Towards Evidence-Based Guidelines in Neurological Surgery

Do we really apply evidence-based-recommendations to spine surgery? Results of an international survey

OBJECTIVE

This international survey investigated Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) in spine surgery by measuring its acceptance among spine surgeons. It assessed their understanding of EBM and how they apply it in practice by analyzing responses to various clinical scenarios..

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Following the CHERRIES guidelines, an e-survey was distributed to multiple social media forums for neurosurgeons and orthopedic surgeons on Facebook, LinkedIn, and Telegram and circulated further through email via the authors' network. Three hundred participants from Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, and Oceania completed the survey.

RESULTS

Our study revealed that 67.7% (n = 203) of respondents used EBM in their practice, and 97.3% (n = 292) believed training in research methodology and EBM was necessary for the practice of spine surgery. Despite this endorsement of using EBM in spine surgery, we observed varied responses to how EBM is applied in practice based on example scenarios. The responders who had additional training tended to obey EBM guidelines more than those who had no additional training. Most surgeons responded as always or sometimes prescribing methylprednisolone to patients with acute spinal cord injury. Other significant differences were identified between geographical regions, training, practice settings, and other factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Most respondents used EBM in practice and believed training in research methodology and EBM is necessary for spine surgery; however, there were significant variations on how to use them per case. Thus, the appropriate application of EBM in clinical settings for spinal surgery must be further studied.

Determining Differences in Perioperative Functional Mobility Patterns in Lumbar Decompression Versus Fusion Patients Using Smartphone Activity Data

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Smartphone activity data recorded through high-fidelity accelerometry can provide accurate postoperative assessments of patient mobility. The "big data" available through smartphones allows for advanced analyses, yielding insight into patient well-being. This study compared rate of change in functional activity data between lumbar fusion (LF) and lumbar decompression (LD) patients to determine preoperative and postoperative course differences.

METHODS

Twenty-three LF and 18 LD patients were retrospectively included. Activity data (steps per day) recorded in Apple Health, encompassing over 70 000 perioperative data points, was classified into 6 temporal epochs representing distinct functional states, including acute preoperative decline, immediate postoperative recovery, and postoperative decline. The daily rate of change of each patient's step counts was calculated for each perioperative epoch.

RESULTS

Patients undergoing LF demonstrated steeper preoperative declines than LD patients based on the first derivative of step count data (P = .045). In the surgical recovery phase, LF patients had slower recoveries (P = .041), and LF patients experienced steeper postoperative secondary declines than LD patients did (P = .010). The rate of change of steps per day demonstrated varying perioperative trajectories that were not explained by differences in age, comorbidities, or levels operated.

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing LF and LD have distinct perioperative activity profiles characterized by the rate of change in the patient daily steps. Daily steps and their rate of change is thus a valuable metric in phenotyping patients and understanding their postsurgical outcomes. Prospective studies are needed to expand upon these data and establish causal links between preoperative patient mobility, patient characteristics, and postoperative functional outcomes.

The Value of Statistics and Evidence-Based Medicine in the Care of Neurosurgical Patients

Science and the art of surgery should be anchored on evidence-based medicine. There is no room in the discipline of neurosurgery for “personal anecdotes/experience,” and the concept of “hero worship.” The construction of evidence-based medicine guidelines is essential in our continued improvement of care for neurosurgical patients.

Evidence-based medicine in neurosurgery: why and how?

Since its inception, medical training and practice are based primarily on the clinical experience provided by the mentors of each of the medical schools. In the 1990s, the first steps were taken for the construction of what we now know as evidence-based medicine. Evidence-based medicine is the set of studies, methods, and principles for the prevention of medical diseases, management guidelines, and algorithms used in sources of evidence. Neurosurgery based on evidence has emerged thanks to advances in neuroscience and information technology that allows the globalization of current scientific information. The results of important reviews on the levels of evidence in neurosurgery are low in percentages of high-quality evidence in this field of medicine. Based on the above, the objective of this manuscript is to describe the application of evidence in neurosurgery, the current state of the art in evidence-based medicine, and the steps needed to create evidence of the best quality in neurosurgery.

Metastatic Versus Osteoporotic Vertebral Fractures on MRI: A Blinded, Multicenter, and Multispecialty Observer Agreement Evaluation

BACKGROUND

MRI is assumed to be valid for distinguishing metastatic vertebral fractures (MVFs) from osteoporotic vertebral fractures (OVFs). This study assessed (1) concordance between the image-based diagnosis of MVF versus OVF and the reference (biopsy or follow-up of >6 months), (2) interobserver and intraobserver agreement on key imaging findings and the diagnosis of MVF versus OVF, and (3) whether disclosing a patient's history of cancer leads to variations in diagnosis, concordance, or agreement.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included clinical data and imaging from 203 patients with confirmed MVF or OVF provided to 25 clinicians (neurosurgeons, radiologists, orthopedic surgeons, and radiation oncologists). From January 2018 through October 2018, the clinicians interpreted images in conditions as close as possible to routine practice. Each specialist assessed data twice, with a minimum 6-week interval, blinded to assessments made by other clinicians and to their own previous assessments. The kappa statistic was used to assess interobserver and intraobserver agreement on key imaging findings, diagnosis (MVF vs OVF), and concordance with the reference. Subgroup analyses were based on clinicians' specialty, years of experience, and complexity of the hospital where they worked.

RESULTS

For diagnosis of MVF versus OVF, interobserver agreement was fair, whereas intraobserver agreement was substantial. Only the latter improved to almost perfect when a patient's history of cancer was disclosed. Interobserver agreement for key imaging findings was fair or moderate, whereas intraobserver agreement on key imaging findings was moderate or substantial. Concordance between the diagnosis of MVF versus OVF and the reference was moderate. Results were similar regardless of clinicians' specialty, experience, and hospital category.

CONCLUSIONS

When MRI is used to distinguish MVF versus OVF, interobserver agreement and concordance with the reference were moderate. These results cast doubt on the reliability of basing such a diagnosis on MRI in routine practice.

Pearls for Interpreting Neurosurgical Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: Lessons From a Collaborative Effort

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the neurosurgical literature have surged in popularity over the last decade. It is our concern that, without a renewed effort to critically interpret and appraise these studies as high or low quality, we run the risk of the quality and value of evidence-based medicine in neurosurgery being misinterpreted. Correspondingly, we have outlined 4 major domains to target in interpreting neurosurgical systematic reviews and meta-analyses based on the lessons learned by a collaboration of clinicians and academics summarized as 4 pearls. The domains of (1) heterogeneity, (2) modeling, (3) certainty, and (4) bias in neurosurgical systematic reviews and meta-analyses were identified as aspects in which the authors’ approaches have changed over time to improve robustness and transparency. Examples of how and why these pearls were adapted were provided in areas of cranial neuralgia, spine, pediatric, and neuro-oncology to demonstrate how neurosurgical readers and writers may improve their interpretation of these domains. The incorporation of these pearls into practice will empower neurosurgical academics to effectively interpret systematic reviews and meta-analyses, enhancing the quality of our evidence-based medicine literature while maintaining a critical focus on the needs of the individual patients in neurosurgery.