Effect of lumbar pedicle subtraction osteotomy level on lordosis distribution and shape.

PURPOSE: Little is known about the qualitative results (postoperative upper/lower lumbar arches distribution and lumbar apex or inflection point positioning) of lumbar pedicle subtraction osteotomies (L-PSO) depending on the level of L-PSO. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of adult deformity patients undergoing single-level L-PSO. We analyzed several variables in preoperative and postoperative sagittal radiographs: L-PSO level, Roussouly classification (R-type), inflection point (InfP), lumbar apex (LApex), spinopelvic parameters, lordosis distribution index (LDI = L4-S1/L1-S1), and number of levels in the lordosis (NVL). Comparisons between PSO levels were performed to determine lordosis distribution and sagittal shape using ANOVA test and Chi-squared statistics. RESULTS: A total of 126 patients were included in this study. L5-PSO mainly increased the lower lumbar arch, thereby increasing LDI. L4 increased upper/lower arches similarly. PSOs at and above L3 increased the upper lumbar arch, thereby decreasing LDI (P < 0.001). L4-PSO added 1 vertebra into the lordosis (NVL = + 1.2 ± 2.2). PSOs above L3 added 2 vertebrae into the lordosis (NVL = + 2.3 ± 1.4). Overall P = 0.007. PSOs above L4 shifted the LApex cranially in 70% of the cases (mean 1.12 levels) and the InfP in 85% of the cases (mean 2.4 levels). L5-PSO shifted the LApex caudally in 70% of the cases (mean - 1.1 levels) and the InfP in 50% of the cases (mean - 1.6 levels). Overall P < 0.006. The L-PSO level was not associated with a specific Roussouly-type P > 0.05. CONCLUSIONS: The level of L-PSO influenced upper/lower lumbar arches distribution, and lumbar apex and inflection point positioning. The correct level should be chosen based on the individual assessment of each patient.

Adult spinal deformity surgical decision-making score. Part 2: development and validation of a scoring system to guide the selection of treatment modalities for patients above 40 years with adult spinal deformity.

PURPOSE: We aimed to develop and internally validate a scoring system, the adult spinal deformity surgical decision-making (ASD-SDM) score, to guide the decision-making process for ASD patients aged above 40 years. METHODS: A multicentre prospective ASD database was retrospectively reviewed. The scoring system was developed using data from a derivation set and was internally validated in a validation set. The performance of the ASD-SDM score for predicting surgical management was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). RESULTS: A total of 702 patients were included for analysis in the present study. The scoring system developed based on 562 patients, ranging from 0 to 12 points, included five parameters: leg pain scored by the numerical rating scale; pain and self-image domains in the Scoliosis Research Society-22 score; coronal Cobb angle; and relative spinopelvic alignment. Surgical indication was graded as low (score 0 to 4), moderate (score 5 to 7), and high (score 8 to 12) groups. In the validation set of 140 patients, the AUC for predicting surgical management according to the ASD-SDM score was 0.797 (standard error = 0.037, P < 0.001, 95% confidence interval = 0.714 to 0.861), and in the low, moderate, and high surgical indication groups, 23.7%, 43.5%, and 80.4% of the patients, respectively, were treated surgically. CONCLUSIONS: The ASD-SDM score demonstrated reliability, with higher scores indicating a higher probability of surgery. This index could aid in the selection of surgery for ASD patients in clinical settings. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Restoring the ideal Roussouly sagittal profile in adult scoliosis surgery decreases the risk of mechanical complications.

PURPOSE: There are still no data proving whether restoring the ideal sagittal profile (according to Roussouly classification) in adult scoliosis (AS) patients leads to any additional benefit, especially regarding mechanical complications. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of operated AS patients recorded in a prospective multicenter database. Demographic and radiographic (preoperative and 6-week postoperative) data were analyzed. Patients with and without mechanical complications were compared looking especially at the surgical restoration of the ideal (based on Pelvic Incidence) sagittal profile. Univariate and multivariate analysis was performed to identify causes of mechanical complications at 2-year minimum follow-up. RESULTS: Ninty-six AS patients were analyzed. Thirty-nine patients suffered a mechanical complication (18 PJK, 11 pseudoarthrosis, 10 screw pull-out), and 57 patients had no mechanical complications. Postoperatively, 72% of patients not matching the ideal Roussouly-type suffered mechanical complications compared to 15% of matched patients (P < 0.001). Univariate analysis showed that older patients 64.9 ± 13 versus 40.7 ± 15.6 years (P < 0.001), higher postoperative Global Tilt (27° vs. 14.7°) and Pelvic Tilt (25° vs. 16°) (P < 0.001), upper instrumented vertebra at the thoracolumbar junction (62% vs. 21%) (P < 0.001), fixation to the Iliac (76% vs. 6%) (P < 0.001), and postoperative Roussouly-type mismatch (72% vs. 15%) (P < 0.001) significantly increased the rate of mechanical complications. Multivariate logistic regression analysis selected: postoperative Roussouly-type mismatch (OR = 41.9; 95%CI = 5.5-315.7; P < 0.001), iliac instrumentation (OR = 19.4; 95%CI = 2.6-142.5; P = 0.004), and age (OR = 1.1; 95%CI = 1.02-1.16; P = 0.004), as the most important variables. CONCLUSIONS: Adult scoliosis surgery should restore the ideal Roussouly sagittal profile to decrease the rate of mechanical complications, especially in patients older than 65, instrumented to the pelvis. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Prediction of satisfaction after correction surgery for adult spinal deformity: differences between younger and older patients.

PURPOSE: Achieving an adequate level of patient's satisfaction with results is one of the goals of adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery. However, it is unclear whether the same factors affect satisfaction in all patient populations. Patients' age influences the postoperative course and prevalence of complications after ASD surgery. The purpose of this study was to determine the factors predicting satisfaction 2 years after ASD surgery in younger and older patients. METHODS: A total of 119 patients under 40 years old, 155 patients 40 to 65 years old, and 148 patients over 65 years old at surgery who were followed for a minimum of 2 years after surgery were included. Multivariate analysis was used to determine independent related factors with maximum AUC for satisfaction 2 years after surgery in each group. A propensity-matched cohort under equivalent demographic and clinical characteristics was used to confirm the results. RESULTS: Logistic regression analyses revealed satisfaction among the under-40 group corresponded to prior spine surgery, complications, and self-image. That among the 40-to-65 group corresponded to neurologic complication, revision surgery, pain, and sagittal vertical axis restoration. Among the over-65 group satisfaction correlated with revision surgery, standing ability, and lumbar lordosis index restoration. Propensity score matching confirmed that sagittal alignment correction led to substantial satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: In younger patients, avoiding complications and improving patients' self-image were essential for substantial satisfaction levels. In older patients, revision, standing ability, as well as sagittal spinopelvic alignment restoration, were the key factors. Surgeons should consider the differences in goals of each patient.

Opioids and analgesics use after adult spinal deformity surgery correlates with sagittal alignment and preoperative analgesic pattern.

PURPOSE: To assess pain, health-related quality of life (HRQOL) scores and sagittal parameters of adult spinal deformity (ASD)-operated patients in the context of their analgesic consumption especially opioids (narcotics) over the first year postoperative period. METHODS: In total, 372 patients from a multicenter database were stratified into 3 groups at baseline: 241 patients in the minimal group (no analgesic, or NSAIDs/narcotics weekly or less), 64 in the NSAIDs every day group and 67 in the narcotics every day group. HRQOL and back and leg pain scores were evaluated at 6 months and 1 year postoperatively. Also several sagittal alignment parameters were assessed. RESULTS: Significant improvements in pain and HRQOL scores were observed across all 3 groups by 1 year (P < 0.05) postoperatively. While the minimal group had the best pre- and postoperative HRQOL scores, the NSAID group demonstrated the best improvement in HRQOL. Only the minimal group displayed continued improvement from 6 months to 1 year. 90%, 65% and 40% of minimal, NSAID and narcotic groups of patients, respectively, no longer took any analgesics at 1 year postoperatively. Alternatively, 36% of patients in the narcotics group continued to take narcotics at 1 year. Residual malalignment increased NSAIDs consumption in different groups at 1 year. CONCLUSION: This study evaluated the analgesics use after ASD surgery in relation to the clinical and radiological outcomes. Despite important postoperative opioids consumption in the narcotics group, clinical outcome yet improved. Malalignment parameters demonstrated a predictive value in regard to NSAIDs' usage. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Mental health status and sagittal spinopelvic alignment correlate with self-image in patients with adult spinal deformity before and after corrective surgery.

PURPOSE: Preoperative patient self-image (SI) in adult spinal deformity (ASD) is the most relevant factor for surgical decision-making. Postoperative SI has an important role in a patient's satisfaction with surgery. However, few studies are available to describe these variables. The aim was to investigate the factors that correlate with SI before and 2 years after ASD surgery. METHODS: This study was a retrospective review of prospectively collected multicentric data. Patients who underwent ASD surgery with a minimum follow-up of 2 years were enrolled (n = 391). They were divided into high-SI and low-SI groups, both preoperatively and postoperatively, according to SRS-22R SI/appearance subdomain scores at baseline and at 2 years, respectively. Independently related factors for SI were determined using logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Crucial factors for SI at baseline were the scores on the SRS-22R function/activity (OR: 2.61), SRS-22R mental health (OR: 2.63) subdomains, and relative spinopelvic alignment (RSA, OR: 0.95). SF-36 MCS (OR: 1.07) at baseline as well as sagittal vertical axis (SVA, OR: 0.99) at 2 years, and complications (OR: 0.44) were independent predictive factors for SI at 2 years. The patients who transitioned from the preoperative low-SI group to the postoperative high-SI group achieved larger global sagittal alignment restoration and had lesser complications than those who did not. CONCLUSIONS: Mental status and sagittal spinopelvic alignment are key determinants of SI. The results indicate that considering mental status, preventing complications, and global sagittal alignment, restoration is crucial for achieving substantial SI scores after ASD surgery. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Adult spinal deformity surgical decision-making score : Part 1: development and validation of a scoring system to guide the selection of treatment modalities for patients below 40 years with adult spinal deformity.

PURPOSE: We aimed to develop and internally validate a simple scoring system: the adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgical decision-making (ASD-SDM) score, which is specific to the decision-making process for ASD patients aged below 40 years. METHODS: A multicentre prospective ASD database was retrospectively reviewed. The scoring system was developed using data from a derivation cohort and was internally validated in a validation cohort. The accuracy of the ASD-SDM score was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). RESULTS: A total of 316 patients were randomly divided into derivation (253 patients, 80%) and validation (63 patients, 20%) cohorts. A 10-point scoring system was created from four variables: self-image score in the Scoliosis Research Society-22 score, coronal Cobb angle, pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis mismatch, and relative spinopelvic alignment, and the surgical indication was graded into low (score 0-4), moderate (score 5-7), and high (score 8-10) surgical indication groups. In the validation cohort, the AUC for selecting surgical management according to the ASD-SDM score was 0.789 (SE 0.057, P < 0.001, 95% CI 0.655-0.880). The percentage of patients treated surgically were 21.1%, 55.0%, and 80.0% in the low, moderate, and high surgical indication groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The ASD-SDM score, to the best of our knowledge, is the first algorithm to guide the decision-making process for the ASD population and could be one of the indices for aiding the selection of treatment for ASD. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Development of predictive models for all individual questions of SRS-22R after adult spinal deformity surgery: a step toward individualized medicine.

PURPOSE: Health-related quality of life (HRQL) instruments are essential in value-driven health care, but patients often have more specific, personal priorities when seeking surgical care. The Scoliosis Research Society-22R (SRS-22R), an HRQL instrument for spinal deformity, provides summary scores spanning several health domains, but these may be difficult for patients to utilize in planning their specific care goals. Our objective was to create preoperative predictive models for responses to individual SRS-22R questions at 1 and 2 years after adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery to facilitate precision surgical care. METHODS: Two prospective observational cohorts were queried for ASD patients with SRS-22R data at baseline and 1 and 2 years after surgery. In total, 150 covariates were used in training machine learning models, including demographics, surgical data and perioperative complications. Validation was accomplished via an 80%/20% data split for training and testing, respectively. Goodness of fit was measured using area under receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curves. RESULTS: In total, 561 patients met inclusion criteria. The AUROC ranged from 56.5 to 86.9%, reflecting successful fits for most questions. SRS-22R questions regarding pain, disability and social and labor function were the most accurately predicted. Models were less sensitive to questions regarding general satisfaction, depression/anxiety and appearance. CONCLUSIONS: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to explicitly model the prediction of individual answers to the SRS-22R questionnaire at 1 and 2 years after deformity surgery. The ability to predict individual question responses may prove useful in preoperative counseling in the age of individualized medicine. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Reliability and validity of the cross-culturally adapted Turkish version of the Core Outcome Measures Index for low back pain.

PURPOSE: To produce a cross-culturally adapted and validated Turkish version of The Core Outcome Measure Index (COMI) Back questionnaire. METHODS: Ninety-six Turkish-speaking patients with non-specific low back pain (LBP) were recruited from orthopedic and physical therapy outpatient clinics in a public hospital. They completed a booklet of questionnaires containing Turkish version of COMI, adjectival pain scale, Roland Morris disability questionnaire, European 5 Dimension Questionnaire and brief version of World Health Organization Quality of Life Questionnaire. Within following 7-14 days, 67 patients, reported no or minimal changes in their back pain status, completed the Turkish COMI again to assess reproducibility. RESULTS: Data quality was good with very few missing answers. COMI summary index score displayed 3% floor effects and no ceiling effects. The correlations between the COMI summary index score and each of the full instrument whole scores were found to be excellent to very good (ρ = - 0.81 to 0.74). Reliability expressed as intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was 0.95 (95% CI 0.91-0.97). Standard error of measurement (SEMagreement) was acceptable at 0.41 and the minimum detectable change (MDC95%) was 1.14. CONCLUSION: Turkish version of the COMI has acceptable psychometric properties. It is a valid and reliable instrument and cross-culturally adapted, in accordance with established guidelines, for the use by Turkish-speaking patients. It can be recommended for use in evaluation of patients with chronic LBP in daily practice, in international multicenter studies and in spine registry systems.

The Global Spine Care Initiative: a summary of guidelines on invasive interventions for the management of persistent and disabling spinal pain in low- and middle-income communities.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to synthesize recommendations on the use of common elective surgical and interventional procedures for individuals with persistent and disabling non-radicular/axial with or without myelopathy, radicular back pain, cervical myelopathy, symptomatic spinal stenosis, and fractures due to osteoporosis. This review was to inform a clinical care pathway on the patient presentations where surgical interventions could reasonably be considered. METHODS: We synthesized recommendations from six evidence-based clinical practice guidelines and one appropriate use criteria guidance for the surgical and interventional management of persistent and disabling spine pain. RESULTS: Lower priority surgery/conditions include fusion for lumbar/non-radicular neck pain and higher priority surgery/conditions include discectomy/decompressive surgery for cervical or lumbar radiculopathy, cervical myelopathy, and lumbar spinal stenosis. Epidural steroid injections are less expensive than most surgeries with fewer harms; however, benefits are small and short lived. Vertebroplasty should be considered over kyphoplasty as an option for patients with severe pain and disability due to osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture. CONCLUSION: Elective surgery and interventional procedures could be limited in medically underserved areas and low- and middle-income countries due to a lack of resources and surgeons and thus surgical and interventional procedures should be prioritized within these settings. There are non-invasive alternatives that produce similar outcomes and are a recommended option where surgical procedures are not available. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

The Global Spine Care Initiative: a consensus process to develop and validate a stratification scheme for surgical care of spinal disorders as a guide for improved resource utilization in low- and middle-income communities.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to develop a stratification scheme for surgical spinal care to serve as a framework for referrals and distribution of patients with spinal disorders. METHODS: We used a modified Delphi process. A literature search identified experts for the consensus panel and the panel was expanded by inviting spine surgeons known to be global opinion leaders. After creating a seed document of five hierarchical levels of surgical care, a four-step modified Delphi process (question validation, collection of factors, evaluation of factors, re-evaluation of factors) was performed. RESULTS: Of 78 invited experts, 19 participated in round 1, and of the 19, 14 participated in 2, and 12 in 3 and 4. Consensus was fairly heterogeneous for levels of care 2-4 (moderate resources). Only simple assessment methods based on the clinical skills of the medical personnel were considered feasible and safe in low-resource settings. Diagnosis, staging, and treatment were deemed feasible and safe in a specialized spine center. Accurate diagnostic workup was deemed feasible and safe for lower levels of care complexity (from level 3 upwards) compared to non-invasive procedures (level 4) and the full range of invasive procedures (level 5). CONCLUSION: This study introduces a five-level stratification scheme for the surgical care of spinal disorders. This stratification may provide input into the Global Spine Care Initiative care pathway that will be applied in medically underserved areas and low- and middle-income countries. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Decision-making factors in the treatment of adult spinal deformity.

PURPOSE: We aimed to elucidate the factors for the decision-making process in the treatment of adult spinal deformity (ASD), including sagittal parameters, that impact health-related quality of life (HRQOL). METHODS: A multicenter prospective ASD database was retrospectively reviewed. The demographic data, HRQOL, and radiographic measures were analyzed using multivariate analyses in younger (≤ 50 years) and older (> 50 years) age groups. RESULTS: This study included 414 patients (134 surgical and 280 nonsurgical; mean age 30.7 years) in the younger age group and 575 patients (323 surgical and 252 nonsurgical; mean age 65.8 years) in the older age group. Worse HRQOL measures drove surgical treatment, both in younger and older patients. The SRS-22 self-image score was the most differentiating domain, both in the younger and older age groups, and an additional significant factor in the older age group was pain and disability. Coronal deformity drove surgical treatment for the younger age group; however, older surgical patients were less likely to have coronal malalignment. Sagittal parameters were associated with the decision-making process. Greater pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis mismatch in the younger age group and smaller lumbar lordosis index in the older age group were most correlated with the decision to undergo surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Aside from the HRQOL measures and coronal deformity, sagittal parameters were identified as significant factors for the decision-making process in the ASD population, and the lack of lumbar lordosis in relation to pelvic incidence was a strong driver to pursue surgical treatment. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

The Global Spine Care Initiative: a systematic review for the assessment of spine-related complaints in populations with limited resources and in low- and middle-income communities.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic literature review was to develop recommendations for the assessment of spine-related complaints in medically underserved areas with limited resources. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and best evidence synthesis of guidelines on the assessment of spine-related complaints. Independent reviewers critically appraised eligible guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation-II criteria. Low risk of bias clinical practice guidelines was used to develop recommendations. In accordance with the mandate of the Global Spinal Care Initiative (GSCI), recommendations were selected that could be applied to medically underserved areas and low- and middle-income countries by considering the limited access and costs of diagnostic technologies. RESULTS: We screened 3069 citations; 20 guidelines were eligible for critical appraisal. We used 13 that had a low risk of bias that targeted neck and back pain. CONCLUSIONS: When assessing patients with spine-related complaints in medically underserved areas and low- and middle-income countries, we recommend that clinicians should: (1) take a clinical history to determine signs or symptoms suggesting serious pathology (red flags) and psychological factors (yellow flags); (2) perform a physical examination (musculoskeletal and neurological); (3) do not routinely obtain diagnostic imaging; (4) obtain diagnostic imaging and/or laboratory tests when serious pathologies are suspected, and/or presence of progressive neurologic deficits, and/or disabling persistent pain; (5) do not perform electromyography or nerve conduction studies for diagnosis of intervertebral disc disease with radiculopathy; and (6) do not perform discography for the assessment of spinal disorders. This information can be used to inform the GSCI care pathway and model of care. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

The impact of deep surgical site infection on surgical outcomes after posterior adult spinal deformity surgery: a matched control study.

PURPOSE: The impact of deep surgical site infection (SSI) on surgical outcomes after adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery is still unclear. We aimed to study the morbidity of SSI in ASD and its impact on deformity correction and functional outcome. METHODS: Prospective multicenter matched-cohort study including consecutively enrolled ASD patients. Patients developing SSI were matched to similar controls in terms of age, gender, ASA, primary or revision, extent of fusion, and use of tri-columnar osteotomies. Preoperative parameters, surgical variables, and complications were recorded. Deformity parameters and Health Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) scores were obtained preoperatively and at 6, 12, and 24 months. Independent t test and Fischer's exact test were used for comparisons. RESULTS: 444 surgical ASD patients with more than 2 years of follow-up were identified. 20 sustained an acute SSI and 60 controls were accordingly matched. No differences were observed between groups in preoperative radiological and HRQoL variables confirming comparable groups. SSI patients had longer hospital stay and more mechanical complications including proximal junctional kyphosis. Infection was associated with more unrelated complications and revisions. Deformity correction was maintained equally at the different time intervals. One death was related to SSI. SSI patients had worse overall HRQoL status at 1 year and were less likely to experience improvement. However, no significant differences were recorded thereafter. CONCLUSION: SSI significantly affects the first postoperative year after posterior ASD surgery. It is associated with more complications, unrelated revisions, and worst quality of life. However it's negative impact seems to be diluted by the second postoperative year as differences in HRQoL scores between the two groups decrease. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary material.

External validation of the adult spinal deformity (ASD) frailty index (ASD-FI).

PURPOSE: To assess the ability of the recently developed adult spinal deformity frailty index (ASD-FI) to predict odds of perioperative complications, odds of reoperation, and length of hospital stay after adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery using a database other than the one used to create the index. METHODS: We used the ASD-FI to calculate frailty scores for 266 ASD patients who had minimum postoperative follow-up of 2 years in the European Spine Study Group (ESSG) database. Patients were enrolled from 2012 through 2013. Using ASD-FI scores, we categorized patients as not frail (NF) (< 0.3 points), frail (0.3-0.5 points), or severely frail (SF) (> 0.5 points). Multivariable logistic regression, adjusted for preoperative and surgical factors such as operative time and blood loss, was performed to determine the relationship between ASD-FI category and odds of major complications, odds of reoperation, and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: We categorized 135 patients (51%) as NF, 90 patients (34%) as frail, and 41 patients (15%) as SF. Overall mean ASD-FI score was 0.29 (range 0-0.8). The adjusted odds of experiencing a major intraoperative or postoperative complication (OR 4.5, 95% CI 2.0-10) or having a reoperation (OR 3.9, 95% CI 1.7-8.9) were higher for SF patients compared with NF patients. Mean hospital stay was 2.1 times longer (95% CI 1.8-2.4) for SF patients compared with NF patients. CONCLUSIONS: Greater patient frailty, as measured by the ASD-FI, is associated with longer hospital stays and greater odds of major complications and reoperation. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

The Global Spine Care Initiative: resources to implement a spine care program.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this report is to describe the development of a list of resources necessary to implement a model of care for the management of spine-related concerns anywhere in the world, but especially in underserved communities and low- and middle-income countries. METHODS: Contents from the Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) Classification System and GSCI care pathway papers provided a foundation for the resources list. A seed document was developed that included resources for spine care that could be delivered in primary, secondary and tertiary settings, as well as resources needed for self-care and community-based settings for a wide variety of spine concerns (e.g., back and neck pain, deformity, spine injury, neurological conditions, pathology and spinal diseases). An iterative expert consensus process was used using electronic surveys. RESULTS: Thirty-five experts completed the process. An iterative consensus process was used through an electronic survey. A consensus was reached after two rounds. The checklist of resources included the following categories: healthcare provider knowledge and skills, materials and equipment, human resources, facilities and infrastructure. The list identifies resources needed to implement a spine care program in any community, which are based upon spine care needs. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the first international and interprofessional attempt to develop a list of resources needed to deliver care in an evidence-based care pathway for the management of people presenting with spine-related concerns. This resource list needs to be field tested in a variety of communities with different resource capacities to verify its utility. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

The Global Spine Care Initiative: classification system for spine-related concerns.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this report is to describe the development of a classification system that would apply to anyone with a spine-related concern and that can be used in an evidence-based spine care pathway. METHODS: Existing classification systems for spinal disorders were assembled. A seed document was developed through round-table discussions followed by a modified Delphi process. International and interprofessional clinicians and scientists with expertise in spine-related conditions were invited to participate. RESULTS: Thirty-six experts from 15 countries participated. After the second round, there was 95% agreement of the proposed classification system. The six major classifications included: no or minimal symptoms (class 0); mild symptoms (i.e., neck or back pain) but no interference with activities (class I); moderate or severe symptoms with interference of activities (class II); spine-related neurological signs or symptoms (class III); severe bony spine deformity, trauma or pathology (class IV); and spine-related symptoms or destructive lesions associated with systemic pathology (class V). Subclasses for each major class included chronicity and severity when different interventions were anticipated or recommended. CONCLUSIONS: An international and interprofessional group developed a comprehensive classification system for all potential presentations of people who may seek care or advice at a spine care program. This classification can be used in the development of a spine care pathway, in clinical practice, and for research purposes. This classification needs to be tested for validity, reliability, and consistency among clinicians from different specialties and in different communities and cultures. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

The Global Spine Care Initiative: model of care and implementation.

PURPOSE: Spine-related disorders are a leading cause of global disability and are a burden on society and to public health. Currently, there is no comprehensive, evidence-based model of care for spine-related disorders, which includes back and neck pain, deformity, spine injury, neurological conditions, spinal diseases, and pathology, that could be applied in global health care settings. The purposes of this paper are to propose: (1) principles to transform the delivery of spine care; (2) an evidence-based model that could be applied globally; and (3) implementation suggestions. METHODS: The Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) meetings and literature reviews were synthesized into a seed document and distributed to spine care experts. After three rounds of a modified Delphi process, all participants reached consensus on the final model of care and implementation steps. RESULTS: Sixty-six experts representing 24 countries participated. The GSCI model of care has eight core principles: person-centered, people-centered, biopsychosocial, proactive, evidence-based, integrative, collaborative, and self-sustaining. The model of care includes a classification system and care pathway, levels of care, and a focus on the patient's journey. The six steps for implementation are initiation and preparation; assessment of the current situation; planning and designing solutions; implementation; assessment and evaluation of program; and sustain program and scale up. CONCLUSION: The GSCI proposes an evidence-based, practical, sustainable, and scalable model of care representing eight core principles with a six-step implementation plan. The aim of this model is to help transform spine care globally, especially in low- and middle-income countries and underserved communities. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

The Global Spine Care Initiative: methodology, contributors, and disclosures.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this report is to describe the Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) contributors, disclosures, and methods for reporting transparency on the development of the recommendations. METHODS: World Spine Care convened the GSCI to develop an evidence-based, practical, and sustainable healthcare model for spinal care. The initiative aims to improve the management, prevention, and public health for spine-related disorders worldwide; thus, global representation was essential. A series of meetings established the initiative's mission and goals. Electronic surveys collected contributorship and demographic information, and experiences with spinal conditions to better understand perceptions and potential biases that were contributing to the model of care. RESULTS: Sixty-eight clinicians and scientists participated in the deliberations and are authors of one or more of the GSCI articles. Of these experts, 57 reported providing spine care in 34 countries, (i.e., low-, middle-, and high-income countries, as well as underserved communities in high-income countries.) The majority reported personally experiencing or having a close family member with one or more spinal concerns including: spine-related trauma or injury, spinal problems that required emergency or surgical intervention, spinal pain referred from non-spine sources, spinal deformity, spinal pathology or disease, neurological problems, and/or mild, moderate, or severe back or neck pain. There were no substantial reported conflicts of interest. CONCLUSION: The GSCI participants have broad professional experience and wide international distribution with no discipline dominating the deliberations. The GSCI believes this set of papers has the potential to inform and improve spine care globally. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

The Global Spine Care Initiative: World Spine Care executive summary on reducing spine-related disability in low- and middle-income communities.

PURPOSE: Spinal disorders, including back and neck pain, are major causes of disability, economic hardship, and morbidity, especially in underserved communities and low- and middle-income countries. Currently, there is no model of care to address this issue. This paper provides an overview of the papers from the Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI), which was convened to develop an evidence-based, practical, and sustainable, spinal healthcare model for communities around the world with various levels of resources. METHODS: Leading spine clinicians and scientists around the world were invited to participate. The interprofessional, international team consisted of 68 members from 24 countries, representing most disciplines that study or care for patients with spinal symptoms, including family physicians, spine surgeons, rheumatologists, chiropractors, physical therapists, epidemiologists, research methodologists, and other stakeholders. RESULTS: Literature reviews on the burden of spinal disorders and six categories of evidence-based interventions for spinal disorders (assessment, public health, psychosocial, noninvasive, invasive, and the management of osteoporosis) were completed. In addition, participants developed a stratification system for surgical intervention, a classification system for spinal disorders, an evidence-based care pathway, and lists of resources and recommendations to implement the GSCI model of care. CONCLUSION: The GSCI proposes an evidence-based model that is consistent with recent calls for action to reduce the global burden of spinal disorders. The model requires testing to determine feasibility. If it proves to be implementable, this model holds great promise to reduce the tremendous global burden of spinal disorders. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.