Prognostic Factors for Outcome of Fusion Surgery in Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain - A Systematic Review.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aims to identify prognostic factors, encompassing biomedical and psychosocial variables, linked to outcome of fusion surgery for chronic low back pain (CLBP) in single or two-level lumbar degenerative spinal disorders. Identifying these factors is crucial for decision making and therefore long-term treatment outcome. METHODS: A systematic search (PROSPERO ID: CRD4202018927) from January 2010 to October 2022 was conducted, utilizing Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR, CENTRAL). Prognostic factors associated with various outcomes, including functional status, back and leg pain, health-related quality of life, complications, return to work, and analgesic use, were assessed. Risk of bias was determined using QUIPS, and the quality of evidence was evaluated using GRADE approach. RESULTS: Of the 9852 initially screened studies, eleven studies (n = 16,482) were included in the analysis. In total, 161 associations were identified, with 67 prognostic factors showing statistical significance (P < 0.05). Thirty associations were supported by two or more studies, and only eight associations were eligible for meta-analyses: female gender remained statistically significant associated with decreased postoperative back pain, but negatively associated with complication rates and functional status, and smoking with increased postoperative back pain. CONCLUSION: Only female gender and smoking were consistently associated with outcome of fusion for CLBP. Most of the included studies exhibited low to moderate methodological quality, which may explain the relatively weak associations identified for the assessed prognostic factors.

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.

Real-World Adverse Effects of Capecitabine Toxicity in an Elderly Population.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have assessed the safety and effectiveness of the numerous available chemotherapeutic therapies for geriatric oncology patients. Most safety studies are conducted in large trials, and there is some uncertainty surrounding whether the results would be the same in typical daily use. OBJECTIVE: This retrospective study aims to assess the adverse effects of real-world capecitabine use in elderly patients. METHODS: We reviewed the records of patients treated with capecitabine in an oncology department of a University Clinic in Nijmegen, The Netherlands. We scored adverse effects such as hand-foot syndrome and diarrhea, and dosage adjustments and the reasons for them. In total, 132 patients were included, 69 of whom were aged 70 years or below (mean age: 57 years), while 63 were aged older than 70 years (mean age: 74 years). RESULTS: Patients aged over 70 years experienced more serious adverse effects than younger patients. Grade 2 or 3 hand-foot syndrome toxicity was experienced by 20.2% of patients aged younger than 70 years and by 34.9% of patients older than 70 years (p = 0.059). Grade 2, 3, or 4 diarrhea was experienced by 17.4% of the patients aged younger than 70 years but by 31.7% of the patients aged older than 70 years (p = 0.044). Dosage was adjusted for 27/69 patients in the younger group and 52/63 patients in the older group (p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: The difference in observed adverse effects cannot be the sole explanation for the high incidence of observed dose adjustments. A prospective follow-up study of elderly patients using capecitabine outside clinical trials is needed to evaluate the optimum balance between adverse effects and efficacy.

Incidence and clinical relevance of cage subsidence in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The placement of intervertebral cages in anterior cervical discectomy (ACDF) supposedly maintains foraminal height. The most commonly reported cage-related complication is subsidence, although it is unknown whether a correlation between subsidence and clinical outcome exists. AIM: To assess the incidence and relevance of subsidence. METHODS: Literature searches were performed in PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, COCHRANE, and CENTRAL. The inclusion criteria were as follows: ≥ 20 patients, ADCF with cage, subsidence assessed, and primary data. Risk of bias was assessed using adjusted Cochrane checklists. RESULTS: Seventy-one studies, comprising 4784 patients, were included. Subsidence was generally defined as ≥ 3-mm loss of height comparing postoperative intervertebral heights with heights at last follow-up. Mean incidence of subsidence was 21% (range 0-83%). Of all patients, 46% of patients received polyether-ether-ketone (PEEK) cages, 31% received titanium cages, 18% received cage-screw-combinations, and 5% received polymethyl-methacrylate (PMMA) cages. Patients treated with cage-screw-combinations had significantly less subsidence than patients treated with PEEK, titanium, or PMMA cages (15.1% vs. 23.5% vs. 24.9% vs. 30.2%; p < 0.001). Thirteen studies assessed clinical outcome in relation to subsidence; the majority did not find a significant correlation. Only four studies correlated subsidence to cage size and/or height; no correlation was established. CONCLUSIONS: Subsidence in ACDF with cages occurs in 21% of patients. The risk for subsidence seems lower using PEEK or titanium cages or adding screws. Whether subsidence affects clinical outcome is not satisfactorily evaluated in the available literature. Future studies on this correlation are warranted in order to establish the additional value of the interposition of a cage in ACDF.

Preoperative MRI in Patients With Intermittent Neurogenic Claudication: Relevance for Diagnosis and Prognosis.

STUDY DESIGN: We studied baseline magnetic resonance images of 155 patients with intermittent neurogenic claudication and lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and patient data were gathered from participants of a randomized trial. OBJECTIVE: It is believed that the narrowness of the lumbar spinal canal correlates to the severity of complaints and that it may be a good predictor of clinical outcome if treated. However, this hypothesis has never been (prospectively) tested. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: MRI is an important tool to confirm the diagnosis of LSS as a cause for intermittent neurogenic claudication. METHODS: Three raters were asked to evaluate the magnetic resonance images (Schizas scale). Symptom severities at baseline and 1-year follow-up were quantified. The radiological scores were correlated with clinical baseline and outcome scores to assess diagnostic and prognostic value of MRI findings at baseline. RESULTS: There was good agreement on the clinically relevant level of LSS (kappa range 0.57-0.64). MRI assessment of grading of compression (kappa 0.33-0.46) did not correlate with baseline MRDQ nor with outcome based on postoperative change in MRDQ (P = 0.61). However, both absence of epidural fat and presence of tortuous caudal nerves on magnetic resonance images (kappa 0.53-0.72 and 0.67-0.70) in patients with LSS were relatively good predictors for satisfactory recovery after surgery (P = 0.03 and P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: The grading of compression on the preoperative MRI is neither ambiguous nor correlating to severity of clinical condition. It does, furthermore, not have the ability to predict the outcome after 1 year if surgically treated. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.

The selection of core International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) categories for patient-reported outcome measurement in spine trauma patients-results of an international consensus process.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: There is no outcome instrument specifically designed and validated for spine trauma patients without complete paralysis, which makes it difficult to compare outcomes of different treatments of the spinal column injury within and between studies. PURPOSE: The paper aimed to report on the evidence-based consensus process that resulted in the selection of core International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) categories, as well as the response scale for use in a universal patient-reported outcome measure for patients with traumatic spinal column injury. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: The study used a formal decision-making and consensus process. PATIENT SAMPLE: The sample includes patients with a primary diagnosis of traumatic spinal column injury, excluding completely paralyzed and polytrauma patients. OUTCOME MEASURES: The wide array of function and health status of patients with traumatic spinal column injury was explored through the identification of all potentially meaningful ICF categories. METHODS: A formal decision-making and consensus process integrated evidence from four preparatory studies. Three studies aimed to identify relevant ICF categories from three different perspectives. The research perspective was covered by a systematic literature review identifying outcome measures focusing on the functioning and health of spine trauma patients. The expert perspective was explored through an international web-based survey among spine surgeons from the five AOSpine International world regions. The patient perspective was investigated in an international empirical study. A fourth study investigated various response scales for their potential use in the future universal outcome instrument. This work was supported by AOSpine. AOSpine is a clinical division of the AO Foundation, an independent medically guided non-profit organization. The AOSpine Knowledge Forums are pathology-focused working groups acting on behalf of AOSpine in their domain of scientific expertise. RESULTS: Combining the results of the preparatory studies, the list of ICF categories presented at the consensus conference included 159 different ICF categories. Based on voting and discussion, 11 experts from 6 countries selected a total of 25 ICF categories as core categories for patient-reported outcome measurement in adult traumatic spinal column injury patients (9 body functions, 14 activities and participation, and 2 environmental factors). The experts also agreed to use the Numeric Rating Scale 0-100 as response scale in the future universal outcome instrument. CONCLUSIONS: A formal consensus process integrating evidence and expert opinion led to a set of 25 core ICF categories for patient-reported outcome measurement in adult traumatic spinal column injury patients, as well as the response scale for use in the future universal disease-specific outcome instrument. The adopted core ICF categories could also serve as a benchmark for assessing the content validity of existing and future outcome instruments used in this specific patient population.

Toward the Development of a Universal Outcome Instrument for Spine Trauma: A Systematic Review and Content Comparison of Outcome Measures Used in Spine Trauma Research Using the ICF as Reference.

STUDY DESIGN: A systematic literature review. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was (1) to identify patient-reported and clinician-based outcome measures most frequently used to evaluate the function and health of spine trauma patients, (2) to identify and quantify the concepts of these measures using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) as reference, and (3) to describe their clinimetric properties. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: There is a real need for a disease-specific outcome instrument to measure the effect size of various treatment options in a variety of traumatic spinal column injuries. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in several databases. From the included studies, outcome measures were extracted. The items and underlying concepts of the identified outcome measures were specified and linked to the ICF categories. Finally, as far as available in literature, the clinimetric properties of the obtained measures were analyzed. RESULTS: Out of 5117 screened references, 245 were included, and 17 different frequently used outcome measures were identified. Meaningful concepts of the items and response options of the retrieved outcome measures were linked to a total of 105 different ICF categories, aggregated to 57 first- or second-level categories. The categories were linked to the components activities and participation (n = 31), body functions (n = 17), environmental factors (n = 8), and body structures (n = 1). Overall, there is only limited evidence on the measurement properties, except for some disease-specific questionnaires, such as Oswestry Disability Index, Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, Neck Disability Index, and Cervical Spine Outcome Questionnaire. CONCLUSION: The current systematic literature review revealed great diversity in the use and content of outcome measures to evaluate the functioning and health of spine trauma patients, with 17 different outcome measures linked to 57 unique ICF categories. This study creates an evidence base for a consensus meeting during which a core set of ICF categories for outcome measurement in spine trauma will be decided. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.

Evidence and practice in spine registries.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: We performed a systematic review and a survey in order to (1) evaluate the evidence for the impact of spine registries on the quality of spine care, and with that, on patient-related outcomes, and (2) evaluate the methodology used to organize, analyze, and report the "quality of spine care" from spine registries. METHODS: To study the impact, the literature on all spinal disorders was searched. To study methodology, the search was restricted to degenerative spinal disorders. The risk of bias in the studies included was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Additionally, a survey among registry representatives was performed to acquire information about the methodology and practice of existing registries. RESULTS: 4,273 unique references up to May 2014 were identified, and 1,210 were eligible for screening and assessment. No studies on impact were identified, but 34 studies were identified to study the methodology. Half of these studies (17 of the 34) were judged to have a high risk of bias. The survey identified 25 spine registries, representing 14 countries. The organization of these registries, methods used, analytical approaches, and dissemination of results are presented. INTERPRETATION: We found a lack of evidence that registries have had an impact on the quality of spine care, regardless of whether intervention was non-surgical and/or surgical. To improve the quality of evidence published with registry data, we present several recommendations. Application of these recommendations could lead to registries showing trends, monitoring the quality of spine care given, and ultimately improving the value of the care given to patients with degenerative spinal disorders.

Interspinous process device versus standard conventional surgical decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: randomised controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTION: Is interspinous process device implantation more effective in the short term (eight weeks) than conventional surgical decompression for patients with intermittent neurogenic claudication due to lumbar spinal stenosis? SUMMARY ANSWER: The use of interspinous implants did not result in a better outcome than conventional decompression, but the reoperation rate was significantly higher. WHAT IS KNOWN AND WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: Bony decompression and treatment with interspinous process devices are superior to conservative and non-surgical treatment for intermittent neurogenic claudication due to lumbar spinal stenosis. Interspinous implants surgery is not superior to bony decompression, and the reoperation rate is significantly higher.

The Oswestry Disability Index (version 2.1a): validation of a Dutch language version.

STUDY DESIGN: A cross-sectional study on baseline data. OBJECTIVE: To translate the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) version 2.1a into the Dutch language and to validate its use in a cohort of patients with chronic low back pain in secondary spine care. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are commonly accepted to evaluate the outcome of spine interventions. Functional status is an important outcome in spine research. The ODI is a recommended condition-specific patient-reported outcome measure used to evaluate functional status in patients with back pain. As yet, no formal translated Dutch version exists. METHODS: The ODI was translated according to established guidelines. The final version was built into the electronic web-based system in addition with the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire, the numeric rating scale for pain severity, 36-Item Short Form Health Survey Questionnaire for quality of life, and the hospital anxiety and depression scale. Baseline data were used of 244 patients with chronic low back pain who participated in a combined physical and psychological program. Floor and ceiling effects, internal consistency, and the construct validity were evaluated using quality criteria. RESULTS: The mean ODI (standard deviation) was 39.6 (12.3); minimum 6, maximum 70. Most of the participants (88%) were moderately to severely disabled. Factor analysis determined a 1-factor structure (36% explained variance) and the homogeneity of ODI items is shown (Cronbach α = 0.79). The construct validity is supported as all (6:6) the a priori hypotheses were confirmed. Moreover, the ODI and Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire, showed a strong significant correlation (r = 0.68, P < 0.001) and an overlap: mean difference of -18 (95% limits of agreement: -44 to 8). CONCLUSION: The Dutch ODI version 2.1a is a valid and valuable tool for the measurement of functional status and disability among Dutch patients with chronic low back pain. This translated condition-specific patient-reported outcome measure version is recommended for use in future back pain research and to evaluate outcome of back care in the Netherlands.

IPD without bony decompression versus conventional surgical decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: 2-year results of a double-blind randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: Interspinous process devices (IPDs) are implanted to treat patients with intermittent neurogenic claudication (INC) based on lumbar spinal stenosis. It is hypothesized that patients with lumbar spinal stenosis treated with IPD have a faster short-term recovery, an equal outcome after 2 years and less back pain compared with bony decompression. METHODS: A randomized design with variable block sizes was used, with allocations stratified according to center. Allocations were stored in prepared opaque, coded and sealed envelopes, and patients and research nurses were blind throughout the follow-up. Five neurosurgical centers (including one academic and four secondary level care centers) included participants. 211 participants were referred to the Leiden-The Hague Spine Prognostic Study Group. 159 participants with INC based on lumbar spinal stenosis at one or two levels with an indication for surgery were randomized into two groups. Patients and research nurses were blinded for the allocated treatment throughout the study period. 80 participants received an IPD and 79 participants underwent spinal bony decompression. The primary outcome at long-term (2-year) follow-up was the score for the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire. Repeated measurement analyses were applied to compare outcomes over time. RESULTS: At two years, the success rate according to the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire for the IPD group [69 % (95 % CI 57-78 %)] did not show a significant difference compared with standard bony decompression [60 % (95 % CI 48-71 %) p value 0.2]. Reoperations, because of absence of recovery, were indicated and performed in 23 cases (33 %) of the IPD group versus 6 (8 %) patients of the bony decompression group (p < 0.01). Furthermore, long-term VAS back pain was significantly higher [36 mm on a 100 mm scale (95 % CI 24-48)] in the IPD group compared to the bony decompression group [28 mm (95 % CI 23-34) p value 0.04]. CONCLUSIONS: This double-blinded study could not confirm the advantage of IPD without bony decompression over conventional 'simple' decompression, two years after surgery. Moreover, in the IPD treatment arm, the reoperation rate was higher and back pain was even slightly more intense compared to the decompression treatment arm.

Percutaneous laser disc decompression versus conventional microdiscectomy in sciatica: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Percutaneous laser disc decompression (PLDD) is a minimally invasive treatment for lumbar disc herniation, with Food and Drug Administration approval since 1991. However, no randomized trial comparing PLDD to conventional treatment has been performed. PURPOSE: In this trial, we assessed the effectiveness of a strategy of PLDD as compared with conventional surgery. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: This randomized prospective trial with a noninferiority design was carried out in two academic and six teaching hospitals in the Netherlands according to an intent-to-treat protocol with full institutional review board approval. PATIENT SAMPLE: One hundred fifteen eligible surgical candidates, with sciatica from a disc herniation smaller than one-third of the spinal canal, were included. OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measures for this trial were the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire for sciatica, visual analog scores for back and leg pain, and the patient's report of perceived recovery. METHODS: Patients were randomly allocated to PLDD (n=57) or conventional surgery (n=58). Blinding was impossible because of the nature of the interventions. This study was funded by the Healthcare Insurance Board of the Netherlands. RESULTS: The primary outcome, Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, showed noninferiority of PLDD at 8 (-0.1; [95% confidence interval (CI), -2.3 to 2.1]) and 52 weeks (-1.1; 95% CI, -3.4 to 1.1) compared with conventional surgery. There was, however, a higher speed of recovery in favor of conventional surgery (hazard ratio, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.42-0.97]). The number of reoperations was significantly less in the conventional surgery group (38% vs. 16%). Overall, a strategy of PLDD, with delayed surgery if needed, resulted in noninferior outcomes at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: At 1 year, a strategy of PLDD, followed by surgery if needed, resulted in noninferior outcomes compared with surgery.

Minimally important change values of a measurement instrument depend more on baseline values than on the type of intervention.

OBJECTIVES: Multi-item questionnaires are frequently used to measure outcomes in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in patients with sciatica. Knowing the minimaly important change (MIC) values for these instruments will facilitate interpretation of change scores. MIC values have been shown to be dependent on baseline values. The question is whether they also depend on the type of intervention. To estimate the MIC of the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (modified 23 item version) (RMDQ) and of intensity of leg pain measured by a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) in patients with sciatica and to assess to what extent MIC values depend on type of intervention and on baseline values. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This is a secondary analysis of RCT data of the effects of early surgery vs. prolonged conservative treatment in patients with sciatica. Baseline and 8-week data were used to assess MIC of the RMDQ-23 and VAS leg pain. We used the receiver operator characteristic (ROC) method to assess the MIC. Global Perceived Recovery (rated 8 weeks after baseline) was used as anchor. Subgroups were created based on type of treatment and baseline severity. RESULTS: The MIC value of the RMDQ-23 for the total group of sciatica patients was 7.5. The values were 8.1 and 6.9 for surgery and conservative treatment, respectively. For high and low baseline values, the MICs were 9.0 and 4.9, respectively, irrespective of treatment received. The MIC values of the VAS leg pain were 34.4 for the total group. For surgery and conservative treatment, the MIC values were 38.5 and 30.4, respectively, whereas for groups with high and low baseline values, MIC values of 53.5 and 17.2 were found. CONCLUSION: The MIC values of the RMDQ-23 and VAS leg pain were found to be highly dependent on their baseline values, although the type of intervention appeared to influence the MIC value only slightly.

Similar outcome after retention or sacrifice of the posterior cruciate ligament in total knee arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To retain or to sacrifice the posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remains a matter of discussion. In this systematic review, we wanted to find differences in functional and clinical outcome between the 2 methods. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis including all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that have compared PCL retention with PCL sacrifice in TKA with a minimum of 1-year follow-up. Primary outcome was range of motion. Secondary outcomes were knee pain and clinical scoring systems that were preferably validated. Quality of evidence was graded using the GRADE approach. All outcomes available for data pooling were used for meta-analysis. RESULTS: 20 studies involving 1,877 patients and 2,347 knees were included. In meta-analysis, the postoperative flexion angle had a mean difference of 2 degrees (95% CI: 0.23-4.0; p = 0.03) and the KSS functional score was 2.4 points higher in favor of PCL sacrifice (95% CI: 0.41-4.3; p = 0.02). There were no statistically significant differences regarding other measured clinical outcomes such as WOMAC, KSS pain, clinical and overall score, HSS score, SF-12, radiolucencies, femoro-tibial angle, and tibial slope. The quality of the studies varied considerably. Risk of bias in most studies was unclear; 5 were judged to have a low risk of bias and 5 to have a high risk of bias. INTERPRETATION: We found no clinically relevant differences between retention and sacrifice of the PCL in TKA, in terms of functional and clinical outcomes. The quality of the studies ranged from moderate to low. Based on the current evidence, no recommendation can be made as to whether to retain or to sacrifice the PCL.

Assessment of patient-specific surgery effect based on weighted estimation and propensity scoring in the re-analysis of the sciatica trial.

We consider a re-analysis of the wait-and-see (control) arm of a recent clinical trial on sciatica. While the original randomised trial was designed to evaluate the public policy effect of a conservative wait-and-see approach versus early surgery, we investigate the impact of surgery at the individual patient level in a re-analysis of the wait-and-see group data. Both marginal structural model re-weighted estimates as well as propensity score adjusted analyses are presented. Results indicate that patients with high propensity to receive surgery may have beneficial effects at 2 years from delayed disc surgery.

Management of lumbar spinal stenosis: a survey among Dutch spine surgeons.

BACKGROUND: Various surgical and non-surgical treatments for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) are widely adopted in clinical practice, but high quality randomised controlled trials to support these are often lacking, especially in terms of their relative benefit and risk compared with other treatment options. Therefore, an evaluation of agreement among clinicians regarding the indications and the choice for particular treatments seems appropriate. METHODS: One hundred and six Dutch neurosurgeons and orthopaedic spine surgeons completed a questionnaire, which evaluated treatment options for LSS and expectations regarding the effectiveness of surgical and non-surgical treatments. RESULTS: Responders accounted for 6,971 decompression operations and 831 spinal fusion procedures for LSS annually. Typical neurogenic claudication, severe pain/disability, and a pronounced constriction of the spinal canal were considered the most important indications for surgical treatment by the majority of responders. Non-surgical treatment was generally regarded as ineffective and believed to be less effective than surgical treatment. Interlaminar decompression was the preferred technique by 68% of neurosurgeons and 52% orthopaedic surgeons for the treatment of LSS. Concomitant fusion was applied in 12% of all surgery for LSS. Most surgeons considered spondylolisthesis as an indication and spinal instability as a definite indication for additional fusion. CONCLUSIONS: The current survey demonstrates a wide variety of preferred treatments of symptomatic LSS by Dutch spine surgeons. To minimise variety, national and international protocols based on high-quality randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews are necessary to give surgeons more tools to support everyday decision-making.

Rationale and design of the INNOVATE Trial: an international cooperative study on surgical versus conservative treatment for odontoid fractures in the elderly.

BACKGROUND: Fractures of the odontoid process of the axis are the most common fractures of the geriatric cervical spine. As the population ages, their incidence is expected to increase progressively, as is the number of very old patients (>80 years) with an odontoid fracture. No consensus exists on the optimal treatment (surgical or conservative) and the most relevant outcome parameter (osseous union, fracture stability or clinical outcome). The aim of the INNOVATE (INterNational study on Odontoid frActure Treatment in the Elderly) Trial is to prospectively assess fracture healing and clinical outcome after surgical and conservative treatment for odontoid fractures in the elderly patient, with a specific focus on the very old patient. METHODS/DESIGN: The trial is an observational study in which eleven centres in five European countries are involved. All patients admitted to one of these centres who meet the selection criteria (≥55 years, acute (