Vertebral artery anomaly and injury in spinal surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. STUDY RATIONALE: The purpose of this review is to further define the published literature with respect to vertebral artery (VA) anomaly and injury in patients with degenerative cervical spinal conditions. OBJECTIVES: In adult patients with cervical spine or degenerative cervical spine disorders receiving cervical spine surgery, what is the incidence of VA injury, and among resulting VA injuries, which treatments result in a successful outcome and what percent are successfully repaired? MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review of pertinent articles published up to April 2013. Studies involving traumatic onset, fracture, infection, deformity or congenital abnormality, instability, inflammatory spinal diseases, or neoplasms were excluded. Two independent reviewers assessed the level of evidence quality using the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria; disagreements were resolved by consensus. RESULTS: From a total of 72 possible citations, the following met our inclusion criteria and formed the basis for this report. Incidence of VA injuries ranged from 0.20 to 1.96%. None of the studies reported using preoperative imaging to identify anomalous or tortuous VA. Primary repair and ligation were the most effective in treating VA injuries. CONCLUSION: The incidence of VA injuries in degenerative cervical spinal surgery might be as high as 1.96% and is likely underreported. Direct surgical repair is the most effective treatment option. The most important preventative technique for VA injuries is preoperative magnetic resonance imaging or computed tomography angiographic imaging to detect VA anomalies. The overall strength of evidence for the conclusions is low.

Lumbar Lateral Interbody Fusion (LLIF): Comparative Effectiveness and Safety versus PLIF/TLIF and Predictive Factors Affecting LLIF Outcome.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. STUDY RATIONALE: The surgical treatment of adult degenerative lumbar conditions remains controversial. Conventional techniques include posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). A new direct approach known as lumbar lateral interbody fusion (LLIF), or extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF(®)) or direct lateral interbody fusion (DLIF), has been introduced. Objectives The objective of this article is to determine the comparative effectiveness and safety of LLIF, at one or more levels with or without instrumentation, versus PLIF or TLIF surgery in adults with lumbar degenerative conditions, and to determine which preoperative factors affect patient outcomes following LLIF surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed using PubMed and bibliographies of key articles. Articles were reviewed by two independent reviewers based on predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Each article was evaluated using a predefined quality rating scheme. RESULTS: The search yielded 258 citations and the following met our inclusion criteria: three retrospective cohort studies (all using historical cohorts) (class of evidence [CoE] III) examining the comparative effectiveness and safety of LLIF/XLIF(®)/DLIF versus PLIF or TLIF surgery, and one prospective cohort study (CoE II) and two retrospective cohort studies (CoE III) assessing factors affecting patient outcome following LLIF. Patients in the LLIF group experienced less estimated blood loss and a lower mortality risk compared with the PLIF group. The number of levels treated and the preoperative diagnosis were significant predictors of perioperative or early complications in two studies. CONCLUSION: There is insufficient evidence of the comparative effectiveness of LLIF versus PLIF/TLIF surgery. There is low-quality evidence suggesting that LLIF surgery results in fewer complications or reoperations than PLIF/TLIF surgery. And there is insufficient evidence that any preoperative factors exist that predict patient outcome after LLIF surgery.

Surgical correction of scoliosis in children with spastic quadriplegia: benefits, adverse effects, and patient selection.

STUDY RATIONALE: Cerebral palsy (CP) is a group of nonprogressive syndromes of posture and motor impairment associated with lesions of the immature brain. Spastic quadriplegia is the most severe form with a high incidence of scoliosis, back pain, respiratory compromise, pelvic obliquity, and poor sitting balance. Surgical stabilization of the spine is an effective technique for correcting deformity and restoring sitting posture. The decision to operate in this group of patients is challenging. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to determine the benefits of surgical correction of scoliosis in children with spastic quadriplegia, the adverse effects of this treatment, and what preoperative factors affect patient outcome after surgical correction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review was undertaken to identify studies describing benefits and adverse effects of surgery in spastic quadriplegia. Factors affecting patient outcome following surgical correction of scoliosis were assessed. Studies involving adults and nonspastic quadriplegia were excluded. RESULTS: A total of 10 case series and 1 prospective and 3 retrospective cohort studies met inclusion criteria. There was significant variation in the overall risk of complications (range, 10.9-70.9%), mortality (range, 2.8-19%), respiratory/pulmonary complications (range, 26.9-57.1%), and infection (range, 2.5-56.8%). Factors associated with a worse outcome were a significant degree of thoracic kyphosis, days in the intensive care unit, and poor nutritional status. CONCLUSION: Caregivers report a high degree of satisfaction with scoliosis surgery for children with spastic quadriplegia. There is limited evidence of preoperative factors that can predict patient outcome after scoliosis. There is a need for well-designed prospective studies of scoliosis surgery in spastic quadriplegia.

Predictive factors affecting outcome after cervical laminoplasty.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether various preoperative factors affect patient outcome after cervical laminoplasty for cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) and/or ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Cervical laminoplasty is a procedure designed to decompress the spinal cord by enlarging the spinal canal while preserving the lamina. Prior research has identified a variety of potential predictive factors that might affect outcomes after this procedure. METHODS: A systematic search of multiple major medical reference databases was conducted to identify studies explicitly designed to evaluate the effect of preoperative factors on patient outcome after cervical laminoplasty for CSM or OPLL. Studies specifically designed to evaluate potential predictive factors and their associations with outcome were included. Only cohort studies that used multivariate analysis, enrolled at least 20 patients, and adjusted for age as a potential confounding variable were included. JOA (Japanese Orthopaedic Association), modified JOA, and JOACMEQ-L (JOA Cervical Myelopathy Evaluation Questionnaire lower extremity function section) scores were the main outcome measures. Clinical recommendations and consensus statements were made through a modified Delphi approach by applying the GRADE (Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation)/AHRQ (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality) criteria. RESULTS: The search strategy yielded 433 citations, of which 1 prospective and 11 retrospective cohort studies met our inclusion criteria. Overall, the strength of evidence from the 12 studies is low or insufficient for most of the predictive factors. Increased age was not associated with poorer JOA outcomes for patients with CSM, but there is insufficient evidence to make a conclusion for patients with OPLL. Increased severity of disease and a longer duration of symptoms might be associated with JOA outcomes for patients with CSM. Hill-shaped lesions might be associated with poorer JOA outcomes for patients with OPLL. There is insufficient evidence to permit conclusions regarding other predictive factors. CONCLUSION: Overall, the strength of evidence for all of the predictive factors was insufficient or low. Given that cervical myelopathy due to CSM tends to be progressive and that increased severity of myelopathy and duration of symptoms might be associated with poorer outcomes after cervical laminoplasty for CSM, it is preferable to perform laminoplasty in patients with CSM earlier rather than waiting for symptoms to get worse. Further research is needed to more clearly identify predictive factors that affect outcomes after cervical laminoplasty because there were relatively few studies identified that used multivariate analyses to control for confounding factors and many of these studies did not provide a detailed description of the multivariate analyses or the magnitude of effect estimates. EVIDENCE-BASED CLINICAL RECOMMENDATIONS: RECOMMENDATION 1: For patients with CSM, increased age is not a strong predictor of clinical neurological outcomes after laminoplasty; therefore, age by itself should not preclude cervical laminoplasty for CSM. OVERALL STRENGTH OF EVIDENCE: Low. STRENGTH OF RECOMMENDATION: Strong. RECOMMENDATION 2: For patients with CSM, increased severity of disease and a longer duration of symptoms might be associated with poorer clinical neurological outcomes after laminoplasty; therefore, we recommend that patients be informed about this. OVERALL STRENGTH OF EVIDENCE: Low. STRENGTH OF RECOMMENDATION: Strong. SUMMARY STATEMENTS: For patients with OPLL, hill-shaped lesions might be associated with poorer clinical neurological outcomes after laminoplasty; therefore, surgeons might consider potential benefits and risks of alternative or additional surgery.

Outcomes after laminoplasty compared with laminectomy and fusion in patients with cervical myelopathy: a systematic review.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness and safety of cervical laminoplasty versus laminectomy and fusion for the treatment of cervical myelopathy, and to identify any patient subgroups for whom one treatment may result in better outcomes than the other. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Cervical laminoplasty and cervical laminectomy plus fusion are both procedures that treat cervical stenosis induced myelopathy by expanding the space available for the spinal cord. Although there are strong proponents of each procedure, the effectiveness, safety, and differential effectiveness and safety of laminoplasty versus laminectomy and fusion remains unclear. METHODS: A systematic search of multiple major medical reference databases was conducted to identify studies that compared laminoplasty with laminectomy and fusion. Studies could include either or both cervical myelopathic spondylosis (CSM) and ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament. Randomized controlled trials and cohort studies were included. Case reports and studies with less than 10 patients in the comparative group were excluded. Japanese Orthopaedic Association, modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association, and Nurick scores were the primary outcomes measuring myelopathy effectiveness. Reoperation and complication rates were evaluated for safety. Clinical recommendations were made through a modified Delphi approach by applying the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation/Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality criteria. RESULTS: The search strategy yielded 305 citations, and 4 retrospective cohort studies ultimately met our inclusion criteria. For patients with CSM, data from 3 class of evidence III retrospective cohort studies suggest that there is no difference between treatment groups in severity of myelopathy or pain: 2 studies reported no significant difference between treatment groups in severity of myelopathy, and 3 studies found no significant difference in pain outcomes between treatment groups. For patients with ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament, one small class of evidence III retrospective cohort study reported significant improvements in myelopathy severity after laminectomy and fusion compared with laminoplasty, but no differences in long-term pain between treatment groups. The overall evidence on the comparative safety of laminoplasty compared with laminectomy and fusion is inconsistent. Reoperation rates were lower after laminoplasty in 2 of 3 studies reporting. However, the incidence of debilitating neck pain was higher after laminoplasty as reported by one study; results on neurological complications were inconclusive, with 2 studies reporting. Results on kyphotic deformity were inconsistent, with opposite results in the 2 studies reporting. After laminectomy and fusion, 1% to 38% of patients had pseudarthrosis. Infection rates were slightly lower after laminoplasty, but the results are not likely to be statistically significant. CONCLUSION: For patients with CSM, there is low-quality evidence that suggests that laminoplasty and laminectomy and fusion procedures are similarly effective in treating CSM. For patients with ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament, the evidence regarding the effectiveness of these procedures is insufficient. For both patient populations, the evidence as to whether one procedure is safer than the other is insufficient. Higher-quality research is necessary to more clearly delineate when one procedure is preferred compared with the other. EVIDENCE-BASED CLINICAL RECOMMENDATIONS: RECOMMENDATION: For CSM, evidence suggests that laminoplasty and laminectomy-fusion procedures can be similarly effective. We suggest that surgeons consider each case individually and take into account their own familiarity and expertise with each procedure. OVERALL STRENGTH OF EVIDENCE: Low. STRENGTH OF RECOMMENDATION: Weak.

Neck Pain Following Cervical Laminoplasty: Does Preservation of the C2 Muscle Attachments and/or C7 Matter?

Study Design Systematic review. Objective In patients aged 18 years or older, with cervical spondylotic myelopathy or ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL), does sparing the C2 muscle attachments and/or C7-preserving cervical laminoplasty lead to reduced postoperative axial pain compared with conventional C3 to C7 laminoplasty? Do these results vary based on early active postoperative cervical motion? Methods A systematic review of the English-language literature was undertaken for articles published between 1970 and August 17, 2012. Electronic databases and reference lists of key articles were searched to identify studies evaluating C2/C3- or C7-preserving cervical laminoplasty for the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) or OPLL in adults. Studies involving traumatic onset, cervical fracture, infection, deformity, or neoplasms were excluded, as were noncomparative studies. Two independent reviewers assessed the level of evidence quality using the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) system, and disagreements were resolved by consensus. Results We identified 11 articles meeting our inclusion criteria. Only the randomized controlled trial (RCT) showed no significant difference in late axial pain (at 12 months) when C7 spinous muscle preservation was compared with no preservation. However, seven other retrospective cohort studies showed significant pain relief in the preserved group compared with the nonpreserved group. The preservation group included those with preservation of the C7 spinous process and/or attached muscles, the deep extensor muscles, or C2 muscle attachment and/or C3 laminectomy (as opposed to laminoplasty). One study that included preservation of either the C2 or C7 posterior paraspinal muscles found that only preservation of the muscles attached to C2 resulted in reduced postoperative pain. Another study that included preservation of either the C7 spinous process or the deep extensor muscles found that only preservation of C7 resulted in reduced postoperative pain. Conclusion Although there is conflicting data regarding the importance of preserving C7 and/or the semispinalis cervicis muscle attachments to C2, there is enough evidence to suggest that surgeons should make every attempt to preserve these structures whenever possible since there appears to be little downside to doing so, unless it compromises the neurologic decompression.

Comparative effectiveness of different types of cervical laminoplasty.

Study Design Systematic review. Study Rationale Numerous cervical laminoplasty techniques have been described but there are few studies that have compared these to determine the superiority of one over another. Clinical Questions The clinical questions include key question (KQ)1: In adults with cervical myelopathy from ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL) or spondylosis, what is the comparative effectiveness of open door cervical laminoplasty versus French door cervical laminoplasty? KQ2: In adults with cervical myelopathy from OPLL or spondylosis, are postoperative complications, including pain and infection, different for the use of miniplates versus the use of no plates following laminoplasty? KQ3: Do these results vary based on early active postoperative cervical motion? Materials and Methods A systematic review of the English-language literature was undertaken for articles published between 1970 and March 11, 2013. Electronic databases and reference lists of key articles were searched to identify studies evaluating (1) open door cervical laminoplasty and French door cervical laminoplasty and (2) the use of miniplates or no plates in cervical laminoplasty for the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy or OPLL in adults. Studies involving traumatic onset, cervical fracture, infection, deformity, or neoplasms were excluded, as were noncomparative studies. Two independent reviewers (A.L.R., J.R.D.) assessed the level of evidence quality using the Grades of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system, and disagreements were resolved by consensus. Results We identified three studies (one of class of evidence [CoE] II and two of CoE III) meeting our inclusion criteria comparing open door cervical laminoplasty with French door laminoplasty and two studies (one CoE II and one CoE III) comparing the use of miniplates with no plates. Data from one randomized controlled trial (RCT) and two retrospective cohort studies suggest no difference between treatment groups regarding improvement in myelopathy. One RCT reported significant improvement in axial pain and significantly higher short-form 36 scores in the French door laminoplasty treatment group. Overall, complications appear to be higher in the open door group than the French door group, although complete reporting of complications was poor in all studies. Overall, data from one RCT and one retrospective cohort study suggest that the incidence of complications (including reoperation, radiculopathy, and infection) is higher in the no plate treatment group compared with the miniplate group. One RCT reported greater pain as measured by the visual analog scale score in the no plate treatment group. There was no evidence available to assess the effect of early cervical motion for open door cervical laminoplasty compared with French door laminoplasty. Both studies comparing the use of miniplates and no plates reported early postoperative motion. Evidence from one RCT suggests that earlier postoperative cervical motion might reduce pain. Conclusion Data from three comparative studies are not sufficient to support the superiority of open door cervical laminoplasty or French door cervical laminoplasty. Data from two comparative studies are not sufficient to support the superiority of the use of miniplates or no plates following cervical laminoplasty. The overall strength of evidence to support any conclusions is low or insufficient. Thus, the debate continues while opportunity exists for the spine surgery community to resolve these issues with appropriately designed clinical studies.

Translational potential of preclinical trials of neuroprotection through pharmacotherapy for spinal cord injury.

There is a need to enhance the pipeline of discovery and evaluation of neuroprotective pharmacological agents for patients with spinal cord injury (SCI). Although much effort and money has been expended on discovering effective agents for acute and subacute SCI, no agents that produce major benefit have been proven to date. The deficiencies of all aspects of the pipeline, including the basic science input and the clinical testing output, require examination to determine remedial strategies. Where has the neuroprotective/pharmacotherapy preclinical process failed and what needs to be done to achieve success? These are the questions raised in the present review, which has 2 objectives: 1) identification of articles that address issues related to the translational readiness of preclinical SCI pharmacological therapies; and 2) examination of the preclinical studies of 5 selected agents evaluated in animal models of SCI (including blunt force trauma, penetrating trauma, or ischemia). The 5 agents were riluzole, glyburide, magnesium sulfate, nimodipine, and minocycline, and these were selected because of their promise of translational readiness as determined by the North American Clinical Trials Network Consortium. The authors found that there are major deficiencies in the effort that has been extended to coordinate and conduct preclinical neuroprotection/pharmacotherapy trials in the SCI field. Apart from a few notable exceptions such as the NIH effort to replicate promising strategies, this field has been poorly coordinated. Only a small number of articles have even attempted an overall evaluation of the neuroprotective/pharmacotherapy agents used in preclinical SCI trials. There is no consensus about how to select the agents for translation to humans on the basis of their preclinical performance and according to agreed-upon preclinical performance criteria. In the absence of such a system and to select the next agent for translation, the Consortium has developed a Treatment Strategy Selection Committee, and this committee selected the most promising 5 agents for potential translation. The results show that the preclinical work on these 5 agents has left numerous gaps in knowledge about their preclinical performance and confirm the need for significant changes in preclinical neuroprotection/pharmacotherapy trials in SCI. A recommendation is made for the development and validation of a preclinical scoring system involving worldwide experts in preclinical and clinical SCI.

Evaluation of clinical experience using cell-based therapies in patients with spinal cord injury: a systematic review.

OBJECT: Using a systematic approach, the authors evaluated the current utilization, safety, and effectiveness of cellular therapies for traumatic spinal cord injuries (SCIs) in humans. METHODS: A systematic search and critical review of the literature published through mid-January 2012 was performed. Articles included in the search were restricted to the English language, studies with at least 10 patients, and those analyzing cellular therapies for traumatic SCI. Citations were evaluated for relevance using a priori criteria, and those that met the inclusion criteria were critically reviewed. Each article was then designated a level of evidence that was developed by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. RESULTS: The initial literature search identified 651 relevant articles, which decreased to 350 after excluding case reports and reviews. Evaluation of articles at the title/abstract level, and later at the full-text level, limited the final article set to 12 papers. The following cellular therapies employed in humans with SCI are reviewed: bone marrow mesenchymal and hematopoietic stem cells (8 studies), olfactory ensheathing cells (2 studies), Schwann cells (1 study), and fetal neurogenic tissue (1 study). Overall the quality of the literature was very low, with 3 Grade III levels of evidence and 9 Grade IV studies. CONCLUSIONS: Several different cellular-mediated strategies for adult SCI have been reported to be relatively safe with varying degrees of neurological recovery. However, the literature is of low quality and there is a need for improved preclinical studies and prospective, controlled clinical trials.

Kinematics of the cervical adjacent segments after disc arthroplasty compared with anterior discectomy and fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. OBJECTIVE: To determine the kinematics of the adjacent segments and global cervical spine after cervical arthroplasty compared with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Adjacent segment pathology after ACDF is a significant concern. Arthroplasty may decrease the risk of adjacent segment degeneration by maintaining normal spinal kinematics compared with fusion. However, the differences in the in vivo kinematics of the adjacent segments after cervical fusion versus arthroplasty have not been clearly established. METHODS: A systematic literature review of studies comparing adjacent segment kinematic changes between fusion and arthroplasty was performed. We included randomized controlled trials and cohort studies that compared cervical arthroplasty with ACDF in adults with degenerative disease and reported on at least 1 outcome of interest. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model where appropriate. The standardized mean difference of changes from baseline to follow-up between treatment groups was determined. Recommendations were made using Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria. RESULTS: We identified 12 studies, including 7 randomized controlled trials, 4 cohort studies, and 1 case-control study that evaluated kinematic measurements at the adjacent segments or the global cervical spine (C2-C7) after cervical arthroplasty compared with ACDF. We found no statistically significant differences between treatment groups in the change in range of motion (ROM) at the cranial or caudal adjacent segments from baseline to 2 years of follow-up. However, there was low evidence that the global cervical spine (C2-C7) had significantly greater change in ROM after arthroplasty compared with ACDF: patients had a greater angular ROM as measured up to 2 years after arthroplasty. We found no statistically significant differences between treatment groups in the change in the horizontal or vertical centers of rotation at the adjacent segments as measured up to 2 years after surgery. Regarding sagittal alignment, the cranial and caudal adjacent segments both became significantly more lordotic after arthroplasty compared with fusion at 1 to 2 years after surgery. However, there was no statistically significant difference between treatment groups in the change in global cervical sagittal alignment from baseline to 2 years. CONCLUSION.: There is no statistically or clinically significant difference in the adjacent segment ROM or centers of rotation after cervical arthroplasty compared with ACDF. However, the change in sagittal alignment at the cranial and caudal adjacent segments was significantly more lordotic after arthroplasty compared with fusion. In addition, although we found that there was no statistically significant difference between treatment groups in the change in global cervical (C2-C7) sagittal alignment, there was a significantly greater change in the angular ROM of the cervical spine at up to 2 years after arthroplasty than occurred after fusion. CONSENSUS STATEMENT: Patients can be advised that single-level arthroplasty and ACDF result in clinically similar kinematic changes at short-term follow-up. Strength of Statement: Strong.

A systematic review of definitions and classification systems of adjacent segment pathology.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. OBJECTIVE: To undertake a systematic review to determine how "adjacent segment degeneration," "adjacent segment disease," or clinical pathological processes that serve as surrogates for adjacent segment pathology are classified and defined in the peer-reviewed literature. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Adjacent segment degeneration and adjacent segment disease are terms referring to degenerative changes known to occur after reconstructive spine surgery, most commonly at an immediately adjacent functional spinal unit. These can include disc degeneration, instability, spinal stenosis, facet degeneration, and deformity. The true incidence and clinical impact of degenerative changes at the adjacent segment is unclear because there is lack of a universally accepted classification system that rigorously addresses clinical and radiological issues. METHODS: A systematic review of the English language literature was undertaken and articles were classified using the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria. RESULTS.: Seven classification systems of spinal degeneration, including degeneration at the adjacent segment, were identified. None have been evaluated for reliability or validity specific to patients with degeneration at the adjacent segment. The ways in which terms related to adjacent segment "degeneration" or "disease" are defined in the peer-reviewed literature are highly variable. CONCLUSION: On the basis of the systematic review presented in this article, no formal classification system for either cervical or thoracolumbar adjacent segment disorders currently exists. CONSENSUS STATEMENT: No recommendations regarding the use of current classification of degeneration at any segments can be made based on the available literature. A new comprehensive definition for adjacent segment pathology (ASP, the now preferred terminology) has been proposed in this Focus Issue, which reflects the diverse pathology observed at functional spinal units adjacent to previous spinal reconstruction and balances detailed stratification with clinical utility. A comprehensive classification system is being developed through expert opinion and will require validation as well as peer review. Strength of Statement: Strong.

Surgical versus injection treatment for injection-confirmed chronic sacroiliac joint pain.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. STUDY RATIONALE: Chronic sacroiliac joint pain (CSJP) is a common clinical entity with highly controversial treatment options. A recent systematic review compared surgery with denervation, but the current systematic review compares outcomes of surgical intervention with therapeutic injection for the treatment of CSJP and serves as the next step for evaluating current evidence on the comparative effectiveness of treatments for non-traumatic sacroiliac joint pain. Objective or clinical question: In adult patients with injection-confirmed CSJP, does surgical treatment lead to better outcomes and fewer complications than injection therapy? METHODS: A systematic review of the English-language literature was undertaken for articles published between 1970 and June 2012. Electronic databases and reference lists of key articles were searched to identify studies evaluating surgery or injection treatment for injection-confirmed CSJP. Studies involving traumatic onset or non-injection-confirmed CSJP were excluded. Two independent reviewers assessed the level of evidence quality using the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) system, and disagreements were resolved by consensus. RESULTS: We identified twelve articles (seven surgical and five injection treatment) meeting our inclusion criteria. Regardless of the type of treatment, most studies reported over 40% improvement in pain as measured by Visual Analog Scale or Numeric rating Scale score. Regardless of the type of treatment, most studies reported over 20% improvement in functionality. Most complications were reported in the surgical studies. CONCLUSION: Surgical fusion and therapeutic injections can likely provide pain relief, improve quality of life, and improve work status. The comparative effectiveness of these interventions cannot be evaluated with the current literature.

HIV-tuberculosis coinfection in Southern California: evaluating disparities in disease burden.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to understand tuberculosis (TB) and HIV coinfection trends in San Diego County, California, and to identify associations between sociodemographic risk factors and TB and HIV coinfection. METHODS: We analyzed TB surveillance data from 1993 through 2007. TB cases were grouped by HIV status: positive, negative, or unknown. We used Poisson regression to estimate trends and tested associations between TB and HIV coinfection and sociodemographic risk factors with polychotomous logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 5172 TB cases, 8.8% were also infected with HIV. Incidence of coinfected cases did not change significantly over the period studied, but the proportion of cases among Hispanics increased significantly, whereas cases among non-Hispanic Whites and Blacks decreased. TB cases with HIV coinfection were significantly more likely to be Hispanic, male, injection drugs users, and aged 30 to 49 years, relative to cases with TB disease only. CONCLUSIONS: The burden of TB and HIV in San Diego has shifted to Hispanics in the last decade. To address this health disparity, binational TB and HIV prevention efforts are needed.