Dataset Information

Are Lumbar Fusion Guidelines Followed? A Survey of North American Spine Surgeons.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To evaluate the use of guidelines for lumbar spine fusions among spine surgeons in North America.

Methods

An anonymous survey was electronically sent to all AO Spine North America members. Survey respondents were asked to indicate their opinion surrounding the suitability of instrumented fusion in a variety of clinical scenarios. Fusion indications in accordance with North America Spine Society (NASS) guidelines for lumbar fusion were considered NASS-concordant answers. Respondents were considered to have a NASS-concordant approach if ≥ 70% (13 of 18) of their answers were NASS-concordant answers. Comparisons were performed using bivariable statistics.

Results

A total of 105 responses were entered with complete data available on 70. Sixty percent of the respondents (n = 42) were considered compliant with NASS guidelines. NASS-discordant responses did not differ between surgeons who stated that they include the NASS guidelines in their decision-making algorithm (5.10 ± 1.96) and those that did not (4.68 ± 2.09) (p = 0.395). The greatest number of NASS-discordant answers in the United States. was in the South (5.75 ± 2.09), with the lowest number in the Northeast (3.84 ± 1.70) (p < 0.01). For 5 survey items, rates of NASS-discordant answers were ≥ 40%, with the greatest number of NASS-discordant responses observed in relation to indications for fusion in spinal deformity (80%). Spine surgeons utilizing a NASS-concordant approach had a significant lower number of NASS-discordant answers for synovial cysts (p = 0.03), axial low back pain (p < 0.01), adjacent level disease (p < 0.01), recurrent stenosis (p < 0.01), recurrent disc herniation (p = 0.01), and foraminal stenosis (p < 0.01).

Conclusion

This study serves an important role in clarifying the rates of uptake of clinical practice guidelines in spine surgery as well as to identify barriers to their implementation.

SUBMITTER: Montenegro TS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8255757 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThere is limited data available on the use of orthoses across varying elective spine surgeries. When previously studied in 2009, inconsistent lumbar postoperative bracing practices were reported. The present study aimed to provide a ten-year update regarding postoperative bracing practices after elective lumbar surgery among United States (U.S.) spine surgeons.MethodsA questionnaire was distributed to attendees of the Lumbar Spine Research Society Annual Meeting (April 2019). The questionnaire collected demographic information, and asked surgeons to identify if they used orthoses postoperatively after ten elective lumbar surgeries. Information regarding type of brace, duration of use, and reason for bracing was also collected. Chi-square tests and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used for comparisons.ResultsSeventy-three of 88 U.S. attending surgeons completed the questionnaire (response rate: 83%). The majority of respondents were orthopaedic surgery-trained (78%), fellowship-trained (84%), and academic surgeons (73%). The majority of respondents (60%) did not use orthoses after any lumbar surgery. Among the surgeons who braced, the overall bracing frequency was 26%. This rate was significantly lower than that reported in the literature ten years earlier (p<0.0001). Respondents tended to use orthoses most often after stand-alone lateral interbody fusions (43%) (p<0.0001). The average bracing frequency after lumbar fusions (34%) was higher than the average bracing frequency after non-fusion surgeries (16%) (p<0.0001). The most frequently utilized brace was an off the shelf lumbar sacral orthosis (66%), and most surgeons braced patients to improve pain (42%). Of surgeons who braced, most commonly did so for 2-4 months (57%).ConclusionMost surgeon respondents did not prescribe orthoses after varying elective lumbar surgeries, and the frequency overall was lower than a similar study conducted in 2009. There continues to be inconsistencies in postoperative bracing practices. In an era striving for evidence-based practices, this is an area needing more attention.

Project description:ImportanceAdrenalectomy is the definitive treatment for multiple adrenal abnormalities. Advances in technology and genomics and an improved understanding of adrenal pathophysiology have altered operative techniques and indications.ObjectiveTo develop evidence-based recommendations to enhance the appropriate, safe, and effective approaches to adrenalectomy.Evidence reviewA multidisciplinary panel identified and investigated 7 categories of relevant clinical concern to practicing surgeons. Questions were structured in the framework Population, Intervention/Exposure, Comparison, and Outcome, and a guided review of medical literature from PubMed and/or Embase from 1980 to 2021 was performed. Recommendations were developed using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology and were discussed until consensus, and patient advocacy representation was included.FindingsPatients with an adrenal incidentaloma 1 cm or larger should undergo biochemical testing and further imaging characterization. Adrenal protocol computed tomography (CT) should be used to stratify malignancy risk and concern for pheochromocytoma. Routine scheduled follow-up of a nonfunctional adrenal nodule with benign imaging characteristics and unenhanced CT with Hounsfield units less than 10 is not suggested. When unilateral disease is present, laparoscopic adrenalectomy is recommended for patients with primary aldosteronism or autonomous cortisol secretion. Patients with clinical and radiographic findings consistent with adrenocortical carcinoma should be treated at high-volume multidisciplinary centers to optimize outcomes, including, when possible, a complete R0 resection without tumor disruption, which may require en bloc radical resection. Selective or nonselective α blockade can be used to safely prepare patients for surgical resection of paraganglioma/pheochromocytoma. Empirical perioperative glucocorticoid replacement therapy is indicated for patients with overt Cushing syndrome, but for patients with mild autonomous cortisol secretion, postoperative day 1 morning cortisol or cosyntropin stimulation testing can be used to determine the need for glucocorticoid replacement therapy. When patient and tumor variables are appropriate, we recommend minimally invasive adrenalectomy over open adrenalectomy because of improved perioperative morbidity. Minimally invasive adrenalectomy can be achieved either via a retroperitoneal or transperitoneal approach depending on surgeon expertise, as well as tumor and patient characteristics.Conclusions and relevanceTwenty-six clinically relevant and evidence-based recommendations are provided to assist surgeons with perioperative adrenal care.

Project description:Objectives To assess the use of prognostic patient factors and predictive tests in clinical decision making for spinal fusion in patients with chronic low back pain. Design and setting Nationwide survey among spine surgeons in the Netherlands. Participants Surgeon members of the Dutch Spine Society were questioned on their surgical treatment strategy for chronic low back pain. Primary and secondary outcome measures The surgeons' opinion on the use of prognostic patient factors and predictive tests for patient selection were addressed on Likert scales, and the degree of uniformity was assessed. In addition, the influence of surgeon-specific factors, such as clinical experience and training, on decision making was determined. Results The comments from 62 surgeons (70% response rate) were analysed. Forty-four surgeons (71%) had extensive clinical experience. There was a statistically significant lack of uniformity of opinion in seven of the 11 items on prognostic factors and eight of the 11 items on predictive tests, respectively. Imaging was valued much higher than predictive tests, psychological screening or patient preferences (all p<0.01). Apart from the use of discography and long multisegment fusions, differences in training or clinical experience did not appear to be of significant influence on treatment strategy. Conclusions The present survey showed a lack of consensus among spine surgeons on the appreciation and use of predictive tests. Prognostic patient factors were not consistently incorporated in their treatment strategy either. Clinical decision making for spinal fusion to treat chronic low back pain does not have a uniform evidence base in practice. Future research should focus on identifying subgroups of patients for whom spinal fusion is an effective treatment, as only a reliable prediction of surgical outcome, combined with the implementation of individual patient factors, may enable the instalment of consensus guidelines for surgical decision making in patients with chronic low back pain.

Project description:BackgroundTransforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) is an effective surgery for lumbar degenerative disease. However, this fusion technique requires resection of inferior facet joint to provide access for superior facet joint resection, which results in reduced lumbar spinal stability and unnecessary trauma. We have previously developed extraforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (ELIF) that can avoid back muscle injury with direct nerve root decompression. This study aims to show that ELIF enhances lumbar spinal stability in comparison to TLIF by comparing lumbar spinal stability of L4-L5 range of motion (ROM) on 12 cadaveric spine specimens after performing TLIF or ELIF.Methods12 cadaveric spine specimens were randomly divided and treated in accordance with the different internal fixations, including ELIF with a unilateral pedicle screw (ELIF+UPS), TLIF with a unilateral pedicle screw (TLIF+UPS), TLIF with a bilateral pedicle screw (TLIF+BPS), ELIF with a unilateral pedicle screw and translaminar facet screw (ELIF+UPS+TLFS) and ELIF with a bilateral pedicle screw (ELIF+BPS). The treatment groups were exposed to a 400-N load and 6 N·m movement force to calculate the angular displacement of L4-L5 during anterior flexion, posterior extension, lateral flexion and rotation operation conditions.ResultsThe ROM in ELIF+UPS group was smaller than that of TLIF+UPS group under all operating conditions, with the significant differences in left lateral flexion and right rotation by 36.15% and 25.97% respectively. The ROM in ELIF+UPS group was higher than that in TLIF+BPS group. The ROM in the ELIF+UPS+TLFS group was much smaller than that in the ELIF+UPS group, but was not significantly different than that in the TLIF+BPS group.ConclusionsDespite that TLIF+BPS has great stability, which can be comparable by that of ELIF+UPS. Additionally, ELIF stability can be further improved by using translaminar facet screws without causing more tissue damage to patient.

Project description:BackgroundAdjacent segment disease (ASDz) is a potential complication following lumbar spinal fusion. A common nomenclature based on etiology and ASDz type does not exist and is needed to assist with clinical prognostication, decision making, and management.Questions/purposesThe objective of this study was to develop an etiology-based classification system for ASDz following lumbar fusion.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective chart review of 65 consecutive patients who had undergone both a lumbar fusion performed by a single surgeon and a subsequent procedure for ASDz. We established an etiology-based classification system for lumbar ASDz with the following six categories: "degenerative" (degenerative disc disease or spondylosis), "neurologic" (disc herniation, stenosis), "instability" (spondylolisthesis, rotatory subluxation), "deformity" (scoliosis, kyphosis), "complex" (fracture, infection), or "combined." Based on this scheme, we determined the rate of ASDz in each etiologic category.ResultsOf the 65 patients, 27 (41.5%) underwent surgery for neurogenic claudication or radiculopathy for adjacent-level stenosis or disc herniation and were classified as "neurologic." Ten patients (15.4%) had progressive degenerative disc pathology at the adjacent level and were classified as "degenerative." Ten patients (15.4%) had spondylolisthesis or instability and were classified as "instability," and three patients (4.6%) required revision surgery for adjacent-level kyphosis or scoliosis and were classified as "deformity." Fifteen patients (23.1%) had multiple diagnoses that included a combination of categories and were classified as "combined."ConclusionThis is the first study to propose an etiology-based classification scheme of ASDz following lumbar spine fusion. This simple classification system may allow for the grouping and standardization of patients with similar pathologies and thus for more specific pre-operative diagnoses, personalized treatments, and improved outcome analyses.

Project description:Background:A diseased lumbar intervertebral vacuum disc void of any structurally intact tissue may be vertically unstable. A primary standalone endoscopic decompression and interbody fusion surgery in the treatment of vertical instability in patients with a vacuum disc may be a more reliable treatment than decompression alone. Methods:The authors solicited responses to an online survey sent to spine surgeons by email, and chat groups on social media networks, including Facebook, WeChat, WhatsApp, and Linkedin. Descriptive and correlative statistics were employed to count the responses and compare the surgeon's responses recorded on a Likert scale from 1 (disagree) to 10 (agree) or in multiple-choice questions. Surgeons were asked about their familiarity with the concept of vacuum disc and vertical instability and how they would treat such patients. Kappa statistics and linear regression analysis of agreement of incoming responses were performed. Results:A total of 1,165 surgeons accessed the survey. The completion rate was 22.78. The majority surgeons were very familiar with the concept of a "vacuum disc" as a sign of end-stage lumbar degenerative disc disease and a collapsing lumbar motion segment (182/273; 66.7%; Likert score 6.53). The majority of surgeons also thought that vertical instability precedes anterolateral lumbar instability (187/273; 68.5%; Likert score 6.64) and that a vacuum disc may cause vertical instability with symptomatic dynamic foraminal & lateral recess stenosis (222/273; 81%; Likert score 7.48), mechanical back pain (201/273; 73.1%; Likert score 7.48), and may cause sciatica-type low back and leg pain (179/273; 66.3%; Likert score 6.59). The majority of surgeons indicated that vacuum phenomenon on radiographic studies is associated with vertical instability and collapse resulting in dynamic foraminal and lateral recess stenosis and should be treated surgically (199/266; 73.7%; 7 missing responses; Likert score 6.86). Preferred treatments were decompression alone without fusion (P<0.014). There was consensus in support of fusion by TLIF or PLIF with a Likert score of 6.68 (184/266; 69.2%; 7 missing responses). There was no consensus on standalone fusion. Conclusions:Vacuum phenomenon on radiographic studies is associated with a vertical instability and collapse, resulting in dynamic foraminal and lateral recess stenosis that should be treated surgically. Preferred surgical treatments were decompression alone, decompression with interbody fusion using just bone graft, and fusion employing TLIF or PLIF. Further research into the clinical significance of lumbar vacuum disc, vertical instability and its most appropriate surgical treatments if any is necessary.