An observational study of quality of motion in the aging cervical spine: sequence of segmental contributions in dynamic fluoroscopy recordings.

BACKGROUND: The term 'physiological motion of the spine' is commonly used although no proper definition exists. Previous work has revealed a consistent sequence of cervical segmental contributions in 80-90% of young healthy individuals. Age has been shown to be associated with a decreased quantity of motion. Therefore, it is of interest to study whether this sequence persists throughout aging. The aim of this prospective cohort study is to investigate if the consistent sequence of cervical segmental contributions in young asymptomatic individuals remains present in elderly asymptomatic individuals. METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, dynamic flexion to extension cinematographic recordings of the cervical spine were made in asymptomatic individuals aged 55-70 years old. Individuals without neck pain and without severe degenerative changes were included. Two recordings were made in each individual with a 2-to-4-week interval (T1 and T2). Segmental rotation of each individual segment between C4 and C7 was calculated to determine the sequence of segmental contributions. Secondary outcomes were segmental range of motion (sRoM) and sagittal alignment. RESULTS: Ten individuals, with an average age of 61 years, were included. The predefined consistent sequence of segmental contributions was found in 10% of the individuals at T1 and 0% at T2. sRoM and total range of motion (tRoM) were low in all participants. There was no statistically significant correlation between sagittal alignment, degeneration and sRoM in the respective segments, nor between cervical lordosis and tRoM. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that aging is associated with loss of the consistent motion pattern that was observed in young asymptomatic individuals. The altered contribution of the cervical segments during extension did not appear to be correlated to the degree of degeneration or sagittal alignment. Trial registration clinicaltrials.gov NCT04222777, registered 10.01.2020.

A randomized controlled trial with extended long-term follow-up: Quality of cervical spine motion after anterior cervical discectomy (ACD) or anterior cervical discectomy with arthroplasty (ACDA).

Introduction: In previous research, a consistent sequence of segmental contributions during dynamic extension X-rays of the cervical spine was observed in 80-90% of healthy participants. Research question: To investigate whether this previously defined 'normal' sequence of segmental contributions was present in patients who underwent anterior cervical discectomy with arthroplasty (ACDA) or anterior cervical discectomy (ACD). Materials & methods: A randomized controlled trial with extended follow-up was conducted. Patients with single level cervical degenerative radiculopathy with a surgical indication were included and randomized. Dynamic X-ray recordings were made before surgery, one-year post-operative, and at long term follow-up. Results: A total of 27 patients were included, three in an ACDA pilot group and 24 were randomized to receive ACDA (N = 12) or ACD (N = 12). A total of 20 patients were available for follow-up. Preoperatively, 16.7% of patients in the ACDA group and 58.3% of patients in the ACD group showed a normal sequence. One-year post-operative, 66.7% showed a normal sequence in the ACDA group versus 30.0% in the ACD group (p = 0.036). After an average of 11-years follow-up, a normal sequence was observed in 9.1% of patients in the ACDA group and in none of the patients in the ACD group (p = 0.588). Discussion & conclusion: These findings suggest that while ACDA can restore and preserve a normal sequence of segmental contributions in the short term, this effect is not maintained in the long term. Throughout the process of ageing, not only the quantity, but also the quality of motion changes.

A Randomized Controlled Trial Using Epidural Analgesia for Pain Relief After Lumbar Interlaminar Decompressive Spine Surgery: The RAPID trial.

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, double-blind randomized controlled trial. OBJECTIVE: If an intraoperative single bolus of epidural bupivacaine can result in less postoperative pain following lumbar spinal decompression surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Adequate postoperative pain management following lumbar spinal decompression surgery is important, as it will lead to early mobilization, less complications, and a shorter hospital stay. Opioid consumption should be limited due to their frequently accompanied side effects and their addictive nature. During the final phase of lumbar decompression surgery, the epidural space becomes easily accessible. This might be an ideal moment for surgeons to administer an epidural bolus of analgesia as a safe and effective method for postoperative pain relief. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this trial, we compared a single intraoperative bolus of epidural analgesia using bupivacaine 0.25% to placebo (NaCl 0.9%) and its effect on postoperative pain following lumbar spinal decompression surgery. The primary outcome was the difference in Numeric (Pain) Rating Scale between the intervention and placebo groups during the first 48 hours after surgery. RESULTS: Both the intervention group and the placebo group consisted of 20 randomized patients (N=40). Statistically significant lower mean Numeric (Pain) Rating Scale pain scores were observed in the intervention group in comparison with the control group (main effect group: -2.35±0.77, P =0.004). The average pain score was lower in the intervention group at all postoperative time points. No study-related complications occurred. CONCLUSION: This randomized controlled trial shows that administrating a bolus of intraoperative epidural bupivacaine is a safe and effective method for reducing early postoperative pain following lumbar decompression surgery.

Low-Threshold-For-Surgery Versus Primarily-Conservative Treatment for Odontoid Fractures in the Elderly: Evaluating Practice Variation in The Netherlands.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVES: Odontoid fractures are the most common cervical spine fractures in the elderly. The optimal treatment remains controversial. The aim of this study was to compare results of a low-threshold-for-surgery strategy (surgery for dislocated fractures in relatively healthy patients) to a primarily-conservative strategy (for all patients). METHODS: Patient records from 5 medical centers were reviewed for patients who met the selection criteria (e.g. age ≥55 years, type II/III odontoid fractures). Demographics, fracture types/characteristics, fracture union/stability, clinical outcome and mortality were compared. The influence of age on outcome was studied (≥55-80 vs ≥80 years). RESULTS: A total of 173 patients were included: 120 treated with low-threshold-for-surgery (of which 22 primarily operated, and 23 secondarily) vs 53 treated primarily-conservative. No differences in demographics and fracture characteristics between the groups were identified. Fracture union (53% vs 43%) and fracture stability (90% vs 85%) at last follow-up did not differ between groups. The majority of patients (56%) achieved clinical improvement compared to baseline. Analysis of differences in clinical outcome between groups was infeasible due to data limitations. In both strategies, patients ≥80 years achieved worse union (64% vs 30%), worse stability (97% vs 77%), and - as to be expected - increased mortality <104 weeks (2% vs 22%). CONCLUSIONS: Union and stability rates did not differ between the treatment strategies. Advanced age (≥80 years) negatively influenced both radiological outcome and mortality. No cases of secondary neurological deficits were identified, suggesting that concerns for the consequences of under-treatment may be unjustified.

Advocating uniformity in spine surgery: a practical disease-specific guideline for trial-based economic evaluations.

OBJECTIVES: Despite the availability of general and national guidelines for the conduct and reporting of economic evaluations, there is heterogeneity in economic evolutions concerning spine surgery. This is partly the result of differing levels of adherence to the existing guidelines and the lack of disease-specific recommendations for economic evaluations. The extensive heterogeneity in study design, follow-up duration and outcome measurements limit the comparability of economic evaluations in spine surgery. This study has three objectives: (1) to create disease-specific recommendations for the design and conduct of trial-based economic evaluations in spine surgery, (2) to define recommendations for reporting economic evaluations in spine surgery as a complement to the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 checklist and (3) to discuss methodological challenges and defining the need for future research. DESIGN: A modified Delphi method according to the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method. SETTING: A four-step process was followed to create and validate disease-specific statements and recommendations for the conduct and reporting of trial-based economic evaluations in spine surgery. Consensus was defined as >75% agreement. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 20 experts were included in the expert group. Validation of the final recommendations was obtained in a Delphi panel, which consisted of 40 researchers in the field who were not included in the expert group. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure is a set of recommendations for the conduct and reporting, as a complement to the CHEERS 2022 checklist, of economic evaluations in spine surgery. RESULTS: A total of 31 recommendations are made. The Delphi panel confirmed consensus on all of the recommendations in the proposed guideline. CONCLUSION: This study provides an accessible and practical guideline for the conduct of trial-based economic evaluations in spine surgery. This disease-specific guideline is a complement to existing guidelines, and should aid in reaching uniformity and comparability.

Referrals, Symptoms and Treatment of Patients Referred to a Secondary Spine Centre-How Can We Help?

INTRODUCTION: Spinal disorders are amongst the conditions with the highest burden of disease. To limit the increase of healthcare-related costs in the ageing population, the selection of different types of care for patients with spinal disorders should be optimized. The first step is to investigate the characteristics of these patients and the relationship with treatment. RESEARCH QUESTION: The primary aim of this study was to provide insights in the characteristics, symptoms, diagnosis and treatment of patients referred to a specialized spinal health care centre. The secondary aim was to perform an in-depth analysis of resource utilization for a representative subgroup of patients. METHODS: This study describes the characteristics of 4855 patients referred to a secondary spine centre. Moreover, an extensive analysis of a representative subgroup of patients (~20%) is performed. RESULTS: The mean age was 58.1, 56% of patients were female, and the mean BMI was 28. In addition, 28% of patients used opioids. Mean self-reported health status was 53.3 (EuroQol 5D Visual Analogue Scale), and pain ranged from 5.8 to 6.7 (Visual Analogue Scale neck/back/arm/leg). Additional imaging was received by 67.7% of patients. Surgical treatment was indicated for 4.9% of patients. The majority (83%) of non-surgically treated patients received out-of-hospital treatment; 25% of patients received no additional imaging or in-hospital treatment. CONCLUSION: The vast majority of patients received non-surgical treatments. We observed that ~10% of patients did not receive in-hospital imaging or treatment and had acceptable or good questionnaire scores at the time of referral. These findings suggest that there is potential for improvement in efficacy of referral, diagnosis, and treatment. Future studies should aim to develop an evidence base for improved patient selection for clinical pathways. The efficacy of chosen treatments requires investigation of large cohorts.

Methodology of economic evaluations in spine surgery: a systematic review and qualitative assessment.

OBJECTIVES: The present study is a systematic review conducted as part of a methodological approach to develop evidence-based recommendations for economic evaluations in spine surgery. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the methodology and quality of currently available clinical cost-effectiveness studies in spine surgery. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic literature review. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, EconLit and The National Institute for Health Research Economic Evaluation Database were searched through 8 December 2022. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Studies were included if they met all of the following eligibility criteria: (1) spine surgery, (2) the study cost-effectiveness and (3) clinical study. Model-based studies were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: The following data items were extracted and evaluated: pathology, number of participants, intervention(s), year, country, study design, time horizon, comparator(s), utility measurement, effectivity measurement, costs measured, perspective, main result and study quality. RESULTS: 130 economic evaluations were included. Seventy-four of these studies were retrospective studies. The majority of the studies had a time horizon shorter than 2 years. Utility measures varied between the EuroQol 5 dimensions and variations of the Short-Form Health Survey. Effect measures varied widely between Visual Analogue Scale for pain, Neck Disability Index, Oswestry Disability Index, reoperation rates and adverse events. All studies included direct costs from a healthcare perspective. Indirect costs were included in 47 studies. Total Consensus Health Economic Criteria scores ranged from 2 to 18, with a mean score of 12.0 over all 130 studies. CONCLUSIONS: The comparability of economic evaluations in spine surgery is extremely low due to different study designs, follow-up duration and outcome measurements such as utility, effectiveness and costs. This illustrates the need for uniformity in conducting and reporting economic evaluations in spine surgery.

The effect of perioperative psychological interventions on persistent pain, disability, and quality of life in patients undergoing spinal fusion: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: Patients undergoing spinal fusion are prone to develop persisting spinal pain that may be related to pre-existent psychological factors. The aim of this review was to summarize the existing evidence about perioperative psychological interventions and to analyze their effect on postoperative pain, disability, and quality of life in adult patients undergoing complex surgery for spinal disorders. Studies investigating any kind of psychological intervention explicitly targeting patients undergoing a surgical fusion on the spine were included. METHODS: We included articles that analyzed the effects of perioperative psychological interventions on either pain, disability, and/or quality of life in adult patients with a primary diagnosis of degenerative or neoplastic spinal disease, undergoing surgical fusion of the spine. We focused on interventions that had a clearly defined psychological component. Two independent reviewers used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) to perform a systematic review on different databases. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Downs and Black checklist. Given study differences in outcome measures and interventions administered, a meta-analysis was not performed. Instead, a qualitative synthesis of main results of included papers was obtained. RESULTS: Thirteen studies, conducted between 2004 and 2017, were included. The majority were randomized-controlled trials (85%) and most patients underwent lumbar fusion (92%). Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) was used in nine studies (69%). CBT in the perioperative period may lead to a postoperative reduction in pain and disability in the short-term follow-up compared to care as usual. There was less evidence for an additional effect of CBT at intermediate and long-term follow-up. CONCLUSION: The existing evidence suggests that a reduction in pain and disability in the short-term, starting from immediately after surgery to 3 months, is likely to be obtained when a CBT approach is used. However, there is inconclusive evidence regarding the long-term effect of a perioperative psychological intervention after spinal fusion surgery. Further research is necessary to better define the frequency, intensity, and timing of such an approach in relation to the surgical intervention, to be able to maximize its effect and be beneficial to patients.

Noninferiority of Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy vs Anterior Cervical Discectomy With Fusion for Procedural Success and Reduction in Arm Pain Among Patients With Cervical Radiculopathy at 1 Year: The FACET Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The choice between posterior cervical foraminotomy (posterior surgery) and anterior cervical discectomy with fusion (anterior surgery) for cervical foraminal radiculopathy remains controversial. Objective: To investigate the noninferiority of posterior vs anterior surgery in patients with cervical foraminal radiculopathy with regard to clinical outcomes after 1 year. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter investigator-blinded noninferiority randomized clinical trial was conducted from January 2016 to May 2020 with a total follow-up of 2 years. Patients were included from 9 hospitals in the Netherlands. Of 389 adult patients with 1-sided single-level cervical foraminal radiculopathy screened for eligibility, 124 declined to participate or did not meet eligibility criteria. Patients with pure axial neck pain without radicular pain were not eligible. Of 265 patients randomized (132 to posterior and 133 to anterior), 15 were lost to follow-up and 228 were included in the 1-year analysis (110 in posterior and 118 in anterior). Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to posterior foraminotomy or anterior cervical discectomy with fusion. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were proportion of success using Odom criteria and decrease in arm pain using a visual analogue scale from 0 to 100 with a noninferiority margin of 10% (assuming advantages with posterior surgery over anterior surgery that would justify a tolerable loss of efficacy of 10%). Secondary outcomes were neck pain, disability, quality of life, work status, treatment satisfaction, reoperations, and complications. Analyses were performed with 2-proportion z tests at 1-sided .05 significance levels with Bonferroni corrections. Results: Among 265 included patients, the mean (SD) age was 51.2 (8.3) years; 133 patients (50%) were female and 132 (50%) were male. Patients were randomly assigned to posterior (132) or anterior (133) surgery. The proportion of success was 0.88 (86 of 98) in the posterior surgery group and 0.76 (81 of 106) in the anterior surgery group (difference, -0.11 percentage points; 1-sided 95% CI, -0.01) and the between-group difference in arm pain was -2.8 (1-sided 95% CI, -9.4) at 1-year follow-up, indicating noninferiority of posterior surgery. Decrease in arm pain had a between-group difference of 3.4 (1-sided 95% CI, 11.8), crossing the noninferiority margin with 1.8 points. All secondary outcomes had 2-sided 95% CIs clustered around 0 with small between-group differences. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, posterior surgery was noninferior to anterior surgery for patients with cervical radiculopathy regarding success rate and arm pain at 1 year. Decrease in arm pain and secondary outcomes had small between-group differences. These results may be used to enhance shared decision-making. Trial Registration: Netherlands Trial Register Identifier: NTR5536.

Factors associated with an increased risk of developing postoperative symptomatic lumbar spondylolisthesis after decompression surgery: an explorative two-centre international cohort study.

PURPOSE: Symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis can be treated with decompression surgery. A recent review reported that, after decompression surgery, 1.6-32.0% of patients develop postoperative symptomatic spondylolisthesis and may therefore be indicated for lumbar fusion surgery. The latter can be more challenging due to the altered anatomy and scar tissue. It remains unclear why some patients get recurrent neurological complaints due to postoperative symptomatic spondylolisthesis, though some associations have been suggested. This study explores the association between key demographic, biological and radiological factors and postoperative symptomatic spondylolisthesis after lumbar decompression. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included patients who had undergone lumbar spinal decompression surgery between January 2014 and December 2016 at one of two Spine Centres in the Netherlands or Switzerland and had a follow-up of two years. Patient characteristics, details of the surgical procedure and recurrent neurological complaints were retrieved from patient files. Preoperative MRI scans and conventional radiograms (CRs) of the lumbar spine were evaluated for multiple morphological characteristics. Postoperative spondylolisthesis was evaluated on postoperative MRI scans. For variables assessed on a whole patient basis, patients with and without postoperative symptomatic spondylolisthesis were compared. For variables assessed on the basis of the operated segment(s), surgical levels that did or did not develop postoperative spondylolisthesis were compared. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to identify associations with postoperative symptomatic spondylolisthesis. RESULTS: Seven hundred and sixteen patients with 1094 surgical levels were included in the analyses. (In total, 300 patients had undergone multilevel surgery.) ICCs for intraobserver and interobserver reliability of CR and MRI variables ranged between 0.81 and 0.99 and 0.67 and 0.97, respectively. In total, 66 of 716 included patients suffered from postoperative symptomatic spondylolisthesis (9.2%). Multivariable regression analyses of patient-basis variables showed that being female [odds ratio (OR) 1.2, 95%CI 1.07-3.09] was associated with postoperative symptomatic spondylolisthesis. Higher BMI (OR 0.93, 95%CI 0.88-0.99) was associated with a lower probability of having postoperative symptomatic spondylolisthesis. Multivariable regression analyses of surgical level-basis variables showed that levels with preoperative spondylolisthesis (OR 17.30, 95%CI 10.27-29.07) and the level of surgery, most importantly level L4L5 compared with levels L1L3 (OR 2.80, 95%CI 0.78-10.08), were associated with postoperative symptomatic spondylolisthesis; greater facet joint angles (i.e. less sagittal-oriented facets) were associated with a lower probability of postoperative symptomatic spondylolisthesis (OR 0.97, 95%CI 0.95-0.99). CONCLUSION: Being female was associated with a higher probability of having postoperative symptomatic spondylolisthesis, while having a higher BMI was associated with a lower probability. When looking at factors related to postoperative symptomatic spondylolisthesis at the surgical level, preoperative spondylolisthesis, more sagittal orientated facet angles and surgical level (most significantly level L4L5 compared to levels L1L3) showed significant associations. These associations could be used as a basis for devising patient selection criteria, stratifying patients or performing subgroup analyses in future studies regarding decompression surgery with or without fusion.

Double-center observational study of minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion for sacroiliac joint dysfunction: one-year results.

BACKGROUND: For a substantial part of patients with chronic low back pain, the origin is located in the sacroiliac joint (SIJ). Minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion (MISJF) is increasingly being implemented as a treatment option in SIJ dysfunction. Despite remaining controversy, evidence continues to increase. This study evaluates the clinical results and safety of MISJF in a double-center consecutive case series in patients with SIJ dysfunction over a one-year observation period. METHODS: SIJ complaints were diagnosed after history taking, physical examination and least a 50% reduction of SIJ pain 30-60 min following image-guided injection. Primary outcome measures were patient reported outcome measurements (PROMs), consisting of Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) pain score and EuroQol 5-dimensions 3-levels (EQ-5D-3L). Patients' perspectives on the effects of surgery were collected through questionnaires. Secondary outcome measures were implant positioning and (serious) adverse events ((S)AE's). RESULTS: A total of 29 patients were included. In 44.8% of patients, SIJ dysfunction was of postpartum origin. The mean VAS-pain score improved from 7.83 (± 1.71) to 4.97 (± 2.63) postoperatively (p < 0.001). EQ-5D-3L score improved from 0.266 (± 0.129) to 0.499 (± 0.260) postoperatively (p < 0.001). Opioid consumption decreased from 44.8 to 24.1% postoperatively (p = 0.026). In 13.7% of patients, an (S)AE occurred. CONCLUSION: MISJF appears to be an effective and safe procedure in this cohort. Statistically significant and clinically relevant improvements in pain and quality of life were observed one-year postoperatively. Future studies should focus on the long-term outcomes to further evaluate the safety and effectiveness of MISJF.

Motion analysis in patients with postpartum sacroiliac joint dysfunction: A cross-sectional case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with sacroiliac joint dysfunction are limited in daily life activities such as gait, climbing stairs and rising from a chair. It is well known that individuals with chronic low back pain have impaired balance compared to healthy individuals. This cross-sectional case-control study aims to investigate spatiotemporal parameters, center of pressure and mass, pelvic angles and other joint angles in patients with sacroiliac joint dysfunction in comparison with healthy controls. METHODS: Motion analysis existed of three tasks: (1) normal gait, (2) single-leg-stance, and (3) sit-to-stance. Spatiotemporal parameters, center of pressure, pelvic angles and other joint angles were measured using a twelve-camera, three-dimensional motion capture system and ground reaction force platforms. FINDINGS: Thirty subjects were recruited for this study; ten patients, ten matched controls and ten healthy student controls. For gait, patients had a lower cadence, longer double support phase, shorter step length and slower walking speed than controls. For single-leg-stance, patients had a smaller hip angle of the risen leg than controls. Also, variability in center of pressure was larger in patients. For sit-to-stance, the total time to perform the task was almost doubled for patients compared to controls. INTERPRETATION: This study demonstrates that patients with sacroiliac joint dysfunction have an impaired gait, more balance problems during standing and standing up compared to healthy controls. This novel information assists to further comprehend the pathology and disease burden of sacroiliac joint dysfunction, in addition, it may allow us to evaluate the effect of current therapies.

Clinical adjacent segment pathology after anterior cervical discectomy, with and without fusion, for cervical degenerative disc disease: A single center retrospective cohort study with long-term follow-up.

Introduction: Clinical adjacent segment pathology (CASP) continues to be a cause of concern after anterior surgical treatment for single- or multilevel cervical degenerative disc disease (CDDD). The current literature reports inconsistent incidence rates and contended risk factors in the development of CASP. Research question: The aim is to determine the incidence of additional CASP-related surgeries after anterior cervical discectomy with fusion (ACDF) or without fusion (ACD) for CDDD. Secondary outcomes include risk factors for the development of CASP and long-term clinical outcomes. Materials & methods: This is a single-center, retrospective cohort study with a long-term follow up. Patients undergoing ACD(F) for CDDD between January 2012 and December 2019 were included. Results: A total of 601 patients were included, with an average follow-up period of 5.0 years. Most patients underwent ACDF with stand-alone cages (87.7%). CASP developed in 58 (9.7%) patients, 41 (70.7%) of which required additional adjacent level surgery. ACD significantly accelerated the development of CASP. The C2-C7 Cobb angle appeared less lordotic upon early post-operative imaging in ACDF patients that later-on developed CASP. Baseline degeneration at the index level and adjacent levels was not significantly different between patients with and without CASP. Discussion & conclusion: In this retrospective cohort, we observe a relatively low rate of additional surgery for CASP in ACDF with stand-alone cages. We suggest that surgical technique, fusion, segmental kyphosis and natural degeneration play a multifactorial role in the development of CASP. Complication rates were low and clinical outcomes were similar for all techniques used.

Research protocol: Cervical Arthroplasty Cost Effectiveness Study (CACES): economic evaluation of anterior cervical discectomy with arthroplasty (ACDA) versus anterior cervical discectomy with fusion (ACDF) in the surgical treatment of cervical degenerative disc disease - a randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: To date, there is no consensus on which anterior surgical technique is more cost-effective in treating cervical degenerative disc disease (CDDD). The most commonly used surgical treatment for patients with single- or multi-level symptomatic CDDD is anterior cervical discectomy with fusion (ACDF). However, new complaints of radiculopathy and/or myelopathy commonly develop at adjacent levels, also known as clinical adjacent segment pathology (CASP). The extent to which kinematics, surgery-induced fusion, natural history, and progression of disease play a role in the development of CASP remains unclear. Anterior cervical discectomy with arthroplasty (ACDA) is another treatment option that is thought to reduce the incidence of CASP by preserving motion in the operated segment. While ACDA is often discouraged, as the implant costs are higher while the clinical outcomes are similar to ACDF, preventing CASP might be a reason for ACDA to be a more cost-effective technique in the long term. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In this randomized controlled trial, patients will be randomized to receive ACDF or ACDA in a 1:1 ratio. Adult patients with single- or multi-level CDDD and symptoms of radiculopathy and/or myelopathy will be included. The primary outcome is cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of both techniques from a healthcare and societal perspective. Secondary objectives are the differences in clinical and radiological outcomes between the two techniques, as well as the qualitative process surrounding anterior decompression surgery. All outcomes will be measured at baseline and every 6 months until 4 years post-surgery. DISCUSSION: High-quality evidence regarding the cost-effectiveness of both ACDA and ACDF is lacking; to date, there are no prospective trials from a societal perspective. Considering the aging of the population and the rising healthcare costs, there is an urgent need for a solid clinical cost-effectiveness trial addressing this question. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04623593. Registered on 29 September 2020.

A Systematic Review on Neurological Outcomes for Cervical Degenerative Myelopathy After Anterior Decompression Surgery: Motion Preservation vs Fusion.

BACKGROUND: Although it is well established that surgically treated patients with cervical degenerative myelopathy (CDM) improve irrespective of the anterior decompression technique used, no consensus exists on what technique is superior in terms of neurological recovery. A general concern exists that anterior cervical discectomy with arthroplasty (ACDA) leads to less favorable outcomes in CDM due to microtrauma caused by preserved mobility. It is remarkable that current literature mainly uses pain scores to assess clinical outcomes after anterior decompression surgery, especially considering that pain may not be the most relevant outcome for CDM. This systematic review evaluated the literature concerning neurological outcomes in patients with CDM treated with anterior decompression surgery and assessed by validated myelopathy scores. METHODS: Systematic searches were carried out in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library. Prospective studies were included when patients with isolated CDM were treated with anterior decompression surgery, and a validated myelopathy outcome score was used. RESULTS: A total of 11 studies were included from the 16,032 identified studies. All studies used the modified Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) outcome score and showed improvement for all anterior techniques. The mean improvement in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) was 4.80 and 3.64 for the modified JOA and JOA outcome scores, respectively. The JOA for ACDA showed a mean improvement of 5.51. The overall quality of the included articles was low to moderate according to the Cochrane tool. CONCLUSION: Neurological recovery of CDM is similar after all anterior decompression techniques, including ACDA when compared with ACDF. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The current literature gives no reason to dissuade the use of ACDA in cervical myelopathy.

Process Evaluation of Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgeries in Five Dutch Hospitals: A Qualitative Analysis.

Background and Objectives: Only limited qualitative research concerning instrumented spine surgeries has been published, despite the increasing number of these surgeries and the evident importance of qualitative analysis of the processes surrounding these complex interventions. Current qualitative research is mainly limited to the experiences, emotions and expectations of patients. Insight into the full process, including experiences from the perspective of informal caregivers and healthcare professionals, remains scarce. Materials and Methods: Data were gathered by means of semi-structured face-to-face interviews. In total, there were 27 participants, including 11 patients, 7 informal caregivers and 9 healthcare professionals. The interview process was audiotaped, and each interview was transcribed verbatim. To systematically analyse the gathered data, software for qualitative analysis (NVivo) was used. After immersion in the raw data of transcripts and field notes, a list of broad categories for organising the data into meaningful clusters for analysis was developed. All interviews were coded by the first author, and 25% was independently assessed by the second author. Results: The results of our study describe several promoting and limiting factors concerning the process of lumbar fusion surgery from the perspective of patients, informal caregivers and healthcare providers. The most frequently mentioned promoting factors were: information and opportunities to ask questions during consultations; multidisciplinary consultations; good communication and guidance during hospitalization; and follow-up appointments. The most frequently mentioned limiting factors were: lack of educational material; lack of guidance and communication prior to, during and after hospitalisation. Conclusion: Overall, participants were satisfied with the current healthcare-process in lumbar fusion surgery. However, we found that lack of educational material and guidance during the process led to insecurity about complaints, surgery and recovery. To improve the process of lumbar interbody fusion and to increase patient satisfaction, healthcare providers should focus on guiding and educating patients and informal caregivers about the pre-operative trajectory, the surgery and the recovery. From the healthcare providers' perspective, the process could be improved by multidisciplinary consultations and a dedicated spine team in the operation room. Although this study focusses on lumbar fusion surgery, results could be translated to other fields of spine surgery and surgery in general.

Evidence-based recommendations for economic evaluations in spine surgery: study protocol for a Delphi consensus.

INTRODUCTION: Considering the rising global healthcare expenses, economic evaluations are more important than ever. Even though the number of studies regarding costs and cost-effectiveness is increasing, the quality of these studies remains relatively low. This is mainly caused by abundant heterogeneity in methods used for determining, calculating and reporting cost data, despite current general guidelines for the conduct of economic evaluations. Disease-specific recommendations for the conduct of economic evaluations in the field of spine surgery, as complement to existing general guidelines, will ameliorate overall research quality, comparability and interpretability and thus, the overall quality. We aim to provide expert-based recommendations for the design, conduct, and reporting of economic evaluations in spine surgery. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A modified Delphi study will be conducted to formulate expert-based recommendations. The following steps will be taken:(1) The conduct of a systematic review to identify relevant publications and identify relevant authors. Formation of an expert group and a Delphi-panel. (2) Drafting of statements based on articles included in the systematic literature review. Validation of drafted statements by the expert group. Step 2 can be repeated up to three times, statements can be discarded and adjusted in these rounds. Statements with more than 75% agreement will be accepted as consensus statements. (3) Validation of statements by the Delphi-panel. (4) Final recommendations. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The underlying work is based on existing literature and published data and does not include participation of patients, and thus does not require ethical review approval. The final recommendations are intended for (clinical) researchers in the field of cost-effectiveness in spine surgery. The Delphi method ensures that the final output reflects the opinions of international participants and gives insight in the adherence level to the recommendations. The aim is to reach uniformity in design, conduct and reporting of these studies, as is currently lacking. This will provide a solid basis to determine cost-effectiveness of spine surgeries and consequently aid to limit the rising healthcare costs. The findings of this study and the final recommendations will be disseminated in conferences and seminars and will be published in an international peer-reviewed journal.

Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial on the effect of local analgesia for pain relief after minimal invasive sacroiliac joint fusion: the ARTEMIS study.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic lower back pain is a common report in the general population. A dysfunctional sacroiliac joint (SIJ) is estimated to be responsible for one in five patients with lower back pain. Minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion (MISJF) is a surgical procedure to treat SIJ dysfunction. During the procedure, the SIJ is stabilised by implants inserted percutaneously under fluoroscopy guidance. Postoperatively, patients often report a lot of pain, which contributes to patients taking high doses of painkillers (opioids for example,) and preventing early mobilisation. In several orthopaedic procedures, intraoperative infiltration of the wound bed results in decreased consumption of analgesics, earlier mobilisation and shorter hospitalisation time. The aim of this study is to investigate the effectiveness of intraoperative SIJ infiltration with analgesia in reducing postoperative pain after MISJF. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will perform a two-centre, prospective, double-blind, randomised controlled trial to determine whether SIJ infiltration with 1.5-5 cc bupivacaine 0.50% is superior to 1.5-5 cc placebo (NaCl 0.9%) in reducing postoperative pain in patients after MISJF, and to determine whether bupivacaine significantly reduces opioid use in the direct postoperative period. Patients will be randomised with 1:1 allocation for either bupivacaine (intervention) or placebo SIJ infiltration. Postoperative pain will be measured by the Visual Analogue Scale pain score at entry and exit recovery, 2, 4, 6, 24 and 48 hours postoperatively. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This is the first trial that investigates the effectiveness of intraoperative SIJ infiltration with bupivacaine 0.50% in reducing postoperative pain after MISJF. If intraoperative SIJ infiltration with bupivacaine 0.50% proves to be effective, this might have important clinical implications, such as postoperative analgesics (opioids for example,) consumption, earlier mobilisation and potentially shorter hospitalisation time. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NL9151.

Comparison of (Partial) economic evaluations of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) versus Posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in adults with lumbar spondylolisthesis: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: The demand for spinal fusion surgery has increased over the last decades. Health care providers should take costs and cost-effectiveness of these surgeries into account. Open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) are two widely used techniques for spinal fusion. Earlier research revealed that TLIF is associated with less blood loss, shorter surgical time and sometimes shorter length of hospital stay, while effectiveness of both techniques on back and/or leg pain are equal. Therefore, TLIF could result in lower costs and be more cost-effective than PLIF. This is the first systematic review comparing direct and indirect (partial) economic evaluations of TLIF with PLIF in adults with lumbar spondylolisthesis. Furthermore, methodological quality of included studies was assessed. METHODS: Searches were conducted in eight databases for reporting on eligibility criteria; TLIF or PLIF, lumbar spondylolisthesis or lumbar instability, and cost. Costs were converted to United States Dollars with reference year 2020. Study quality was assessed using the bias assessment tool of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, the Level of Evidence guidelines of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine and the Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) list. RESULTS: Of a total of 693 studies, 16 studies were included. Comparison of TLIF and PLIF could only be made indirectly, since no study compared TLIF and PLIF directly. There was a large heterogeneity in health care and societal perspective costs due to different in-, and exclusion criteria, baseline characteristics and the use of costs or charges in calculations. Health care perspective costs, calculated with hospital costs, ranged from $15,867-$43,217 in TLIF-studies and $32,662 in one PLIF-study. Calculated with hospital charges, it ranged from $8,964-$51,469 in TLIF-studies and $21,838-$93,609 in two PLIF-studies. Societal perspective costs and cost-effectiveness, only mentioned in TLIF-studies, ranged from $5,702/QALY-$48,538/QALY and $50,092/QALY-$90,977/QALY, respectively. Overall quality of studies was low. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review shows that TLIF and PLIF are expensive techniques. Moreover, firm conclusions about the preferable technique, based on (partial) economic evaluations, cannot be drawn due to limited studies and heterogeneity. Randomized prospective trials and full economical evaluations with direct TLIF and PLIF comparison are needed to obtain high levels of evidence. Furthermore, development of guidelines to perform adequate economic evaluations, specified for the field of interest, will be useful to minimize heterogeneity and maximize transferability of results. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Prospero-database registration number: CRD42020196869.

Cost-effectiveness of open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (OTLIF) versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MITLIF): a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The number of performed instrumented lumbar spine surgeries and associated health-care-related costs has increased over the last decades, and will increase further in the future. With the consistent growth of health-care-related costs, cost-effectiveness of surgical techniques is of major relevance. Common indications for instrumented lumbar spine surgery are spondylolisthesis and degenerative disease. A commonly used technique is the open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (OTLIF). Nowadays, there is an increasing interest in the minimally invasive variation of this technique (minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion [MITLIF]). Currently available literature describes that MITLIF has comparable or even better clinical results compared to OTLIF. Cost-effectiveness of MITLIF and OTLIF is important considering the growing health-care related costs, although no consensus has been reached regarding the most cost-effective technique. In this systematic review, previous literature concerning costs and cost-effectiveness of OTLIF was compared with MITLIF in patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis or degenerative disease. Furthermore, methodological quality of included studies was assessed. PURPOSE: This study aims to evaluate the current literature on cost-effectiveness of OTLIF compared MITLIF to in patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis or degenerative disease. STUDY DESIGN: This study is a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. STUDY SAMPLE: Clinical studies reporting costs or cost-effectiveness for either OTLIF or MITLIF in patients with spondylolisthesis, lumbar instability, or degenerative disease were included. OUTCOME MEASURES: The following data items were evaluated: study design, study population, utility measurement tool, gained quality adjusted life years (QALYs), cost sources, health care and societal perspective costs, total costs, costs per QALY (cost-effectiveness) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). METHODS: A systematic search was conducted using databases PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, Cochrane, Clinical Trials, Current Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, NHS Centre for Review and Dissemination, Econlit and Web of Science on studies reporting OTLIF or MITLIF, spondylolisthesis or lumbar instability or degenerative disease, and costs. Relevant studies were selected and reviewed independently by two authors. For comparison, all costs were converted to American dollars with the reference year 2018. RESULTS: After duplicate removal, a total of 892 studies were identified. Eventually, 32 studies were included. Nine studies compared OTLIF and MITLIF directly. All studies mentioned health care perspective costs. Seven studies mentioned societal perspective costs. Cost-effectiveness of OTLIF was mentioned in five studies, ranging from $47,303/QALY to $218,766/QALY. Cost-effectiveness of MITLIF was mentioned in one study, $121,105/QALY. Meta-analysis of hospital perspective costs showed a significant overall effect in favor of MITLIF, with a mean difference of $2,650. There was great heterogeneity in health care and societal perspective costs due to different in-, and exclusion factors, baseline characteristics, and calculation methods. Overall quality of studies was low. CONCLUSIONS: OTLIF and MITLIF appear to be expensive interventions when using a threshold of $50,000/QALY. Results of this study and previous literature suggest that MITLIF is more cost-effective compared to OTLIF. Considering the increase in health care costs of instrumented spine surgery, cost-effectiveness could be one of the factors in surgical decision-making. Prospective randomized studies directly comparing cost-effectiveness of OTLIF and MITLIF from both hospital and societal perspectives are needed to obtain higher level of evidence.