How should we grade lumbar disc herniation and nerve root compression? A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: MRI is the gold standard for evaluating the relationship of disc material to soft tissue and neural structures. However, terminologies used to describe lumbar disc herniation and nerve root compression have always been a source of confusion. A clear understanding of lumbar disc terminology among clinicians, radiologists, and researchers is vital for patient care and future research. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: Through a systematic review of the literature, the purpose of this article is to describe lumbar disc terminology and comment on the reliability of various nomenclature systems and their application to clinical practice. METHODS: PubMed was used for our literature search using the following MeSH headings: "Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Intervertebral Disc Displacement" and "Lumbar Vertebrae" and terms "nomenclature" or "grading" or "classification". Ten papers evaluating lumbar disc herniation/nerve root compression using different grading criteria and providing information regarding intraobserver and interobserver agreement were identified. RESULTS: To date, the Combined Task Force (CTF) and van Rijn classification systems are the most reliable methods for describing lumbar disc herniation and nerve root compression, respectively. van Rijn dichotomized nerve roots from "definitely no root compression, possibly no root compression, indeterminate root compression, possible root compression, and definite root compression" into no root compression (first three categories) and root compression (last two categories). The CTF classification defines lumbar discs as normal, focal protrusion, broad-based protrusion, or extrusion. The CTF classification system excludes "disc bulges," which is a source of confusion and disagreement among many practitioners. This potentially accounts for its improved reliability compared with other proposed nomenclature systems. CONCLUSIONS: The main issue in the management of patients with lumbar disc disease and nerve root compression is correlation of imaging findings with clinical presentation and symptomatology to guide treatment and intervention. Although it appears that the most commonly supported nomenclatures have strong interobserver reliability, the classification term "disc bulges" is a source of confusion and disagreement among many practitioners. Additional research should focus on the clinical application of the various nomenclatures.

Cost-effectiveness of lumbar discectomy and single-level fusion for spondylolisthesis: experience with the NeuroPoint-SD registry.

OBJECT: There is significant practice variation and uncertainty as to the value of surgical treatments for lumbar spine disorders. The authors' aim was to establish a multicenter registry to assess the efficacy and costs of common lumbar spinal procedures by using prospectively collected outcomes. METHODS: An observational prospective cohort study was completed at 13 academic and community sites. Patients undergoing single-level fusion for spondylolisthesis or single-level lumbar discectomy were included. The 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) data were obtained preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. Power analysis estimated a sample size of 160 patients: lumbar disc (125 patients) and lumbar listhesis (35 patients). The quality-adjusted life year (QALY) data were calculated using 6-dimension utility index scores. Direct costs and complication costs were estimated using Medicare reimbursement values from 2011, and indirect costs were estimated using the human capital approach with the 2011 US national wage index. Total costs equaled $14,980 for lumbar discectomy and $43,852 for surgery for lumbar spondylolisthesis. RESULTS: There were 198 patients enrolled over 1 year. The mean age was 46 years (49% female) for lumbar discectomy (n = 148) and 58.1 years (60% female) for lumbar spondylolisthesis (n = 50). Ten patients with disc herniation (6.8%) and 1 with listhesis (2%) required repeat operation at 1 year. The overall 1-year follow-up rate was 88%. At 30 days, both lumbar discectomy and single-level fusion procedures were associated with significant improvements in ODI, visual analog scale, and SF-36 scores (p = 0.0002), which persisted at the 1-year evaluation (p < 0.0001). By 1 year, more than 80% of patients in each cohort who were working preoperatively had returned to work. Lumbar discectomy was associated with a gain of 0.225 QALYs over the 1-year study period ($66,578/QALY gained). Lumbar spinal fusion for Grade I listhesis was associated with a gain of 0.195 QALYs over the 1-year study period ($224,420/QALY gained). CONCLUSIONS: This national spine registry demonstrated successful collection of high-quality outcomes data for spinal procedures in actual practice. These data are useful for demonstrating return to work and cost-effectiveness following surgical treatment of single-level lumbar disc herniation or spondylolisthesis. One-year cost per QALY was obtained, and this cost per QALY is expected to improve further by 2 years. This work sets the stage for real-world analysis of the value of health interventions.

Development of a Predictive Model for Persistent Instability Following Conservative Management of Type II Odontoid Fractures.

BACKGROUND: Odontoid fractures are common cervical spine fractures; however, significant controversy exists regarding their treatment. Risk factors for failure of conservative therapy have been identified, although no predictive risk score has been developed to aid in decision-making. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of all patients evaluated at a level 1 trauma center. Patients identified with type II odontoid fractures as classified by the D'Alonzo Classification system who were treated with external orthosis were included in analysis. Patients were considered to have failed conservative therapy if they were offered surgical intervention. A machine learning method (Risk-SLIM) was then utilized to create a risk stratification score based on risk factors to identify patients at high risk for requiring surgical intervention due to persistent instability. RESULTS: A total of 138 patients were identified as presenting with type II odontoid fractures that were treated conservatively; 38 patients were offered surgery for persistent instability. The Odontoid Fracture Predictive Model (OFPM) was created using a machine learning algorithm with a 5-fold cross validation area under the curve of 0.7389 (95% CI: 0.671 to 0.808). Predictive factors were found to include fracture displacement, displacement greater than 5 mm, comminution at the fracture base, and history of smoking. The probability of persistent instability was <5% with a score of 0 and 88% with a score of 5. CONCLUSIONS: The OFPM model is a unique, quick, and accurate tool to assist in clinical decision-making in patients with type II odontoid fractures. External validation is necessary to evaluate the validity of these findings.

Wisconsin Spine Outcome Study-Pilot: preliminary data.

OBJECT: Given the pragmatic difficulties in developing randomized controlled trials in patients with disorders of the spine, the Wisconsin Spine Outcome Group has adopted the use of a prospective registry design to perform comparative effectiveness research on treatments for degenerative lumbar disorders. The goal of the Wisconsin Spine Outcome Study-Pilot (WISPOS-P) was to establish a Web-based, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant registry and to implement a patient registration paradigm that demonstrates at least 80% compliance in collecting pre- and posttreatment data in patients with lumbar disorders, regardless of the treatment they receive. The primary outcome measures were the percentage of patients with lumbar spine disorders who completed a Web-based survey preappointment, and at 1 and 3 months postappointment; the percentage of patients receiving a physician-assigned diagnosis in the registry; and the success of electronic data transition from the Web-based interface to a locally controlled registry. METHODS: The WISPOS-P uses a prospective, diagnosis-based registry design. A universally accessible and secure Internet-based data management platform was created that accrues self-entered patient data on validated disability indices, including the visual analog pain scale, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey questionnaire. Data were obtained on patients, preappointment and at 1 and 3 months postappointment, regardless of the treatment rendered. A physician-entered diagnosis was assigned to each patient for data stratification. RESULTS: One hundred patients were invited into the WISPOS-P; 90 patients participated, and 10 withdrew for various reasons. Eighty-eight of 90 patients were assigned a diagnosis by the evaluating physician. Preliminary and qualitative assessment of the data shows that the major difference between patients who withdrew from the study and those who participated was the number of days between study invitation and clinic appointment (median 11 vs 20.5 days, respectively). In evaluating patients by mode of survey completion, the 2 largest groups were those who completed their intake forms electronically before their clinic appointment and those who used the paper format. The median age of patients electronically completing this survey was 14.34 years younger than those using the paper format. A significantly higher proportion of patients who completed their forms electronically had listed an email address. The 3 major diagnoses were disc disease (32 patients), stenosis (24 patients), and nonsurgical pain of spinal origin (14 patients). Patients with stenosis were older than those in the other 2 groups. Patients with nonsurgical pain of spinal origin had lower ODI scores compared with the other 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: A diagnosis-based registry design is effective in collecting pretreatment data for patients with lumbar disorders. When stratified by diagnosis, comparative effectiveness analyses can be performed to identify optimum treatments for lumbar disorders given individual patient characteristics. The WISPOS-P has established a mechanism and proof of principle for the participation of patients in an outcomes registry.

Update on Spinal Fusion.

Spinal fusion is frequently performed for a variety of indications. It is performed to treat instability due to trauma, infection, or neoplasm. It may be used to treat regional or global spinal deformity. There are even occasions when it is appropriate as a treatment of low back pain without overt instability or deformity. One common indication for fusion is as an adjunct to decompression for patients with neurogenic claudication or radiculopathy caused by stenosis associated with spondylolisthesis. There have been a number of high-quality publications in high-quality journals that have reported conflicting results regarding the utility of fusion in this patient population. The existence of conflicting data from seemingly similarly designed trials has resulted in some confusion as to when a fusion should be used. This chapter will describe the controversy, discuss the likely basis for the disparate results reported in the literature, and recommend a reasonable treatment strategy. Going forward, the SLIP II study is an ongoing randomized, controlled trial designed to help clarify the situation. Preliminary findings drawn from this study will be discussed.

Degenerative Spine Disorders and Multiple Sclerosis.

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is an autoimmune inflammatory disease that results in demyelination of the central nervous system (CNS). MS affects as many as 350,000 individuals in the United States and commonly presents before the age of 45 years. Patients with MS, as the general population, are likely to encounter degenerative changes of the spine as they age, and this can pose a unique challenge to both patients with MS and physicians, as both conditions can have a great deal of symptomatic overlap despite stark differences in management. Currently there is no definitive approach that allows physicians to distinguish between the 2 conditions; however, specific clinical and radiologic findings have been identified as being useful in evaluating these patients.

Creation and validation of a predictive model for lumbar synovial cyst recurrence following decompression without fusion.

OBJECTIVE: Lumbar synovial cysts (LSCs) represent a relatively rare clinical pathology that may result in radiculopathy or neurogenic claudication. Because of the potential for recurrence of these cysts, some authors advocate for segmental fusion, as opposed to decompression alone, as a way to eliminate the risk for recurrence. The objective of this study was to create a predictive score for synovial cyst recurrence following decompression without fusion. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was completed of all patients evaluated at a single center over 20 years who were found to have symptomatic LSCs requiring intervention. Only patients undergoing decompression without fusion were included in the analysis. Following this review, baseline characteristics were obtained as well as radiological information. A machine learning method (risk-calibrated supersparse linear integer model) was then used to create a risk stratification score to identify patients at high risk for symptomatic cyst recurrence requiring repeat surgical intervention. Following the creation of this model, a fivefold cross-validation was completed. RESULTS: In total, 89 patients were identified who had complete radiological information. Of these 89 patients, 11 developed cyst recurrence requiring reoperation. The Lumbar Synovial Cyst Score was then created with an area under the curve of 0.83 and calibration error of 11.0%. Factors predictive of recurrence were found to include facet inclination angle > 45°, canal stenosis > 50%, T2 joint space hyperintensity, and presence of grade I spondylolisthesis. The probability of cyst recurrence ranged from < 5% for a score of 2 or less to > 88% for a score of 7. CONCLUSIONS: The Lumbar Synovial Cyst Score model is a quick and accurate tool to assist in clinical decision-making in the treatment of LSCs.

Management of failed Chiari decompression and intrasyringeal hemorrhage in Noonan syndrome: illustrative cases.

BACKGROUND: Noonan syndrome (NS) is a rare genetic RASopathy with multisystem implications. The disorder is typically characterized by short stature, distinctive facial features, intellectual disability, developmental delay, chest deformity, and congenital heart disease. NS may be inherited or arise secondary to spontaneous mutations of genes in the Ras/mitogen activated protein kinase signaling pathways. OBSERVATIONS: Numerous case reports exist detailing the association between NS and Chiari I malformation (CM-I), although this relationship has not been fully established. Patients with NS who present with CM-I requiring operation have shown high rates reoperation for failed decompression. The authors reported two patients with NS, CM-I, and syringomyelia who had prior posterior fossa decompressions without syrinx improvement. Both patients received reoperation with successful outcomes. LESSONS: The authors highlighted the association between NS and CM-I and raised awareness that patients with these disorders may be at higher risk for failed posterior fossa decompression, necessitating reoperation.

Outcomes following conservative treatment of extension fractures in the setting of diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis: is external orthosis alone a reasonable option?

OBJECTIVE: Extension fractures in the setting of diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis (DISH) represent highly unstable injuries. As a result, these fractures are most frequently treated with immediate surgical fixation to limit any potential risk of associated neurological injury. Although this represents the standard of care, patients with significant comorbidities, advanced age, or medical instability may not be surgical candidates. In this paper, the authors evaluated a series of patients with extension DISH fractures who were treated with orthosis alone and evaluated their outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective review from 2015 to 2022 was conducted at a large level 1 trauma center. Patients with extension-type DISH fractures without neurological deficits were identified. All patients were treated conservatively with orthosis alone. Baseline patient characteristics and adverse outcomes are reported. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients were identified as presenting with extension fractures associated with DISH without neurological deficit. Of these, 22 patients had complete follow-up on final chart review. Of these 22 patients, 21 (95.5%) were treated successfully with external orthosis. One patient (4.5%) who was noncompliant with the brace had an acute spinal cord injury 1 month after presentation, requiring immediate surgical fixation and decompression. No other complications, including skin breakdown or pressure ulcers related to bracing, were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of extension-type DISH fractures may be a reasonable option for patients who are not candidates for safe surgical intervention; however, a risk of neurological injury secondary to delayed instability remains, particularly if patients are noncompliant with the bracing regimen. This risk should be balanced against the high complication rate and potential mortality associated with surgical intervention in this patient population.

Comparison of Decompression versus Decompression and Fusion for Lumbar Synovial Cysts and Predictive Factors for Cyst Recurrence.

BACKGROUND: The management of lumbar synovial cysts (LSC) has been a controversial topic for many years. Whereas many authors label LSC as markers of instability and thus necessitating fusion, others suggest that decompression alone without fusion is a viable initial treatment option. Our objective was to clarify outcomes in patients undergoing decompression alone and decompression with fusion for symptomatic LSC and identify factors for cyst recurrence. METHODS: A retrospective case series was performed of all patients undergoing initial treatment for LSC at a single institution ranging from January 1999 to February 2020. Surgical treatment included either decompression with cystectomy or decompression with cystectomy and a fusion procedure. Preoperative symptoms were collected and included radicular pain, motor deficits, sensory deficits, or bowel/bladder changes. Radiographic data were calculated individually and confirmed with radiology reports. Categorical variables were assessed using χ2 analysis and continuous variables were assessed with the 2-sample t test. RESULTS: In total, 161 patients were identified as presenting with symptomatic LSC. Of these, 104 patients underwent decompression alone versus 57 who underwent decompression and fusion. In the decompression group 11 patients required reoperation at the level of the cyst compared with none in those undergoing fusion as their initial procedure (10.5% vs. 0%, P = 0.012). On subgroup analysis of those undergoing decompression as their initial procedure, patients with cyst recurrence demonstrated a statistically significant greater coronal facet inclination angle compared with those without cyst recurrence (52.4° vs. 40.6°, P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Decompression alone is a reasonable choice for the initial management of LSC, although it does carry a significant risk of same-level reoperation due to cyst recurrence and spondylolisthesis. Preoperative coronal facet inclination angle may be a useful measurement in predicting cyst recurrence following decompression.

Classification and Reliability of Lumbar Facet Cysts Grading Scales.

BACKGROUND: The presence of symptomatic lumbar facet cysts has been associated with segmental instability. Given this association, decompression versus decompression with fusion is a frequently debated topic. Multiple grading scales have been devised to identify patients at high risk for development of cyst recurrence; however, there exists no external evaluation of these scales. METHODS: A retrospective review of 54 patients undergoing initial treatment for lumbar synovial cysts at a single institution over the past 12 years was conducted. Surgical treatment consisted of decompression with cystectomy without fusion. Patients were assessed and classified according to the NeuroSpine Surgery Research Group (NSURG) and Rosenstock Classification systems. Five neurosurgeons reviewed the preoperative magnetic resonance images, and results were classified. Interrater reliability was assessed using both Gwet's AC1 coefficient and Krippendorff's alpha. A 1-way analysis of variance was used to evaluate predictive ability of both classification systems. RESULTS: In total, of the 54 patients who underwent decompression, 7 had cyst recurrence. Overall cyst recurrence was most common in NSURG grade 2 cysts (3/12, 25%) followed by grade 1 cysts (4/27, 14.8%). Of the NSURG grade 3 and 4 patients, none had cyst recurrence. In the Rosenstock grades the most common recurrence was in grade 3 cysts (1/4, 25%) followed by grade 1 cysts (5/26, 19.2%). Interrater reliability demonstrated good reproducibility on Gwet's AC1 and Krippendorff's alpha on both grading scales. Neither score was predictive of cyst recurrence (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The Rosenstock and NeuroSpine scores demonstrate good overall interrater reliability but are inconsistent in their ability to predict recurrence of lumbar facet cysts.

Cervical fusion for treatment of degenerative conditions: development of appropriate use criteria.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: High quality evidence is difficult to generate, leaving substantial knowledge gaps in the treatment of spinal conditions. Appropriate use criteria (AUC) are a means of determining appropriate recommendations when high quality evidence is lacking. PURPOSE: Define appropriate use criteria (AUC) of cervical fusion for treatment of degenerative conditions of the cervical spine. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Appropriate use criteria for cervical fusion were developed using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness methodology. Following development of clinical guidelines and scenario writing, a one-day workshop was held with a multidisciplinary group of 14 raters, all considered thought leaders in their respective fields, to determine final ratings for cervical fusion appropriateness for various clinical situations. OUTCOME MEASURES: Final rating for cervical fusion recommendation as either "Appropriate," "Uncertain" or "Rarely Appropriate" based on the median final rating among the raters. METHODS: Inclusion criteria for scenarios included patients aged 18 to 80 with degenerative conditions of the cervical spine. Key modifiers were defined and combined to develop a matrix of clinical scenarios. The median score among the raters was used to determine the final rating for each scenario. The final rating was compared between modifier levels. Spearman's rank correlation between each modifier and the final rating was determined. A multivariable ordinal regression model was fit to determine the adjusted odds of an "Appropriate" final rating while adjusting for radiographic diagnosis, number of levels and symptom type. Three decision trees were developed using decision tree classification models and variable importance for each tree was computed. RESULTS: Of the 263 scenarios, 47 (17.9 %) were rated as rarely appropriate, 66 (25%) as uncertain and 150 (57%) were rated as appropriate. Symptom type was the modifier most strongly correlated with the final rating (adjusted ρ2 = 0.58, p<.01). A multivariable ordinal regression adjusting for symptom type, diagnosis, and number of levels and showed high discriminative ability (C statistic = 0.90) and the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of receiving a final rating of "Appropriate" was highest for myelopathy (aOR, 7.1) and radiculopathy (aOR, 4.8). Three decision tree models showed that symptom type and radiographic diagnosis had the highest variable importance. CONCLUSIONS: Appropriate use criteria for cervical fusion in the setting of cervical degenerative disorders were developed. Symptom type was most strongly correlated with final rating. Myelopathy or radiculopathy were most strongly associated with an "Appropriate" rating, while axial pain without stenosis was most associated with "Rarely Appropriate."

Comparison of perioperative oral multimodal analgesia versus IV PCA for spine surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: A preintervention and postintervention design was used to examine a total of 200 patients. OBJECTIVE: After successful implementation at our institution of a perioperative oral multimodal analgesia protocol in major joint arthroplasty, a modified regimen was provided to patients undergoing spine procedures. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: A proactive, multimodal approach is currently recommended for the management of acute postoperative pain. Inadequate postoperative analgesia can negatively influence surgical outcome and duration of rehabilitation. Routine use of intravenous patient controlled analgesia (IV PCA) after surgery can result in substantial functional interference, side effects, and lead to untoward events as a result of programming errors. METHODS: A preintervention and postintervention design was used to compare a historical control group of spine surgery patients who received conventional IV PCA (N=100) with a prospective group who received some form of perioperative oral multimodal analgesia (N=100). The new regimen included preoperative and postoperative scheduled extended-release oxycodone, gabapentin, and acetaminophen, intraoperative dolasetron and as-needed postoperative short-acting oral oxycodone. Patient surveys and chart audits were used to measure pain intensity, functional interference from pain, opioid consumption, analgesic-related side effects, and patient satisfaction over the first 24 hours postoperatively. RESULTS: Patients who received the new perioperative multimodal oral regimen had significantly less opioid consumption (P<0.001), lower ratings of Least Pain (P<0.01), and experienced less nausea (P<.001), drowsiness (P<0.05), interference with walking (P=0.05), and coughing and deep breathing (P<0.05) compared with the IV PCA group. CONCLUSIONS: This quality improvement study shows some safety and significant advantages of a multimodal perioperative oral analgesic regimen compared with standard IV PCA after spine surgery.

Interobserver variance and patient heterogeneity influencing the treatment of grade I spondylolisthesis.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Despite well done randomized clinical trials, the role of fusion as an adjunct to decompression for the treatment of patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis remains controversial. There is substantial variation in the use of fusion as well as the techniques used for fusion for a population of patients all described by a single ICD10 code. PURPOSE: We sought to investigate the source of the variation in the perceived role of fusion by looking at surgeon as well as patient-specific factors. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study examining the variability of recommendations from an expert panel of surgeons-based imaging and clinical vignettes. PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis and stenosis. OUTCOME MEASURES: A six-category treatment schema based on level of invasiveness of proposed surgeries with one through three representing nonfusion strategies and categories four through six representing fusion strategies. METHODS: The authors are conducting the ongoing spinal laminectomy vs instrumented pedicle screw II study in which patients with grade one degenerative spondylolisthesis and stenosis are randomized to two groups: a review group in which patients are treated as per recommendations of an expert panel and a nonreview group in which patients are treated as per the referring surgeon's preference. In the former (review group), clinical vignettes and radiographic studies were evaluated by an expert panel of spine surgeons. The panel then provided these recommendations to the referring surgeon. We investigated the underlying variability by looking both at the number of similar or different recommendations received by an individual patient (surgeon-related variability) as well as the number of similar or different recommendations offered by individual surgeons across the population of patients (patient heterogeneity). Agreement between surgeons for fusion vs nonfusion (Categories 1-3 vs 4-6) was calculated using a Kappa value from a mixed effects logistic regression model. We looked at Kappa for agreement and weighted Kappa for association of ratings on the ordinal 1 to 6 scale with a mixed effects linear regression model. Additionally, we analyzed the summary of data between patients after averaging the rater scores within patients. Similarly, we summarized the data between surgeons after averaging their scores over the patients that each surgeon reviewed. RESULTS: One hundred and fourteen patients received 1,463 treatment recommendations. On average, fusion was recommended 58.5% of the time. Overall agreement was low, and perfect agreement on the need for fusion was seen in only 24 (21.1%) of patients. Kappa statistic for agreement on fusion was 0.378 (95% confidence interval 0.324-0.432). The average score across surgeons was 4.2 (0.6) with a range of 3 to 5.3. The most common single recommendation was for fusion with interbody fusion (40.8%) and the lowest was for decompression with noninstrumented fusion (0.5%). CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated variability in surgical approach when individual patients were evaluated by a panel of surgeons indicating that even "expert" surgeons disagree with each other regarding the need for fusion in individual patients. We were also able to demonstrate that individual patients received consistent recommendations that were very different from those received by other individuals evaluated by the same surgeons. This indicates that there is patient-related heterogeneity driving variability independent of surgeon factors.

Computed Tomography Guidance for Percutaneous Glycerol Rhizotomy for Trigeminal Neuralgia.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous glycerol rhizotomy (PGR) is a well-described treatment for trigeminal neuralgia; however, the technique in using surface landmarks and fluoroscopy has not drastically changed since being first introduced. In this paper, we describe a protocol for PGR using computed tomography (CT) guidance based on an experience of over 7 yr and 200 patients. OBJECTIVE: To introduce an approach for PGR using CT guidance and, in doing so, demonstrate possible benefits over the traditional fluoroscopic technique. METHODS: Using a standard CT scanner, patients are placed supine with head in extension. Barium paste and a CT scout image are used to identify and plan a trajectory to the foramen ovale. A laser localization system built into the CT scanner helps to guide placement of the spinal needle into the foramen ovale. The needle position in the foramen is confirmed with a short-sequence CT scan. RESULTS: CT-guided PGR provides multiple benefits over standard fluoroscopy, including improved visualization of the skull base and significant reduction in radiation exposure to the surgeon and staff. Side benefits include improved procedure efficiency, definitive imaging evidence of correct needle placement, and potentially increased patient safety. We have had no significant complications in over 200 patients. CONCLUSION: CT-guided PGR is a useful technique for treating trigeminal neuralgia based on better imaging of the skull base, better efficiency of the procedure, and elimination of radiation exposure for the surgeon and staff compared to traditional fluoroscopic based techniques.

Use of a Laryngeal Mask Airway Decreases Radiation Exposure During Computed Tomography-Guided Percutaneous Glycerol Rhizotomy for Trigeminal Neuralgia.

BACKGROUND: We have been using computed tomography (CT) guidance for percutaneous glycerol rhizotomy (PGR) for the last 7 years. As a quality improvement exercise, we recently began using general anesthesia (GA) with the use of a laryngeal mask airway (LMA) because of our perception that the procedure went faster and that there was less radiation exposure because of less patient movement. We aim to compare PGR radiation exposure and procedural time between patients receiving local anesthetic with sedation and those receiving GA/LMA. METHODS: A single-center historical cohort study was performed using patients treated with PGR between 2017 and 2019. Ninety-two surgeries were conducted during the study period: 64 surgeries had local anesthetic with intravenous sedation, and 28 surgeries had deeper anesthetic with LMA. Data analyzed included the number of CT sequences obtained, needle placement time, and total radiation dose. RESULTS: Use of GA/LMA resulted in a 23% decrease in mean radiation dose (565.5 vs. 436.1 µGy × cm, P = 0.014), number of CT sequences required (7.4 vs. 5.7, P = 0.003), and needle placement time (12.8 vs. 9.8 minutes, P = 0.006). Additionally, 10 patients underwent multiple glycerol rhizotomies during the collection period with both anesthetic types being used at least once. Seven of 10 patients (70.0%) had a reduction in total radiation dose, number of CT sequences obtained, and needle placement time when GA/LMA was used. There were no procedure- or anesthetic-related complications in this patient cohort. CONCLUSIONS: The use of GA/LMA during PGR is associated with decreased radiation exposure without increased anesthetic complications.

Continuous improvement in patient safety and quality in neurological surgery: the American Board of Neurological Surgery in the past, present, and future.

The American Board of Neurological Surgery (ABNS) was incorporated in 1940 in recognition of the need for detailed training in and special qualifications for the practice of neurological surgery and for self-regulation of quality and safety in the field. The ABNS believes it is the duty of neurosurgeons to place a patient's welfare and rights above all other considerations and to provide care with compassion, respect for human dignity, honesty, and integrity. At its inception, the ABNS was the 13th member board of the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS), which itself was founded in 1933. Today, the ABNS is one of the 24 member boards of the ABMS.To better serve public health and safety in a rapidly changing healthcare environment, the ABNS continues to evolve in order to elevate standards for the practice of neurological surgery. In connection with its activities, including initial certification, recognition of focused practice, and continuous certification, the ABNS actively seeks and incorporates input from the public and the physicians it serves. The ABNS board certification processes are designed to evaluate both real-life subspecialty neurosurgical practice and overall neurosurgical knowledge, since most neurosurgeons provide call coverage for hospitals and thus must be competent to care for the full spectrum of neurosurgery.The purpose of this report is to describe the history, current state, and anticipated future direction of ABNS certification in the US.

Guideline summary review: an evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of low back pain.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The North American Spine Society's (NASS) Evidence Based Clinical Guideline for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Low Back Pain features evidence-based recommendations for diagnosing and treating adult patients with nonspecific low back pain. The guideline is intended to reflect contemporary treatment concepts for nonspecific low back pain as reflected in the highest quality clinical literature available on this subject as of February 2016. PURPOSE: The purpose of the guideline is to provide an evidence-based educational tool to assist spine specialists when making clinical decisions for adult patients with nonspecific low back pain. This article provides a brief summary of the evidence-based guideline recommendations for diagnosing and treating patients with this condition. STUDY DESIGN: This is a guideline summary review. METHODS: This guideline is the product of the Low Back Pain Work Group of NASS' Evidence-Based Clinical Guideline Development Committee. The methods used to develop this guideline are detailed in the complete guideline and technical report available on the NASS website. In brief, a multidisciplinary work group of spine care specialists convened to identify clinical questions to address in the guideline. The literature search strategy was developed in consultation with medical librarians. Upon completion of the systematic literature search, evidence relevant to the clinical questions posed in the guideline was reviewed. Work group members utilized NASS evidentiary table templates to summarize study conclusions, identify study strengths and weaknesses, and assign levels of evidence. Work group members participated in webcasts and in-person recommendation meetings to update and formulate evidence-based recommendations and incorporate expert opinion when necessary. The draft guideline was submitted to an internal and external peer review process and ultimately approved by the NASS Board of Directors. RESULTS: Eighty-two clinical questions were addressed, and the answers are summarized in this article. The respective recommendations were graded according to the levels of evidence of the supporting literature. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence-based clinical guideline has been created using techniques of evidence-based medicine and best available evidence to aid practitioners in the diagnosis and treatment of adult patients with nonspecific low back pain. The entire guideline document, including the evidentiary tables, literature search parameters, literature attrition flowchart, suggestions for future research, and all of the references, is available electronically on the NASS website at https://www.spine.org/ResearchClinicalCare/QualityImprovement/ClinicalGuidelines.aspx.

Introduction and methodology: guidelines for the surgical management of cervical degenerative disease.

In March 2006, the Joint Section on Disorders of the Spine and Peripheral Nerves of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons and Congress of Neurological Surgeons compiled an expert group to perform an evidence-based review of the clinical literature on management of cervical degenerative spine disease. This process culminated in the formation of the Guidelines for the Surgical Management of Cervical Degenerative Disease. The purpose of the Guidelines was to address questions regarding the therapy, diagnosis, and prognosis of cervical degenerative disease using an evidence-based approach. Development of an evidence-based review and recommendations is a multitiered process. Typical guideline development consists of 5 processes: 1) collection and selection of the evidence; 2) assessment of the quality and strength of the evidence; 3) analysis of the evidentiary data; 4) formulation of recommendations; and 5) guideline validation. This manuscript details the methodology in compiling the Guidelines for the Surgical Management of Cervical Degenerative Disease.

The natural history of cervical spondylotic myelopathy.

OBJECT: The objective of this systematic review was to use evidence-based medicine to delineate the natural history of cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) and identify factors associated with clinical deterioration. METHODS: The National Library of Medicine and Cochrane Database were queried using MeSH headings and keywords relevant to the natural history of CSM. Abstracts were reviewed and studies meeting the inclusion criteria were selected. The guidelines group assembled an evidentiary table summarizing the quality of evidence (Classes I-III). Disagreements regarding the level of evidence were resolved through an expert consensus conference. The group formulated recommendations that contained the degree of strength based on the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines network. Validation was done through peer review by the Joint Guidelines Committee of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons and the Congress of Neurological Surgeons. RESULTS: The natural history of CSM is mixed: it may manifest as a slow, stepwise decline or there may be a long period of quiescence (Class III). Long periods of severe stenosis are associated with demyelination and may result in necrosis of both gray and white matter. With severe and/or long lasting CSM symptoms, the likelihood of improvement with nonoperative measures is low. Objectively measurable deterioration is rarely seen acutely in patients younger than 75 years of age with mild CSM (modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association scale score > 12; Class I). In patients with cervical stenosis without myelopathy, the presence of abnormal electromyography findings or the presence of clinical radiculopathy is associated with the development of symptomatic CSM in this patient population (Class I). CONCLUSIONS: The natural history of CSM is variable, which may affect treatment decisions.