The diagnostic accuracy of imaging modalities to detect pseudarthrosis after spinal fusion-a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of imaging modalities to detect pseudarthrosis after thoracolumbar spinal fusion, with surgical exploration as reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature search for original studies was performed on the diagnostic accuracy of imaging as index test compared to surgical exploration as reference standard to diagnose pseudarthrosis after thoracolumbar spinal fusion. Diagnostic accuracy values were extracted and methodologic quality of studies was evaluated by the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) tool. Per modality, clinically comparable studies were included in subgroup meta-analysis and weighted odds ratios (ORs) were calculated using the random effects model. RESULTS: Fifteen studies were included. Risk of bias was classified as high/unclear in 58% of the studies. Concerns of applicability was classified as high/unclear in 40% of the studies. Four scintigraphy studies including 93 patients in total were pooled to OR = 2.91 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.93-9.13). Five studies on plain radiography with 398 patients in total were pooled into OR = 7.07 (95% CI: 2.97-16.86). Two studies evaluating flexion-extension radiography of 75 patients in total were pooled into OR = 4.00 (95% CI: 0.15-105.96). Two studies of 68 patients in total were pooled for CT and yielded OR = 17.02 (95% CI: 6.42-45.10). A single study reporting on polytomography, OR = 10.15 (95% CI 5.49-18.78), was also considered to be an accurate study. CONCLUSIONS: With a pooled OR of 17.02, CT can be considered the most accurate imaging modality for the detection of pseudarthrosis after thoracolumbar spinal fusion from this review.

Assisting Hand Assessment and Children's Hand-Use Experience Questionnaire -Observed Versus Perceived Bimanual Performance in Children with Unilateral Cerebral Palsy.

AIMS: To explore the differences, relationship, and extent of agreement between the Assisting Hand Assessment (AHA), measuring observed ability to perform bimanual tasks, and the Children's Hand-Use Experience Questionnaire (CHEQ), assessing experienced bimanual performance. METHODS: This study investigates a convenience sample of 34 children (16 girls) with unilateral cerebral palsy aged 6-18 years (mean 12.1, SD 3.9) in a cross-sectional design. RESULTS: The AHA and CHEQ subscales share 8-25% of their variance (R2). Bland-Altman plots for AHA and all three CHEQ subscales indicate good average agreement, with a mean difference approaching zero but large 95% confidence intervals. Limits of agreement were extremely wide, indicating considerable disagreement between AHA and CHEQ subscales. CONCLUSION: AHA and CHEQ seem to measure different though somewhat related constructs of bimanual performance. Results of this investigation reinforce the recommendation to use both instruments to obtain complementary information about bimanual performance including observed and perceived performance of children with unilateral cerebral palsy.

The Dutch version of the self-report Child Activity and Limitations Interview in adolescents with chronic pain.

PURPOSE: To assess the factor structure, related constructs and internal consistency of the Child Activity Limitation Interview 21-Child version for use in Dutch-language countries. METHODS: Cross-sectional validation study: After forward and back translation of the Dutch version of the Child Activity Limitation Interview 21-Child adolescents (11-21 years old) with chronic musculoskeletal pain completed an assessment. The assessment contained the Dutch Child Activity Limitation Interview, and questionnaires about demographics, pain intensity, functional disability, anxiety and depression. Internal consistency and construct validity were evaluated through exploratory factor analysis (principal axis factoring with oblique rotation) and hypotheses testing using pain intensity, activity limitations, anxiety and depression as comparative constructs. RESULTS: Seventy-four adolescents completed the assessment. Exploratory factor analysis resulted in a two-factor structure, explaining 50% of the variance. Internal consistency was good (Cronbach's α = 0.91 total scale, α = 0.90 Factor 1, α = 0.80 Factor 2). All nine hypotheses were confirmed. CONCLUSION: The Dutch version can be used to assess pain-related disability in Dutch-speaking adolescents comparable to the study sample. Scores on both subscales provide insight into the severity of the pain-related disability in both daily routine and more physically vigorous activities. Implications for Rehabilitation Chronic pain is a disabling disorder which not only impacts physically but restricts quality of life. This study provides clinicians a questionnaire to measure pain-related disability and quantify the impact of pain on the daily living of adolescents. The advantage of the Dutch version of the Child Activity and Limitations Interview over other measurements is that it can distinguish limitations in daily activities from more physically vigorous activities.

A tailored exercise program versus general exercise for a subgroup of patients with low back pain and movement control impairment: Short-term results of a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Exercise is an effective treatment for patients with sub-acute and chronic low back pain (LBP). Patients with a movement control impairment (MCI) can be diagnosed as a subgroup of patients with LBP. Unknown is which exercise intervention is most beneficial for this subgroup. This study assessed the short-term effect of a specific exercise program targeting movement control impairment versus general exercise treatment on disability in patients with LBP and MCI. METHODS: In a multicentre parallel group randomised controlled pragmatic trial, patients with sub-acute and chronic LBP were included. Further inclusion criteria were disability of ≥5 points on the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and ≥2 positive tests out of a set of 6 movement control impairment tests. A total of 106 patients were randomly assigned to either tailored movement control exercise intervention (MC, n = 52) or a general exercise intervention (GE, n = 54); both 9-18 individual treatment sessions, over a maximum of 12 weeks. The primary outcome was disability measured with the Patient Specific Functional scale (PSFS). Secondary outcome was the Roland-Morris disability scale (RMDQ). Measurements were taken pre- and posttreatment. RESULTS: No significant difference was found following the treatment period. Baseline-adjusted between-group mean difference for the PSFS was 0.5 (SD = 0.5; p = 0.32) in favour of MC exercises. The Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire revealed a significant, but not clinically relevant, between-group difference of 2.0 points (SD = 0.8; p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Disability in LBP patients was reduced considerably by both interventions. However, the limited contrast between the two exercise programs may have influenced outcomes.

A tailored exercise program versus general exercise for a subgroup of patients with low back pain and movement control impairment: A randomised controlled trial with one-year follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Exercise is an effective treatment for patients with sub-acute and chronic non-specific low back pain (NSLBP). Previous studies have shown that a subgroup of patients with NSLBP and movement control impairment (MCI) can be diagnosed with substantial reliability. However, which type of exercises are most beneficial to this subgroup is still unknown. OBJECTIVES: The effectiveness of a specific exercise treatment to improve movement control was tested in this study. METHODS: Using a multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT), we compared exercises that targeted MCI (MC) with a general exercise (GE) treatment. After randomisation, patients in both groups n(MC = 52; GE = 54) were treated in eight private physiotherapy practices and five hospital outpatient physiotherapy centres. Follow-up measurements were taken at post-treatment, six months and 12 months. The primary outcome measurement was the Patient Specific Function Scale (PSFS). RESULTS: PSFS showed no difference between groups after treatment, or at six months and 12 months. Secondary outcome analysis for pain and disability, measured with the Graded Chronic Pain scale and the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire respectively, showed that a small improvement post-treatment levelled off over the long term. Both groups improved significantly (p < 0.001) over the course of one year. CONCLUSION: This study found no additional benefit of specific exercises targeting MCI.