Patient-Reported Outcomes and Computed Tomography Review After Minimally Invasive Fusion of the Sacroiliac Joint With Aggressive Joint Decortication and Joint Compression.

The sacroiliac joint (SIJ) is a common, underrecognized source of low back pain. We evaluated outcomes in patients undergoing sacroiliac joint fusion (SIJF) using a novel, minimally invasive SIJF system emphasizing compressive forces across an aggressively debrided SIJ. We retrospectively reviewed data from a continuous set of patients presenting to a large, tertiary care hospital from September 2017 to August 2019. All patients received the novel SIJF device. Outcomes were assessed at 8 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score, Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) score, Single Assessment Numerical Evaluation (SANE) score, and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures, plus radiographic evaluation of fusion status. Data from 75 patients were analyzed. At 8 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months, the ODI score improved by 10.5 points (P=.002), 17.4 points (P<.0001), and 23.6 points (P<.0001), respectively, while the NRS score improved by 4.6 points (P<.0001), 4.4 points (P<.0001), and 4.6 points (P<.0001), respectively. SANE scores indicated high levels of patient satisfaction (81.0%, 92.18%, and 89.2%, respectively). PROMIS physical function scores improved by 2.65 points, 3.30 points, and 3.63 points, respectively, while PROMIS mental health scores showed changes of -1.93 points, 1.57 points, and -0.47 points, respectively. A review of computed tomography scans demonstrated grade 3 fusion (complete) in 81% of cases at a mean of 371 days postoperatively. There was one revision case for a malpositioned implant. The use of a novel SIJF device emphasizing compressive forces provided early, durable improvements in patient-reported outcomes and extremely high patient satisfaction. [Orthopedics. 2024;47(2):101-107.].

Methods Used to Generate Consensus Statements for Clinical Practice Guidelines: A Primer for the Spine Surgeon.

STUDY DESIGN: This was a research methodology study. OBJECTIVE: This review discusses the most commonly utilized consensus group methodologies for formulating clinical practice guidelines and current methods for accessing rigorous up-to-date clinical practice guidelines. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: In recent years, clinical practice guidelines for the management of several conditions of the spine have emerged to provide clinicians with evidence-based best-practices. Many of these guidelines are used routinely by administrators, payers, and providers to determine the high-quality and cost-effective surgical practices. Most of these guidelines are formulated by consensus groups, which employ methodologies that are unfamiliar to most clinicians. METHODS: An extensive literature review was performed. The literature was then summarized in accordance with the authors' clinical experience. RESULTS: The Nominal Group Technique, Delphi method, and RAND-UCLA Appropriateness Model are 3 commonly utilized consensus group methodologies employed in the creation of clinical practice guidelines. Each of these methodologies has inherent advantages and disadvantages, is dependent on rigorously performed systematic reviews and meta-analyses to inform the panel of experts, and can be used to answer challenging clinical questions that remain unanswered due to a paucity of class I evidence. CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights the most commonly utilized consensus group methodologies and informs spine surgeons regarding options to access current clinical practice guidelines. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V.

Anterior Cervical Osteophyte Resection for Treatment of Dysphagia.

STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVES: When anterior cervical osteophytes become large enough, they may cause dysphagia. There is a paucity of work examining outcomes and complications of anterior cervical osteophyte resection for dysphagia. METHODS: Retrospective review identified 19 patients who underwent anterior cervical osteophyte resection for a diagnosis of dysphagia. The mean age was 71 years and follow-up, 4.7 years. The most common level operated on was C3-C4 (13, 69%). RESULTS: Following anterior cervical osteophyte resection, 79% of patients had improvement in dysphagia. Five patients underwent cervical fusion; there were no episodes of delayed or iatrogenic instability requiring fusion. Fusion patients were younger (64 vs 71 years, P = .05) and had longer operative times (315 vs 121 minutes, P = .01). Age of 75 years or less trended toward improvement in dysphagia (P = .09; OR = 18.8; 95% CI 0.7-478.0), whereas severe dysphagia trended toward increased complications (P = .07; OR = 11.3; 95% CI = 0.8-158.5). Body mass index, use of an exposure surgeon, diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis diagnosis, surgery at 3 or more levels, prior neck surgery, and fusion were not predictive of improvement or complication. CONCLUSIONS: Anterior cervical osteophyte resection improves swallowing function in the majority of patients with symptomatic osteophytes. Spinal fusion can be added to address stenosis and other underlying cervical disease and help prevent osteophyte recurrence, whereas intraoperative navigation can be used to ensure complete osteophyte resection without breaching the cortex or entering the disc space. Because of the relatively high complication rate, patients should undergo thorough multidisciplinary workup with swallow evaluation to confirm that anterior cervical osteophytes are the primary cause of dysphagia prior to surgery.