Variability in Surgical Treatment of Spondylolisthesis Among Spine Surgeons

Background There are a multitude of treatments for low-grade lumbar spondylolisthesis. There are no clear guidelines for the optimal approach. Objective To identify the surgical treatment patterns for spondylolisthesis among United States spine surgeons. Methods 445 spine surgeons in the United States completed a survey of clinical/radiographic case scenarios on patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis with neurogenic claudication with (S+BP) or without (S−BP) associated mechanical back pain. Treatment options included decompression, laminectomy with posterolateral fusion, posterior lumbar interbody fusion, or none of the above. The primary outcome measure was the probability of 2 randomly chosen surgeons disagreeing on the treatment method. Results There was 64% disagreement (36% agreement) among surgeons for treatment of spondylolisthesis with mechanical back pain (S+BP) and 71% disagreement (29% agreement) for spondylolisthesis without mechanical back pain (S−BP). For S+BP, disagreement was 52% for those practicing 5 to 10 years versus 70% among those practicing more than 20 years. Orthopedic surgeons had greater disagreement than did neurosurgeons (76% vs. 56%) for S+BP. Greater clinical equipoise was seen for S−BP than for S+BP regardless of surgeon characteristics. For spondylolisthesis without mechanical back pain, neurosurgeons were significantly more likely to select decompression-only than were orthopedic surgeons, who more commonly selected fusion. Conclusions Clinical equipoise exists for the treatment of spondylolisthesis. Differences are greater when the patient presents without associated back pain. Surgeon case volume, practice duration, and specialty training influence operative decisions for a given pathologic condition. Recognizing this practice variation will hopefully lead to better evidence and practice guidelines for the optimal and most cost-effective treatment paradigms

Differences in the surgical treatment of recurrent lumbar disc herniation among spine surgeons in the United States

There are often multiple surgical treatment options for a spinal pathology. In addition, there is a lack of data that define differences in surgical treatment among surgeons in the United States. To assess the surgical treatment patterns among neurologic and orthopedic spine surgeons in the United States for the treatment of one- and two-time recurrent lumbar disc herniation. Electronic survey. An electronic survey was delivered to 2,560 orthopedic and neurologic surgeons in the United States. The response data were analyzed to assess the differences among respondents over various demographic variables. The probability of disagreement is reported for various surgeon subgroups. A survey of clinical and radiographic case scenarios that included a one- and two-time lumbar disc herniation was electronically delivered to 2,560 orthopedic and neurologic surgeons in the United States. The surgical treatment options were revision microdiscectomy, revision microdiscectomy with in situ fusion, revision microdiscectomy with posterolateral fusion using pedicle screws, revision microdiscectomy with posterior lumbar interbody fusion/transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF/TLIF), anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) with percutaneous screws, ALIF with open posterior instrumentation, or none of these. Significance of p=.01 was used to account for multiple comparisons. Four hundred forty-five surgeons (18%) completed the survey. Surgeons in practice for 15+ years were more likely to select revision microdiscectomy compared with surgeons with fewer years in practice who were more likely to select revision microdiscectomy with PLIF/TLIF (p<.001). Similarly, those surgeons performing 200+ surgeries per year were more likely to select revision microdiscectomy with PLIF/TLIF than those performing fewer surgeries (p=.003). No significant differences were identified for region, specialty, fellowship training, or practice type. Overall, there was a 69% and 22% probability that two randomly selected spine surgeons would disagree on the surgical treatment of two- and one-time recurrent disc herniations, respectively. This probability of disagreement was consistent over multiple variables including geographic, practice type, fellowship training, and annual case volume. Significant differences exist among US spine surgeons in the surgical treatment of recurrent lumbar disc herniations. It will become increasingly important to understand the underlying reasons for these differences and to define the most cost-effective surgical strategies for these common lumbar pathologies as the United States moves closer to a value-based health-care system

Choroid plexus-derived miR-204 regulates the number of quiescent neural stem cells in the adult brain

Regulation of adult neural stem cell (NSC) number is critical for lifelong neurogenesis. Here, we identified a post-transcriptional control mechanism, centered around the microRNA 204 (miR-204), to control the maintenance of quiescent (q)NSCs. miR-204 regulates a spectrum of transcripts involved in cell cycle regulation, neuronal migration, and differentiation in qNSCs. Importantly, inhibition of miR-204 function reduced the number of qNSCs in the subependymal zone (SEZ) by inducing pre-mature activation and differentiation of NSCs without changing their neurogenic potential. Strikingly, we identified the choroid plexus of the mouse lateral ventricle as the major source of miR-204 that is released into the cerebrospinal fluid to control number of NSCs within the SEZ. Taken together, our results describe a novel mechanism to maintain adult somatic stem cells by a niche-specific miRNA repressing activation and differentiation of stem cells

Supplemental Material, GSJ739610_suppl_mat - Spine Surgeon Treatment Variability: The Impact on Costs

<p> Supplemental Material, GSJ739610_suppl_mat for Spine Surgeon Treatment Variability: The Impact on Costs by Matthew D. Alvin, Daniel Lubelski, Ridwan Alam, Seth K. Williams, Nancy A. Obuchowski, Michael P. Steinmetz, Jeffrey C. Wang, Alfred J. Melillo, Amit Pahwa, Edward C. Benzel, Michael T. Modic, Robert Quencer, and Thomas E. Mroz in Global Spine Journal </p