A Modified Sagittal Spine Postural Classification and Its Relationship to Deformities and Spinal Mobility in a Chinese Osteoporotic Population

BACKGROUND: Abnormal posture and spinal mobility have been demonstrated to cause functional impairment in the quality of life, especially in the postmenopausal osteoporotic population. Most of the literature studies focus on either thoracic kyphosis or lumbar lordosis, but not on the change of the entire spinal alignment. Very few articles reported the spinal alignment of Chinese people. The purpose of this study was threefold: to classify the spinal curvature based on the classification system defined by Satoh consisting of the entire spine alignment; to identify the change of trunk mobility; and to relate spinal curvature to balance disorder in a Chinese population. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: 450 osteoporotic volunteers were recruited for this study. Spinal range of motion and global curvature were evaluated noninvasively using the Spinal-Mouse® system and sagittal postural deformities were characterized. RESULTS: We found a new spine postural alignment consisting of an increased thoracic kyphosis and decreased lumbar lordosis which we classified as our modified round back. We did not find any of Satoh's type 5 classification in our population. Type 2 sagittal alignment was the most common spinal deformity (38.44%). In standing, thoracic kyphosis angles in types 2 (58.34°) and 3 (58.03°) were the largest and lumbar lordosis angles in types 4 (13.95°) and 5 (-8.61°) were the smallest. The range of flexion (ROF) and range of flexion-extension (ROFE) of types 2 and 3 were usually greater than types 4 and 5, with type 1 being the largest. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: The present study classified and compared for the first time the mobility, curvature and balance in a Chinese population based on the entire spine alignment and found types 4 and 5 to present the worst balance and mobility. This study included a new spine postural alignment classification that should be considered in future population studies

Early management of adult traumatic spinal cord injury in patients with polytrauma: a consensus and clinical recommendations jointly developed by the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) & the European Association of Neurosurgical Societies (EANS)

Background: The early management of polytrauma patients with traumatic spinal cord injury (tSCI) is a major challenge. Sparse data is available to provide optimal care in this scenario and worldwide variability in clinical practice has been documented in recent studies. Methods: A multidisciplinary consensus panel of physicians selected for their established clinical and scientific expertise in the acute management of tSCI polytrauma patients with different specializations was established. The World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) and the European Association of Neurosurgical Societies (EANS) endorsed the consensus, and a modified Delphi approach was adopted. Results: A total of 17 statements were proposed and discussed. A consensus was reached generating 17 recommendations (16 strong and 1 weak). Conclusions: This consensus provides practical recommendations to support a clinician’s decision making in the management of tSCI polytrauma patients

Early management of adult traumatic spinal cord injury in patients with polytrauma: a consensus and clinical recommendations jointly developed by the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) & the European Association of Neurosurgical Societies (EANS).

BACKGROUND: The early management of polytrauma patients with traumatic spinal cord injury (tSCI) is a major challenge. Sparse data is available to provide optimal care in this scenario and worldwide variability in clinical practice has been documented in recent studies. METHODS: A multidisciplinary consensus panel of physicians selected for their established clinical and scientific expertise in the acute management of tSCI polytrauma patients with different specializations was established. The World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) and the European Association of Neurosurgical Societies (EANS) endorsed the consensus, and a modified Delphi approach was adopted. RESULTS: A total of 17 statements were proposed and discussed. A consensus was reached generating 17 recommendations (16 strong and 1 weak). CONCLUSIONS: This consensus provides practical recommendations to support a clinician's decision making in the management of tSCI polytrauma patients

Lumbar nerve root injections: a prospective cohort outcomes study comparing age- and gender-matched patients who returned an outcomes-based postal questionnaire with patients who did not return the postal questionnaire

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to investigate if relying on postal questionnaires returned by patients provides an accurate representation of reported outcomes from patients receiving imaging-guided lumbar nerve root injections (NRIs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who received imaging-guided transforaminal lumbar NRIs were given short questionnaires inquiring about pain level [numerical rating scale (NRS)] and overall improvement [Patient's Global Impression of Change (PGIC)]. Those who did not return the questionnaires (non-responders) were telephoned and asked about pain level and overall change in condition. Age and gender matching of responders and non-responders resulted in 97 patients in each group. The proportion of patients reporting clinically relevant "improvement" or "worsening" in each group was calculated and the Chi-square test was used to detect differences. NRS and PGIC scores for responders and non-responders were compared using Student's t test and the Mann-Whitney U test, respectively. RESULTS: A higher proportion of non-responders reported clinically relevant improvement (53.6 %) compared to responders (42.6 %) and responders reported significantly higher levels of worsening of condition (p = 0.01). Both responders and non-responders had significant (p ≤ 0.05) improvement on the 20-30-min and 1-month NRS scores compared to their pre-injection baseline scores. Non-responders had significantly higher baseline NRS scores but no significant difference at the 20-30-min and 1-month NRS scores compared to responders. CONCLUSIONS: Patients returning postal questionnaires reported less favorable outcomes compared to those who did not return their questionnaires