The lexicon of multirod constructs in adult spinal deformity: a concise description of when, why, and how

The use of multirod constructs in the setting of adult spinal deformity (ASD) began to prevent rod fracture and pseudarthrosis near the site of pedicle subtraction osteotomies (PSOs) and 3-column osteotomies (3COs). However, there has been unclear and inconsistent nomenclature, both clinically and in the literature, for the various techniques of supplemental rod implantation. In this review the authors aim to provide the first succinct lexicon of multirod constructs available for the treatment of ASD, providing a universal nomenclature and definition for each type of supplementary rod. The primary rod of ASD constructs is the longest rod that typically spans from the bottom of the construct to the upper instrumented vertebrae. The secondary rod is shorter than the primary rod, but is connected directly to pedicle screws, albeit fewer of them, and connects to the primary rod via lateral connectors or cross-linkers. Satellite rods are a 4-rod technique in which 2 rods span only the site of a 3CO via pedicle screws at the levels above and below, and are not connected to the primary rod (hence the term "satellite"). Accessory rods are connected to the primary rods via side connectors and buttress the primary rod in areas of high rod strain, such as at a 3CO or the lumbosacral junction. Delta rods span the site of a 3CO, typically a PSO, and are not contoured to the newly restored lordosis of the spine, thus buttressing the primary rod above and below a 3CO. The kickstand rod itself functions as an additional means of restoring coronal balance and is secured to a newly placed iliac screw on the side of truncal shift and connected to the primary rod; distracting against the kickstand then helps to correct the concavity of a coronal curve. The use of multirod constructs has dramatically increased over the last several years in parallel with the increasing prevalence of ASD correction surgery. However, ambiguity persists both clinically and in the literature regarding the nomenclature of each supplemental rod. This nomenclature of supplemental rods should help unify the lexicon of multirod constructs and generalize their usage in a variety of scientific and clinical scenarios.

Comprehensive classification system for multirod constructs across three-column osteotomies: a reliability study

OBJECTIVE

In this study, the authors' goal was to determine the intra- and interobserver reliability of a new classification system that allows the description of all possible constructs used across three-column osteotomies (3COs) in terms of rod configuration and density.

METHODS

Thirty-five patients with multirod constructs (MRCs) across a 3CO were classified by two spinal surgery fellows according to the new system, and then were reclassified 2 weeks later. Constructs were classified as follows: the number of rods across the osteotomy site followed by a letter corresponding to the type of rod configuration: "M" is for a main rod configuration, defined as a single rod spanning the osteotomy. "L" is for linked rod configurations, defined as 2 rods directly connected to each other at the osteotomy site. "S" is for satellite rod configurations, which were defined as a short rod independent of the main rod with anchors above and below the 3CO. "A" is for accessory rods, defined as an additional rod across the 3CO attached to main rods but not attached to any anchors across the osteotomy site. "I" is for intercalary rod configurations, defined as a rod connecting 2 separate constructs across the 3CO, without the intercalary rod itself attached to any anchors across the osteotomy site. The intra- and interobserver reliability of this classification system was determined.

RESULTS

A sample estimation for validation assuming two readers and 35 subjects results in a two-sided 95% confidence interval with a width of 0.19 and a kappa value of 0.8 (SD 0.3). The Fleiss kappa coefficient (κ) was used to calculate the degree of agreement between interrater and intraobserver reliability. The interrater kappa coefficient was 0.3, and the intrarater kappa coefficient was 0.63 (good reliability). This scenario represents a high degree of agreement despite a low kappa coefficient. Correct observations by both observers were 34 of 35 and 33 of 35 at both time points. Misclassification was related to difficulty in determining connectors versus anchors.

CONCLUSIONS

MRCs across 3COs have variable rod configurations. Currently, no classification system or agreement on nomenclature exists to define the configuration of rods across 3COs. The authors present a new, comprehensive MRC classification system with good inter- and intraobserver reliability and a high degree of agreement that allows for a standardized description of MRCs across 3COs.