RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Estimating Causal Treatment Effects of Femoral and Tibial Derotational Osteotomies on Foot Progression in Children with Cerebral Palsy
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2021.03.04.21252476
DO 10.1101/2021.03.04.21252476
A1 Schwartz, Michael H.
A1 Kainz, Hans
A1 Georgiadis, Andrew G.
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/08/2021.03.04.21252476.abstract
AB Background Foot progression deviations are a common and important problem for children with CP. Tibial and femoral derotational osteotomies (TDO, FDO) are used to treat foot progression deviations, but outcomes are unpredictable. The available evidence for the causal effects of TDO and FDO is limited and weak, and thus modeling approaches are needed.Methods We queried our clinical database for individuals with a diagnosis of cerebral palsy (CP) who were less than 18 years old and had baseline and follow up gait data collected within a 3-year time span. We then used the Bayesian Causal Forest (BCF) algorithm to estimate the causal treatment effects of TDO and FDO on foot progression deviations (separate models). We examined average treatment effects and heterogeneous treatment effects (HTEs) with respect to clinically relevant covariates.Results The TDO and FDO models were able to accurately predict follow-up foot progression (r2 ∼0.7, RMSE ∼8°). The estimated causal effect of TDO was bimodal and exhibited significant heterogeneity with respect to baseline levels of foot progression and tibial torsion as well as changes in tibial torsion at follow-up. The estimated causal effect of FDO was unimodal and largely homogeneous with respect to baseline or change characteristics.Conclusions This study demonstrated the potential for causal machine-learning algorithms to impact treatment in children with CP. The causal model is accurate and appears sensible – though no gold-standard exists for validating the causal estimates. The model results can provide guidance for planning surgical corrections, and partly explain unsatisfactory outcomes observed in prior observational clinical studies.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThere was no funding received for this study.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:This study involved data previously collected for clinical purposes. Patients gave written consent for the use of their medical records in research and publication when the clinical services occurred. Data were recorded so that individuals could not be identified directly or through identifiers. The University of Minnesota Institutional Review Board (IRB) ruled that the study (STUDY00012420) was not research involving human subjects as defined by the Department of Health and Human Services and Food and Drug Administration regulations. To arrive at this determination, the IRB used WORKSHEET: Human Research (HRP-310).All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.Yes Data availability The data are not publicly available due to them containing information that could compromise research participant privacy or consent. Explicit consent to release data was not obtained from the patients, and data were collected up to 15 years ago. Thus, the vast majority of patients cannot be asked to provide their consent for release of their data. The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author (MHS) upon reasonable request and subject to data sharing agreements.