Search

Background: Shared decision-making between patients and physicians involves educating the patient, providing options, eliciting patient preferences, and reaching agreement on a decision. There are different ways to measure shared decision-making, including patient involvement, but there is no consensus on the best approach. In other fields, there have been varying relationships between patient-perceived involvement and observed patient involvement in shared decision-making. The relationship between observed and patient-perceived patient involvement in decision-making has not been studied in orthopaedic surgery.Questions/purposes: (1) Does patient-perceived involvement correlate with observed measurements of patient involvement in decision-making in orthopaedic surgery? (2) Are patient demographics associated with perceived and observed measurements of patient involvement in decision-making?Methods: We performed a prospective, observational study to compare observed and perceived patient involvement in new patient consultations for eight orthopaedic surgeons in subspecialties including hand/upper extremity, total joint arthroplasty, spine, sports, trauma, foot and ankle, and tumor. We enrolled 117 English-literate patients 18 years or older over an enrollment period of 2 months. A member of the research team assessed observed patient involvement during a consultation with the Observing Patient Involvement in Decision-Making (OPTION) instrument (scaled 1-100 with higher scores representing greater involvement). After the consultation, we asked patients to complete a questionnaire with demographic information including age, sex, race, education, income, marital status, employment status, and injury type. Patients also completed the Perceived Involvement in Care Scale (PICS), which measures patient-perceived involvement (scaled 1-13 with higher scores representing greater involvement). Both instruments are validated in multiple studies in various specialties and the physicians were blinded to the instruments used. We assessed the correlation between observed and patient-perceived involvement as well as tested the association between patient demographics and patient involvement scores.Results: There was weak correlation between observed involvement (OPTION) and patient-perceived involvement (PICS) (r = 0.37, p < 0.01) in decision-making (mean OPTION, 28.7, SD 7.7; mean PICS, 8.43, SD 2.3). We found a low degree of observed patient involvement despite a moderate to high degree of perceived involvement. No patient demographic factor had a significant association with patient involvement.Conclusions: Further work is needed to identify the best method for evaluating patient involvement in decision-making in the setting of discordance between observed and patient-perceived measurements. Knowing whether it is necessary for (1) actual observable patient involvement to occur; or (2) a patient to simply believe they are involved in their care can inform physicians on the best way to improve shared decision-making in their practice.Level Of Evidence: Level II, therapeutic study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Design: This is a retrospective cohort study.Objective: To evaluate the long-term outcomes for patients with refractory coccygodynia treated with coccygectomy compared to a nonsurgical regimen of sitting aids, physical therapy, medications, and injections.Summary Of Background Data: The surgical treatment of coccygodynia remains controversial. To date, there has only been one small comparative study of surgical versus nonsurgical treatment.Methods: From 2004 to 2014, 109 patients presenting with coccygodynia were treated with either total coccygectomy or a nonsurgical course of sitting aids, physical therapy, anti-inflammatory medications, and injections. All had at least 2 years of symptoms before surgery. The patient principally made the treatment decision, counseled by the treating physician. Before surgery, all subjects underwent at least 2 years of conservative treatment and three-dimensional imaging (computed tomography and/or magnetic resonance imaging). Subjects completed visual analog pain scales, EuroQol five-dimension, components of the PROMIS measure, and a novel Coccygodynia Disability Index evaluation. Work status, complications, and satisfaction were recorded.Results: A total of 61 patients received nonsurgical care; eight declined participation and five could not be located. Forty-eight patients underwent total coccygectomy; three declined participation and five could not be located. At an average 4.8 years of follow-up (range: 2-9), the nonsurgical visual analog pain scales was 5 and the surgical 2 (P = 0.001); 79% of surgically treated patients were improved at 2 years versus 43% for the nonsurgical group. EuroQol five-dimension (P = 0.002), Coccygodynia Disability Index (0.01), and PROMIS Pain interference scores (0.02) were also significantly improved in the surgical group. Eleven surgical patients (26%) had complications, all wound related with successful resolution; seven treated with dressing changes and four with surgical debridement.Conclusion: Total coccygectomy is a safe and effective surgical treatment of coccygodynia refractory to nonoperative care. Patient-reported outcome measures were improved after surgery compared with nonsurgical management. Postoperative wound care remains a concern.Level Of Evidence: 4. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Design: Retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients.Objective: To compare the efficacy of intrawound vancomycin to prevent postoperative surgical site infection (SSI) between patients with spinal tumor and nontumor spine patients.Summary Of Background Data: Recent studies have suggested that intrawound vancomycin is a promising method for reducing the SSI rate in spine surgery. However, the patient population in which it is most effective remains unknown.Methods: Medical records of a consecutive series of patients with tumor and nontumor spine patients who underwent open posterior instrumented surgeries at our institution between October 2011 and June 2014 were reviewed. 1 gram of vancomycin powder was evenly sprayed into the surgical site before drain placement. The SSI rates before and after vancomycin use were compared. Changes in SSI rates, which reflected the utility of vancomycin, were compared between patients with tumor and nontumor patients.Results: A total of 334 patients were enrolled including 25 patients with tumor and 129 nontumor patients in the "before" period, and 27 patients with tumor and 153 nontumor patients in the "after" period. Baseline characteristics in both patients with tumor and nontumor patients did not differ between periods. The SSI rate of nontumor patients was significantly reduced with intrawound vancomycin application (7.0% [9/129] vs. 0.7% [1/153], P = 0.011). However, the SSI rate in patients with tumor was not reduced (8.0% [2/25] vs. 14.8% [4/27], P = 0.442). 3 of the 4 patients with tumor who developed SSI after vancomycin use had previous radiotherapy, whereas only 1 SSI occurred in 14 patients with tumor without radiotherapy in the same period.Conclusion: Intrawound vancomycin may be beneficial for nontumor spine patients who undergo open posterior instrumented surgeries, but may not for those with spinal tumors. The poor physical health status, major surgical trauma, and tumor-related adjuvant treatments of patients with spinal tumor may contribute to this disparity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Studies comparing operative with nonoperative treatment of a stable burst fracture of the thoracolumbar junction in neurologically intact patients have not shown a meaningful difference at early follow-up. To our knowledge, longer-term outcome data have not before been presented.Methods: From 1992 to 1998, forty-seven consecutive patients with a stable thoracolumbar burst fracture and no neurological deficit were evaluated and randomized to one of two treatment groups: operative treatment (posterior or anterior arthrodesis) or nonoperative treatment (a body cast or orthosis). We previously reported the results of follow-up at an average of forty-four months. The current study presents the results of long-term follow-up, at an average of eighteen years (range, sixteen to twenty-two years). As in the earlier study, patients at long-term follow-up indicated the degree of pain on a visual analog scale and completed the Roland and Morris disability questionnaire, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) questionnaire, and the Short Form-36 (SF-36) health survey. Work and health status were obtained, and patients were evaluated radiographically.Results: Of the original operatively treated group of twenty-four patients, follow-up data were obtained for nineteen; one patient had died, and four could not be located. Of the original nonoperatively treated group of twenty-three patients, data were obtained for eighteen; two patients had died, and three could not be located. The average kyphosis was not significantly different between the two groups (13° for those who received operative treatment compared with 19° for those treated nonoperatively). Median scores for pain (4 cm for the operative group and 1.5 cm for the nonoperative group; p = 0.003), ODI scores (20 for the operative group and 2 for the nonoperative group; p <0.001) and Roland and Morris scores (7 for the operative group and 1 for the nonoperative group; p = 0.001) were all significantly better in the group treated nonoperatively. Seven of eight SF-36 scores also favored nonoperative treatment.Conclusions: While early analysis (four years) revealed few significant differences between the two groups, at long-term follow-up (sixteen to twenty-two years), those with a stable burst fracture who were treated nonoperatively reported less pain and better function compared with those who were treated surgically. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Systematic review.To determine if the presence of isthmic spondylolisthesis modifies the effect of treatment (fusion vs. multidimensional supervised rehabilitation) in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP).Results of spinal surgery for CLBP are variable. It is unclear whether patients with CLBP and isthmic spondylolisthesis have more success with surgery versus a multidimensional supervised rehabilitation program when compared with those with CLBP but without spondylolisthesis.A systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE and the Cochrane Collaboration Library for articles published through January 2011. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included that compared spine fusion versus multidimensional supervised rehabilitation in patients with and without isthmic spondylolisthesis. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) and risk differences were calculated for common outcomes, and then compared to determine potential heterogeneity of treatment effect. The final strength of the body of literature was expressed as “high,” “moderate,” or “low” confidence that the evidence reflects the true effect.No studies were found that directly compared the two subgroups. Three RCTs compared fusion with supervised nonoperative care in patients with CLBP without isthmic spondylolisthesis; one RCT evaluated these treatments in patients with isthmic spondylolisthesis. There were study differences in patient characteristics, type of fusion, the nature of the rehabilitation, outcomes assessed, and length of follow-up. The SMDs for pain in favor of fusion were modest at 2 years for those without isthmic spondylolisthesis, but large in favor of fusion for those with isthmic spondylolisthesis compared with rehabilitation. Similarly, the SMDs for function in patients without isthmic spondylolisthesis compared with rehabilitation was small at 2 years, but appreciably higher in favor of fusion in patients with isthmic spondylolisthesis.The overall strength of evidence evaluating whether the presence of isthmic spondylolisthesis modifies the effect of fusion compared with rehabilitation patients with CLBP is “low.” Fusion should be considered for patients with low back pain and isthmic spondylolisthesis who have failed nonoperative treatment.We recommend considering fusion for patients with isthmic spondylolisthesis and lower back pain who have failed nonoperative treatment. Recommendation: Weak. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Little information is available on vertebral motion in patients with discogenic low back pain under physiological conditions. We previously validated a combined dual fluoroscopic and magnetic resonance imaging system to investigate in vivo lumbar kinematics. The purpose of the present study was to characterize mechanical dysfunction among patients with confirmed discogenic low back pain, relative to asymptomatic controls without degenerative disc disease, by quantifying abnormal vertebral motion. Methods: Ten subjects were recruited forthe present study. All patients had discogenic low back pain confirmed clinically and radiographically at L4-L5 and L5-Si. Motions were reproduced with use of the combined imaging technique during flexion-extension, left-to-right bending, and left-to-right twisting movements. From local coordinate systems at the end plates, relative motions of the cephalad vertebrae with respect to caudad vertebrae were calculated at each of the segments from L2 to Si. Range of motion of the primary rotations and coupled translations and rotations were determined. Results: During all three movements, the greatest range of motion was observed at L3-L4. L3-L4 had significantly greater motion than L2-L3 with left-right bending and left-right twisting movements (p < 0.05). The least motion occurred at L5-Si for all movements; the motion at this level was significantly smaller than that at L3-L4 (p < 0.05). Range of motion during left-right bending and left-right twisting at L3-L4 was significantly larger in the degenerative disc disease group than in the normal group. The range of motion at L4-L5 was significantly larger in the degenerative group than in the normal group during flexion; however, the ranges of motion in both groups were similar during left-to-right bending and left-to-right twisting. Conclusions: The greatest range of motion in patients with discogenic back pain was observed at L3-L4; this motion was greater than that in normal subjects, suggesting that superior adjacent levels developed segmental hypermobility prior to undergoing fusion. L5-Si had the least motion, suggesting that segmental hypomobility ensues at this level in patients with discogenic low back pain. Clinical Relevance: These data may be used to study the effects.of spinal arthrodesis and to further define the mechanical component of adjacent-segment degeneration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a research study on the therapeutic decision making in thoracolumbar (TL) spine trauma. There is an existing controversy and variation in the treatment of TL spine injuries despite a history of descriptive and clinical series on the trauma. A systematic review was conducted using Medline and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The researchers concluded that low to moderate quality studies exists to address clinical questions related to TL spine trauma.

The article presents a study on vascular injury in anterior lumbosacral surgery. It mentions that electronic literature published from January 1993 to December 2008 were assessed using the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria and quantitative analysis was performed to analyze the recorded data. Results show that vascular injury in lumbosacral surgery remains low and thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and prolonged hospitalization may contribute to the injury.

Literature review.To outline the components and application of evidence-based medicine (EBM) with an emphasis on the critical components of conduct and appraisal of clinical research.“Evidence-based medicine” is now a commonplace phrase representing the hallmark of excellence in clinical practice. EBM integrates a question, thoughtful comprehensive evaluation of the pertinent literature, with clinical experience and patient preference to make optimal patient care decisions. These decisions must be evaluated with objective outcome measures to ensure effectiveness. There have been some misconceptions around the application of EBM and that it is synonymous with randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or based purely on levels of evidence.Narrative and review of literature.Clinicians must understand the importance of the research question, study design, and outcomes in order to apply the best available research to patient care. Treatment recommendations evolving from critical appraisal are not only based on levels of evidence, but the risk benefit ratio and cost. The true philosophy of EBM, however, is not for research to supplant individual clinical experience and the patient’s informed preference, but to integrate them with the best available research. Healthcare professionals and administrators must grasp that EBM is not a RCT. They must realize that the question being asked and the research circumstances dictate the study design. Furthermore, they must not diminish the role of clinical expertise and informed patient preference in EBM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The reproducibility and repeatability of modern systems for classification of thoracolumbar injuries have not been sufficiently studied. We assessed the interobserver and intraobserver reproducibility of the AO (Arbeitsge-meinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen) classification and compared it with that of the Denis classification. Our purpose was to determine whether the newer, AO system had better reproducibility than the older, Denis classification. Methods: Anteroposterior and lateral radiographs and computerized tomography scans (axial images and sagittal reconstructions) of thirty-one acute traumatic fractures of the thoracolumbar spine were presented to nineteen observers, all trained spine surgeons, who classified the fractures according to both the AO and the Denis classification systems. Three months later, the images of the thirty-one fractures were scrambled into a different order, and the observers repeated the classification. The Cohen kappa (κ) test was used to determine interobserver and intraobserver agreement, which was measured with regard to the three basic classifications in the AO system (types A, B, and C) as well as the nine subtypes of that system. We also measured the agreement with regard to the four basic types in the Denis classification (compression, burst, seat-belt, and fracture-dislocation) and with regard to the sixteen subtypes of that system. Results: The AO classification was fairly reproducible, with an average kappa of 0.475 (range, 0.389 to 0.598) for the agreement regarding the assignment of the three types and an average kappa of 0.537 for the agreement regarding the nine subtypes. The average kappa for the agreement regarding the assignment of the four Denis fracture types was 0.606 (range, 0.395 to 0.702), and it was 0.173 for agreement regarding the sixteen subtypes. The intraobserver agreement (repeatability) was 82% and 79% for the AO and Denis types, respectively, and 67% and 56%, for the AO and Denis subtypes, respectively. Conclusions: Both the Denis and the AO system for the classification of spine fractures had only moderate reliability and repeatability. The tendency for well-trained spine surgeons to classify the same fracture differently on repeat testing is a matter of some concern [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author discusses the treatment of acute and hyperacute spinal injuries in patients. Topics included the reasons behind mini-open lateral approach's comparison with thoracotomy, the decompression and stabilization of injured patients, and alternate spinal treatment options for patients with thoracolumbar injuries.