Search

BACKGROUND CONTEXT Outcomes of treatment in care of patients with spinal disorders are directly related to patient selection and treatment indications. However, for many disorders, there is absence of consensus for precise indications. With the increasing emphasis on quality and value in spine care, it is essential that treatment recommendations and decisions are optimized. PURPOSE The purpose of the North American Spine Society Appropriate Use Criteria was to determine the appropriate (ie reasonable) multidisciplinary treatment recommendations for patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis across a spectrum of more common clinical scenarios. STUDY DESIGN A Modified Delphi process was used. METHODS The methodology was based on the Appropriate Use Criteria development process established by the Research AND Development Corporation. The topic of degenerative spondylolisthesis was selected by the committee, key modifiers determined, and consensus reached on standard definitions. A literature search and evidence analysis were completed by one work group simultaneously as scenarios were written, reviewed, and finalized by another work group. A separate multidisciplinary rating group was assembled. Based on the literature, provider experience, and group discussion, each scenario was scored on a nine-point scale on two separate occasions, once without discussion and then a second time following discussion based on the initial responses. The median rating for each scenario was then used to determine if indications were rarely appropriate (1 – 3), uncertain (4-6), or appropriate (7-9). Consensus was not mandatory. RESULTS There were 131 discrete scenarios. These addressed questions on bone grafting, imaging, mechanical instability, radiculopathy with or without neurological deficits, obesity, and yellow flags consisting of psychosocial and medical comorbidities. For most of these, appropriateness was established for physical therapy, injections, and various forms of surgical intervention. The diagnosis of spondylolisthesis should be determined by an upright x-ray. Scenarios pertaining to bone grafting suggested that patients should quit smoking prior to surgery, and that use of BMP should be reserved for patients who had risk factors for non-union. Across all clinical scenarios, physical therapy (PT) had an adjusted mean of 7.66, epidural steroid injections 5.76, and surgery 4.52. Physical therapy was appropriate in most scenarios, and most appropriate in patients with back pain and no neurological deficits. Epidural steroid injections were most appropriate in patients with radiculopathy. Surgery was generally more appropriate for patients with neurological deficits, higher disability scores, and dynamic spondylolisthesis. Mechanical back pain and presence of yellow flags tended to be less appropriate, and obesity in general had relatively little influence on decision making. Decompression alone was more strongly considered in the presence of static versus dynamic spondylolisthesis. On average, posterior fusion with or without interbody fusion was similarly appropriate, and generally more appropriate than stand-alone interbody fusion which was in turn more appropriate than interspinous spacers. CONCLUSIONS Multidisciplinary appropriate treatment criteria were generated based on the Research AND Development methodology. While there were consistent and significant differences between surgeons and non-surgeons, these differences were generally very small. This document provides comprehensive evidence-based recommendations for evaluation and treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis. The document in its entirety will be found on the North American Spine Society website ( https://www.spine.org/Research-Clinical-Care/Quality-Improvement/Appropriate-Use-Criteria) .

Background context The North American Spine Society's (NASS) Evidence Based Clinical Guideline for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Low Back Pain features evidence-based recommendations for diagnosing and treating adult patients with nonspecific low back pain. The guideline is intended to reflect contemporary treatment concepts for nonspecific low back pain as reflected in the highest quality clinical literature available on this subject as of February 2016. PURPOSE The purpose of the guideline is to provide an evidence-based educational tool to assist spine specialists when making clinical decisions for adult patients with nonspecific low back pain. This article provides a brief summary of the evidence-based guideline recommendations for diagnosing and treating patients with this condition. Study design This is a guideline summary review. Methods This guideline is the product of the Low Back Pain Work Group of NASS’ Evidence-Based Clinical Guideline Development Committee. The methods used to develop this guideline are detailed in the complete guideline and technical report available on the NASS website. In brief, a multidisciplinary work group of spine care specialists convened to identify clinical questions to address in the guideline. The literature search strategy was developed in consultation with medical librarians. Upon completion of the systematic literature search, evidence relevant to the clinical questions posed in the guideline was reviewed. Work group members utilized NASS evidentiary table templates to summarize study conclusions, identify study strengths and weaknesses, and assign levels of evidence. Work group members participated in webcasts and in-person recommendation meetings to update and formulate evidence-based recommendations and incorporate expert opinion when necessary. The draft guideline was submitted to an internal and external peer review process and ultimately approved by the NASS Board of Directors. Results Eighty-two clinical questions were addressed, and the answers are summarized in this article. The respective recommendations were graded according to the levels of evidence of the supporting literature. Conclusions The evidence-based clinical guideline has been created using techniques of evidence-based medicine and best available evidence to aid practitioners in the diagnosis and treatment of adult patients with nonspecific low back pain. The entire guideline document, including the evidentiary tables, literature search parameters, literature attrition flowchart, suggestions for future research, and all of the references, is available electronically on the NASS website at https://www.spine.org/ResearchClinicalCare/QualityImprovement/ClinicalGuidelines.aspx

Background context The objective of the North American Spine Society's (NASS) Evidence-Based Clinical Guideline for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Lumbar Disc Herniation with Radiculopathy is to provide evidence-based recommendations to address key clinical questions surrounding the diagnosis and treatment of lumbar disc herniation with radiculopathy. The guideline is intended to reflect contemporary treatment concepts for symptomatic lumbar disc herniation with radiculopathy as reflected in the highest quality clinical literature available on this subject as of July 2011. The goals of the guideline recommendations are to assist in delivering optimum efficacious treatment and functional recovery from this spinal disorder. Purpose To provide an evidence-based educational tool to assist spine specialists in the diagnosis and treatment of lumbar disc herniation with radiculopathy. Study design Systematic review and evidence-based clinical guideline. Methods This guideline is a product of the Lumbar Disc Herniation with Radiculopathy Work Group of NASS' Evidence-Based Guideline Development Committee. The work group consisted of multidisciplinary spine care specialists trained in the principles of evidence-based analysis. A literature search addressing each question and using a specific search protocol was performed on English-language references found in Medline, Embase (Drugs and Pharmacology), and four additional evidence-based databases to identify articles. The relevant literature was then independently rated using the NASS-adopted standardized levels of evidence. An evidentiary table was created for each of the questions. Final recommendations to answer each clinical question were developed via work group discussion, and grades were assigned to the recommendations using standardized grades of recommendation. In the absence of Level I to IV evidence, work group consensus statements have been developed using a modified nominal group technique, and these statements are clearly identified as such in the guideline. Results Twenty-nine clinical questions were formulated and addressed, and the answers are summarized in this article. The respective recommendations were graded by strength of the supporting literature, which was stratified by levels of evidence. Conclusions The clinical guideline has been created using the techniques of evidence-based medicine and best available evidence to aid practitioners in the care of patients with symptomatic lumbar disc herniation with radiculopathy. The entire guideline document, including the evidentiary tables, suggestions for future research, and all the references, is available electronically on the NASS Web site at http://www.spine.org/Pages/PracticePolicy/ClinicalCare/ClinicalGuidlines/Default.aspx and will remain updated on a timely schedule.

Background context Low back pain (LBP) is a symptom, not a diagnosis. The failure to differentiate underlying diagnoses in patients complaining of LBP is one of the primary reasons that studies examining treatments for LBP have yielded inconsistent results. To design a lumbar spine registry such that the accumulated data provide applicable guidance for clinical treatment, the incorporation of a functional diagnostic matrix is critical. Purpose To propose a clinically relevant diagnostic classification scheme, simple enough for use in clinical practice but granular enough to differentiate characteristics that impact clinical outcome. Study design Case-based development, feasibility, and reliability testing of a classification scheme. Patient sample Thirty case histories were compiled. Each case consisted of a brief clinical history with physical examination findings as well as pertinent radiographic images, including computed tomography scan and magnetic resonance image when available. Outcome measures Kappa values for inter- and intrarater reliability. Methods Thirty-six physicians were asked to provide a three-digit diagnostic code, specifying Symptoms, Structural Pathology, and Compressive Pathology for each case. The cases were then randomly rearranged and sent back to the physicians 2 weeks later for a second review. Inter- and intraobserver reliability was calculated using Randolph's free-marginal multirater kappa. Symptoms are classified differentiating between patients with back or leg pain dominance and those with equal back and leg pain; symptoms are also divided as acute versus chronic. Additional categories denote neurogenic claudication and cauda equina. Structural Pathology includes an option for age appropriate changes. Additional options include disc pathology with and without disc space collapse; spondylolisthesis or spondylolysis without olisthesis; and regional spinal deformity, either scoliosis or kyphosis. The remaining structural categories are primary facet pathology and nonunion after attempted fusion. Compressive Pathology includes a category indicating the absence of any study on which to judge compressive pathology and a category indicating an available study, but the lack of any clinically relevant compressive pathology. Additional options are for either central compression or lateral recess/foraminal/extraforaminal compressive pathology of any etiology. There is also a category for combined central and lateral compression. The final category is recurrent compression, central, lateral, or combined compression after surgical treatment at the involved level. It is important to emphasize that the intention is only to categorize Structural and Compressive Pathology that is relevant to the patient's symptom complex. When more than one relevant structural or compressive lesion exists, the provider should select the most clinically relevant finding. Results The interrater agreement was substantial for Symptoms (κ=0.70) and moderate for Structural Pathology (κ=0.58) and Compressive Pathology (κ=0.53). The intrarater agreement was substantial for Symptoms (κ=0.78), Structural Pathology (κ=0.70), or Compressive Pathology (κ=0.67). Conclusions This study demonstrates that improved diagnostic stratification of lumbar spine disorders is a feasible goal. The diagnostic coding matrix, based on clinically relevant descriptors, yielded substantial interrater consistency for symptoms, moderate interrater consistency for structural and compressive pathology, and substantial intrarater consistency for all elements.

Background context There is increasing evidence for a role of the cannabinoid (CB) system in the development of neuropathic pain (NP) after spinal cord injury (SCI). The nonspecific CB 1 and CB 2 receptor agonists, WIN 55, 212-2 (WIN), have previously been shown to alleviate both mechanical and thermal hyperalgesia (TH) after peripheral nerve injury. Purpose The present study was designed to identify the CB receptors involved in the antihyperalgesic effect of WIN by using selective antagonists for CB 1 and CB 2 receptors. Study design This is an in vivo and behavioral study using a moderate T9 contusion SCI. After injury, TH of the hind paws was measured on postinjury days 21 through 42. Methods Sprague-Dawley rats underwent a contusion SCI using the Multicenter Animal Spinal Cord Injury Study (MASCIS) weight-drop impactor, which induced a moderate T9 SCI. Only animals showing consistent plantar stepping and consistent forelimb and hind limb coordination (Basso, Beattie, and Bresnahan score=15) were tested for TH. Animals exhibiting decreased withdrawal latency time, indicating TH, on or before Day 42, were selected for pharmacological intervention. Animals not exhibiting TH did not receive pharmacological intervention and were sacrificed. Rats underwent hind paw testing before any drug administration (after injury), 45 minutes after selective CB antagonist (AM 251 or AM 630) administration (postantagonist) and again 45 minutes after WIN administration (post-WIN). There were a total of seven treatment groups: saline vehicle control; Dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) vehicle control; low-dose WIN (0.2 mg/kg); and high-dose WIN (2.0 mg/kg); AM 251 (3 mg/kg) and AM 630 (1 mg/kg) were given subcutaneously in a total volume of 0.5 mL. Followed by intraperitoneal injection of WIN after each antagonist, sham-operated rats repeated pharmacological intervention used with treatment Groups 5 and 6. Results Thermal hyperalgesia was significantly ameliorated in a dose-dependent manner with systemically administered WIN. Cannabinoid receptor Type 1 antagonist AM 251 pretreatment did not affect the antihyperalgesic effect of WIN. By contrast, pretreatment with the CB 2 receptor antagonist AM 630 significantly attenuated the effect of WIN. Conclusion Taken together, these results suggest a role of the CB 2 receptor in modulating SCI-induced TH. Selective activation of the CB 2 receptor could potentially lead to analgesic effects on NP while avoiding psychotropic side effects in patients with SCI.

Background Context The objective of the North American Spine Society (NASS) evidence-based clinical guideline on the diagnosis and treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis is to provide evidence-based recommendations on key clinical questions concerning the diagnosis and treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. The guideline is intended to address these questions based on the highest quality clinical literature available on this subject as of January 2007. The goal of the guideline recommendations is to assist the practitioner in delivering optimum, efficacious treatment of and functional recovery from this common disorder. Purpose To provide an evidence-based, educational tool to assist spine care providers in improving the quality and efficiency of care delivered to patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Study Design Systematic review and evidence-based clinical guideline. Methods This report is from the Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis Work Group of the NASS Evidence-Based Clinical Guideline Development Committee. The work group was comprised of multidisciplinary spine care specialists, all of whom were trained in the principles of evidence-based analysis. Each member participated in the development of a series of clinical questions to be addressed by the group. The final questions agreed on by the group are the subject of this report. A literature search addressing each question and using a specific search protocol was performed on English language references found in MEDLINE, EMBASE (Drugs and Pharmacology) and four additional, evidence-based, databases. The relevant literature was then independently rated by at least three reviewers using the NASS-adopted standardized levels of evidence. An evidentiary table was created for each of the questions. Final grades of recommendation for the answer to each clinical question were arrived at via face-to-face meetings among members of the work group using standardized grades of recommendation. When Level I–IV evidence was insufficient to support a recommendation to answer a specific clinical question, expert consensus was arrived at by the work group through the modified nominal group technique and is clearly identified as such in the guideline. Results Nineteen clinical questions were formulated, addressing issues of prognosis, diagnosis, and treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. The answers to these 19 clinical questions are summarized in this document. The respective recommendations were graded by the strength of the supporting literature that was stratified by levels of evidence. Conclusions A clinical guideline for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis has been created using the techniques of evidence-based medicine and using the best available evidence as a tool to aid practitioners involved with the care of this condition. The entire guideline document, including the evidentiary tables, suggestions for future research, and all references, is available electronically at the NASS Web site ( www.spine.org ) and will remain updated on a timely schedule.

Background Context The objective of the North American Spine Society's (NASS) Evidence-Based Clinical Guideline on Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Spine Surgery is to provide evidence-based recommendations on key clinical questions concerning the use of prophylactic antibiotics in spine surgery. The guideline is intended to address these questions based on the highest quality clinical literature available on this subject as of December 2006. The goal of the guideline recommendations is to assist in delivering optimum, efficacious treatment to prevent surgical site infection. Purpose To provide an evidence-based, educational tool to assist spine surgeons in preventing surgical site infections. Study Design Evidence-based Clinical Guideline. Methods This report is from the Antibiotic Prophylaxis Work Group of the NASS's Evidence-Based Clinical Guideline Development Committee. The work group comprised multidisciplinary surgical spine care specialists, who were trained in the principles of evidence-based analysis. Each member of the group formatted a series of clinical questions to be addressed by the group. The final questions agreed upon by the group are the subjects of this report. A literature search addressing each question and using a specific search protocol was performed on English language references found in MEDLINE, EMBASE (Drugs and Pharmacology), and four additional, evidence-based, databases. The relevant literature was then independently rated by at least three reviewers using the NASS–adopted standardized levels of evidence. An evidentiary table was created for each of the questions. Final grades of recommendation for the answer to each clinical question were arrived at via Webcast meetings among members of the work group using standardized grades of recommendation. When Level I to Level IV evidence was insufficient to support a recommendation to answer a specific clinical question, expert consensus was arrived at by the work group through the modified nominal group technique and is clearly identified in the guideline. Results Eleven clinical questions addressed the efficacy and appropriateness of antibiotic prophylaxis protocols, repeat dosing, discontinuation, wound drains, and special considerations related to the potential impact of comorbidities on antibiotic prophylaxis. The responses to these 11 clinical questions are summarized in this document. The respective recommendations were graded by the strength of the supported literature which was stratified by levels of evidence. Conclusions A clinical guideline addressing the use of antibiotic prophylaxis in spine surgery has been created using the techniques of evidence-based medicine and the best available evidence. This educational tool will assist spine surgeons in preventing surgical site infections. The entire guideline document, including the evidentiary tables, suggestions for future research, and references, is available electronically at the NASS Web site ( www.spine.org ) and will remain updated on a timely schedule.

Background context The objective of the North American Spine Society (NASS) evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS) is to provide evidence-based recommendations to address key clinical questions surrounding the diagnosis and treatment of DLSS. The guideline is intended to reflect contemporary treatment concepts for symptomatic DLSS as reflected in the highest quality clinical literature available on this subject as of April 2006. The goals of the guideline recommendations are to assist in delivering optimum, efficacious treatment, and functional recovery from this spinal disorder. Purpose To provide an evidence-based tool that assists practitioners in improving the quality and efficiency of care delivered to patients with DLSS. Study design/setting Evidence-based clinical guideline. Methods This report is from the Spinal Stenosis Work Group of the NASS Clinical Guidelines Committee. The work group comprised medical, diagnostic, interventional, and surgical spinal care specialists, all of whom were trained in the principles of evidence-based analysis. In the development of this guideline, the work group arrived at a consensus definition of a working diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis by use of a modification of the nominal group technique. Each member of the group formatted a series of clinical questions to be addressed by the group and the final list of questions agreed on by the group is the subject of this report. A literature search addressing each question and using a specific literature search protocol was performed on English language references found in MEDLINE, EMBASE (Drugs and Pharmacology), and four additional, evidence-based, databases. The relevant literature to answer each clinical question was then independently rated by at least two reviewers using the NASS-adopted standardized levels of evidence. An evidentiary table was created for each of the questions. Any discrepancies in evidence levels among the initial raters were resolved by at least two additional members' review of the reference and independent rating. Final grades of recommendation for the answer to each clinical question were arrived at in face-to-face meetings among members of the work group using the NASS-adopted standardized grades of recommendation. When Levels I to IV evidence was insufficient to support a recommendation to answer a specific clinical question, expert consensus was arrived at by the work group through the modified nominal group technique and is clearly identified as such in the guideline. Results Eighteen clinical questions were asked, addressing issues of prognosis, diagnosis, and treatment of DLSS. The answers to these 18 clinical questions are summarized in this document along with their respective levels of evidence and grades of recommendation in support of these answers. Conclusions A clinical guideline for DLSS has been created using the techniques of evidence-based medicine and using the best available evidence as a tool to aid both practitioners and patients involved with the care of this disease. The entire guideline document including the evidentiary tables, suggestions for future research, and all references is available electronically at the NASS Web site (www.spine.org) and will remain updated on a timely schedule.

Background context Multiple lytic lesions of the spine usually represent metastatic or infectious disease processes. Purpose To describe an extremely rare presentation of an uncommon disease process. Study design/setting Case report/university hospital. Methods We describe the management of a patient who presented with a pathological fracture of C3 and multiple lytic lesions of the cervical spine. Results After reconstructive surgery, the final pathological diagnosis was fibrous dysplasia. Conclusion Fibrous dysplasia is rarely seen in the cervical spine and may mimic other pathological processes. The surgical and medical management of spinal fibrous dysplasia is described.

Background context: Inflammatory metabolites of arachidonic acid likely play a significant role in secondary injury after spinal cord trauma. Purpose: We sought to characterize the regional and temporal alterations in prostaglandin concentrations after injury in a rat model. Study design/setting: Prostaglandin E 2 (PGE 2 ) and thromboxane B 2 (TxB 2 ) concentrations were measured in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and in different parts of the injured spinal cord at various time points after spinal cord injury. Outcome measures: PGE 2 and TxB 2 levels were measured by means of an enzyme immune assay. Methods: Forty-six adult Long Evans rats were subject to spinal cord injury using the NYU impactor. Animals were divided into three groups. Fourteen animals were used in a pilot study to determine the timing and location of PGE 2 production after spinal cord injury. These animals were sacrificed, and samples of injured cord, rostral cord and CSF were assayed for PGE 2 concentration. The remaining 32 animals were used to establish the time course of prostaglandin production. Twenty-eight animals were subjected to a spinal cord injury, and four animals served as sham-operated controls. These animals were sacrificed at predetermined time points 2 to 72 hours after injury, and the injured segments of spinal cord were harvested. Results: Both PGE 2 and TxB 2 concentrations increased immediately after injury in the injured segment. PGE 2 concentrations increased faster and more dramatically in the injured segment of spinal cord than in CSF or noninjured segments. Elevations in PGE 2 and TXB 2 concentrations were persistent for 72 hours after injury. Conclusion: Elevated concentrations of arachidonic acid metabolites can be detected in the injured segment of the spinal cord for at least 72 hours after injury. Concentration changes are detected earlier and are more dramatic in the injured cord segment than in rostral segments or the CSF.

COMMENTARY ON: Steinmetz MP, Mroz TEM, Krishnaney A, Modic M. Conventional vs. digital radiographs for intraoperative cervical spine-level localization: a prospective time and cost analysis. Spine J 2009;9:967–971 ( in this issue ).

Commentary on Kepler CK, Rihn JA, Bennett JD, et al. Dysphagia and soft-tissue swelling after anterior cervical surgery: a radiographic analysis. Spine J 2012;12:639–44 ( in this issue )