Type and Timing of Rehabilitation Following Acute and Subacute Spinal Cord Injury: A Systematic Review

Objectives: The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review of the literature to address the following clinical questions: In adult patients with acute and subacute complete or incomplete traumatic SCI, (1) does the time interval between injury and commencing rehabilitation affect outcome?; (2) what is the comparative effectiveness of different rehabilitation strategies, including different intensities and durations of treatment?; (3) are there patient or injury characteristics that affect the efficacy of rehabilitation?; and (4) what is the cost-effectiveness of various rehabilitation strategies? Methods: A systematic search was conducted for literature published through March 31, 2015 that evaluated rehabilitation strategies in adults with acute or subacute traumatic SCI at any level. Studies were critically appraised individually and the overall strength of evidence was evaluated using methods proposed by the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation) working group. Results: The search strategy yielded 384 articles, 19 of which met our inclusion criteria. Based on our results, there was no difference between body weight–supported treadmill training and conventional rehabilitation with respect to improvements in Functional Independence Measure (FIM) Locomotor score, Lower Extremity Motor Scores, the distance walked in 6 minutes or gait velocity over 15.2 m. Functional electrical therapy resulted in slightly better FIM Motor, FIM Self-Care, and Spinal Cord Independence Measure Self-Care subscores compared with conventional occupational therapy. Comparisons using the Toronto Rehabilitation Institute Hand Function Test demonstrated no differences between groups in 7 of 9 domains. There were no clinically important differences in Maximal Lean Test, Maximal Sidewards Reach Test, T-shirt Test, or the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure between unsupported sitting training and standard in-patient rehabilitation. Conclusion: The current evidence base for rehabilitation following acute and subacute spinal cord injury is limited. Methodological challenges have contributed to this and further research is still needed. © 2017, © The Author(s) 2017

Is minimal access spine surgery more cost-effective than conventional spine surgery?

Systematic review. To summarize and critically review the economic literature evaluating the cost-effectiveness of minimal access surgery (MAS) compared with conventional open procedures for the cervical and lumbar spine. MAS techniques may improve perioperative parameters (length of hospital stay and extent of blood loss) compared with conventional open approaches. However, some have questioned the clinical efficacy of these differences and the associated cost-effectiveness implications. When considering the long-term outcomes, there seem to be no significant differences between MAS and open surgery. PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration database, University of York, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (NHS-EED and HTA), and the Tufts CEA Registry were reviewed to identify full economic studies comparing MAS with open techniques prior to December 24, 2013, based on the key questions established a priori. Only economic studies that evaluated and synthesized the costs and consequences of MAS compared with conventional open procedures (i.e., cost-minimization, cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness, or cost-utility) were considered for inclusion. Full text of the articles meeting inclusion criteria were reviewed by 2 independent investigators to obtain the final collection of included studies. The Quality of Health Economic Studies instrument was scored by 2 independent reviewers to provide an initial basis for critical appraisal of included economic studies. The search strategy yielded 198 potentially relevant citations, and 6 studies met the inclusion criteria, evaluating the costs and consequences of MAS versus conventional open procedures performed for the lumbar spine; no studies for the cervical spine met the inclusion criteria. Studies compared MAS tubular discectomy with conventional microdiscectomy, minimal access transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, and multilevel hemilaminectomy via MAS versus open approach. Overall, the included cost-effectiveness studies generally supported no significant differences between open surgery and MAS lumbar approaches. However, these conclusions are preliminary because there was a paucity of high-quality evidence. Much of the evidence lacked details on methodology for modeling, related assumptions, justification of economic model chosen, and sources and types of included costs and consequences. The follow-up periods were highly variable, indirect costs were not frequently analyzed or reported, and many of the studies were conducted by a single group, thereby limiting generalizability. Prospective studies are needed to define differences and optimal treatment algorithms. 3