Variability in Management Practices and Surgical Decision Making in Spinal Tuberculosis: An Expert Survey-Based Study.

STUDY DESIGN: Electronic survey-based study. PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to objectively review the variability in the prevailing treatment protocols and surgical decision making in the management of patients with spinal tuberculosis (TB) among spine surgeons with expertise in spinal TB across the country. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: A lack of good-quality evidence, ambiguities in the national spinal TB guidelines, and the demand for early rehabilitation and a better quality of life in patients with spinal TB has led to the emergence of various gray zones in the management of spinal TB. METHODS: Seventeen fellowship-trained spinal TB experts representing different geographical regions of India completed an online survey consisting of questions pertaining to the conservative management of spinal TB (antitubercular therapy) and 30 clinical case vignettes including a wide spectrum of presentations of spinal TB with no or minimal neurological deficit. The variability in the responses for questions and case wise variability with respect to surgical decision making was assessed using the index of qualitative variation (IQV). The average tendency to operate (TTO) was calculated for various groups of respondents. RESULTS: High variability was observed in all questions regarding conservative spinal TB management (IQV > 0.8). Among the 30 case vignettes, 14 were found to have high variability with respect to surgical decision making (IQV > 0.8). With respect to levels of fixation, all but two cases had poor or slight agreement. Younger age and practice in a government or tertiary care teaching hospital were factors associated with a higher TTO. CONCLUSIONS: Significant variability was detected in treatment practices for the management of spinal TB among experts. Most of the case vignettes were found to have significant heterogeneity with respect to surgical decision making, which reflects a significant lack of consensus and lacunae in literature.