Cervical fusion for treatment of degenerative conditions: development of appropriate use criteria.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: High quality evidence is difficult to generate, leaving substantial knowledge gaps in the treatment of spinal conditions. Appropriate use criteria (AUC) are a means of determining appropriate recommendations when high quality evidence is lacking. PURPOSE: Define appropriate use criteria (AUC) of cervical fusion for treatment of degenerative conditions of the cervical spine. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Appropriate use criteria for cervical fusion were developed using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness methodology. Following development of clinical guidelines and scenario writing, a one-day workshop was held with a multidisciplinary group of 14 raters, all considered thought leaders in their respective fields, to determine final ratings for cervical fusion appropriateness for various clinical situations. OUTCOME MEASURES: Final rating for cervical fusion recommendation as either "Appropriate," "Uncertain" or "Rarely Appropriate" based on the median final rating among the raters. METHODS: Inclusion criteria for scenarios included patients aged 18 to 80 with degenerative conditions of the cervical spine. Key modifiers were defined and combined to develop a matrix of clinical scenarios. The median score among the raters was used to determine the final rating for each scenario. The final rating was compared between modifier levels. Spearman's rank correlation between each modifier and the final rating was determined. A multivariable ordinal regression model was fit to determine the adjusted odds of an "Appropriate" final rating while adjusting for radiographic diagnosis, number of levels and symptom type. Three decision trees were developed using decision tree classification models and variable importance for each tree was computed. RESULTS: Of the 263 scenarios, 47 (17.9 %) were rated as rarely appropriate, 66 (25%) as uncertain and 150 (57%) were rated as appropriate. Symptom type was the modifier most strongly correlated with the final rating (adjusted ρ2 = 0.58, p<.01). A multivariable ordinal regression adjusting for symptom type, diagnosis, and number of levels and showed high discriminative ability (C statistic = 0.90) and the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of receiving a final rating of "Appropriate" was highest for myelopathy (aOR, 7.1) and radiculopathy (aOR, 4.8). Three decision tree models showed that symptom type and radiographic diagnosis had the highest variable importance. CONCLUSIONS: Appropriate use criteria for cervical fusion in the setting of cervical degenerative disorders were developed. Symptom type was most strongly correlated with final rating. Myelopathy or radiculopathy were most strongly associated with an "Appropriate" rating, while axial pain without stenosis was most associated with "Rarely Appropriate."

Commentary on Classification of patients with incident non-specific low back pain: implications for research.

COMMENTARY ON: Norton G, McDonough CM, Cabral HJ, Shwartz M, Burgess JF Jr. Classification of patients with incident non-specific low back pain: implications for research. Spine J 2016;16:567-76 (in this issue).

Comparison of four different analgesic discogram protocols comparing the incidence of reported pain relief following local anesthetic injection into concordantly painful lumbar intervertebral discs.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the incidence of pain relief following injection of local anesthetic (LA) into lumbar discs that caused concordant pain during provocation testing. DESIGN: Prospective collected data review from two centers and compare with published results. OUTCOME MEASURES: We compared subjective reported pain relief following provocative testing using the following protocols at three separate facilities: 23 patients undergoing routine provocative discography using contrast alone (PD); 47 patients undergoing provocative discography performed using an equal combination of LA and contrast (CPD); 120 patients injected with LA following routine PD (ADPD); 33 patients undergoing stand-alone analgesic discography (SAAD); and 28 patients injected with LA through a catheter (FAD) placed during provocative discogaphy testing. RESULTS: Pressure-controlled PD showed a positive response rate of 34% per disc in patients with a clinical diagnosis of discogenic pain. None of the PD group without LA had pain relief and less than 10% of the CPD group reported pain relief. Forty percent of the SAAD group with positive pain reproduction reported ≥50% relief and 20% reporting ≥80% relief. Forty-six percent of the ADPD group reported ≥50% relief and 30% reporting ≥80% relief. The FAD group had a greater 80% patients reporting ≥50% pain relief although fewer 26% reporting more convincing ≥80% relief. CONCLUSIONS: If the criterion standard to confirm painful annular tears is concordant pain provocation and 80% or greater pain relief following LA injected into lumbar discs, the SAAD, ADPD, and FAD protocols show statistically similar 20% to 30% prevelance.

Evidence-informed management of chronic low back pain with intradiscal electrothermal therapy.

The management of chronic low back pain (CLBP) has proven very challenging in North America, as evidenced by its mounting socioeconomic burden. Choosing among available nonsurgical therapies can be overwhelming for many stakeholders, including patients, health providers, policy makers, and third-party payers. Although all parties share a common goal and wish to use limited health-care resources to support interventions most likely to result in clinically meaningful improvements, there is often uncertainty about the most appropriate intervention for a particular patient. To help understand and evaluate the various commonly used nonsurgical approaches to CLBP, the North American Spine Society has sponsored this special focus issue of The Spine Journal, titled Evidence-Informed Management of Chronic Low Back Pain Without Surgery. Articles in this special focus issue were contributed by leading spine practitioners and researchers, who were invited to summarize the best available evidence for a particular intervention and encouraged to make this information accessible to nonexperts. Each of the articles contains five sections (description, theory, evidence of efficacy, harms, and summary) with common subheadings to facilitate comparison across the 24 different interventions profiled in this special focus issue, blending narrative and systematic review methodology as deemed appropriate by the authors. It is hoped that articles in this special focus issue will be informative and aid in decision making for the many stakeholders evaluating nonsurgical interventions for CLBP.

Evidence-informed management of chronic low back pain with minimally invasive nuclear decompression.

The management of chronic low back pain (CLBP) has proven very challenging in North America, as evidenced by its mounting socioeconomic burden. Choosing among available nonsurgical therapies can be overwhelming for many stakeholders, including patients, health providers, policy makers, and third-party payers. Although all parties share a common goal and wish to use limited health-care resources to support interventions most likely to result in clinically meaningful improvements, there is often uncertainty about the most appropriate intervention for a particular patient. To help understand and evaluate the various commonly used nonsurgical approaches to CLBP, the North American Spine Society has sponsored this special focus issue of The Spine Journal, titled Evidence Informed Management of Chronic Low Back Pain Without Surgery. Articles in this special focus issue were contributed by leading spine practitioners and researchers, who were invited to summarize the best available evidence for a particular intervention and encouraged to make this information accessible to nonexperts. Each of the articles contains five sections (description, theory, evidence of efficacy, harms, and summary) with common subheadings to facilitate comparison across the 24 different interventions profiled in this special focus issue, blending narrative and systematic review methodology as deemed appropriate by the authors. It is hoped that articles in this special focus issue will be informative and aid in decision making for the many stakeholders evaluating nonsurgical interventions for CLBP.