Appropriateness of surgery for sciatica: reliability of guidelines from expert panels.

STUDY DESIGN: Reliability study of guidelines development. OBJECTIVE: To compare criteria for low back surgery between two expert panels. BACKGROUND: Reliability of expert panels for determining appropriateness of indications for surgical procedures has heretofore received little attention. METHODS: Two multidisciplinary expert panels of similar composition were convened, in the United States and in Switzerland, to evaluate the appropriateness of 720 distinct clinical scenarios involving sciatica. Each indication was assigned to a category of appropriate, uncertain, and inappropriate. The appropriateness of the 720 theoretical scenarios were compared between the two panels, and both sets of criteria were applied to two series of actual cases. RESULTS: Seventy-nine percent (n = 566) of the 720 theoretical indications were assigned to identical categories of appropriateness by both panels (kappa = 0.63; P < 0.001). Only 2 of the 720 scenarios elicited frank disagreement. The percentage of the 720 indications that were considered appropriate differed between the two panels (U.S.: 3%; Swiss: 11%, P < 0.001), as did the percentage of intrapanel agreement for indications (U.S.: 51%, Swiss: 64%, P < 0.001). When the same theoretical scenarios were matched with two series of actual cases (n = 181 and 149) agreement was moderate (kappa = 0.46) to fair (kappa = 0.30). CONCLUSION: There was substantial agreement on the appropriateness of surgery for theoretical cases of sciatica between independent expert panels from two countries. A better understanding of discordant ratings, especially for actual cases, should precede attempts at transposing recommendations emanating from a panel in one country to another.

Can the decision to operate be judged retrospectively? A study of medical records.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the precision and completeness of information in medical records for evaluating the appropriateness of operative indications for lumbar disc surgery. DESIGN: Retrospective review of records. SETTING: University department of neurosurgery, Switzerland. SUBJECT: 100 patients. INTERVENTIONS: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion of pre-defined, detailed appropriateness criteria present in the records. Proportion of cases that could unequivocally be classified as to the appropriateness of the indication for operation. RESULTS: The criteria were present and precise for 52 of the items (range 9-90); present but imprecise for 38 of the items, and absent for 10. Because of this imprecision, the appropriateness of only 7 of the operative indications could be unequivocally assessed retrospectively. CONCLUSION: Medical records are of limited use in assessing the appropriate management of care. The process of care should therefore be evaluated prospectively.

The assessment of appropriate indications for laminectomy.

We have developed criteria to determine the appropriate indications for lumbar laminectomy, using the standard procedure developed at the RAND corporation and the University of California at Los Angeles (RAND-UCLA). A panel of five surgeons and four physicians individually assessed 1000 hypothetical cases of sciatica, back pain only, symptoms of spinal stenosis, spondylolisthesis, miscellaneous indications or the need for repeat laminectomy. For the first round each member of the panel used a scale ranging from 1 (extremely inappropriate) to 9 (extremely appropriate). After discussion and condensation of the results into three categories laminectomy was considered appropriate in 11% of the 1000 theoretical scenarios, equivocal in 26% and inappropriate in 63%. There was some variation between the six categories of malalignment, but full agreement in 64% of the hypothetical cases. We applied these criteria retrospectively to the records of 196 patients who had had surgical treatment for herniated discs in one Swiss University hospital. We found that 48% of the operations were for appropriate indications, 29% for equivocal reasons and that 23% were inappropriate. The RAND-UCLA method is a feasible, useful and coherent approach to the study of the indications for laminectomy and related procedures, providing a number of important insights. Our conclusions now require validation by carefully designed prospective clinical trials, such as those which are used for new medical techniques.

Reliability of panel-based guidelines for colonoscopy: an international comparison.

BACKGROUND: This study examined the reliability of explicit guidelines developed using the RAND-UCLA appropriateness method. METHODS: The appropriateness of over 400 indications for colonoscopy was rated by two multispecialty expert panels (United States and Switzerland). A nine-point scale was used, which was consolidated into three categories of appropriateness: appropriate, uncertain, inappropriate. The distribution of appropriateness ratings between the two panels and the intrapanel and interpanel agreement for categories of appropriateness were calculated for all possible indications. Similar statistics were calculated for a series of 577 primary care patients referred for colonoscopy in Switzerland. RESULTS: Over 80% of all indications (348) could be directly compared. The proportions of indications classified as appropriate, uncertain, or inappropriate were 28.4%, 24.7%, 46.6% and 33.0%, 23.0%, 44.0% for the U.S. and the Swiss panels, respectively. Interpanel agreement was excellent for all the possible indications (kappa value: 0.75) and lower for actual cases (kappa value: 0.51) because of lower agreement for the most frequently encountered indications. CONCLUSIONS: Good agreement between the two sets of criteria was found, pointing to the reliability of the method. Partial disagreement occurred essentially for a few, albeit frequently encountered, indications for use of colonoscopy in cases of uncomplicated lower abdominal pain or constipation.

Appropriateness of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: comparison of American and Swiss criteria.

OBJECTIVE: Examine the reproducibility of the RAND method for developing criteria for the appropriateness of medical procedures. DESIGN: Comparison of two sets of explicit criteria for appropriateness of upper gastrointestinal (UGI) endoscopy, developed by separate expert panels from two countries. SETTING: United States, Switzerland. STUDY PARTICIPANTS: National experts from different medical specialties involved in the referral or application of UGI endoscopy. INTERVENTIONS: Each panel was presented with about 500 clinical scenarios (indications) that were rated on a nine-point scale as to the appropriateness of performing UGI endoscopy for a patient with that clinical presentation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: (1) distribution of appropriateness ratings and intrapanel agreement categories between the two panels, (2) between-panel agreement of assigning appropriateness for comparable indications and, (3) percentage of indications with major between-panel differences. RESULTS: Ratings for 2/3 of indications could be compared. The Swiss panel showed higher intrapanel agreement (54.6% versus 46.2%, P = 0.002). Seventy-eight per cent of comparable indications were assigned to identical categories of appropriateness by both panels (kappa = 0.76, P < 0.001). For 93% of the 376 comparable indications, there were no major interpanel differences. CONCLUSION: Separate expert panels in different countries, using a standardized methodology, produce criteria for appropriateness of medical procedures that are similar. Given the resources being invested throughout the world in developing criteria and guidelines, international collaboration in seeking optimal use of limited health care resources should be intensified.

Efficacy of lumbar discectomy and percutaneous treatments for lumbar disc herniation.

The changing health care environment necessitates careful re-evaluation of all costly elective procedures. Low back surgery is a typical example. This article reviews the current literature addressing the efficacy of surgery and invasive percutaneous treatments for discogenic sciatica. It also discusses the prospects for the continuation of reimbursement for these procedures under a system of managed health care. Relevant articles were identified using the MEDLINE and Current Contents databases, from bibliographies of articles identified from these databases, from recommendations of experts in the field, and from the Canadian Cochrane++ Collaboration. The review includes randomized clinical trials, meta-analyses, published practice guidelines and large case series. The literature is classified and discussed in these quality strata. The review includes 9 randomized trials, 6 meta-analyses or review articles, one evidence-based practice guideline, 38 surgical case series and 35 additional references. Though incomplete, the existing evidence indicates that open discectomy shortens the duration of discogenic sciatica in selected patients. Neurologic outcomes are similar in operated and unoperated patients. Predominant leg pain, evidence of nerve root tension and concordant symptoms and imaging findings, are associated with favorable surgical results. Chemonucleolysis is also associated with more rapid pain relief than conservative treatment, but provides less certain benefit than standard discectomy. Available data on other percutaneous disc treatments do not currently support a statement on efficacy. Various percutaneous techniques are available but there is no solid scientific evidence of efficacy. The benefits of open discectomy, principally reduced duration of pain, appear to justify its use in carefully selected patients when discogenic sciatica fails to improve with conservative measures. Though elective, the procedure will probably continue to be available under managed care, but with increasing scrutiny of operative indications.

Appropriateness of indications for surgery of lumbar disc hernia and spinal stenosis.

STUDY DESIGN: This prospective study examines the appropriateness of indications for surgery of herniated intervertebral disc and spinal stenosis in patients undergoing surgery in a university hospital setting. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the appropriateness of surgery using explicit criteria developed by an expert panel in the United States. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The use of surgery for herniated intervertebral disc and spinal stenosis varies widely within and among countries. It has been postulated that the main reason for treatment failure is poor selection of candidates for the procedure. METHODS: The authors prospectively evaluated appropriateness of surgical indications for herniated lumbar intervertebral disc or spinal stenosis in 328 consecutive patients undergoing the operation in two university neurosurgery departments. Outcome was measured 1 year after surgery by a standardized interview. RESULTS: Indications for surgery were considered to be appropriate or equivocal in 202 (62%) patients and inappropriate in 126 (38%). Among the 126 inappropriate procedures, 66 were so rated because of insufficient activity restriction before the procedure. One year after surgery, 74% of the patients perceived the results of the operation as good or very good. CONCLUSIONS: Appropriateness as measured by the criteria established by the American panel identified a large percentage of day-to-day practice in the two surgical units as inappropriate. However, use of criteria that include new findings about lack of efficacy of bed rest probably would lower this percentage. Criteria of appropriateness of medical and surgical procedures, developed through the panel process, need to be updated regularly.