Aims. The aim of this study was to systematically compare the safety and accuracy of robot-assisted (RA) technique with conventional freehand with/without fluoroscopy-assisted (CT) pedicle screw insertion for spine disease. Methods. A systematic search was performed on PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and WANFANG for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated the safety and accuracy of RA compared with conventional freehand with/without fluoroscopy-assisted pedicle screw insertion for spine disease from 2012 to 2019. This meta-analysis used Mantel-Haenszel or inverse variance method with mixed-effects model for heterogeneity, calculating the odds ratio (OR), mean difference (MD), standardized mean difference (SMD), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The results of heterogeneity, subgroup analysis, and risk of bias were analyzed. Results. Ten
Symptomatic spinal stenosis is a very common problem, and decompression surgery has been shown to be superior to nonoperative treatment in selected patient groups. However, performing an instrumented fusion in addition to decompression may avoid revision and improve outcomes. The aim of the SpInOuT feasibility study was to establish whether a definitive randomized controlled trial (RCT) that accounted for the spectrum of pathology contributing to spinal stenosis, including pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis (PI-LL) mismatch and mobile spondylolisthesis, could be conducted. As part of the SpInOuT-F study, a pilot randomized trial was carried out across five NHS hospitals. Patients were randomized to either spinal decompression alone or spinal decompression plus instrumented fusion. Patient-reported outcome measures were collected at baseline and three months. The intended sample size was 60 patients.Aims
Methods
We compared decompression alone to decompression with fusion surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis, with or without degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS). The aim was to evaluate if five-year outcomes differed between the groups. The two-year results from the same trial revealed no differences. The Swedish Spinal Stenosis Study was a multicentre randomized controlled trial with recruitment from September 2006 to February 2012. A total of 247 patients with one- or two-level central lumbar spinal stenosis, stratified by the presence of DS, were randomized to decompression alone or decompression with fusion. The five-year Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were the EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D), visual analogue scales for back and leg pain, and patient-reported satisfaction, decreased pain, and increased walking distance. The reoperation rate was recorded.Aims
Methods
This review provides a concise outline of the advances made in the care of patients and to the quality of life after a traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI) over the last century. Despite these improvements reversal of the neurological injury is not yet possible. Instead, current treatment is limited to providing symptomatic relief, avoiding secondary insults and preventing additional sequelae. However, with an ever-advancing technology and deeper understanding of the damaged spinal cord, this appears increasingly conceivable. A brief synopsis of the most prominent challenges facing both clinicians and research scientists in developing functional treatments for a progressively complex injury are presented. Moreover, the multiple mechanisms by which damage propagates many months after the original injury requires a multifaceted approach to ameliorate the human spinal cord. We discuss potential methods to protect the spinal cord from damage, and to manipulate the inherent inhibition of the spinal cord to regeneration and repair. Although acute and chronic SCI share common final pathways resulting in cell death and neurological deficits, the underlying putative mechanisms of chronic SCI and the treatments are not covered in this review.
People with severe, persistent low back pain (LBP) may be offered lumbar spine fusion surgery if they have had insufficient benefit from recommended non-surgical treatments. However, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) 2016 guidelines recommended not offering spinal fusion surgery for adults with LBP, except as part of a randomized clinical trial. This survey aims to describe UK clinicians’ views about the suitability of patients for such a future trial, along with their views regarding equipoise for randomizing patients in a future clinical trial comparing lumbar spine fusion surgery to best conservative care (BCC; the FORENSIC-UK trial). An online cross-sectional survey was piloted by the multidisciplinary research team, then shared with clinical professional groups in the UK who are involved in the management of adults with severe, persistent LBP. The survey had seven sections that covered the demographic details of the clinician, five hypothetical case vignettes of patients with varying presentations, a series of questions regarding the preferred management, and whether or not each clinician would be willing to recruit the example patients into future clinical trials.Aims
Methods
Chronic low back pain due to degenerative disc disease is sometimes treated with fusion. We compared the outcome of three different fusion techniques in the Swedish Spine Register: noninstrumented posterolateral fusion (PLF), instrumented posterolateral fusion (IPLF), and interbody fusion (IBF). A total of 2874 patients who were operated on at one or two lumbar levels were followed for a mean of 9.2 years (3.6 to 19.1) for any additional lumbar spine surgery. Patient-reported outcome data were available preoperatively (n = 2874) and at one year (n = 2274), two years (n = 1958), and a mean of 6.9 years (n = 1518) postoperatively and consisted of global assessment and visual analogue scales of leg and back pain, Oswestry Disability Index, EuroQol five-dimensional index, 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey, and satisfaction with treatment. Statistical analyses were performed with competing-risks proportional hazards regression or analysis of covariance, adjusted for baseline variables.Aims
Patients and Methods
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
has issued guidelines that state fusion for non-specific low back
pain should only be performed as part of a randomised controlled
trial, and that lumbar disc replacement should not be performed.
Thus, spinal fusion and disc replacement will no longer be routine
forms of treatment for patients with low back pain. This annotation
considers the evidence upon which these guidelines are based. Cite this article:
The aim of this study was to compare the effect of a percutaneous
radiofrequency heat lesion at the medial branch of the primary dorsal
ramus with a sham procedure, for the treatment of lumbar facet joint
pain. A randomised sham-controlled double blind multicentre trial was
carried out at the multidisciplinary pain centres of two hospitals.
A total of 60 patients aged >
18 years with a history and physical
examination suggestive of facet joint pain and a decrease of ≥ 2
on a numerical rating scale (NRS 0 to 10) after a diagnostic facet
joint test block were included. In the treatment group, a percutaneous
radiofrequency heat lesion (80oC during 60 seconds per
level) was applied to the medial branch of the primary dorsal ramus.
In the sham group, the same procedure was undertaken without for
the radiofrequency lesion. Both groups also received a graded activity
physiotherapy programme. The primary outcome measure was decrease
in pain. A secondary outcome measure was the Global Perceived Effect scale
(GPE).Aims
Patients and Methods
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed
the efficacy of bracing for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis have suffered
from small sample sizes, low compliance and lack of willingness
to participate. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility
of a comprehensive cohort study for evaluating both the efficacy
and the effectiveness of bracing in patients with adolescent idiopathic
scoliosis. Patients with curves at greater risk of progression were invited
to join a randomised controlled trial. Those who declined were given
the option to remain in the study and to choose whether they wished
to be braced or observed. Of 87 eligible patients (5 boys and 63
girls) identified over one year, 68 (78%) with mean age of 12.5
years (10 to 15) consented to participate, with a mean follow-up
of 168 weeks (0 to 290). Of these, 19 (28%) accepted randomisation.
Of those who declined randomisation, 18 (37%) chose a brace. Patients
who were more satisfied with their image were more likely to choose
bracing (Odds Ratio 4.1; 95% confidence interval 1.1 to 15.0; p = 0.035).
This comprehensive cohort study design facilitates the assessment
of both efficacy and effectiveness of bracing in patients with adolescent
idiopathic scoliosis, which is not feasible in a conventional randomised
controlled trial. Cite this article:
Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis affects about
3% of children. Non-operative measures are aimed at altering the natural
history to maintain the size of the curve below 40° at skeletal
maturity. The application of braces to treat spinal deformity pre-dates
the era of evidence-based medicine, and there is a paucity of irrefutable
prospective evidence in the literature to support their use and
their effectiveness has been questioned. This review considers this evidence. The weight of the evidence
is in favour of bracing over observation. The most recent literature
has moved away from addressing this question, and instead focuses
on developments in the design of braces and ways to improve compliance. Cite this article:
