Search

Purpose: We sought to characterize trends in demographics, comorbidities, and postoperative complications among patients undergoing primary and revision cervical disc replacement (pCDR/rCDR) procedures., Methods: In this retrospective database study, the Premier Healthcare database was queried from 2006 to 2019. Annual proportions or medians were calculated for patient and hospital characteristics, comorbidities, and postoperative complications associated with CDR surgery. Trends were assessed using linear regression analyses with year of service as the sole predictor., Results: A total of 16,178 pCDR and 758 rCDR cases were identified, with a median (IQR) age of 46 (39; 53) and 51 (43; 60) years among patients, respectively. The annual number of both procedures increased between 2006 and 2019, from 135 to 2220 for pCDR (p < 0.001), and from 17 to 49 for rCDR procedures (p < 0.001), with radiculopathy being the main indication for surgery in both groups. Mechanical failure was identified as a major indication for rCDR procedures with an increase over time (p = 0.002). Baseline patient comorbidity burden (p = 0.045) and complication rates (p < 0.001) showed an increase. For both procedures, an increase in outpatient surgeries and procedures performed in rural hospitals was seen (pCDR: p = 0.045; p = 0.006; rCDR: p = 0.028; p = 0.034)., Conclusion: PCDR and rCDR procedures significantly increased from 2006 to 2019. At the same time, comorbidity burden and complication rates increased, while procedures were more often performed in an outpatient and rural setting. The identification of these trends can help guide future practice and lead to further areas of research., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Purpose: Patients with low back pain (LBP) rarely have serious underlying pathology but frequently undergo inappropriate imaging. A range of guidelines and red flag features are utilised to characterise appropriate imaging. This scoping review explores how LBP imaging appropriateness is determined and calculated in studies of primary care practice., Methods: This scoping review builds upon a previous meta-analysis, incorporating articles identified that were published since 2014, with an updated search to capture articles published since the original search. Electronic databases were searched, and citation lists of included papers were reviewed. Inclusion criteria were studies assessing adult LBP imaging appropriateness in a primary care setting. Twenty-three eligible studies were identified., Results: A range of red flag features were utilised to determine imaging appropriateness. Most studies considered appropriateness in a binary manner, by the presence of any red flag feature. Ten guidelines were referenced, with 7/23 (30%) included studies amending or not referencing any guideline. The method for calculating the proportion of inappropriate imaging varied. Ten per cent of the studies used the total number of patients presenting with LBP as the denominator, suggesting most studies overestimated the rate of inappropriate imaging, and did not capture where imaging is not performed for clinically suspicious LBP., Conclusion: Greater clarity is needed on how we define and measure imaging appropriateness for LBP, which also accounts for the problem of failing to image when indicated. An internationally agreed methodology for imaging appropriateness studies would ultimately lead to an improvement in the care delivered to patients. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.