [16.5;20.0] 1.4 (1.5) 7. 10 −4 -2.1 to -0.7
FCA (°) 91 [62;106] 39 [21;50] -55.1 (37.3) < 10 −4 39.0 to 71.3
SCA (°) 159 [96;178] 95 [80;120] -46.9 (51.6) 9. 10 −4 22.0 to 71.8
OBL (°) 13 [7;18] 7 [3;10] -6.7 (6.1) < 10 −4 3.96 to 9.40
SS (°) 36 [21;57] 36 [31;57] -5.4 (21.3) 0.28 -15.3 to 4.63
PT (°) 27 [17;47] 20 [14;35] -7.8 (22.4) 0.047 0.1 to 19.7

Medians with [IQR], means (sd), confidence intervals (CI: min to max). Significance threshold was set at p < 0.05.

Fig 4. Scatter plot of individual preoperative versus postoperative PSS scores.

Fig 4

Mean PSS evolution with standard error is represented by the large red solid line with error bar. PSS evolution i.e improvement (n = 18; dark solid line), stability (n = 8; grey solid line), worsening (n = 1; grey dashed line) are represented for each individual.

For complications, all the subjects presented at least 1 per- or postoperative complication. Among them, 9 were rated grade 1, and 10 were rated grade 4 according to the mCDS classification (Fig 5). More accurately, 6 presented with a deep wound infection (DWI), and 13 with a major blood loss. Neither neurologic, nor digestive or pancreatic complications were noted postoperatively in the patients. Finally, we found a mortality rate of 6.7% during follow-up: 1 death occurred during the surgical procedure, which was related to heart failure during anaesthesia, and 1 in the ICU due to multisystemic failure 7 days after surgery.

Fig 5. Proportions (%) of complications as classified by mCDS scoring (minor to severe complications, from grade 1 to 5).

Fig 5

Grade 1 (n = 9): Wound leakage, constipation, nonsevere lung infection; Grade 2 (n = 5): Non severe dura mater breach, delayed wound healing; Grade 3 (n = 2): Deep wound infection, treated with second surgery + IV antibiotics; Grade 4 (n = 10): Any complication requiring ICU admission: Complex deep wound infection, renal failure, urinary sepsis, severe lung infection, delayed awakening after anaesthesia, central venous catheter infection; Grade 5 (n = 2): Per operative death or early postoperative death (within 7 days); NA (n = 2): Missing data.

The mean hospital length of stay was 44.7 days (20 to 83 days), respectively comprising 3.6 (2.7) days (1 to 10) in the ICU, 14.3 (8.3) days (1 to 34) in the paediatric surgery department, and 26.9 (12.9) days (0 to 56) in the rehabilitation department.

Analysis

We found significant variations (p < 10−3) between the pre- and postoperative assessments: -2.83 (3.49) for PSS, -2.17 (2.87) for coPSS, and -0.67 (0.92) for abPSS. Among 28 patients who survived surgery, we were able to fully analyse 27 charts. PSS scores worsened for 1 adolescent, PSS scores remained unchanged for 8 adolescents, and PSS scores improved for 18 adolescents. Pain was the first cause of improvement in coPSS assessment, found in 33% of all the adolescents (n = 9). This finding was followed by respiratory disability (n = 8), and digestive and skin disability improvements (each n = 7). Regarding behavioural disorders, improvements were found in 5 cases. For abPSS, 12 adolescents were improved, mainly for general, sitting, supine postures and feeding domains. None of the adolescents analysed presented with less ability after surgery, and 15 were stabilized (equal pre- and postscore).

Of all the families contacted, 7 agreed with answering semistructured interviews. We report here the most salient quotations: “surgery was inevitable” (family 11); “without this surgery, my daughter would have lost a sitting position” (family 21); and “PLH would have made the rest of her life very uncertain” (family 16).

For X-ray data, we highlighted statistically significant mean variations for FCA (p < 10−4), SCA (p < 10−3), OBL (p < 10−4), PT (p < 0.05). We did not show any significant variations for SS (p = 0.28).

Other analyses

In univariate analysis, we found that postoperative PSS scores were moderately correlated with preoperative FIM (p < 10−3, ρS = -0,61), BMI (p = 0.02, ρS = -0,50), and OBL (p = 0.03, ρS = -0,48) (see Table 3). Regarding PSS score variations, OBL was the unique preoperative factor we found to be correlated (p < 0.05, ρS = -0,48). Specifically, coPSS score variations were correlated with preoperative FIM (p = 0.04, ρS = 0,41), FCA (p = 0.01, ρS = -0,53), and OBL (p = 0.007, ρ = -0,56).

Table 3. Univariate analysis of postoperative Polyhandicap Severity Scale scores.

(a)
Spearman ρ coefficient p values
FIM -0,61 < 10 −3
Year of surgery -0,05 0,81
Age at surgery -0,05 0,80
Risser score 0,18 0,44
preoperative BMI -0,50 0,02
preoperative FCA 0,30 0,17
preoperative OBL 0,48 0,03
preoperative FB -0,08 0,71
preoperative SCA 0,36 0,15
preoperative PI 0,18 0,46
preoperative SS -0,26 0,28
preoperative PT 0,36 0,13
preoperative SB 0,27 0,28
(b)
Groups n Mean Rank Sum of Ranks U p values
Gastrostomy With 12 60.96 243 15 < 10 −3
Without 15 39.93 135
IT Baclofen pump With 5 53 78.5 46.5 0.62
Without 22 48.43 299.5
Sex Female 18 50.47 254.5 78.5 0.92
Male 9 46.89 123.5
Aetiology Progressive 6 58.83 80 19 0.09
Non progressive 13 48.5 110
Past surgical history Yes 17 53.26 269 54 0.13
No 10 42.5 109

(a) Spearman correlation matrix for quantitative preoperative outcomes (b) Mann-Whitney tests for qualitative preoperative outcomes. Significance threshold was set at p < 0.05.

Baclofen pump implantation prior to spinal fusion was not associated with complication severity regarding mCDS (p = 0,27) or DWI (p = 1.0) (see Table 4). For hospital lengths of stay, the older the patients were, the shorter their ICU stay (p < 10−3, ρS = -0,69).

Table 4. Deep Wound Infection univariate analysis.

No DWI (n = 24) DWI (n = 6) p values
Gender* Male 6 (25%) 5 (83%) 0.016
Female 18 (75%) 1 (17%)
IT Baclofen pump* Without 18 (75%) 5 (83%) 1
With 6 (25%) 1 (17%)
Preoperative BMI 16.8 [15.5;18.9] 16.5 [15.1;19.3] 1
Preoperative PSS 55 [40;65] 65 [58;65] 0.43
Age at surgery 15 [12.9;17.3] 14.7 [14.3;14.8] 0.98

Medians with [IQR] (Mann-Whitney tests) and proportions (Fisher exact tests*). Significance threshold was set at p < 0.05.

Discussion

In the present study, we aimed to describe comorbidities, impairments, activity limitations and QoL before and after spinal fusions in adolescents with PLH. We hypothesized that these surgeries lowered the severity health status and conferred clinical benefits. Our hypothesis was confirmed as PSS, coPSS and abPSS scores were significantly improved. We have nevertheless highlighted a 100% rate of complications and 2 deaths, testifying to the complexity of these surgeries.

Comorbidities, impairments, and activity limitations were evaluated, as outlined above, with the PSS. This scale allows us to quantify the severity health status of patients with PLH, providing a new ICF-standardized and exhaustive approach for clinical assessments. We believe in that better preoperative clinical specifications could help in identifying patients who may better tolerate and benefit from spinal fusions. Scoliosis surgery seems to represent a strong contribution to the long-term management of health in persons with PLH [2]. The results of our study demonstrate that spinal fusion surgery in adolescents with PLH leads to a reduction in comorbidities (respiratory, digestive, skin, behavioural, pain, etc.) and seems to allow a slight improvement in neurodevelopmental status.

Moreover in this study, we could interview seven of all families through semistructured questionnaires: witness families reported that spinal fusions conferred a global improvement in QoL. The parents’ statements were mostly positive: during the preoperative period, they had difficulty accepting the vital risk of spinal surgery, but in retrospect, they recognized 1) that the surgery was necessary, and 2) that their child’s health (breathing, posture…) had improved even when peroperative and immediate postoperative complications surrounded. Moreover, we used a validated tool called the PolyQoL questionnaire to objectively document QoL. We did not show any significant improvement regarding PolyQoL scores, but these results must be taken with caution, likely due to our small sample of answers.

Parents and caregivers were particularly attentive to the experience before and during the surgical period and reported having psychologically benefited from preoperative comprehensive explanations. Half of them verbalized the “inevitability” of this surgery. As highlighted by Adams et al. [22], agreements on the goals of surgery between surgeons and caregivers are important. While surgeons and physicians tend to give top priority to sitting considerations, caregivers put head control and physical appearance first. The expected benefits seem to remain superior to the risk of complications, but the therapeutic strategy requires an individualized evaluation rigorously explained to caregivers of PLH adolescents [22,23]. The question of long-term clinical benefits remains important, as follow-up is rarely conducted for more than 1 year [24].

Families are often afraid when scoliosis surgery is considered for their adolescent [25]. The postoperative complication rate (100%) and perioperative mortality rate (6,7%) must be included in the decision and balanced with improvements in severity health status. In our study, the DWI rate was 20%, which is almost twice the rate as previous studies reported in CP [26] (but CP adolescents present a less severe health status than PLH adolescents we analysed). Nutritional status of patients with PLH could be questioned to explain the difference.

Geometric spine readjustment could be one of the reasons for pain alleviation by costo-pelvic impingement prevention and sitting comfort improvement [27]. We observed a reduction in bed sore frequency and gluteal erosions after surgery. We confirmed a significant improvement in BMI after surgery (mean variation of +1,37 kg/m²). As presumed in some studies, straightening the thoracolumbar spine could increase the abdominal space, allowing better peristalsis and less regurgitation [28]. However, severe postoperative pancreatitis cases have been reported after extensive arthrodesis, but we did not report any case in our population.

Regarding medical devices, we observed that IT baclofen pumps did not increase the complication rate, which is consistent with previous studies [29]. Similarly, gastrostomies were not associated with a major complication occurrence in our PLH patients, unlike CP GMFCS V patients in whom an increased risk has been shown previously [30]. Except for DWI, severe complications were mostly respiratory. Lung developmental defects, impaired neurologic command over added lung restrictive syndromes and postoperative intensive care with lung infection risks can partially explain our findings [6]. Preoperative breathing hyper insufflation strategies could be worthwhile as they demonstrated interest in spinal fusions in children with neuromuscular flaccid scoliosis [31]. As preoperative primary care visits led to lower costs and shorter hospitalizations in complex scoliosis surgeries, we support the idea of efficient preoperative rehabilitation programs before spinal fusions. Rehabilitation modalities could be determined according to the domains impacted in the preoperative PSS scoring.

Cobb corrections were 58% for FCA and 30% for SCA. Spinal fusions in adolescents with PLH provide comparable results to those found in GMFCS IV and V adolescents with CP (50 to 68% as reported). A mean PT variation of -7.8° (22.4) was observed, corresponding to a significant reduction in pelvis back-tilting. The mean correction for OBL was 47%. This X-ray parameter was correlated with the postoperative PSS score and PSS variations induced by surgery.

Strengths and limitations

Our study demonstrates for the first time, that spinal fusions reduce the global severity of adolescents with polyhandicap. However, it contains several limitations: our study was monocentric and retrospective data collection may have provided methodological bias. Broadening inclusions to various specialized centers could be of interest in a prospective approach. Longer follow-up (2–5 years) would enable us to assess the long-term effect of spinal fusion surgery on the severity health status of patients with PLH, thus further prospective studies with a longer follow-up are needed (therefore, the present one-year follow-up evaluation should not be considered as the final evaluation). By increasing the duration of follow-up and through the methodical use of standardized tools such as PSS [19] and PolyQoL [20], establishing accurate and repeatable ICF-based descriptions in patients with PLH appears to be easier. An increased sample size could also help in analysing predictive factors of clinical improvement after spinal fusions, keeping in mind the potential confounding factors we highlighted.

One of the main issues when performing spinal fusions in patients with PLH is the assessment of predicted benefits. This study aimed to support the rationale for spinal fusion, acknowledging the already known complication rates and risks in PLH adolescents. Considering the severity of the health status evaluation of these patients and the expected improvement of the global health status and comfort after spine surgery for scoliosis, each case requires careful consideration and evaluation. We support that, under the condition of acceptable preoperative health status, the indication for spinal fusion in that population could be relevant and reasonable. While retrospective evaluation is questionable, the rigorous method used during data collection should limit this bias. The PolyQoL questionnaire has been supported by the verbatim collected in a part of the population, and obviously the good health status of the patients at final follow-up confirms our hypothesis.

Conclusions

To our knowledge, this is the first study demonstrating that spinal fusions confer a significant improvement in abilities, comorbidities and impairment scores in a population of adolescents with PLH one year after surgery. By using PSS and PolyQoL scores, ICF-standardized measurement tools, we emphasize the validity of these surgical practices, when indicated. Prospective longitudinal studies could be helpful by identifying preoperative relevant parameters testifying altered QoL and deteriorated health status, pointing out the interest of surgery when PLH adolescents present with scoliosis with Cobb angle >50°. Practitioners should be informed of the importance of performing spinal fusion surgery in early adolescence of PLH patients in order to improve their global health status. While spinal fusions showed some improvement in the severity health status, one should be aware of the extremely high rate of perioperative complications fortunately treatable but often requiring readmission, making multidisciplinary expertise mandatory

Supporting information

S1 Data

(XLSX)

pone.0300065.s001.xlsx (19.9KB, xlsx)

Acknowledgments

We extend our thanks to the patients and families for their participation in this study. We acknowledge the support of Diana Rimaud (PhD), for statistical analysis supervision.

Abbreviations

abPSS

Polyhandicap Severity Scale abilities subscore

BMI

Body Mass Index

coPSS

Polyhandicap Severity Scale comorbidities and impairments subscore

CP

Cerebral Palsy

DWI

Deep Wound Infection

FB

Frontal Balance

FCA

Frontal Cobb Angle

FIM

Functional Independence Measure

GMFCS

Gross Motor Function Classification System

ICF

International Classification of Functioning, disability and health

ICU

Intensive Care Unit

IT

Intra Thecal

mCDS

modified Clavien-Dindo-Sink

OBL
PI

Pelvic Incidence

PLH

Polyhandicap

PolyQoL

Quality of life questionnaire for persons with polyhandicap

PSS

Polyhandicap Severity Scale

PT

Pelvic Til

QoL

Quality of life

SB

Sagittal Balance

SCA

Sagittal Cobb Angle

SS

Sacral Slope

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files.

Funding Statement

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

References

  • 1.Chabrier S, Pouyfaucon M, Chatelin A, Bleyenheuft Y, Fluss J, Gautheron V, et al. From congenial paralysis to post-early brain injury developmental condition: Where does cerebral palsy actually stand? Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2019. Aug;S1877065719301137. doi: 10.1016/j.rehab.2019.07.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Rousseau MC, Baumstarck K, Auquier P, Billette de Villemeur T. Health characteristics and health care trajectory of polyhandicaped person before and after 1990. Rev Neurol (Paris). 2020. Jan-Feb;176(1–2):92–99. doi: 10.1016/j.neurol.2019.04.009 Epub 2019 Jun 27. . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Maes B, Nijs S, Vandesande S, Van Keer I, Arthur-Kelly M, Dind J, et al. Looking back, looking forward: Methodological challenges and future directions in research on persons with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities. J Appl Res Intellect Disabil. 2021. Jan;34(1):250–62. doi: 10.1111/jar.12803 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Mensch SM, Echteld MA, Lemmens R, Oppewal A, Evenhuis HM, Rameckers EAA. The relationship between motor abilities and quality of life in children with severe multiple disabilities: Motor abilities and quality of life in children with SMD. J Intellect Disabil Res. 2019. Feb;63(2):100–12. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Gautheron V, Mathevon L, Bayle B, Boulard C, Paricio C, Seeman E, et al. Problèmes respiratoires des personnes polyhandicapées: le point de vue du médecin de médecine physique et de réadaptation. Mot Cérébrale Réadapt Neurol Dév. 2015. Jun;36(2):49–53. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Proesmans M, Vreys M, Huenaerts E, Haest E, Coremans S, Vermeulen F, et al. Respiratory morbidity in children with profound intellectual and multiple disability: Respiratory Morbidity and Neurocognitive Impairment. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2015. Oct;50(10):1033–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Boel L, Pernet K, Toussaint M, Ides K, Leemans G, Haan J, et al. Respiratory morbidity in children with cerebral palsy: an overview. Dev Med Child Neurol [Internet]. 2018. Oct 15 [cited 2019 Jan 23]; http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/dmcn.14060 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Arvio M, Sillanpää M. Prevalence, aetiology and comorbidity of severe and profound intellectual disability in Finland. J Intellect Disabil Res. 2003. Feb;47(Pt 2):108–12. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2788.2003.00447.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Rousseau MC, Mathieu S, Brisse C, Motawaj M, Grimont E, Auquier P, et al. Aetiologies, comorbidities and causes of death in a population of 133 patients with polyhandicaps cared for at specialist rehabilitation centres. Brain Inj. 2015. Jul 3;29(7–8):837–42. doi: 10.3109/02699052.2015.1004757 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Saito N, Ebara S, Ohotsuka K, Kumeta H, Takaoka K. Natural history of scoliosis in spastic cerebral palsy. Lancet Lond Engl. 1998. Jun 6;351(9117):1687–92. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(98)01302-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Tsirikos A. Development and treatment of spinal deformity in patients with cerebral palsy. Indian J Orthop. 2010;44(2):148. doi: 10.4103/0019-5413.62052 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Dohin B. The spastic hip in children and adolescents. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2019. Feb;105(1):S133–41. doi: 10.1016/j.otsr.2018.03.018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Jain A, Sponseller PD, Shah SA, Samdani A, Cahill PJ, Yaszay B, et al. Subclassification of GMFCS Level-5 Cerebral Palsy as a Predictor of Complications and Health-Related Quality of Life After Spinal Arthrodesis: J Bone Jt Surg. 2016. Nov;98(21):1821–8. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.15.01359 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Hodgkinson I, Jindrich ML, Metton G, Berard C. Bassin oblique, luxation de hanche et scoliose dans une population de 120 adultes polyhandicapés. Étude descriptive. Ann Réadapt Médecine Phys. 2002. Feb;45(2):57–61. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Cassidy C, Craig CL, Perry A, Karlin LI, Goldberg MJ. A reassessment of spinal stabilization in severe cerebral palsy. J Pediatr Orthop. 1994. Nov 1;14(6):731–9. doi: 10.1097/01241398-199414060-00008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.de Lattre C, Hodgkinson I, Bérard C. Retentissement de la scoliose chez les patients polyhandicapés: étude descriptive de 61 enfants et adultes polyhandicapés avec ou sans arthrodèse vertébrale. Ann Réadapt Médecine Phys. 2007. May;50(4):218–24. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.McCarthy JJ, DʼAndrea LP, Betz RR, Clements DH. Scoliosis in the Child With Cerebral Palsy: J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2006. Jun;14(6):367–75. doi: 10.5435/00124635-200606000-00006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Rousseau M-C, Winance M, Baumstarck K. Polyhandicap, profound intellectual multiple disabilities: Concept and definition of a highly specific public health issue. Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique 2023;71:102184. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Rousseau MC, Baumstarck K, Hamouda I, Valkov M, Felce A, Khaldi-Cherif S, et al. Development and initial validation of the polyhandicap severity scale. Rev Neurol (Paris). 2021. Jun;177(6):683–9. doi: 10.1016/j.neurol.2020.06.018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Hamouda I, Rousseau MC, Aim MA, Anzola AB, Loundou A, De Villemeur TB, et al. Development and initial validation of the quality of life questionnaire for persons with polyhandicap (PolyQoL). Ann Phys Rehabil Med. févr 2023;66(1):101672. doi: 10.1016/j.rehab.2022.101672 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Dodwell ER, Pathy R, Widmann RF, Green DW, Scher DM, Blanco JS, et al. Reliability of the Modified Clavien-Dindo-Sink Complication Classification System in Pediatric Orthopaedic Surgery. JBJS Open Access. 2018. Dec 20;3(4):e0020. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.OA.18.00020 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Adams AJ, Refakis CA, Flynn JM, Pahys JM, Betz RR, Bastrom TP, et al. Surgeon and Caregiver Agreement on the Goals and Indications for Scoliosis Surgery in Children With Cerebral Palsy. Spine Deform. 2019. Mar;7(2):304–11. doi: 10.1016/j.jspd.2018.07.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Tsirikos AI, Chang WN, Dabney KW, Miller F. Comparison of parents’ and caregivers’ satisfaction after spinal fusion in children with cerebral palsy. J Pediatr Orthop. 2004. Jan-Feb;24(1):54–8. doi: 10.1097/00004694-200401000-00010 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Miyanji F, Nasto LA, Sponseller PD, Shah SA, Samdani AF, Lonner B, et al. Assessing the Risk-Benefit Ratio of Scoliosis Surgery in Cerebral Palsy: Surgery Is Worth It. J Bone Jt Surg. 2018. Apr;100(7):556–63. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.17.00621 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Rousseau MC, Billette de Villemeur T, Khaldi-Cherif S, Brisse C, Felce A, Baumstarck K, et al. Adequacy of care management of patients with polyhandicap in the French health system: A study of 782 patients. Simeoni U, editor. PLOS ONE. 2018. Jul 6;13(7):e0199986. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0199986 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Sponseller PD, Shah SA, Abel MF, Newton PO, Letko L, Marks M. Infection Rate after Spine Surgery in Cerebral Palsy is High and Impairs Results: Multicenter Analysis of Risk Factors and Treatment. Clin Orthop. 2010. Mar;468(3):711–6. doi: 10.1007/s11999-009-0933-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Roberts SB, Tsirikos AI. Factors influencing the evaluation and management of neuromuscular scoliosis: A review of the literature. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 2016. Nov 21;29(4):613–23. doi: 10.3233/BMR-160675 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.DeFrancesco CJ, Miller DJ, Cahill PJ, Spiegel DA, Flynn JM, Baldwin KD. Releasing the tether: Weight normalization following corrective spinal fusion in cerebral palsy. J Orthop Surg. 2018. May;26(2):230949901878255. doi: 10.1177/2309499018782556 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Buxton K, Difazio R, Morgan A, McCabe M, Forbes PW. Intrathecal Baclofen Therapy Prior to Spinal Fusion for Patients With Gross Motor Function Classification System IV-V Cerebral Palsy: Orthop Nurs. 2018;37(2):136–43. doi: 10.1097/NOR.0000000000000434 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Nishnianidze T, Bayhan IA, Abousamra O, Sees J, Rogers KJ, Dabney KW, et al. Factors predicting postoperative complications following spinal fusions in children with cerebral palsy scoliosis. Eur Spine J. 2016. Feb;25(2):627–34. doi: 10.1007/s00586-015-4243-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Mills B, Bach JR, Sabharwal S. Posterior Spinal Fusion in Children with Flaccid Neuromuscular Scoliosis: The Role of Noninvasive Positive Pressure Ventilatory Support. J Pediatr Orthop. 2013;33(5):6. doi: 10.1097/BPO.0b013e318287058f [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Malgorzata Wojcik

23 Jan 2023

PONE-D-23-01480Impact of spinal fusion on severity health status in scoliotic adolescents with polyhandicapPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Bessaguet,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 09 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Malgorzata Wojcik, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

" The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

At this time, please address the following queries:

a) Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution. 

b) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

c) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

d) If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

"Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

5. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section. 

Additional Editor Comments:

Thank you for the opportunity to review the article, the authors have tackled an important and difficult topic.

1. The abstract says: We included scoliotic adolescents 37 with polyhandicap who underwent spinal fusion surgeries from 2009 to 2020. Was the surgical technique the same from 2009 to 2020?

2. Hospital stay of 45 days - add important information how were patients treated after surgery? Physiotherapy? Corset treatment? Drug treatment? Other treatment?

3. Did the authors take into account the recommendations of SOSORT?

4. Could the authors elaborate on this sentence?Two independent evaluators performed X-ray measurements to reduce ascertainment bias. In cases of disagreement, the referring surgeon arbitrated the decision.

5. Statistical analysis - the authors did not state to what level of significance they refer their results, moreover, the tables in which there are p-values should also include the level of significance to which the authors refer.

6. Why are descriptive statistics presented as means with standard deviation (SD) for quantitative variables and frequencies for qualitative variables (%)? Why are the median and 1st and 3rd quartile values not presented?

7. Prism GraphPad software - please add more information about the software, there is no reference, this should also be completed.

8. Table 1 - the authors should add the age of the subjects.

9. Results - in addition to tables, the authors should add figures that would enrich the simple statistical methods used.

10. The authors should add what the limitations were in this study.

11. Conclusion - state what practical implications arise from this study, how they can be used - applied.

12. Please add current references 2013-2023 and, please add reference to Prism GraphPad software.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: review.docx

pone.0300065.s002.docx (14.4KB, docx)
PLoS One. 2024 Mar 7;19(3):e0300065. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0300065.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


28 Mar 2023

Dear Editor, thank you for all the comments. Here is a detailed point-by-point response corresponding to the suggested changes made to the manuscript:

To Academic Editor - March 28th

1. "Thank you for providing the ethics documentation as reply to our previous request.

Please include an English translation of the ethics committee approval letter as an "Other" file. Please note that no officially translated version of the documents is required, but that the authors themselves can translate the ethics documents for this purpose.

Thank you for your attention. We look forward to hearing from you."

Authors

We thank the Academic Editor for this request. We uploaded as required an English translation of the ethics committee approval letter as an “Other” file (Ethics Statement – English version).

2.

2.1) Please provide the specific name of the ethics Committee that approved your study

Authors

The Ethics Committee which approved our study is “Terre d’Ethique” Research Committee :

- Institutional Review Board : IORG0007394

- Study label : IRBN492021/CHUSTE (Saint-Etienne University Hospital Centre)

We detailed this information in the Method section (page 6, line 146) and added the IRB proof with this submission (Other “Ethics Statement”)

2.2) In the ethics statement in the Methods, you have specified that verbal consent was obtained. Please provide additional details regarding how this consent was documented and witnessed, and state whether this was approved by the IRB

Authors

Thank you for this suggestion. We notice that the written information was submitted and validated to the precited Ethics Committee before caregivers diffusion. We added required precisions on the dedicated paragraph :

“All familial caregivers received written information about the study, according to French law, for retrospective studies. A written consent was collected from all caregivers” in the Methods section (page 6, lines 148-149).

To Reviewers

1. The abstract says: We included scoliotic adolescents 27 with polyhandicap who underwent spinal fusion surgeries from 2009 to 2020. Was the surgical technique the same from 2009 to 2020?

Authors

To consider this comment we changed the sentence (page 2, line 36) “We included scoliotic adolescents with polyhandicap who underwent spinal fusion surgeries from 2009 to 2020” by: “We included between 2009 to 2020, 30 scoliotic adolescents with polyhandicap who underwent spinal fusion performed with the same surgical technique and the same surgeon.”

2. Hospital stay of 45 days - add important information how were patients treated after surgery? Physiotherapy? Corset treatment? Drug treatment? Other treatment?

Authors

Each patient received personalized post-operative rehabilitation consisting in medication against spasticity and pain as needed, physiotherapy, and moltened seat confection. We added these notions to the original sentence (page 2, line 47): The mean hospital length of stay was 45 days. During postoperative period, patients received a personalized post-operative rehabilitation procedure with spasticity and pain treatments, physiotherapy, and verticalization (wheelchair sitting and positioning devices such as contoured seat intended to increase postural stability).

3. Did the authors take into account the recommendations of SOSORT?

Authors

We thank the reviewer for this interesting suggestion. Nevertheless, the SOSORT recommendations are for conservative treatment of idiopathic scoliosis. The present study targets non conservative treatment (spinal fusion surgery) for scoliotic adolescents with polyhandicap and could not include these recommendations. Therefore, the present manuscript doesn't add any changes related to the SOSORT recommendations.

4. Could the authors elaborate on this sentence? Two independent evaluators performed X-ray measurements to reduce ascertainment bias. In cases of disagreement, the referring surgeon arbitrated the decision.

Authors

Two independent evaluators (HB and EO) performed independent X-ray measurements using the semiautomatic procedures of the Surgimap Spine® software. In cases of disagreement (>6° or >7° differences between two measurements, respectively in frontal and sagittal planes as described by “Wu W, Liang J, Du Y, Tan X, Xiang X, Wang W, et al. Reliability and reproducibility analysis of the Cobb angle and assessing sagittal plane by computer-assisted and manual measurement tools. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2014 Dec;15(1):33.”), the referring surgeon (BD) was charged to arbitrate the decision.

To clarify the procedure, we added the following informations (page 7, line 164): “Two independent evaluators (HB and EO) performed X-ray measurements to reduce ascertainment bias. In cases of disagreement (>6° or >7° differences between two measurements, respectively in frontal and sagittal planes), the referring surgeon (BD) arbitrated the decision.”

5. Statistical analysis - the authors did not state to what level of significance they refer their results, moreover, the tables in which there are p-values should also include the level of significance to which the authors refer.

Authors

Significance threshold was set at p < 0.05. We added the significance threshold both in the “Statistical analysis” section (page 9, line 211) and below in the Tables (2., 3. and 4.)

6. Why are descriptive statistics presented as means with standard deviation (SD) for quantitative variables and frequencies for qualitative variables (%)? Why are the median and 1st and 3rd quartile values not presented?

Authors

We thank the reviewer to offer us the opportunity to clarify our results.

Table 1: we added the mean and median ages at surgery of our subjects (point 8.) and better described our population (number of subjects = n and their related proportions = %)

Table 2: All data presented are quantitative data (clinical scores, body mass index, angles). However, to make it clearer, we made the following corrections, expressing as recommended our data as medians [1st quartile – 3rd quartile]

7. Prism GraphPad software - please add more information about the software, there is no reference, this should also be completed.

Authors

We added more accurate information in the method section about the software version we used (page 9, line 211) : Prism GraphPad® software for Windows, version 5.03, San Diego California USA, www.graphpad.com. This software was registered to CHUSE and Saint-Etienne university under the license GPW5-865491-RAG-9037.

8. Table 1 - the authors should add the age of the subjects.

Authors

We added the age of the subjects in Table 1(mean/median ages with sd / 1st and 3rd quartile - page 10, line 231)

9. Results - in addition to tables, the authors should add figures that would enrich the simple statistical methods used.

Authors

As a way to enrich our statistical methods, we added a study description figure (page7, line 157) as presented above (Figure 1. Study design). We pay attention to use Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool before submitting it (file format .tif).

Fig 1. Study design. M Months; PSS Polyhandicap Severity Score; mCDS modified Clavien-Dindo-Sink classification; FCA Frontal Cobb Angle; FB Frontal Balance; OBL Pelvic Obliquity; SCA Sagittal Cobb Angle; SB Sagittal Balance; PI Pelvic Incidence; SS Sacral Slope; PT Pelvic Tilt.

We took care to modify the format of the 3 others figures, the numbers in manuscript body, and added respective legends in text conferring to figure caption formatting guidelines.

10. The authors should add what the limitations were in this study.

Authors

To consider the reviewer’s comment, we added a « Strengths and Limitations” paragraph at the end of the discussion section paragraph) (page 19, line 396). “Our study demonstrates for the first time, that spinal fusions reduce the global severity of adolescents with polyhandicap. However, it contains several limitations: our study was monocentric and retrospective data collection may have provided methodological bias.”

11. Conclusion - state what practical implications arise from this study, how they can be used - applied.

Authors

To highlight the implications for clinical practice we added the sentence (page 20, line 415): “Practitioners should be informed of the importance of performing spinal fusion surgery in early adolescence of PLH patients in order to improve their global health status”.

12. Please add current references 2013-2023 and, please add reference to Prism GraphPad software.

Authors

Thank you for this comment. We added Prism GraphPad® software specifications in point 7. (Windows, version 5.03, San Diego California USA, www.graphpad.com). We have updated the reference 19. Hamouda I, Rousseau MC, Aim MA, Anzola AB, Loundou A, De Villemeur TB, et al. Development and initial validation of the quality of life questionnaire for persons with polyhandicap (PolyQoL). Ann Phys Rehabil Med. févr 2023;66(1):101672. which is the most recent indexed citation dealing with polyhandicap to our knowledge.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0300065.s003.docx (260.1KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Kentaro Yamada

19 Dec 2023

PONE-D-23-01480R1Impact of spinal fusion on severity health status in scoliotic adolescents with polyhandicapPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Bessaguet,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 02 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Kentaro Yamada, M.D., Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

Thank you for your contribution to this journal. We apologize for the considerable time that has elapsed since you once received an appropriate Revision to the reviewer's comment. In fact, due to an error in our journal system, we sent you a first Revise letter without reaching the required number of reviewers determined by our journal policy.

We have now done additional reviewers and have received comments that major revisions may be necessary.

We apologize for the inconvenience, but would you please consider revising the additional reviewer's comments again?

We again apologize for the time it will take in a hurry to publication.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thank you for the submission of your research work to the journal. However, I have few concerns.

I do not agree with the authors stating severe scoliosis as Cobb angle more than 50 degrees. Severe scoliosis is usually defined when Cobb angle of more than 80 - 100 degrees.

To evaluate surgical outcomes, a minimum 2-year follow-up should be used rather than 1-year follow-up.

As mentioned by the authors, the preoperative assessment was done retrospectively by referring to the medical notes and this will create a major bias.

The sample population is heterogenous, perhaps should only focus on 1 diagnosis e.g. cerebral palsy. The sample size is low. As highlighted by the authors, a multicenter study should be conducted instead.

All patients had complications (100%), and there were 2 deaths out of 30 patients who underwent surgery (6.7% risk of death).

The authors did not mention if there were any neurologic deficits, venous thromboembolism, rate of unplanned return to OR. These are some important complications that are important to spine surgeons.

While surgical intervention showed some improvement in the severity health status in this group of patients, one should be aware of the extremely high rate of perioperative complications.

Reviewer #2: The study investigates the impact of spinal fusion surgeries on the severity of health status in adolescents with polyhandicap and scoliosis. It is a monocentric retrospective observational study, examining patients who underwent spinal fusion surgeries at the University Hospital Centre of Saint-Etienne, France, from 2009 to 2020. The primary outcome measured was the variation in the Polyhandicap Severity Scale (PSS) score post-surgery, with secondary outcomes including variations in PSS subscores, quality of life scores, X-ray parameters, and surgical complication rates and lengths of stay.

Data for the study were collected using a specific research algorithm and independently reviewed. Variables of interest were extracted from eligible charts, and families were contacted to document their perspectives on the adolescents' quality of life post-surgery. Statistical analysis included checking for normal distribution of variables, using paired t-tests, Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank tests, and univariate analysis with Mann-Whitney tests and Spearman correlation matrices.

The study included 30 patients (19 women and 11 men) who met the definition of polyhandicap. Significant improvements were observed between pre- and postoperative PSS scores, particularly in aspects like pain, respiratory, digestive, and skin disabilities. However, there was a 100% rate of complications, with at least one complication per patient and a mortality rate of 6.7% during follow-up.

While the study offers valuable insights into the effects of spinal fusion on adolescents with polyhandicap, addressing these points could enhance the depth and applicability of the findings:

1. Research design: The retrospective observational nature of the study is appropriate for the research question, but the existence of confounding factors, such as patient demographic information, consistency of the surgery, post-surgery treatments etc., limits the generalizability of the findings. Providing information or comment on this would strengthen the study's credibility and validity.

2. Statistical analysis: While the authors provide mean and standard deviations, the significance levels of the analyses should be clearly indicated. Additionally, a graphical representation of each patient's pre- and post-surgery scores would provide a clearer understanding of the data distribution, highlighting any potential skewness or outliers.

3. Implications and limitations of the study: I suggest the authors mentioning the practical implications and limitations of the study, which is important for understanding the scope and applicability of the findings.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2024 Mar 7;19(3):e0300065. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0300065.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


22 Jan 2024

Dear Editor, Dear Reviewers,

We would like to thank you for all the comments, which have helped us to improve the quality of our article. Here are detailed point-to-point responses corresponding to the suggested changes made to our manuscript entitled “Impact of spinal fusion on severity health status in scoliotic adolescents with polyhandicap”. All data underlying the findings of our manuscript is fully available in Supporting Data (dataSPH.xlsx).

We hope you will find this third version satisfactory and that it will be suitable for publication in your journal. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

HB

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers - revision.docx

pone.0300065.s004.docx (220.2KB, docx)

Decision Letter 2

Kentaro Yamada

21 Feb 2024

Impact of spinal fusion on severity health status in scoliotic adolescents with polyhandicap

PONE-D-23-01480R2

Dear Dr. Bessaguet,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Kentaro Yamada, M.D., Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer #2: The authors addressed my comments, especially the addition of graphical representations of pre- and post-surgery scores, as it provides a clear and intuitive understanding of the data distribution and individual patient outcomes.

While the limitations inherent to the retrospective nature of the study and the relatively small sample size remain, the acknowledgment of these issues and the steps taken to mitigate their impact are noted. The data presented, despite the highlighted limitations and the complexity of the patient population, provide insights into the potential benefits and risks associated with spinal fusion surgeries in this group.

In light of the above, and considering the partial support provided by the data for the study's conclusions, I support the acceptance of this manuscript for publication.

Acceptance letter

Kentaro Yamada

26 Feb 2024

PONE-D-23-01480R2

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Bessaguet,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Kentaro Yamada

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Data

    (XLSX)

    pone.0300065.s001.xlsx (19.9KB, xlsx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: review.docx

    pone.0300065.s002.docx (14.4KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    pone.0300065.s003.docx (260.1KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers - revision.docx

    pone.0300065.s004.docx (220.2KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES