344 research outputs found

    Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 3: Assessment of economic outcome

    Get PDF
    pre-printA comprehensive economic analysis generally involves the calculation of indirect and direct health costs from a societal perspective as opposed to simply reporting costs from a hospital or payer perspective. Hospital charges for a surgical procedure must be converted to cost data when performing a cost-effectiveness analysis. Once cost data has been calculated, quality-adjusted life year data from a surgical treatment are calculated by using a preference-based health-related quality-of-life instrument such as the EQ-5D. A recent cost-utility analysis from a single study has demonstrated the long-term (over an 8-year time period) benefits of circumferential fusions over stand-alone posterolateral fusions. In addition, economic analysis from a single study has found that lumbar fusion for selected patients with low-back pain can be recommended from an economic perspective. Recent economic analysis, from a single study, finds that femoral ring allograft might be more cost-effective compared with a specific titanium cage when performing an anterior lumbar interbody fusion plus posterolateral fusion

    Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 14: Brace therapy as an adjunct to or substitute for lumbar fusion

    Get PDF
    pre-printThe utilization of orthotic devices for lumbar degenerative disease has been justified from both a prognostic and therapeutic perspective. As a prognostic tool, bracing is applied prior to surgery to determine if immobilization of the spine leads to symptomatic relief and thus justify the performance of a fusion. Since bracing does not eliminate motion, the validity of this assumption is questionable. Only one low-level study has investigated the predictive value of bracing prior to surgery. No correlation between response to bracing and fusion outcome was observed; therefore a trial of preoperative bracing is not recommended. Based on low-level evidence, the use of bracing is not recommended for the prevention of low-back pain in a general working population, since the incidence of low-back pain and impact on productivity were not reduced. However, in laborers with a history of back pain, a positive impact on lost workdays was observed when bracing was applied. Bracing is recommended as an option for treatment of subacute low-back pain, as several higher-level studies have demonstrated an improvement in pain scores and function. The use of bracing following instrumented posterolateral fusion, however, is not recommended, since equivalent outcomes have been demonstrated with or without the application of a brace

    Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 2: Assessment of functional outcome following lumbar fusion

    Get PDF
    pre-printAssessment of functional patient-reported outcome following lumbar spinal fusion continues to be essential for comparing the effectiveness of different treatments for patients presenting with degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. When assessing functional outcome in patients being treated with lumbar spinal fusion, a reliable, valid, and responsive outcomes instrument such as the Oswestry Disability Index should be used. The SF-36 and the SF-12 have emerged as dominant measures of general health-related quality of life. Research has established the minimum clinically important difference for major functional outcomes measures, and this should be considered when assessing clinical outcome. The results of recent studies suggest that a patient's pretreatment psychological state is a major independent variable that affects the ability to detect change in functional outcome

    Carotid Revascularization and Its Effect on Cognitive Function: A Prospective Nonrandomized Multicenter Clinical Study

    Get PDF
    © 2020 The Author(s) Background: There is conflicting data on the effect of carotid revascularization on cognitive function. Objective: To examine cerebral blood flow and cognitive function after carotid revascularization. Methods: Patients with unilateral, asymptomatic hemodynamically significant carotid artery stenosis (80% by computed tomography angiography or magnetic resonance angiography) were eligible. Cerebral blood flow was measured preoperatively and 1 month postoperatively using quantitative phase contrast magnetic resonance angiography. Preoperative flow impairment was defined as ipsilateral flow at least 20% less than contralateral flow (ie, an ipsilateral and/or contralateral flow ratio ≤0.8). Significant improvement in blood flow was defined as at least a 0.15 increase in flow ratio from pre- to postoperative. A control group was managed medically. Four cognitive domains were assessed at baseline, 1 month, and 6-12 months postoperatively. Results: Seventy-five patients were enrolled at 6 sites; 53 carotid endarterectomy, 11 carotid artery stenting, and 11 medical management only controls. Preoperative Trails B scores were similar between groups. Revascularization was associated with significant improvement in executive function (Trials B) while no improvement was observed in controls (P = .007). Of patients with improvement in middle cerebral artery (MCA) flow, 90% had improved Trails B scores compared to 46.5% of patients without MCA flow improvement (P = .01). Greater absolute improvement in mean Trails B scores was observed in patients with MCA flow improvement compared to those without (48 seconds versus 24.7 seconds, P = .001). Conclusions: In a cohort of patient with asymptomatic carotid stenosis, improvement in MCA flow following carotid revascularization is associated with improvement in executive functioning

    Translating data analytics into improved spine surgery outcomes: A roadmap for biomedical informatics research in 2021

    Get PDF
    STUDY DESIGN: Narrative review. OBJECTIVES: There is growing interest in the use of biomedical informatics and data analytics tools in spine surgery. Yet despite the rapid growth in research on these topics, few analytic tools have been implemented in routine spine practice. The purpose of this review is to provide a health information technology (HIT) roadmap to help translate data assets and analytics tools into measurable advances in spine surgical care. METHODS: We conducted a narrative review of PubMed and Google Scholar to identify publications discussing data assets, analytical approaches, and implementation strategies relevant to spine surgery practice. RESULTS: A variety of data assets are available for spine research, ranging from commonly used datasets, such as administrative billing data, to emerging resources, such as mobile health and biobanks. Both regression and machine learning techniques are valuable for analyzing these assets, and researchers should recognize the particular strengths and weaknesses of each approach. Few studies have focused on the implementation of HIT, and a variety of methods exist to help translate analytic tools into clinically useful interventions. Finally, a number of HIT-related challenges must be recognized and addressed, including stakeholder acceptance, regulatory oversight, and ethical considerations. CONCLUSIONS: Biomedical informatics has the potential to support the development of new HIT that can improve spine surgery quality and outcomes. By understanding the development life-cycle that includes identifying an appropriate data asset, selecting an analytic approach, and leveraging an effective implementation strategy, spine researchers can translate this potential into measurable advances in patient care

    Experiences and perceptions of trial participants and healthcare professionals in the UK Frozen Shoulder Trial (UK FROST): a nested qualitative study

    Get PDF
    Objectives: To explore the experiences and perceptions of trial participants and healthcare professionals in the UK Frozen Shoulder Trial (UK FROST), a multicentre randomised controlled trial that compared manipulation under anaesthesia (MUA), arthroscopic capsular release (ACR) with a 12-week early structured physiotherapy programme (ESP) in people with unilateral frozen shoulder referred to secondary care. Design: Nested qualitative study with semistructured interviews. We used constant comparison method to develop our themes. Setting: This qualitative study was nested within the UK FROST. Participants: 44 trial participants (ESP: 14; MUA: 15; ACR: 15), and 8 surgeons and 8 physiotherapists who delivered the treatments in the trial. Results: Trial participants found UK FROST treatments acceptable and satisfactory in terms of content, delivery and treatment benefits. Participants in all arms experienced improvements in pain, shoulder movements, and function. Participants said they would choose the same treatment that they received in the trial. Surgeons and physiotherapists felt that the content and delivery of UK FROST treatments was not significantly different to their routine practice except for the additional number of physiotherapy sessions offered in the trial. They had mixed feelings about the effectiveness of UK FROST treatments. Both stressed the value of including hydrodilatation as a comparator of other treatment options. Physiotherapists raised concerns about the capacity to deliver the number of UK FROST physiotherapy sessions in routine clinical settings. Shared perceptions of trial participants, surgeons and physiotherapists were: (1) Pain relief and return of shoulder movements and function are important outcomes and (2) Adherence to exercises leads to better outcomes. Conclusion: In general, our findings indicated that trial participants, and surgeons and physiotherapists who delivered the treatments had positive experiences and perceptions in the UK FROST. Early qualitative investigations to explore the feasibility of delivering treatments in real-world settings are suggested in future trials in the frozen shoulder. Trial registration number: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Register, ID: ISRCTN48804508. Registered on 25 July 2014; Result
    corecore