Search

Background and Purpose: Current follow-up protocols for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) are based on consensus and consist of regular full-spine radiographs to monitor curve progression and surgical complications. Consensus exists to avoid inappropriate use of radiographs in children. It is unknown whether a standard radiologic follow-up (S-FU) approach is necessary or if a patient-empowered follow-up (PE-FU) approach can reduce the number of radiographs without treatment consequences., Methods and Analyses: A nationwide multicenter pragmatic randomized preference trial was designed for 3 follow-up subgroups (pre-treatment, post-brace, post-surgery) to compare PE-FU and S-FU. 812 patients with AIS (age 10-18 years) will be included in the randomized trial or preference cohorts. Primary outcome is the proportion of radiographs with a treatment consequence for each subgroup. Secondary outcomes consist of the proportion of patients with delayed initiation of treatment due to non-routine radiographic follow-up, radiation exposure, societal costs, positive predictive value, and interrelation of clinical assessment, quality of life, and parameters for initiation of treatment during follow-up. Outcomes will be analyzed using linear mixed-effects models, adjusted for relevant baseline covariates, and are based on intention-to-treat principle. Study summary: (i) a national, multicenter pragmatic randomized trial addressing the optimal frequency of radiographic follow-up in patients with AIS; (ii) first study that includes patient-empowered follow-up; (iii) an inclusive study with 3 follow-up subgroups and few exclusion criteria representative for clinical reality; (iv) preference cohorts alongside to amplify generalizability; (v) first study conducting an economic evaluation comparing both follow-up approaches.

Background and Purpose: We performed a systematic review and a survey in order to (1) evaluate the evidence for the impact of spine registries on the quality of spine care, and with that, on patient-related outcomes, and (2) evaluate the methodology used to organize, analyze, and report the "quality of spine care" from spine registries., Methods: To study the impact, the literature on all spinal disorders was searched. To study methodology, the search was restricted to degenerative spinal disorders. The risk of bias in the studies included was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Additionally, a survey among registry representatives was performed to acquire information about the methodology and practice of existing registries., Results: 4,273 unique references up to May 2014 were identified, and 1,210 were eligible for screening and assessment. No studies on impact were identified, but 34 studies were identified to study the methodology. Half of these studies (17 of the 34) were judged to have a high risk of bias. The survey identified 25 spine registries, representing 14 countries. The organization of these registries, methods used, analytical approaches, and dissemination of results are presented., Interpretation: We found a lack of evidence that registries have had an impact on the quality of spine care, regardless of whether intervention was non-surgical and/or surgical. To improve the quality of evidence published with registry data, we present several recommendations. Application of these recommendations could lead to registries showing trends, monitoring the quality of spine care given, and ultimately improving the value of the care given to patients with degenerative spinal disorders.