North American Spine Society: Newly released vertebroplasty randomized controlled trials: a tale of two trials

This commentary is a product of the North American Spine Society (NASS). It was approved by the NASS Board of Directors and accepted for publication outside The Spine Journal's peer review process.

An evidence-based clinical guideline for the use of antithrombotic therapies in spine surgery

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

The objective of the North American Spine Society (NASS) Evidence-Based Clinical Guideline on antithrombotic therapies in spine surgery was to provide evidence-based recommendations to address key clinical questions surrounding the use of antithrombotic therapies in spine surgery. The guideline is intended to address these questions based on the highest quality clinical literature available on this subject as of February 2008. The goal of the guideline recommendations was to assist in delivering optimum, efficacious treatment with the goal of preventing thromboembolic events.

PURPOSE

To provide an evidence-based, educational tool to assist spine surgeons in minimizing the risk of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE).

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and evidence-based clinical guideline.

METHODS

This report is from the Antithrombotic Therapies Work Group of the NASS Evidence-Based Guideline Development Committee. The work group was composed of multidisciplinary spine care specialists, all of whom were trained in the principles of evidence-based analysis. Each member of the group was involved in formatting a series of clinical questions to be addressed by the group. The final questions agreed on by the group are the subject of this report. A literature search addressing each question and using a specific search protocol was performed on English language references found in MEDLINE, EMBASE (Drugs and Pharmacology), and four additional, evidence-based databases. The relevant literature was then independently rated by at least three reviewers using the NASS-adopted standardized levels of evidence. An evidentiary table was created for each of the questions. Final grades of recommendation for the answers to each clinical question were arrived at via Web casts among members of the work group using standardized grades of recommendation. When Level I to IV evidence was insufficient to support a recommendation to answer a specific clinical question, expert consensus was arrived at by the work group through the modified nominal group technique and is clearly identified as such in the guideline.

RESULTS

Fourteen clinical questions were formulated, addressing issues of incidence of DVT and PE in spine surgery and recommendations regarding utilization of mechanical prophylaxis and chemoprophylaxis in spine surgery. The answers to these 14 clinical questions are summarized in this article. The respective recommendations were graded by the strength of the supporting literature that was stratified by levels of evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

A clinical guideline addressing the use of antithrombotic therapies in spine surgery has been created using the techniques of evidence-based medicine and using the best available evidence as a tool to assist spine surgeons in minimizing the risk of DVT and PE. The entire guideline document, including the evidentiary tables, suggestions for future research, and all references, is available electronically at the NASS Web site (www.spine.org) and will remain updated on a timely schedule.

Treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee (nonarthroplasty)

The clinical practice guideline was explicitly developed to include only treatments less invasive than knee replacement (ie, arthroplasty). Patients with symptomatic osteoarthritis of the knee are to be encouraged to participate in self-management educational programs and to engage in self-care, as well as to lose weight and engage in exercise and quadriceps strengthening. The guideline recommends taping for short-term relief of pain as well as analgesics and intra-articular corticosteroids, but not glucosamine and/or chondroitin. Patients need not undergo needle lavage or arthroscopy with débridement or lavage. Patients may consider partial meniscectomy or loose body removal or realignment osteotomy, as conditions warrant. Use of a free-floating interpositional device should not be considered for symptomatic unicompartmental osteoarthritis of the knee. Lateral heel wedges should not be prescribed for patients with symptomatic medial compartmental osteoarthritis of the knee. The work group was unable either to recommend or not recommend the use of braces with either valgus- or varus-directing forces for patients with medial unicompartmental osteoarthritis; the use of acupuncture or of hyaluronic acid; or osteotomy of the tibial tubercle for isolated symptomatic patellofemoral osteoarthritis.

An evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

The objective of the North American Spine Society (NASS) evidence-based clinical guideline on the diagnosis and treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis is to provide evidence-based recommendations on key clinical questions concerning the diagnosis and treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. The guideline is intended to address these questions based on the highest quality clinical literature available on this subject as of January 2007. The goal of the guideline recommendations is to assist the practitioner in delivering optimum, efficacious treatment of and functional recovery from this common disorder.

PURPOSE

To provide an evidence-based, educational tool to assist spine care providers in improving the quality and efficiency of care delivered to patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and evidence-based clinical guideline.

METHODS

This report is from the Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis Work Group of the NASS Evidence-Based Clinical Guideline Development Committee. The work group was comprised of multidisciplinary spine care specialists, all of whom were trained in the principles of evidence-based analysis. Each member participated in the development of a series of clinical questions to be addressed by the group. The final questions agreed on by the group are the subject of this report. A literature search addressing each question and using a specific search protocol was performed on English language references found in MEDLINE, EMBASE (Drugs and Pharmacology) and four additional, evidence-based, databases. The relevant literature was then independently rated by at least three reviewers using the NASS-adopted standardized levels of evidence. An evidentiary table was created for each of the questions. Final grades of recommendation for the answer to each clinical question were arrived at via face-to-face meetings among members of the work group using standardized grades of recommendation. When Level I-IV evidence was insufficient to support a recommendation to answer a specific clinical question, expert consensus was arrived at by the work group through the modified nominal group technique and is clearly identified as such in the guideline.

RESULTS

Nineteen clinical questions were formulated, addressing issues of prognosis, diagnosis, and treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. The answers to these 19 clinical questions are summarized in this document. The respective recommendations were graded by the strength of the supporting literature that was stratified by levels of evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

A clinical guideline for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis has been created using the techniques of evidence-based medicine and using the best available evidence as a tool to aid practitioners involved with the care of this condition. The entire guideline document, including the evidentiary tables, suggestions for future research, and all references, is available electronically at the NASS Web site (www.spine.org) and will remain updated on a timely schedule.

Diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome

This clinical practice guideline was created to improve patient care by outlining the appropriate information-gathering and decision-making processes involved in managing the diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome. The methods used to develop this clinical practice guideline were designed to combat bias, enhance transparency, and promote reproducibility. The guideline's recommendations are as follows: The physician should obtain an accurate patient history. The physician should perform a physical examination of the patient that may include personal characteristics as well as performing a sensory examination, manual muscle testing of the upper extremity, and provocative and/or discriminatory tests for alternative diagnoses. The physician may obtain electrodiagnostic tests to differentiate among diagnoses. This may be done in the presence of thenar atrophy and/or persistent numbness. The physician should obtain electrodiagnostic tests when clinical and/or provocative tests are positive and surgical management is being considered. If the physician orders electrodiagnostic tests, the testing protocol should follow the American Academy of Neurology/American Association of Neuromuscular and Electrodiagnostic Medicine/American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation guidelines for diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome. In addition, the physician should not routinely evaluate patients suspected of having carpal tunnel syndrome with new technology, such as magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography, and pressure-specified sensorimotor devices in the wrist and hand. This decision was based on an additional nonsystematic literature review following the face-to-face meeting of the work group.

An evidence-based review of the literature on the consequences of conservative versus aggressive discectomy for the treatment of primary disc herniation with radiculopathy

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

It remains unknown whether aggressive disc removal with curettage versus conservative removal of a disc fragment with little disc invasion provides a better outcome for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation with radiculopathy.

PURPOSE

Determine the level of evidence within the clinical literature that supports the performance of a conservative versus aggressive technique for discectomy.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Systematic evidence-based review of clinical literature.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Patients with primary lumbar disc herniation with radiculopathy.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Operative time, return to work status, recurrent disc herniation, self-reported, and functional measures assessed less than 2 years (short term) and greater than 2 years (long term) after surgery.

METHODS

Systematic Medline search was performed to identify all published studies relating to outcome after aggressive or conservative discectomy. Levels of evidence (I-V) were assessed for each study and grades of recommendation were generated (Good, Fair, Poor, Insufficient evidence) based on the NASS Clinical Guidelines' Levels of Evidence and Grades of Recommendation.

RESULTS

There is fair evidence that conservative discectomy will result in shorter operative times and a quicker return to work despite similar lengths of hospital stay, similar pain levels at discharge, similar 6-month functional status, and a similar 2-year incidence of persistent/recurrent back and leg pain. There is poor quality evidence that conservative discectomy will result in a lower incidence of recurrent back pain beyond 2 years postoperatively. There is fair quality evidence that conservative discectomy will result in a higher incidence of recurrent disc herniation.

CONCLUSIONS

There are no Level I studies to support conservative versus aggressive discectomy for the treatment of primary disc herniation. However, systematic review of the literature suggests that conservative discectomy may result in shorter operative time, quicker return to work, and a decreased incidence of long-term recurrent low back pain but with an increased incidence of recurrent disc herniation. Prospective randomized trails are needed to firmly assess this possible benefit.

Antibiotic prophylaxis in spine surgery: an evidence-based clinical guideline for the use of prophylactic antibiotics in spine surgery

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

The objective of the North American Spine Society's (NASS) Evidence-Based Clinical Guideline on Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Spine Surgery is to provide evidence-based recommendations on key clinical questions concerning the use of prophylactic antibiotics in spine surgery. The guideline is intended to address these questions based on the highest quality clinical literature available on this subject as of December 2006. The goal of the guideline recommendations is to assist in delivering optimum, efficacious treatment to prevent surgical site infection.

PURPOSE

To provide an evidence-based, educational tool to assist spine surgeons in preventing surgical site infections.

STUDY DESIGN

Evidence-based Clinical Guideline.

METHODS

This report is from the Antibiotic Prophylaxis Work Group of the NASS's Evidence-Based Clinical Guideline Development Committee. The work group comprised multidisciplinary surgical spine care specialists, who were trained in the principles of evidence-based analysis. Each member of the group formatted a series of clinical questions to be addressed by the group. The final questions agreed upon by the group are the subjects of this report. A literature search addressing each question and using a specific search protocol was performed on English language references found in MEDLINE, EMBASE (Drugs and Pharmacology), and four additional, evidence-based, databases. The relevant literature was then independently rated by at least three reviewers using the NASS-adopted standardized levels of evidence. An evidentiary table was created for each of the questions. Final grades of recommendation for the answer to each clinical question were arrived at via Webcast meetings among members of the work group using standardized grades of recommendation. When Level I to Level IV evidence was insufficient to support a recommendation to answer a specific clinical question, expert consensus was arrived at by the work group through the modified nominal group technique and is clearly identified in the guideline.

RESULTS

Eleven clinical questions addressed the efficacy and appropriateness of antibiotic prophylaxis protocols, repeat dosing, discontinuation, wound drains, and special considerations related to the potential impact of comorbidities on antibiotic prophylaxis. The responses to these 11 clinical questions are summarized in this document. The respective recommendations were graded by the strength of the supported literature which was stratified by levels of evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

A clinical guideline addressing the use of antibiotic prophylaxis in spine surgery has been created using the techniques of evidence-based medicine and the best available evidence. This educational tool will assist spine surgeons in preventing surgical site infections. The entire guideline document, including the evidentiary tables, suggestions for future research, and references, is available electronically at the NASS Web site (www.spine.org) and will remain updated on a timely schedule.

Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: an evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

The objective of the North American Spine Society (NASS) evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS) is to provide evidence-based recommendations to address key clinical questions surrounding the diagnosis and treatment of DLSS. The guideline is intended to reflect contemporary treatment concepts for symptomatic DLSS as reflected in the highest quality clinical literature available on this subject as of April 2006. The goals of the guideline recommendations are to assist in delivering optimum, efficacious treatment, and functional recovery from this spinal disorder.

PURPOSE

To provide an evidence-based tool that assists practitioners in improving the quality and efficiency of care delivered to patients with DLSS.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Evidence-based clinical guideline.

METHODS

This report is from the Spinal Stenosis Work Group of the NASS Clinical Guidelines Committee. The work group comprised medical, diagnostic, interventional, and surgical spinal care specialists, all of whom were trained in the principles of evidence-based analysis. In the development of this guideline, the work group arrived at a consensus definition of a working diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis by use of a modification of the nominal group technique. Each member of the group formatted a series of clinical questions to be addressed by the group and the final list of questions agreed on by the group is the subject of this report. A literature search addressing each question and using a specific literature search protocol was performed on English language references found in MEDLINE, EMBASE (Drugs and Pharmacology), and four additional, evidence-based, databases. The relevant literature to answer each clinical question was then independently rated by at least two reviewers using the NASS-adopted standardized levels of evidence. An evidentiary table was created for each of the questions. Any discrepancies in evidence levels among the initial raters were resolved by at least two additional members' review of the reference and independent rating. Final grades of recommendation for the answer to each clinical question were arrived at in face-to-face meetings among members of the work group using the NASS-adopted standardized grades of recommendation. When Levels I to IV evidence was insufficient to support a recommendation to answer a specific clinical question, expert consensus was arrived at by the work group through the modified nominal group technique and is clearly identified as such in the guideline.

RESULTS

Eighteen clinical questions were asked, addressing issues of prognosis, diagnosis, and treatment of DLSS. The answers to these 18 clinical questions are summarized in this document along with their respective levels of evidence and grades of recommendation in support of these answers.

CONCLUSIONS

A clinical guideline for DLSS has been created using the techniques of evidence-based medicine and using the best available evidence as a tool to aid both practitioners and patients involved with the care of this disease. The entire guideline document including the evidentiary tables, suggestions for future research, and all references is available electronically at the NASS Web site (www.spine.org) and will remain updated on a timely schedule.

To err is human: quality and safety issues in spine care

STUDY DESIGN

A review of issues linking advocacy, patient safety, and quality.

OBJECTIVE

To heighten awareness of patient safety issues that require ongoing advocacy efforts by physicians treating spinal disorders.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The 1999 Institute of Medicine report "To Err is Human. Building a Safer Health System" was a landmark publication that vaulted patient safety into the limelight of public awareness and media attention. The American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons had addressed the wrong site surgery issue with its Sign Your Site Program even before the Institute of Medicine report. Several professional medical societies involved in spine care have made advocating for patient safety a priority.

METHODS

A summary of areas of advocacy efforts involving patient safety and quality. These include the Sign Your Site Program from the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, Sign, Mark and X-ray from the North American Spine Society, Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations Universal Protocol, and technology assessment. Advocacy on the Federal, state, and local levels concerning patient safety is reviewed.

RESULTS

Awareness of patient safety issues has increased. Several patient safety protocols (Sign Your Site, Sign, Mark and X-ray, and the Universal Protocol) are in place. There is increased monitoring of medical errors on the state and local, especially hospital, levels.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient safety is an absolute provision of health care. Physicians need to set a personal example for compliance with existing patient safety systems such as the Universal Protocol and be active advocates for patient safety.

Lumbar disc arthroplasty: a critical review

Lumbar disc arthroplasty may be the most innovative and exciting development in the history of spinal surgery. Manufacturers and proponents cite the ability of these devices to relieve pain while preserving motion at the disc space. The preservation of motion is hypothesized to lower the risk of adjacent segment disease and, thereby, improve long-term outcomes. However, the devices are expensive and their use is associated with the potential for significant complications above and beyond those seen with lumbar fusion. At the present time, there is no evidence to suggest that the use of disc arthroplasty results in better short- or long-term functional outcomes than fusion in properly selected patients. Furthermore, there is little if any evidence to support the hypothesis that adjacent segment degeneration is an important clinical entity. Although the absence of proof is not the same as the proof of absence, greater efficacy must be demonstrated to offset the increased costs and complications associated with these devices. Therefore, these devices require further long-term study in a controlled environment before widespread application.