Imaging incidence and type in primary care patients with low back pain: a cross-sectional study on new referrals to an Australian specialist spinal surgical centre.

Introduction Low back pain (LBP) is common and a significant cause of morbidity. Many patients receive inappropriate imaging for LBP in primary care. Aim To explore the incidence and type of spinal imaging conducted for LBP patients referred from general practice for specialist surgical opinion, and evaluate whether imaging conformed to clinical guidelines. Methods Audit of a sequential cohort (n = 100) of new LBP patients referred from primary care for specialist opinion at a suburban Australian capital city independent Spinal Centre. Results In the 6 months before referral, 90% (95% CI 83-95%) of patients underwent spinal imaging. Imaging was performed in 95% of those who did and 79% of those who did not meet guidelines for radiological investigation. 35% of patients were inappropriately imaged and 3% inappropriately not imaged. Spinal computed tomography (CT) imaging was used in 52% of patients, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in 42% and image-guided lumbar spinal interventional procedures in 28%. Discussion Most patients with LBP referred for surgical opinion have diagnostic radiological investigations whether or not it is indicated by clinical guidelines. The more frequent use of spinal CT compared to MRI may be due to idiosyncrasies of the Australian Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) rebate system. The findings of this pilot study provide support for the changes recommended by the 2016 MBS Review Taskforce on LBP that permit GP access to subsidised lumbar MRI, while constraining access to lumbar CT, and provide novel data about spinal imaging and practice in this cohort of patients.

A quasi-randomised, controlled, feasibility trial of GLITtER (Green Light Imaging Interpretation to Enhance Recovery)-a psychoeducational intervention for adults with low back pain attending secondary care.

BACKGROUND: Although it is broadly accepted that clinicians should endeavour to reassure patients with low back pain, to do so can present a significant clinical challenge. Guidance for how to provide effective reassurance is scarce and there may be a need to counter patient concerns arising from misinterpretation of spinal imaging findings. 'GLITtER' (Green Light Imaging Intervention to Enhance Recovery) was developed as a standardised method of communicating imaging findings in a manner that is reassuring and promotes engagement in an active recovery. This feasibility study is an important step towards definitive testing of its effect. METHODS: This feasibility study was a prospective, quasi-randomised, parallel trial with longitudinal follow-up, involving sampling of patients attending a spinal outpatient clinic at a metropolitan hospital. English speaking adults (18-75 years) presenting to the clinic with low back pain and prior spinal imaging were considered for inclusion. Eligible patients were allocated to receive a GLITtER consultation or a standard consultation (as determined by appointment scheduling and clinician availability), and were blinded to their allocation. Full details of the GLITtER intervention are described in accordance with the Tidier template.Follow-up data were collected after 1 and 3 months. The primary outcome of this study was the fulfillment of specific feasibility criteria which were established a priori. Determination of a sample size for a definitive randomised controlled trial was a secondary objective. RESULTS: Two hundred seventy-six patients underwent preliminary screening and 31 patients met the final eligibility criteria for study inclusion. Seventeen participants were allocated to the intervention group and 14 were allocated to the control group. Three month follow-up data were available from 42% of the 31 enrolled participants (N = 13, six intervention, seven control). Feasibility indicators for consent, resource burden and acceptability of the GLITtER intervention were met, however participant recruitment was slower than anticipated and an acceptable follow-up rate was not achieved. CONCLUSIONS: Failure to achieve pre-specified recruitment and follow-up rates were important outcomes of this feasibility study. We attribute failure to issues that are likely to be relevant for other clinical trials with this population. It is realistic to consider that these challenges can be overcome through careful strategy, ample funding and continued partnership with health care providers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered on the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry on 28/2/2017 (ACTRN12617000317392).

The reassuring potential of spinal imaging results: development and testing of a brief, psycho-education intervention for patients attending secondary care.

PURPOSE: To develop and test a standardised method of interpreting spinal imaging findings in a manner designed to reassure patients with low back pain and promote engagement in an active recovery. METHODS: A five-phase development and testing process involved collaborative working party contributions, informal and formal appraisal of the intervention content by clinicians and consumers, a two-stage online evaluation of the take-home patient resource, and onsite testing. RESULTS: A total of 12 health professionals and 77 consumers were included in formal evaluative processes at various stages of the development and testing process. Consumers assessed the revised iteration of the take-home resource to be clearer and easier to understand than the original version. We integrated all feedback and evaluation outcomes to develop the final intervention content, which was approved by experienced clinicians and considered safe. We devised a framework to guide delivery of the low-cost clinical intervention and a 10-15-min timeframe was demonstrated to be realistic. CONCLUSIONS: We have developed, modified, and tested a pragmatic framework for a brief, psychoeducational intervention. We have established face validity and acceptability from key stakeholders and engaged clinicians and are ready to proceed with a pilot feasibility trial.

Most Cited Publications in Cervical Spine Surgery.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to perform a citation analysis on the most frequently cited articles in the topic of cervical spine surgery and report on the top 100 most cited publication in this topic. METHODS: We used the Thomson Reuters Web of Science to search citations of all articles from 1945 to 2015 relevant to cervical spine surgery and ranked them according to the number of citations. The 100 most cited articles that matched the search criteria were further analyzed by number of citations, first author, journal, year of publication, country and institution of origin. RESULTS: The top 100 cited articles in the topic of cervical spine surgery were published from 1952-2011. The number of citations ranged from 106 times for the 100th paper to 1206 times for the top paper. The decade of 1990-1999 saw the most publications. The Journal of Spine published the most articles, followed by Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery America. Investigators from America authored the most papers and The University of California contributed the most publications. Cervical spine fusion was the most common topic published with 36 papers, followed by surgical technique and trauma. CONCLUSION: This article identifies the 100 most cited articles in cervical spine surgery. It has provided insight to the history and development in cervical spine surgery and many of which have shaped the way we practice today.

The Value of Prognostic Screening for Patients With Low Back Pain in Secondary Care.

Prognostic screening in patients with low back pain (LBP) offers a practical approach to guiding clinical decisions. Whether screening is helpful in secondary care is unclear. This prospective cohort study in adults with LBP placed on outpatient clinic waiting lists, compared the performance of the short-form Orebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire, the Predicting the Inception of Chronic Pain Tool, and the STarT Back Tool. We assessed predictive validity for outcome at 4-month follow-up, by calculating estimates of discrimination, calibration, and overall performance. We applied a decision curve analysis approach to describe the clinical value of screening in this setting via comparison with a 'treat-all' strategy. Complete data were available for 89% of enrolled participants (n = 195). Eighty-four percent reported 'poor outcome' at follow-up. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (95% confidence interval) was .66 (.54-.78) for the Orebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire, .61 (.49-.73) for the Predicting the Inception of Chronic Pain Tool, and .69 (.51-.80) for the STarT Back Tool. All instruments were miscalibrated and underestimated risk. The decision curve analysis indicated that, in this setting, prognostic screening does not add value over and above a treat-all approach. The potential for LBP patients to be misclassified using screening and the high incidence of nonrecovery indicate that care decisions should be made with the assumption that all patients are 'at risk.' PERSPECTIVE: This article presents a head-to-head comparison of 3 LBP screening instruments in a secondary care setting. Early patient screening is likely to hold little clinical value in this setting and care pathways that consider all patients at risk of a poor outcome are suggested to be most appropriate.

Vertebral hemangioma: an important differential in the evaluation of locally aggressive spinal lesions.

STUDY DESIGN: A case report and a discussion of recent published data. OBJECTIVE: To highlight the importance of vertebral hemangioma (VH) as a differential diagnosis in the evaluation of locally aggressive spinal lesions. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: VH commonly occur as incidental findings, however, locally aggressive VH have been described. Difficulties in diagnosing these lesions are well reported and relate to changes in fat content causing uncharacteristic appearances on imaging. The management options for these lesions include a combination of observation, embolization, sclerotherapy, surgical decompression, or stabilization and radiotherapy. METHODS: A 45-year-old patient who was previously well presented with back pain and rapidly progressive paraparesis. Imaging confirmed the presence of an extensive lesion centered within the right T3 vertebral pedicle with intrusion into the spinal canal. Urgent surgical decompression was undertaken and was complicated by extensive intraoperative hemorrhage requiring massive transfusion. RESULTS: Histologically, the lesion was shown to be a cavernous VH with no evidence of malignancy. Following radiation oncology review, he was offered adjuvant radiotherapy to minimize the risks of recurrence. He achieved a near full neurologic recovery within 2 weeks and had a full recovery by 12 months. CONCLUSION: VH should be considered in the evaluation of locally aggressive spinal lesions. Angiography is a useful adjunct in the evaluation of these lesions, both as a diagnostic and therapeutic tool. After diagnosed correctly a wide range of treatment options exist that may prevent the patient from undergoing major surgical resection and reconstruction procedures, which may be associated with high rates of morbidity.