SPINE20 A global advocacy group promoting evidence-based spine care of value.

PURPOSE: The Global Burden of Diseases (GBD) Studies have estimated that low back pain is one of the costliest ailments worldwide. Subsequent to GBD publications, leadership of the four largest global spine societies agreed to form SPINE20. This article introduces the concept of SPINE20, the recommendations, and the future of this global advocacy group linked to G20 annual summits. METHODS: The founders of SPINE20 advocacy group coordinated with G20 Saudi Arabia to conduct the SPINE20 summit in 2020. The summit was intended to promote evidence-based recommendations to use the most reliable information from high-level research. Eight areas of importance to mitigate spine disorders were identified through a voting process of the participating societies. Twelve recommendations were discussed and vetted. RESULTS: The areas of immediate concern were "Aging spine," "Future of spine care," "Spinal cord injuries," "Children and adolescent spine," "Spine-related disability," "Spine Educational Standards," "Patient safety," and "Burden on economy." Twelve recommendations were created and endorsed by 31/33 spine societies and 2 journals globally during a vetted process through the SPINE20.org website and during the virtual inaugural meeting November 10-11, 2020 held from the G20 platform. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first time that international spine societies have joined to support actions to mitigate the burden of spine disorders across the globe. SPINE20 seeks to change awareness and treatment of spine pain by supporting local projects that implement value-based practices with healthcare policies that are culturally sensitive based on scientific evidence.

Does nanoscale porous titanium coating increase lumbar spinal stiffness of an interbody fusion cage? An in vivo biomechanical analysis in an ovine model.

BACKGROUND: Quantitative objective measures to determine fusion achievement further enable the comparison of new technologies, such as interbody cage surface enhancement. Our aims were to compare in vivo biomechanical responses of ovine L4/5 lumbar motion segments with two cages: 1) Polyetheretherketone or 2) Polyetheretherketone with a nanosurfaced titanium porous scaffold from Nanovis, Inc. METHODS: Fourteen Merino sheep randomly received either 1) standard Polyetheretherketone cage or 2) Nanocoated Polyetheretherketone cage at L4/L5 with autologous bone graft. At baseline and one-year follow-up, dynamic spinal stiffness was quantified in vivo using a validated mechanical assessment at 2 Hz, 6 Hz, and 12 Hz. The dorsoventral secant stiffness (ky = force/displacement, N/mm) and L4-L5 accelerations were determined at each frequency. A repeated measures analysis of variance with Bonferonni correction was used to evaluate within and between group differences among the biomechanical variables. FINDINGS: Both implants increased spinal stiffness at 2 Hz (21 and 39%, respectively, p < .005), and at 6 Hz (12 and 27%, p < .0001). Significantly greater spinal stiffness was observed with Nanocoated Polyetheretherketone at one-year for both frequencies (p < .05). No significant differences were observed at 12 Hz within or between groups. L4-L5 dorsoventral accelerations were significantly decreased one year following cage placement only with Nanocoated Polyetheretherketone (p < .05) and greater reductions in acceleration were observed with Nanocoated Polyetheretherketone compared to standard Polyetheretherketone (p < .05). INTERPRETATION: Both cages increased spinal stiffness, yet, nanosurfaced cages resulted in greater spinal stiffness changes and decreases in L4-L5 accelerations. These findings may assist in clinical decision making and post-operative recovery strategies.

The effect of case-based discussion of topics with experts on learners' opinions: implications for spinal education and training.

PURPOSE: This investigation aimed to examine the extent to which case-based discussion with experts could influence the audience's opinions on the treatment of patients during a continuing medical education event for spine surgeons. METHODS: We conducted a prospective controlled crossover study of 90 surgeons. During a continuing medical education activity using case-based discussion, quiz questions were used which asked participants (attendants and faculty group) their opinions on the best choices about diagnosis and treatment in a number of cases. No answer was considered correct, but we evaluated the number of participants choosing each specific answer among a number of valid options. Quiz questions were collected with an automated response system at the entry and at the end of each case discussion. Change in participant's opinions was estimated from the change in the preferred answers between the entry and exit quizzes. Chi-square analysis was performed to determine significance. RESULTS: Sixty-two attendants out of eighty three (75%) and six faculties out of twelve (50%) responded to the survey. After the case discussion, 68.2% (p < 0.04, Chi-square test) of the attendants changed their opinion on the appropriate treatment. The faculty answers, however, showed no significant change in opinions regarding the identification of the appropriate treatment. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of our results, case-based discussion driven by experts, as a form of teaching, has a measurable effect in terms of changes in the learners' opinions.

The effect of case-based discussion of topics with experts on learners' opinions: implications for spinal education and training.

PURPOSE: This investigation aimed to examine the extent to which case-based discussion with experts could influence the audience's opinions on the treatment of patients during a continuing medical education event for spine surgeons. METHODS: We conducted a prospective controlled crossover study of 90 surgeons. During a continuing medical education activity using case-based discussion, quiz questions were used which asked participants (attendants and faculty group) their opinions on the best choices about diagnosis and treatment in a number of cases. No answer was considered correct, but we evaluated the number of participants choosing each specific answer among a number of valid options. Quiz questions were collected with an automated response system at the entry and at the end of each case discussion. Change in participant's opinions was estimated from the change in the preferred answers between the entry and exit quizzes. Chi-square analysis was performed to determine significance. RESULTS: Sixty-two attendants out of eighty three (75%) and six faculties out of twelve (50%) responded to the survey. After the case discussion, 68.2% (p < 0.04, Chi-square test) of the attendants changed their opinion on the appropriate treatment. The faculty answers, however, showed no significant change in opinions regarding the identification of the appropriate treatment. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of our results, case-based discussion driven by experts, as a form of teaching, has a measurable effect in terms of changes in the learners' opinions.

Restoring lumbar spine stiffness using an interspinous implant in an ovine model of instability.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to determine the effect of an interspinous implant on lumbar spine stability and stiffness during dorsoventral loading. METHODS: Twelve Merino lambs were mechanically tested in vivo. Oscillatory (2 Hz) loads were applied to L2 under load control while displacements were monitored. Tri-axial accelerometers further quantified adjacent L3-L4 accelerations. Dorsoventral lumbar spine stiffness and L3 and L4 dorsoventral and axial displacements were determined over six trials of 20 cycles of loading. Four conditions were examined: 1) initial intact, 2) following destabilization at L3-L4, 3) following the insertion of an InSwing(®) interspinous device at L3-L4, and 4) with the implant secured with a tension band. Comparisons were performed using a one-way ANOVA with repeated measures and post-hoc Bonferroni correction. FINDINGS: Compared to the intact condition, destabilization significantly decreased lumbar stiffness by 4.5% (P=.001) which was only recovered by the interspinous device with tension band. The interspinous device caused a significant 9.75% (P=.001) increase in dorsoventral stiffness from destabilization that increased 14% with the tension band added (P=.001). The tension band was responsible for decreased displacements from the intact (P=.038), instability (P=.001), and interspinous device (P=.005) conditions. Dorsoventral L3-L4 motion significantly improved with the interspinous device (P=.01) and the addition of the tension band (P=.001). No significant differences in L3-L4 intersegmental stability were noted for axial motion in the sagittal plane. INTERPRETATION: This ovine model provided objective in vivo biomechanical evidence of lumbar instability and its restoration by means of an interspinous implant during dorsoventral spinal loading.

Effectiveness of posterior decompression techniques compared with conventional laminectomy for lumbar stenosis.

PURPOSE: To compare the effectiveness of techniques of posterior decompression that limit the extent of bony decompression or to avoid removal of posterior midline structures of the lumbar spine versus conventional facet-preserving laminectomy for the treatment of patients with degenerative lumbar stenosis. METHODS: A comprehensive electronic search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the clinical trials registries ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform was conducted for relevant literature up to June 2014. RESULTS: A total of four high-quality RCTs and six low-quality RCTs met the search criteria of this review. These studies included a total of 733 participants. Three different techniques that avoid removal of posterior midline structures are compared to conventional laminectomy; unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression, bilateral laminotomy and split-spinous process laminotomy. Evidence of low or very low quality suggests that different techniques of posterior decompression and conventional laminectomy have similar effects on functional disability and leg pain. Only perceived recovery at final follow-up was better in patients that underwent bilateral laminotomy compared with conventional laminectomy. Unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression and bilateral laminotomy resulted in numerically fewer cases of iatrogenic instability, although in both cases, the incidence of instability was low. The difference in severity of postoperative low back pain following bilateral laminotomy and split-spinous process laminotomy was significantly less, but was too small to be clinically important. We found no evidence to show that the incidence of complications, length of the procedure, length of hospital stay and postoperative walking distance differed between techniques of posterior decompression. CONCLUSION: The evidence provided by this systematic review for the effects of unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression, bilateral laminotomy and split-spinous process laminotomy compared with conventional laminectomy on functional disability, perceived recovery and leg pain is of low or very low quality. Therefore, further research is necessary to establish whether these techniques provide a safe and effective alternative for conventional laminectomy. Proposed advantages of these techniques regarding the incidence of iatrogenic instability and postoperative back pain are plausible, but definitive conclusions are limited by poor methodology and poor reporting of outcome measures among included studies.

A new approach to prevent contralateral hip fracture: Evaluation of the effectiveness of a fracture preventing implant.

BACKGROUND: Among the millions of people suffering from a hip fracture each year, 20% may sustain a contralateral hip fracture within 5 years with an associated mortality risk increase reaching 64% in the 5 following years. In this context, we performed a biomechanical study to assess the performance of a hip fracture preventing implant. METHODS: The implant consists of two interlocking peek rods unified with surgical cement. Numerical and biomechanical tests were performed to simulate single stance load or lateral fall. Seven pairs of femurs were selected from elderly subjects suffering from osteoporosis or osteopenia, and tested ex-vivo after implantation of the device on one side. FINDINGS: The best position for the implant was identified by numerical simulations. The loadings until failure showed that the insertion of the implant increased significantly (P<0.05) both fracture load (+18%) and energy to fracture (+32%) of the implanted femurs in comparison with the intraindividual controls. The instrumented femur resisted the implementation of the non-instrumented femur fracture load for 30 cycles and kept its performance at the end of the cyclic loading. INTERPRETATION: Implantation of the fracture preventing device improved both fracture load and energy to fracture when compared with intraindividual controls. This is consistent with previous biomechanical side-impact testing on pairs of femur using the same methodology. Implant insertion seems to be relevant to support multiple falls and thus, to prevent a second hip fracture in elderly patients.

Effectiveness of posterior decompression techniques compared with conventional laminectomy for lumbar stenosis.

BACKGROUND: The gold standard treatment for symptomatic lumbar stenosis refractory to conservative management is a facet-preserving laminectomy. New techniques of posterior decompression have been developed to preserve spinal integrity and to minimise tissue damage by limiting bony decompression and avoiding removal of the midline structures (i.e. spinous process, vertebral arch and interspinous and supraspinous ligaments). OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness of techniques of posterior decompression that limit the extent of bony decompression or avoid removal of posterior midline structures of the lumbar spine versus conventional facet-preserving laminectomy for the treatment of patients with degenerative lumbar stenosis. SEARCH METHODS: An experienced librarian conducted a comprehensive electronic search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the clinical trials registries ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) for relevant literature up to June 2014. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included prospective controlled studies comparing conventional facet-preserving laminectomy versus a posterior decompressive technique that avoids removal of posterior midline structures or a technique involving only partial resection of the vertebral arch. We excluded studies describing techniques of decompression by means of interspinous process devices or concomitant (instrumented) fusion procedures. Participants included individuals with symptomatic degenerative lumbar stenosis only. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Back Review Group criteria for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for non-randomised studies. We extracted data regarding demographics, intervention details and outcome measures. MAIN RESULTS: A total of four high-quality RCTs and six low-quality RCTs met the search criteria of this review. These studies included a total of 733 participants. Investigators compared three different posterior decompression techniques versus conventional laminectomy. Three studies (173 participants) compared unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression versus conventional laminectomy. Four studies (382 participants) compared bilateral laminotomy versus conventional laminectomy (one study included three treatment groups and compared unilateral and bilateral laminotomy vs conventional laminectomy). Finally, four studies (218 participants) compared a split-spinous process laminotomy versus conventional laminectomy.Evidence of low or very low quality suggests that different techniques of posterior decompression and conventional laminectomy have similar effects on functional disability and leg pain. Only perceived recovery at final follow-up was better in people who underwent bilateral laminotomy compared with conventional laminectomy (two RCTs, 223 participants, odds ratio 5.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.55 to 12.71).Among the secondary outcome measures, unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression and bilateral laminotomy resulted in numerically fewer cases of iatrogenic instability, although in both cases, the incidence of instability was low (three RCTs, 166 participants, odds ratio 0.28, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.15; three RCTs, 294 participants, odds ratio 0.10, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.55, respectively). The difference in severity of postoperative low back pain following bilateral laminotomy (two RCTs, 223 participants, mean difference -0.51, 95% CI -0.80 to -0.23) and split-spinous process laminotomy compared with conventional laminectomy (two RCTs, 97 participants, mean difference -1.07, 95% CI -2.15 to -0.00) was significantly less, but was too small to be clinically important. A quantitative comparison between unilateral laminotomy and conventional laminectomy was not possible because of different reporting of outcome measures. We found no evidence to show that the incidence of complications, length of the procedure, length of hospital stay and postoperative walking distance differed between techniques of posterior decompression. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence provided by this systematic review for the effects of unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression, bilateral laminotomy and split-spinous process laminotomy compared with conventional laminectomy on functional disability, perceived recovery and leg pain is of low or very low quality. Therefore, further research is necessary to establish whether these techniques provide a safe and effective alternative for conventional laminectomy. Proposed advantages of these techniques regarding the incidence of iatrogenic instability and postoperative back pain are plausible, but definitive conclusions are limited by poor methodology and poor reporting of outcome measures among included studies. Future research is necessary to establish the incidence of iatrogenic instability using standardised definitions of radiological and clinical instability at comparable follow-up intervals. Long-term results with these techniques are currently lacking.

Biomechancial quantification of pathologic manipulable spinal lesions: an in vivo ovine model of spondylolysis and intervertebral disc degeneration.

OBJECTIVE: The purposes of this study were to quantify the biomechanical and pathologic consequences of surgically induced spinal lesions and to determine their response to spinal manipulation (SMT) in an in vivo ovine model. METHODS: Of 24 Merino sheep, 6 received L5 spondylolytic defects, 6 received L1 annular lesions, and 12 served as respective controls. Dorsoventral (DV) stiffness was assessed using oscillatory loads (2-12 Hz). Two SMT force-time profiles were administered in each of the groups using a randomized and repeated-measures design. Stiffness and the effect of SMT on the DV motions and multifidus needle electromyographic responses were assessed using a repeated-measures analysis of variance (α = .05). Postmortem histologic analysis and computed tomography validated the presence of lesions. RESULTS: L5 DV stiffness was significantly increased (40.2%) in the spondylolysis (6.28 N/mm) compared with the L5 control group (4.48 N/mm) (P < 03). Spinal manipulations delivered to the spondylolysis group resulted in less DV vertebral displacement (P < .01) compared with controls. Dorsoventral stiffness of the disc degeneration group was 5.66 N/mm, 94.5% greater than in the L1 control group (2.91 N/mm) (P < .01). One hundred-millisecond SMTs resulted in significantly reduced DV displacements in the disc degeneration group compared with the L1 control group (P < .01). Animals in the disc degeneration group showed a consistent 25% to 30% reduction in needle electromyographic responses to all SMTs. CONCLUSIONS: Quantifiable objective evidence of spinal lesions and their response to SMT were confirmed in this study. Neuromechanical alterations provide novel insights into quantifying manipulable spinal lesions and a means to biomechanically assess SMT outcomes.

The association between isoinertial trunk muscle performance and low back pain in male adolescents.

The literature reports inconsistent findings regarding the association between low back pain (LBP) and trunk muscle function, in both adults and children. The strength of the relationship appears to be influenced by how LBP is qualified and the means by which muscle function is measured. The aim of this study was to examine the association between isoinertial trunk muscle performance and consequential (non-trivial) low back pain (LBP) in male adolescents. Healthy male adolescents underwent anthropometric measurements, clinical evaluation, and tests of trunk range of motion (ROM), maximum isometric strength (STRENGTH) and peak movement velocity (VEL), using an isoinertial device. They provided information about their regular sporting activities, history and family history of LBP. Predictors of "relevant/consequential LBP" were examined using multivariable logistic regression. LBP status was reassessed after 2 years and the change from baseline was categorised. At baseline, 33/95 (35%) subjects reported having experienced consequential LBP. BMI, a family history of LBP, and regularly playing sport were each significantly associated with a history of consequential LBP (p < 0.05). 85/95 (89%) boys participated in the follow-up: 51 (60%) reported no LBP at either baseline or follow-up (never LBP); 5 (6%) no LBP at baseline, but LBP at follow-up (new LBP); 19 (22%) LBP at baseline, but none at follow-up; and 10 (12%) LBP at both time-points (recurrent/persistent LBP). The only distinguishing features of group membership in these small groups were: fewer sport-active in the "never LBP" group); worse trunk mobility, in the "persistent LBP" group, lower baseline sagittal ROM in the "never LBP" and "new LBP" (p < 0.05). Regular involvement in sport was a consistent predictor of LBP. Isoinertial trunk performance was not associated with LBP in adolescents.