Guideline summary review: an evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of low back pain

Background contextThe 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.PURPOSEThe 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 designThis is a guideline summary review.MethodsThis 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.ResultsEighty-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.ConclusionsThe 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     

An evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (update)

Background contextThe evidence-based clinical guideline on the diagnosis and treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis by the North American Spine Society (NASS) provides evidence-based recommendations to address key clinical questions surrounding the diagnosis and treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. The guideline is intended to reflect contemporary treatment concepts for symptomatic degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis as reflected in the highest quality clinical literature available on this subject as of July 2010. The goals of the guideline recommendations are to assist in delivering optimum efficacious treatment and functional recovery from this spinal disorder.PurposeProvide an evidence-based educational tool to assist spine care providers in improving quality and efficiency of care delivered to patients with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.Study designSystematic review and evidence-based clinical guideline.MethodsThis report is from the Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Work Group of the NASS's Evidence-Based Clinical Guideline Development Committee. The work group consisted of multidisciplinary spine care specialists trained in the principles of evidence-based analysis. The original guideline, published in 2006, was carefully reviewed. 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 published since the search performed for the original guideline. The relevant literature was then independently rated by a minimum of three physician reviewers 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 arrived at via work group discussion, and grades were assigned to the recommendations using standardized grades of recommendation. In the absence of Levels 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.ResultsSixteen key clinical questions were assessed, addressing issues of natural history, diagnosis, and treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. The answers are summarized in this document. The respective recommendations were graded by the strength of the supporting literature that was stratified by levels of evidence.ConclusionsA clinical guideline for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis has been updated using the techniques of evidence-based medicine and using the best available clinical evidence to aid both practitioners and patients involved with the care of this condition. The entire guideline document, including the evidentiary tables, suggestions for future research, and all references, will be available electronically at the NASS Web site (www.spine.org) and will remain updated on a timely schedule.     

An evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis

Background ContextThe 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.PurposeTo 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 DesignSystematic review and evidence-based clinical guideline.MethodsThis 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.ResultsNineteen 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.ConclusionsA 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.     

Antibiotic prophylaxis in spine surgery: an evidence-based clinical guideline for the use of prophylactic antibiotics in spine surgery

Background ContextThe 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.PurposeTo provide an evidence-based, educational tool to assist spine surgeons in preventing surgical site infections.Study DesignEvidence-based Clinical Guideline.MethodsThis 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.ResultsEleven 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.ConclusionsA 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.     

An evidence-based clinical guideline for the use of antithrombotic therapies in spine surgery

Background contextThe objective of the North American Spine Society (NASS) Evidence-Based Clinical Guideline on antithrombotic therapies in spine surgery was to provide evidence-based recommendations to address key clinical questions surrounding the use of antithrombotic therapies in spine surgery. The guideline is intended to address these questions based on the highest quality clinical literature available on this subject as of February 2008. The goal of the guideline recommendations was to assist in delivering optimum, efficacious treatment with the goal of preventing thromboembolic events.PurposeTo provide an evidence-based, educational tool to assist spine surgeons in minimizing the risk of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE).Study designSystematic review and evidence-based clinical guideline.MethodsThis report is from the Antithrombotic Therapies Work Group of the NASS Evidence-Based Guideline Development Committee. The work group was composed of multidisciplinary spine care specialists, all of whom were trained in the principles of evidence-based analysis. Each member of the group was involved in formatting 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 answers to each clinical question were arrived at via Web casts among members of the work group using standardized grades of recommendation. When Level 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.ResultsFourteen clinical questions were formulated, addressing issues of incidence of DVT and PE in spine surgery and recommendations regarding utilization of mechanical prophylaxis and chemoprophylaxis in spine surgery. The answers to these 14 clinical questions are summarized in this article. The respective recommendations were graded by the strength of the supporting literature that was stratified by levels of evidence.ConclusionsA clinical guideline addressing the use of antithrombotic therapies in spine surgery has been created using the techniques of evidence-based medicine and using the best available evidence as a tool to assist spine surgeons in minimizing the risk of DVT and PE. 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.     

An evidence-based clinical guideline for antibiotic prophylaxis in spine surgery

Background context

The North American Spine Society's (NASS) Evidence-Based Clinical Guideline on Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Spine Surgery provides evidence-based recommendations to address key clinical questions regarding the efficacy and the appropriate antibiotic prophylaxis protocol to prevent surgical site infections in patients undergoing spine surgery. The guideline is intended to address these questions based on the highest quality clinical literature available on this subject as of June 2011.

Purpose

Provide an evidence-based educational tool to assist spine surgeons in preventing surgical site infections.

Study design

Systematic review and evidence-based clinical guideline.

Methods

This guideline is a product of the Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Spine Surgery Work Group of NASS Evidence-Based Guideline Development Committee. The work group consisted of neurosurgeons and orthopedic surgeons who specialize in spine surgery and are 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 (PubMed), ACP Journal Club, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE (Drugs and Pharmacology), and Web of Science to identify articles published since the search performed for the original guideline. 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 Levels 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

Sixteen clinical questions were formulated and addressed, and the answers are summarized in this article. The respective recommendations were graded by the strength of the supporting literature, which was stratified by levels of evidence.

Conclusions

The clinical guideline for antibiotic prophylaxis in spine surgery has been created using the techniques of evidence-based medicine and best available evidence to aid practitioners in the care of patients undergoing spine surgery. 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.     

An evidence-based review of the literature on the consequences of conservative versus aggressive discectomy for the treatment of primary disc herniation with radiculopathy

Background contextIt remains unknown whether aggressive disc removal with curettage versus conservative removal of a disc fragment with little disc invasion provides a better outcome for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation with radiculopathy.PurposeDetermine the level of evidence within the clinical literature that supports the performance of a conservative versus aggressive technique for discectomy.Study design/settingSystematic evidence-based review of clinical literature.Patient samplePatients with primary lumbar disc herniation with radiculopathy.Outcome measuresOperative time, return to work status, recurrent disc herniation, self-reported, and functional measures assessed less than 2 years (short term) and greater than 2 years (long term) after surgery.MethodsSystematic Medline search was performed to identify all published studies relating to outcome after aggressive or conservative discectomy. Levels of evidence (I–V) were assessed for each study and grades of recommendation were generated (Good, Fair, Poor, Insufficient evidence) based on the NASS Clinical Guidelines' Levels of Evidence and Grades of Recommendation.ResultsThere is fair evidence that conservative discectomy will result in shorter operative times and a quicker return to work despite similar lengths of hospital stay, similar pain levels at discharge, similar 6-month functional status, and a similar 2-year incidence of persistent/recurrent back and leg pain. There is poor quality evidence that conservative discectomy will result in a lower incidence of recurrent back pain beyond 2 years postoperatively. There is fair quality evidence that conservative discectomy will result in a higher incidence of recurrent disc herniation.ConclusionsThere are no Level I studies to support conservative versus aggressive discectomy for the treatment of primary disc herniation. However, systematic review of the literature suggests that conservative discectomy may result in shorter operative time, quicker return to work, and a decreased incidence of long-term recurrent low back pain but with an increased incidence of recurrent disc herniation. Prospective randomized trails are needed to firmly assess this possible benefit.     

Neurological examination of the peripheral nervous system to diagnose lumbar spinal disc herniation with suspected radiculopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background contextDisc herniation is a common low back pain (LBP) disorder, and several clinical test procedures are routinely employed in its diagnosis. The neurological examination that assesses sensory neuron and motor responses has historically played a role in the differential diagnosis of disc herniation, particularly when radiculopathy is suspected; however, the diagnostic ability of this examination has not been explicitly investigated.PurposeTo review the scientific literature to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the neurological examination to detect lumbar disc herniation with suspected radiculopathy.Study designA systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature.MethodsSix major electronic databases were searched with no date or language restrictions for relevant articles up until March 2011. All diagnostic studies investigating neurological impairments in LBP patients because of lumbar disc herniation were assessed for possible inclusion. Retrieved studies were individually evaluated and assessed for quality using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool, and where appropriate, a meta-analysis was performed.ResultsA total of 14 studies that investigated three standard neurological examination components, sensory, motor, and reflexes, met the study criteria and were included. Eight distinct meta-analyses were performed that compared the findings of the neurological examination with the reference standard results from surgery, radiology (magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography, and myelography), and radiological findings at specific lumbar levels of disc herniation. Pooled data for sensory testing demonstrated low diagnostic sensitivity for surgically (0.40) and radiologically (0.32) confirmed disc herniation, and identification of a specific level of disc herniation (0.35), with moderate specificity achieved for all the three reference standards (0.59, 0.72, and 0.64, respectively). Motor testing for paresis demonstrated similarly low pooled diagnostic sensitivities (0.22 and 0.40) and moderate specificity values (0.79 and 0.62) for surgically and radiologically determined disc herniation, whereas motor testing for muscle atrophy resulted in a pooled sensitivity of 0.31 and the specificity was 0.76 for surgically determined disc herniation. For reflex testing, the pooled sensitivities for surgically and radiologically confirmed levels of disc herniation were 0.29 and 0.25, whereas the specificity values were 0.78 and 0.75, respectively. The pooled positive likelihood ratios for all neurological examination components ranged between 1.02 and 1.26.ConclusionsThis systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrate that neurological testing procedures have limited overall diagnostic accuracy in detecting disc herniation with suspected radiculopathy. Pooled diagnostic accuracy values of the tests were poor, whereby all tests demonstrated low sensitivity, moderate specificity, and limited diagnostic accuracy independent of the disc herniation reference standard or the specific level of herniation. The lack of a standardized classification criterion for disc herniation, the variable psychometric properties of the testing procedures, and the complex pathoetiology of lumbar disc herniation with radiculopathy are suggested as possible reasons for these findings.     

Migration patterns of herniated disc fragments: a study on 1,020 patients with extruded lumbar disc herniation

Background contextHerniated disc fragments are known to migrate in various directions within the spinal canal. To date, no comprehensive studies have been undertaken to examine the migration patterns of herniated disc material using a standard nomenclature and classification system.PurposeTo report migration patterns of extruded lumbar disc fragments.Study designA review of magnetic resonance (MR) images.Patient sampleA total of 1,020 consecutive Azeri patients with symptomatic extruded lumbar intervertebral disc herniation.Outcome measuresMigration patterns of extruded lumbar disc fragments in vertical and horizontal planes and their association with age, gender, body mass index (BMI), and the level of herniation.MethodsHigh-quality axial and sagittal MR images of the lumbar spine were used. Disc material that was displaced away from the site of extrusion, regardless of continuity, was considered “migrated.” The migration patterns observed were rostral or caudal in the vertical plane and central, paracentral, subarticular, foraminal, or extraforaminal in the horizontal plane.ResultsIn the vertical plane, rostral and caudal migrations were observed in 27.8% and 72.2% of the patients, respectively. The number of rostral migrations increased significantly with increasing age and in higher levels in the lumbar spine (p<.001 for both). Radiculopathy was significantly more frequent in caudal migrations than in rostral migrations (78.9% vs. 65.1%, p<.001). There was no significant association between gender or BMI and migration patterns in the vertical plane. In the horizontal plane, central, paracentral, subarticular, foraminal, and extraforaminal migrations were reported in 17.3%, 74.2%, 4.3%, 2.5%, and 1.8% of the patients, respectively. The youngest (median age 39 years, interquartile range [IQR] 13 years) and the oldest (median age 55 years, IQR 15 years) groups of patients (p<.001) had the most formainal and extraforaminal migrations, respectively. Radiculopathy was present in 66.5%, 76.8%, 88.6%, 96%, and 27.8% of the patients with central, paracentral, subarticular, foraminal, and extraforaminal migrations, respectively (p<.001). No significant association was found between gender, BMI, or the level of herniation and migration pattern in the horizontal plane.ConclusionsCaudal and paracentral migrations are the most common patterns of migration in patients with extruded lumbar disc herniation in the vertical and horizontal planes, respectively. Age and the level of herniation may affect the migration patterns of herniated lumbar disc material.     

Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: an evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.

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.     

The course and prognostic factors of symptomatic cervical disc herniation with radiculopathy: a systematic review of the literature

Background contextCervical spine disc herniation is a disabling source of cervical radiculopathy. However, little is known about its course and prognosis. Understanding the course and prognosis of symptomatic cervical disc herniation is necessary to guide patients' expectations and assist clinicians in managing patients.PurposeTo describe the natural history, clinical course, and prognostic factors of symptomatic cervical disc herniations with radiculopathy.Study designSystematic review of the literature and best evidence synthesis.MethodsA systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, SportsDiscus, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to 2013 was conducted to retrieve eligible articles. Eligible articles were critically appraised using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria. The results from articles with low risk of bias were analyzed using best evidence synthesis principles.ResultsWe identified 1,221 articles. Of those, eight articles were eligible and three were accepted as having a low risk of bias. Two studies pertained to course and one study pertained to prognosis. Most patients with symptomatic cervical disc herniations with radiculopathy initially present with intense pain and moderate levels of disability. However, substantial improvements tend to occur within the first 4 to 6 months post-onset. Time to complete recovery ranged from 24 to 36 months in, approximately, 83% of patients. Patients with a workers' compensation claim appeared to have a poorer prognosis.ConclusionsOur best evidence synthesis describes the best available evidence on the course and prognosis of cervical disc herniations with radiculopathy. Most patients with symptomatic cervical spine disc herniation with radiculopathy recover. Possible recurrences and time to complete recovery need to be further studied. More studies are also needed to understand the prognostic factors for this condition.     

Atherosclerosis and Disc Degeneration/Low-Back Pain – A Systematic Review

ObjectivesAtherosclerosis can obstruct branching arteries of the abdominal aorta, including four paired lumbar arteries and the middle sacral artery that feed the lumbar spine. The diminished blood flow could result in various back problems. The aim of this systematic literature review was to assess associations between atherosclerosis and disc degeneration (DD) or low-back pain (LBP).Data sourcesA systematic search of the Medline/PubMed database for all original articles on atherosclerosis and DD/LBP published until October 2008. The search was performed with the medical subject headings atherosclerosis, cardiovascular risk factor, or vascular disease and keywords “disc degeneration”, “disc herniation”, and “back pain” on the basis of MeSH tree and as a text search. In addition reference lists were studied and searched manually. Observational studies investigating the association of atherosclerosis or its risk factors and lumbar DD/LBP were selected.Review methodsThe following data were extracted: study characteristics, duration of follow-up, year of publication, findings of atherosclerosis/cardiovascular risk factors and DD/LBP. Disc herniation was regarded as a form of disc degeneration and cardiovascular risk factors were regarded as surrogate for atherosclerosis in epidemiological studies.ResultsOne hundred and seventy-nine papers were identified. After exclusion of case reports, letters, editorials, papers not related to the lumbar spine, and animal studies, 25 papers were included. Post-mortem studies showed an association between atheromatous lesions in the aorta and DD, as well as between occluded lumbar arteries and life-time LBP. In clinical studies, aortic calcification was associated with LBP, and stenosis of lumbar arteries was associated with both DD and LBP. In epidemiological studies, smoking and high serum cholesterol levels were found to have the most consistent associations with DD and LBP.ConclusionAortic atherosclerosis and stenosis of the feeding arteries of the lumbar spine were associated with DD and LBP. Cardiovascular risk factors had weaker associations, being clearly apparent only in cohorts on elderly people or in large study samples. More prospective clinical studies are needed to further clarify the association of atherosclerosis and low-back disorders.     

Radiculopathy after lumbar discectomy due to intraspinal retained Surgicel: clinical and magnetic resonance imaging evaluation.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Lumbar radiculopathy after lumbar spine surgery is an alerting sign usually caused by either a recurrent disc herniation or epidural hematoma. However, pressure on a spinal nerve root may also be exerted by a retained piece of Surgicel used to achieve hemostasis during lumbar spine surgical procedures. PURPOSE: To describe a case of lumbar radiculopathy that was caused by a piece of Surgicel left in the spinal canal after operation for lumbar disc herniation. STUDY SETTING: A case report of a retained piece of Surgicel being the cause of S1 radiculopathy. METHODS: Patient interview, medical records, imaging studies, and literature review. RESULTS: A 29-year-old man developed acute left S1 radiculopathy after a successful hemilaminectomy and discectomy operation for a L5-S1 disc herniation. In the magnetic resonance imaging studies that were performed, a postoperative hematoma could not be excluded and a reoperation revealed compression from Surgicel that was used for hemostasis. The patient was free of symptoms after reoperation. CONCLUSIONS: This case depicts the difficulty in distinguishing-by means of magnetic resonance imaging-nerve root compression caused by a postoperative hematoma and a recurrent disc herniation, from that caused by a retained Surgicel. Therefore, hemostatic agents should be meticulously used in spine surgery.     

Guía del carcinoma de células renales

ObjectivesThe European Association of Urology (EAU) Guideline Group for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) prepared this guideline to help urologists assess the evidence-based management of RCC and to incorporate the guideline recommendations into their clinical practice.MethodsThe re commendations provided in the current guideline are based on a systematic literature search using MedLine, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and publications and review articles.ResultsA Limited Number of prospective randomized studies are available with high-level evidence.Most publications concerning RCC are based on retrospective analyses, including some larger multicentre validation studies and well-designed controlled studies.ConclusionsIt must be stressed that the current guideline contains information for the treatment of an individual patient according to a standardized general approach. Updated recommendations concerning diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up can improve the clinical handling of patients with RCC.     

Successful resolution of signs and symptoms from L4 radiculopathy with spinal manipulation: a case report

The management of a patient with L4 radiculopathy with side posture spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is described. Dramatic improvement both subjectively and objectively followed a short course of SMT of the lumbar spine. This case is used to illustrate aspects of the natural history of lumbar discogenic radiculopathy, safety and effectiveness of SMT for disc herniations, diagnostic imaging, and differentiation of referred vs. radicular pain syndromes. Also included is a short summary of the safety and effectiveness of surgery for lumbar disc herniation. We conclude that side posture SMT in this case was safe and may be effective in the treatment of presumed lumbar spine disc herniation with L4 radiculopathy.     

A comparison of sciatica in young subjects and elderly person

BackgroundSciatica is a common symptom for many people with degenerative lumbar spine diseases. It is by far the most common symptom of disc herniation. However, disc herniation is not the only cause of sciatica. Other degenerative lumbar spine diseases can provoke Sciatica. To date, few studies have analysed the cause of sciatica in particularly in elderly patients.Material and methodsWe analysed retrospectively records of patients aged between 35 and 55 (first group) and between 65 and 85 (second group) visited in our departments for sciatica between December 2009 and November 2018.ResultsIn elderly patients, disc herniation from upper levels (L2-L3 and L3-L4) is more common than younger people. Sciatica as a result of exclusive disc herniation reduces with age. Foramen stenosis produces sciatica in elderly patients more than twice as high in younger patients. Statistically, more patients needed to surgery in elderly patients in comparison with younger population.ConclusionSciatica in elderly patients takes a different clinical aspect in comparison with younger population. The clinical picture associates pain less severe but more persistent, more resistant to treatment. It is caused in less than 50% by disc herniation.     

Safety profile of multilevel outpatient cervical disc arthroplasty

BackgroundEfforts are underway to shift an increasing number of procedures to outpatient procedures. The literature has demonstrated high rates of safety, cost savings and patient satisfaction for various spine procedures performed in the outpatient setting. Cervical Disc Arthroplasty (CDA) has become an acceptable surgical treatment option for cervical myelopathy and or radiculopathy. While this procedure has been shown to be safe when performed in an inpatient setting, the safety of performing multilevel CDA in the outpatient setting requires careful assessment.Methods and ResultsWe searched the Pubmed database using following search keywords: “cervical disc replacement,” “cervical disc arthroplasty,” “multilevel,” “outpatient,” “ambulatory.” Four retrospective cohort studies and one meta-analysis were identified and relevant to the topic. The literature was critically evaluated.ConclusionMultilevel CDA can be safely performed in the outpatient setting, with lower complication rates, shorter operating times, and similar readmission and reoperation rates compared with inpatient CDA. When choosing to perform this procedure in the ambulatory setting each surgeon should consider their own skill set and familiarity with CDA. While no evidence-based guidelines exist regarding which patients are optimal candidates to perform this procedure on in the outpatient setting, careful patient selection is important. Further prospective randomized studies with larger sample sizes are needed to generate evidence-based protocols for patient selection in order to optimize outcomes and the safety of performing multilevel cervical disc arthroplasty in the outpatient setting.Level of EvidenceV     

Formulation of Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) clinical practice guideline for the management of low back pain- the revised 2019 edition

BackgroundThe latest clinical guidelines are mandatory for physicians to follow when practicing evidence-based medicine in the treatment of low back pain. Those guidelines should target not only Japanese board-certified orthopaedic surgeons, but also primary physicians, and they should be prepared based entirely on evidence-based medicine. The Japanese Orthopaedic Association Low Back Pain guideline committee decided to update the guideline and launched the formulation committee. The purpose of this study was to describe the formulation we implemented for the revision of the guideline with the latest data of evidence-based medicine.MethodsThe Japanese Orthopaedic Association Low Back Pain guideline formulation committee revised the previous guideline based on a method for preparing clinical guidelines in Japan proposed by Medical Information Network Distribution Service Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development 2014. Two key phrases, “body of evidence” and “benefit and harm balance” were focused on in the revised version. Background and clinical questions were determined, followed by literature search related to each question. Appropriate articles were selected from all the searched literature. Structured abstracts were prepared, and then meta-analyses were performed. The strength of both the body of evidence and the recommendation was decided by the committee members.ResultsNine background and nine clinical qvuestions were determined. For each clinical question, outcomes from the literature were collected and meta-analysis was performed. Answers and explanations were described for each clinical question, and the strength of the recommendation was decided. For background questions, the recommendations were described based on previous literature.ConclusionsThe 2019 clinical practice guideline for the management of low back pain was completed according to the latest evidence-based medicine. We strongly hope that this guideline serves as a benchmark for all physicians, as well as patients, in the management of low back pain.     

Transforaminal injection of autologous platelet-rich plasma for lumbar disc herniation: A single-center prospective study in Vietnam

ObjectiveLumbar radiculopathy is a major health problem, which often treated by neurosurgery or guided lumbar epidural steroids for pain relief. We used autologous Platelet Rich Plasma (PRP) as a novel pharmaceutical agent that has strongly emerged in recent years to treat patients of lumbar disc herniation. From that, we evaluated the efficacy of PRP via transforaminal route in treatment of radicular pain in patients with lumbar disc herniation.MethodsTwenty-five patients were enrolled and injected with 4 ml of autologous platelet rich plasma under fluoroscopic guidance via transforaminal epidural injection into area of affected nerve root. They were followed using Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Modified Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Straight Leg Raising Test (SLRT) for clinical assessment.ResultsPatients who received transforaminal injections with autologous PRP showed statistically significant improvements on all three evaluation tools (VAS, ODI, SLRT). The improvements were sustained over twelve-month follow-up and there were no associated complications.ConclusionTransforaminal injection with autologous PRP helps patients relieve chronic pains and be able return to work. Besides, autologous PRP can be considered as a good alternative to epidural steroids in management of lumbar disc herniation.