Appropriateness of lumbar spine radiography and factors influencing imaging ordering patterns: paving the path toward value-driven health care.

The demand for diagnostic imaging continues to rise. Against the backdrop of rising health care costs and finite resources, this has prompted a paradigm shift toward value-driven patient care. Inappropriate imaging is a barrier toward achieving this goal, which runs counter to prevailing evidence-based guidelines and contributes to rising healthcare costs. Our objective was to evaluate the appropriateness of lumbar spine X-rays in a tertiary referral Emergency Department (ED) and assess whether physicians' specialization and years of experience influence appropriateness. A total of 1030 lumbar spine radiographs performed in the ED of an academic medical center over a consecutive 3-month period were reviewed retrospectively. Referral indications were reviewed for adherence to 2021 American College of Radiology appropriateness guidelines for lower back pain, and referral patterns were evaluated among physician groups based on specialists' training and years in practice. 63.8% of lumbar spine radiographs were appropriate, with trauma being the most common indication. 36.2% of orders were inappropriate, with lower back pain of <6 weeks duration being the most common indication. Significant differences in inappropriate orders were found (P < .001) across physician groups: qualified Emergency Medicine specialists (20.9% inappropriate orders), specialists in training (27.8%), and non-specialists with ≥3 (60.0%) and <3 (36.9%) years in practice, respectively. Approximately one-third of lumbar spine radiographs performed in the ED were inappropriately ordered by American College of Radiology guidelines; specialists training and years in practice affected referral patterns. Integrating evidence-based appropriateness guidelines into the physician order workflow and targeting older non-specialists may promote more judicious imaging and reduce health care costs.

Preoperative Oswestry Disability Index Cannot Reliably Predict Patient Satisfaction After Single and Double Level Lumbar Transforaminal Interbody Fusion Surgery.

Introduction: The role of patient-reported outcomes in preoperative assessment is not well studied. There is recent interest in studying whether Patient-reported outcomes scores can be used either independently, or in conjunction with clinical findings, in the assessment of patients for surgery. Aims: To investigate if improvement in clinically significant scores correlate with post-operative patient satisfaction in 1-2 level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) surgery. We also aim to define a threshold Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) which correlate with achieving post-operative MCID and patient satisfaction. Methods: 1001 patients who underwent single or double level TLIF (Minimally invasive and Open) in our institution with at least 2 years follow up were included in this study. We studied self-reported measures including patient satisfaction and ODI score. Results: At 2-year follow-up, the overall mean ODI score improved from 49.7 ± 18.3 to 13.9 ± 15.2 (P < 0.001) with 74.6% of patients meeting the MCID. Patient satisfaction was achieved in 95.3% of all patients. In the MIS group, the preoperative cut-off was determined to be 37.2 at maximal Youden index associated with AUC of 0.72 (95% CI 0.65-0.86). In the open group, the preoperative cut-off was determined to be 37.2 at maximal Youden index associated with AUC of 0.70 (95% CI 0.62-0.77). Using the preoperative cut-offs found, there was no significant difference in patient satisfaction in both MIS and open groups. Conclusions: Overall, our patients undergoing TLIF had good 2-year ODI score improvement and patient satisfaction after surgery. While meeting the MCID for ODI score correlates with patients' satisfaction postoperatively, 75% of patients not meeting the MCID for ODI score remained satisfied with the surgery. We are unable to define a threshold pre-operative ODI which correlates with achieving post-operative MCID and patient satisfaction.

Clinical and radiological outcomes of concomitant endoscopic gastrocnemius release with scarf osteotomy.

BACKGROUND: Studies showed patients with hallux valgus also have tight gastrocnemius concomitantly. This study aims to investigate (1) prevalence of tight gastrocnemius in symptomatic hallux valgus (2) clinical and radiological outcomes of concomitant endoscopic gastrocnemius release with scarf osteotomy. METHODS: Between January 2011 to December 2013, 224 patients underwent hallux valgus surgery were evaluated. They were categorized into 2 groups: scarf osteotomy (n=195), scarf and endoscopic gastrocnemius release (combine, n=29). Clinical outcome measures assessed included VAS, AOFAS Hallux MTP-IP and SF-36 scores. Radiological outcomes included HVA, IMA, HVI and TSP. All patients were prospectively followed up for 6 and 24 months. RESULTS: The prevalence of ipsilateral gastrocnemius tightness in symptomatic hallux valgus is 12.9%. No significant difference in preoperative clinical outcomes between the two groups (all p>.05). Although AOFAS was 6±2 points poorer in the combine group compared to the scarf group at 6 months follow up (p=0.021), at 24 months, all clinical outcomes were comparable between the two groups (all p>0.05). Significant difference in the HVA change between the groups were observed but comparable radiological outcomes in IMA, TSP and HVI at 24 months follow up. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude clinical and radiological outcomes of concomitant endoscopic gastrocnemius release and scarf osteotomy are comparable with scarf osteotomy alone at 24 months.