Search

The American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) is a nonprofit professional society whose primary purposes are to advance the science, education and professional practice of medical physics. The AAPM has more than 8000 members and is the principal organization of medical physicists in the United States. The AAPM will periodically define new practice guidelines for medical physics practice to help advance the science of medical physics and to improve the quality of service to patients throughout the United States. Existing medical physics practice guidelines will be reviewed for the purpose of revision or renewal, as appropriate, on their fifth anniversary or sooner. Each medical physics practice guideline represents a policy statement by the AAPM, has undergone a thorough consensus process in which it has been subjected to extensive review, and requires the approval of the Professional Council. The medical physics practice guidelines recognize that the safe and effective use of diagnostic and therapeutic radiology requires specific training, skills, and techniques, as described in each document. Reproduction or modification of the published practice guidelines and technical standards by those entities not providing these services is not authorized. The following terms are used in the AAPM practice guidelines: (a) Must and Must Not: Used to indicate that adherence to the recommendation is considered necessary to conform to this practice guideline. (b) Should and Should Not: Used to indicate a prudent practice to which exceptions may occasionally be made in appropriate circumstances. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the future of robotics in spine surgery. Topics of discussion includes current role as guides to help position tools for accurate placement of pedicle screw, using them for providing "no-fly zones"around protected structures, helping a surgeon to burr away the lamina or perform an osteotomy without plunging into the spinal canal improved user interfaces such as gloves with motion sensors, to handle more complex soft tissues.

Background: Interspinous spacers are a minimally invasive surgical alternative for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) unresponsive to conservative care. The purpose of this prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial was to compare 2-year clinical outcomes in patients with moderate LSS treated with the Superion(®) (Experimental) or the X-Stop(®), a FDA-approved interspinous spacer (Control).Methods: A total of 250 patients with moderate LSS unresponsive to conservative care were randomly allocated to treatment with the Experimental (n = 123) or Control (n = 127) interspinous spacer and followed through 2 years post-treatment. Complication data were available for all patients and patient-reported outcomes were available for 192 patients (101 Experimental, 91 Control) at 2 years.Results: Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ) Symptom Severity and Physical Function scores improved 34% to 36% in both groups through 2 years (all p < 0.001). Patient Satisfaction scores at 2 years were 1.8 ± 0.9 with Experimental and 1.6 ± 0.8 with Control. Axial pain decreased from 59 ± 26 mm at baseline to 21 ± 26 mm at 2 years with Experimental and from 55 ± 26 mm to 21 ± 25 mm with Control (both p < 0.001). Extremity pain decreased from 67 ± 24 mm to 14 ± 22 mm at 2 years with Experimental and from 63 ± 24 mm to 18 ± 23 mm with Control (both p < 0.001). Back function assessed with the Oswestry Disability Index similarly improved with Experimental (37 ± 12% to 18 ± 16%) and Control (39 ± 12% to 20 ± 16%) (both p < 0.001). Freedom from reoperation at the index level was 84% for Experimental and 83% for Control (log-rank: p = 0.38) at 2 years.Conclusions: Both interspinous spacers effectively alleviated pain and improved back function to a similar degree through 2 years in patients with moderate LSS who were unresponsive to conservative care.Trial Registration: NCT00692276. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) reached pandemic status, in-person orthopedic clinics across the United States were forced to close as many states adopted stay-at-home orders. Previously, the use of telemedicine in orthopedic practices was minimal for a variety of reasons, one being the inability to perform a physical examination in a specialty reliant on direct patient contact for diagnosis and treatment. A prospective cohort of 52 patients consented to participate in a novel virtual physical examination protocol during routine telemedicine visits at a large, tertiary orthopedic spine practice. Participants were asked to perform a series of carefully designed physical maneuvers using readily available household objects to allow their provider to better assess sensory and motor function in the tele-medicine setting. Patients were then asked to complete a short satisfaction survey. In total, 52 patients completed the physical examination and survey. Males and females were distributed evenly among the cohort at 50%. The mean age was 52.1±15.5 years. The average score for ease of understanding the examination (1=easiest, 5=hardest) was 1.1, while the average score for ease of performance was 1.5. Most participants (97.56%) felt their provider was better able to understand their condition using the virtual examination findings. This study highlights the utility of a virtual physical examination for assessment of spine patients in the telemedicine setting. Furthermore, this study illustrates the ease with which such an examination can be implemented and performed to improve patient evaluation and satisfaction. [ Orthopedics . 2022;45(1):e7-e10.].

Study Design: Prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled, investigational device exemption noninferiority trial., Objective: To determine 2-year outcomes in patients with intermittent neurogenic claudication secondary to moderate lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) who were treated with the Superion interspinous process spacer., Summary of Background Data: Interspinous spacers are a less-invasive treatment alternative compared with surgical decompression for patients with LSS unresponsive to conservative care. High-quality comparative data with these devices are lacking., Methods: Patients presenting with intermittent neurogenic claudication secondary to moderate LSS who failed at least 6 months of nonsurgical management were randomly allocated to treatment with the Superion spacer or a control spacer (X-Stop) and followed for 2 years., Results: A total of 391 randomized patients were implanted with Superion (n = 190) or control (n = 201) spacers at 29 sites in the United States between August 2008 and December 2011. Implants were successfully implanted in 99.5% of patients with Superion and 99.0% of control patients. The primary composite endpoint of this study was met, which demonstrated that the Superion spacer was noninferior to the X-Stop spacer. Leg pain, the predominant patient complaint, decreased in severity by 70% during 2 years in each group. Most (77%) patients achieved leg pain clinical success (improvement ≥20 mm) at 2 years. Back pain clinical success (improvement ≥20 mm) was 68%, with no differences between groups. Oswestry Disability Index clinical success (≥15% point improvement) was achieved in 65% of patients. The rates of complications and reoperations were similar between groups., Conclusion: The Superion interspinous process spacer relieves symptoms of intermittent neurogenic claudication secondary to moderate LSS in the majority of patients through 2 years., Level of Evidence: 2.

Objective: Studies have indicated that outcomes may differ by choice of flowable hemostat, but there is limited evidence in spine surgery. The objective of this study was to conduct a comparison of outcomes following use of advanced flowable hemostatic matrices in a large spine surgery population., Methods: This is an observational retrospective cohort analysis using Premier's US Perspective Hospital Database. Two commonly-used hemostatic matrices (Floseal and Surgiflo kitted with thrombin) were compared in cases categorized as either major or severe spine surgery. Outcomes included complications, blood product administration, hospital length of stay (LOS), surgery time, and amount of matrix used in surgery., Results: Major spine surgery patients treated with Surgiflo were associated with increased risk of blood product transfusion (OR = 2.56, 95% CI = 1.79-3.65, p < 0.001), longer surgery time (+8.84 min, p < 0.0001), and increased product usage (+3.34 mL, p < 0.001), compared to Floseal; however, risk of complications and LOS did not differ by choice of matrix in this patient group. Severe spine surgery patients treated with Surgiflo were associated with longer surgical time (+26.9 min, p < 0.001) and increased product usage (+1.52 mL, p < 0.01), compared to Floseal; however, risk of complications, transfusion and LOS did not differ by choice of matrix in this patient group., Limitations: Inherent to limitations associated with database analysis, this study did not evaluate potential physician differences such as skill and experience, assess long-term outcomes, nor include cases with missing data., Conclusion: The results from this analysis indicated that surgery time, risk of blood transfusion, and amount of matrix used are greater with Surgiflo patients, compared to Floseal patients. Choice of matrix did not appear to impact hospital LOS or risk of surgical complications. Future research should evaluate the cost consequences of increased clinical and resource utilization by choice of hemostatic matrix in spine surgery.

Background: Gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and coronary artery disease (CAD) is associated with high morbidity and mortality., Methods: The NIS database from 1998 to 2006 was used to identify 1,216,759 PCIs performed for ACS and CAD. We sought to analyze temporal trends in the incidence and in-hospital outcomes of GIB associated with PCI along with its predictors., Results: The overall incidence of GIB was 1.04% (95% confidence interval (CI), 1.02%-1.06%). The incidence of GIB decreased over the study period (P for trend <.0001). The overall mortality in the GIB group was 6.0% (95% CI, 5.6%-6.4%). The adjusted OR for in-hospital mortality and GIB was 4.70 (95% CI, 4.23-5.23; P < .0001); this remained high and essentially unchanged over the study period. Independent predictors of GIB included rectum/anal cancer (OR, 4.64; 95% CI, 3.20-6.73; P < .0001), stomach cancer (OR, 2.74; 95% CI, 1.62-4.66; P = .0002), esophageal cancer (OR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.08-3.69; P = .0288), colon cancer (OR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.43-2.02; P < .0001), congestive heart failure (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.35-1.52; P < .0001), and acute myocardial infarction (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.13-1.35; P < .0001)., Conclusions: Although the incidence of GIB associated with PCI decreased from 1998 to 2006 in the face of aggressive therapies for ACS and CAD, the risk of GIB-associated death remained high. Underlying GI malignancy is a significant independent predictor of GIB associated with PCI; identifying these patients may reduce the rate of GIB., (Copyright © 2011 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines for acute myocardial infarction related to process of care aim to decrease morbidity and mortality and provide a standard of care for patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Currently, there are limited data comparing adherence between centers providing fibrinolytic therapy alone and those that provide percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Reported compliance with AMI performance measures was analyzed using data from the United States Department of Health and Human Services Hospital Compare Web site from 2007, including aspirin administration, beta-blocker administration, angiotensin-converting enzyme or angiotensin receptor blocking agents, and smoking cessation counseling. Adherence to all reported measurements was significantly higher (P < 0.0001) in hospitals that reported PCI capability, compared with hospitals that reported only fibrinolytic use in AMI patients.