Biologic Association Annual Summit: 2020 Report.

Interest and research in biologic approaches for tissue healing are exponentially growing for a variety of musculoskeletal conditions. The recent hype concerning musculoskeletal biological therapies (including viscosupplementation, platelet-rich plasma, and cellular therapies, or "stem cells") is driven by several factors, including demand by patients promising regenerative evidence supported by substantial basic and translational work, as well as commercial endeavors that complicate the scientific and lay understanding of biological therapy outcomes. While significant improvements have been made in the field, further basic and preclinical research and well-designed randomized clinical trials are needed to better elucidate the optimal indications, processing techniques, delivery, and outcome assessment. Furthermore, biologic treatments may have potential devastating complications when proper methods or techniques are ignored. For these reasons, an association comprising several scientific societies, named the Biologic Association (BA), was created to foster coordinated efforts and speak with a unified voice, advocating for the responsible use of biologics in the musculoskeletal environment in clinical practice, spearheading the development of standards for treatment and outcomes assessment, and reporting on the safety and efficacy of biologic interventions. This article will introduce the BA and its purpose, provide a summary of the 2020 first annual Biologic Association Summit, and outline the future strategic plan for the BA.

Harmonized outcome measures for use in degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis patient registries and clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE: The development of new treatment approaches for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) has introduced many questions about comparative effectiveness and long-term outcomes. Patient registries collect robust, longitudinal data that could be combined or aggregated to form a national and potentially international research data infrastructure to address these and other research questions. However, linking data across registries is challenging because registries typically define and capture different outcome measures. Variation in outcome measures occurs in clinical practice and other types of research studies as well, limiting the utility of existing data sources for addressing new research questions. The purpose of this project was to develop a minimum set of patient- and clinician-relevant standardized outcome measures that are feasible for collection in DLS registries and clinical practice. METHODS: Nineteen DLS registries, observational studies, and quality improvement efforts were invited to participate and submit outcome measures. A stakeholder panel was organized that included representatives from medical specialty societies, health systems, government agencies, payers, industries, health information technology organizations, and patient advocacy groups. The panel categorized the measures using the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Outcome Measures Framework (OMF), identified a minimum set of outcome measures, and developed standardized definitions through a consensus-based process. RESULTS: The panel identified and harmonized 57 outcome measures into a minimum set of 10 core outcome measure areas and 6 supplemental outcome measure areas. The measures are organized into the OMF categories of survival, clinical response, events of interest, patient-reported outcomes, and resource utilization. CONCLUSIONS: This effort identified a minimum set of standardized measures that are relevant to patients and clinicians and appropriate for use in DLS registries, other research efforts, and clinical practice. Collection of these measures across registries and clinical practice is an important step for building research data infrastructure, creating learning healthcare systems, and improving patient management and outcomes in DLS.

Osteoporosis: Recent Recommendations and Positions of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research and the International Society for Clinical Densitometry.

➤: Osteoporosis is common in orthopaedic patients, not only in those sustaining fragility fractures but also in patients ≥50 years old who are having elective orthopaedic surgery. ➤: The American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) has developed consensus-based recommendations for secondary fracture prevention for all patients who are ≥65 years old with a hip or spine fracture. ➤: The ASBMR encourages orthopaedic surgeons to "Own the Bone," by beginning prevention of a secondary fracture during hospitalization for a fragility fracture, if practicable, and arranging follow-up for continued bone health care after discharge. ➤: The International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) recognized that many poor outcomes and complications of elective orthopaedic surgery are related to osteoporosis. ➤: The ISCD used an evidence-based approach to create official positions to identify which patients ≥50 years old who are having elective orthopaedic surgery should undergo assessment of bone health and how this should be performed.

The Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) of 2015: What's New?

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released its Final Rule on the Medicare Access and CHIP [Children's Health Insurance Program] Reauthorization Act (MACRA) in November 2016. The Rule finalizes the details of the merit-based incentive payment system (MIPS) and the alternative payment model (APM), which will now collectively be referred to as the Quality Payment Program (QPP). This article offers the orthopaedic community a summary of the alterations in healthcare policy that will affect practices nationwide.

Understanding Value-based Reimbursement Models and Trends in Orthopaedic Health Policy: An Introduction to the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) of 2015.

In 2015, the US Congress passed legislation entitled the Medicare Access and CHIP [Children's Health Insurance Program] Reauthorization Act (MACRA), which led to the formation of two reimbursement paradigms: the merit-based incentive payment system (MIPS) and alternative payment models (APMs). The MACRA effectively repealed the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) sustainable growth rate (SGR) formula while combining several CMS quality-reporting programs. As such, MACRA represents an unparalleled acceleration toward reimbursement models that recognize value rather than volume. The first pathway, MIPS, consolidates several Medicare quality-reporting programs into one composite score that will be derived by four performance categories, including quality (30%), resource utilization (30%), meaningful use (25%), and clinical practice improvement activities (15%). The APM pathway includes the following programs: Medicare accountable care organizations as part of the Medicare Shared Savings Program, Bundled Payments for Care Improvement, and Comprehensive Primary Care initiative. Existing APMs have yet to be determined as eligible. We provide a contextual framework of the healthcare legislation that has led to the formation of current health policy and offer recommendations regarding SGR how orthopaedic surgeons may best steer through such reimbursement models.

An evidence-based clinical guideline for antibiotic prophylaxis in spine surgery.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The North American Spine Society's (NASS) Evidence-Based Clinical Guideline on Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Spine Surgery provides evidence-based recommendations to address key clinical questions regarding the efficacy and the appropriate antibiotic prophylaxis protocol to prevent surgical site infections in patients undergoing spine surgery. The guideline is intended to address these questions based on the highest quality clinical literature available on this subject as of June 2011. PURPOSE: Provide an evidence-based educational tool to assist spine surgeons in preventing surgical site infections. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and evidence-based clinical guideline. METHODS: This guideline is a product of the Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Spine Surgery Work Group of NASS Evidence-Based Guideline Development Committee. The work group consisted of neurosurgeons and orthopedic surgeons who specialize in spine surgery and are trained in the principles of evidence-based analysis. A literature search addressing each question and using a specific search protocol was performed on English language references found in MEDLINE (PubMed), ACP Journal Club, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE (Drugs and Pharmacology), and Web of Science to identify articles published since the search performed for the original guideline. The relevant literature was then independently rated using the NASS-adopted standardized levels of evidence. An evidentiary table was created for each of the questions. Final recommendations to answer each clinical question were developed via work group discussion, and grades were assigned to the recommendations using standardized grades of recommendation. In the absence of Levels I to IV evidence, work group consensus statements have been developed using a modified nominal group technique, and these statements are clearly identified as such in the guideline. RESULTS: Sixteen clinical questions were formulated and addressed, and the answers are summarized in this article. The respective recommendations were graded by the strength of the supporting literature, which was stratified by levels of evidence. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical guideline for antibiotic prophylaxis in spine surgery has been created using the techniques of evidence-based medicine and best available evidence to aid practitioners in the care of patients undergoing spine surgery. The entire guideline document, including the evidentiary tables, suggestions for future research, and all the references, is available electronically on the NASS Web site at http://www.spine.org/Pages/PracticePolicy/ClinicalCare/ClinicalGuidlines/Default.aspx and will remain updated on a timely schedule.

An evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (update).

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The evidence-based clinical guideline on the diagnosis and treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis by the North American Spine Society (NASS) provides evidence-based recommendations to address key clinical questions surrounding the diagnosis and treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. The guideline is intended to reflect contemporary treatment concepts for symptomatic degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis as reflected in the highest quality clinical literature available on this subject as of July 2010. The goals of the guideline recommendations are to assist in delivering optimum efficacious treatment and functional recovery from this spinal disorder. PURPOSE: Provide an evidence-based educational tool to assist spine care providers in improving quality and efficiency of care delivered to patients with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and evidence-based clinical guideline. METHODS: This report is from the Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Work Group of the NASS's Evidence-Based Clinical Guideline Development Committee. The work group consisted of multidisciplinary spine care specialists trained in the principles of evidence-based analysis. The original guideline, published in 2006, was carefully reviewed. A literature search addressing each question and using a specific search protocol was performed on English language references found in MEDLINE, EMBASE (Drugs and Pharmacology), and four additional, evidence-based, databases to identify articles published since the search performed for the original guideline. The relevant literature was then independently rated by a minimum of three physician reviewers using the NASS-adopted standardized levels of evidence. An evidentiary table was created for each of the questions. Final recommendations to answer each clinical question were arrived at via work group discussion, and grades were assigned to the recommendations using standardized grades of recommendation. In the absence of Levels I to IV evidence, work group consensus statements have been developed using a modified nominal group technique, and these statements are clearly identified as such in the guideline. RESULTS: Sixteen key clinical questions were assessed, addressing issues of natural history, diagnosis, and treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. The answers are summarized in this document. The respective recommendations were graded by the strength of the supporting literature that was stratified by levels of evidence. CONCLUSIONS: A clinical guideline for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis has been updated using the techniques of evidence-based medicine and using the best available clinical evidence to aid both practitioners and patients involved with the care of this condition. The entire guideline document, including the evidentiary tables, suggestions for future research, and all references, will be available electronically at the NASS Web site (www.spine.org) and will remain updated on a timely schedule.

An evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of cervical radiculopathy from degenerative disorders.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The North American Spine Society (NASS) Evidence-Based Clinical Guideline on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Cervical Radiculopathy from Degenerative Disorders provides evidence-based recommendations on key clinical questions concerning the diagnosis and treatment of cervical radiculopathy from degenerative disorders. The guideline addresses these questions based on the highest quality clinical literature available on this subject as of May 2009. The guideline's recommendations assist the practitioner in delivering optimum efficacious treatment of and functional recovery from this common disorder. PURPOSE: Provide an evidence-based educational tool to assist spine care providers in improving quality and efficiency of care delivered to patients with cervical radiculopathy from degenerative disorders. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and evidence-based clinical guideline. METHODS: This report is from the Cervical Radiculopathy from Degenerative Disorders Work Group of the NASS' Evidence-Based Clinical Guideline Development Committee. The work group consisted of multidisciplinary spine care specialists trained in the principles of evidence-based analysis. Each member of the group formatted a series of clinical questions to be addressed by the group. The final questions agreed on by the group are the subjects of this report. A literature search addressing each question using a specific search protocol was performed on English language references found in MEDLINE, EMBASE (Drugs and Pharmacology), and four additional evidence-based databases. The relevant literature was then independently rated by a minimum of three reviewers using the NASS-adopted standardized levels of evidence. An evidentiary table was created for each of the questions. Final recommendations to answer each clinical question were arrived at via work group discussion, and grades were assigned to the recommendations using standardized grades of recommendation. In the absence of Levels I to IV evidence, work group consensus statements have been developed using a modified nominal group technique, and these statements are clearly identified as such in the guideline. RESULTS: Eighteen clinical questions were formulated, addressing issues of natural history, diagnosis, and treatment of cervical radiculopathy from degenerative disorders. The answers are summarized in this article. The respective recommendations were graded by the strength of the supporting literature, which was stratified by levels of evidence. CONCLUSIONS: A clinical guideline for cervical radiculopathy from degenerative disorders has been created using the techniques of evidence-based medicine and best available evidence to aid both practitioners and patients involved with the care of this condition. The entire guideline document, including the evidentiary tables, suggestions for future research, and all references, is available electronically at the NASS Web site (www.spine.org) and will remain updated on a timely schedule.

An evidence-based clinical guideline for the use of antithrombotic therapies in spine surgery.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The objective of the North American Spine Society (NASS) Evidence-Based Clinical Guideline on antithrombotic therapies in spine surgery was to provide evidence-based recommendations to address key clinical questions surrounding the use of antithrombotic therapies in spine surgery. The guideline is intended to address these questions based on the highest quality clinical literature available on this subject as of February 2008. The goal of the guideline recommendations was to assist in delivering optimum, efficacious treatment with the goal of preventing thromboembolic events. PURPOSE: To provide an evidence-based, educational tool to assist spine surgeons in minimizing the risk of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE). STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and evidence-based clinical guideline. METHODS: This report is from the Antithrombotic Therapies Work Group of the NASS Evidence-Based Guideline Development Committee. The work group was composed of multidisciplinary spine care specialists, all of whom were trained in the principles of evidence-based analysis. Each member of the group was involved in formatting a series of clinical questions to be addressed by the group. The final questions agreed on by the group are the subject of this report. A literature search addressing each question and using a specific search protocol was performed on English language references found in MEDLINE, EMBASE (Drugs and Pharmacology), and four additional, evidence-based databases. The relevant literature was then independently rated by at least three reviewers using the NASS-adopted standardized levels of evidence. An evidentiary table was created for each of the questions. Final grades of recommendation for the answers to each clinical question were arrived at via Web casts among members of the work group using standardized grades of recommendation. When Level I to IV evidence was insufficient to support a recommendation to answer a specific clinical question, expert consensus was arrived at by the work group through the modified nominal group technique and is clearly identified as such in the guideline. RESULTS: Fourteen clinical questions were formulated, addressing issues of incidence of DVT and PE in spine surgery and recommendations regarding utilization of mechanical prophylaxis and chemoprophylaxis in spine surgery. The answers to these 14 clinical questions are summarized in this article. The respective recommendations were graded by the strength of the supporting literature that was stratified by levels of evidence. CONCLUSIONS: A clinical guideline addressing the use of antithrombotic therapies in spine surgery has been created using the techniques of evidence-based medicine and using the best available evidence as a tool to assist spine surgeons in minimizing the risk of DVT and PE. The entire guideline document, including the evidentiary tables, suggestions for future research, and all references, is available electronically at the NASS Web site (www.spine.org) and will remain updated on a timely schedule.

An evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The objective of the North American Spine Society (NASS) evidence-based clinical guideline on the diagnosis and treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis is to provide evidence-based recommendations on key clinical questions concerning the diagnosis and treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. The guideline is intended to address these questions based on the highest quality clinical literature available on this subject as of January 2007. The goal of the guideline recommendations is to assist the practitioner in delivering optimum, efficacious treatment of and functional recovery from this common disorder. PURPOSE: To provide an evidence-based, educational tool to assist spine care providers in improving the quality and efficiency of care delivered to patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and evidence-based clinical guideline. METHODS: This report is from the Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis Work Group of the NASS Evidence-Based Clinical Guideline Development Committee. The work group was comprised of multidisciplinary spine care specialists, all of whom were trained in the principles of evidence-based analysis. Each member participated in the development of a series of clinical questions to be addressed by the group. The final questions agreed on by the group are the subject of this report. A literature search addressing each question and using a specific search protocol was performed on English language references found in MEDLINE, EMBASE (Drugs and Pharmacology) and four additional, evidence-based, databases. The relevant literature was then independently rated by at least three reviewers using the NASS-adopted standardized levels of evidence. An evidentiary table was created for each of the questions. Final grades of recommendation for the answer to each clinical question were arrived at via face-to-face meetings among members of the work group using standardized grades of recommendation. When Level I-IV evidence was insufficient to support a recommendation to answer a specific clinical question, expert consensus was arrived at by the work group through the modified nominal group technique and is clearly identified as such in the guideline. RESULTS: Nineteen clinical questions were formulated, addressing issues of prognosis, diagnosis, and treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. The answers to these 19 clinical questions are summarized in this document. The respective recommendations were graded by the strength of the supporting literature that was stratified by levels of evidence. CONCLUSIONS: A clinical guideline for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis has been created using the techniques of evidence-based medicine and using the best available evidence as a tool to aid practitioners involved with the care of this condition. The entire guideline document, including the evidentiary tables, suggestions for future research, and all references, is available electronically at the NASS Web site (www.spine.org) and will remain updated on a timely schedule.

Surgery for low back pain: a review of the evidence for an American Pain Society Clinical Practice Guideline.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. OBJECTIVE: To systematically assess benefits and harms of surgery for nonradicular back pain with common degenerative changes, radiculopathy with herniated lumbar disc, and symptomatic spinal stenosis. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Although back surgery rates continue to increase, there is uncertainty or controversy about utility of back surgery for various conditions. METHODS: Electronic database searches on Ovid MEDLINE and the Cochrane databases were conducted through July 2008 to identify randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews of the above therapies. All relevant studies were methodologically assessed by 2 independent reviewers using criteria developed by the Cochrane Back Review Group (for trials) and Oxman (for systematic reviews). A qualitative synthesis of results was performed using methods adapted from the US Preventive Services Task Force. RESULTS: For nonradicular low back pain with common degenerative changes, we found fair evidence that fusion is no better than intensive rehabilitation with a cognitive-behavioral emphasis for improvement in pain or function, but slightly to moderately superior to standard (nonintensive) nonsurgical therapy. Less than half of patients experience optimal outcomes (defined as no more than sporadic pain, slight restriction of function, and occasional analgesics) following fusion. Clinical benefits of instrumented versus noninstrumented fusion are unclear. For radiculopathy with herniated lumbar disc, we found good evidence that standard open discectomy and microdiscectomy are moderately superior to nonsurgical therapy for improvement in pain and function through 2 to 3 months. For symptomatic spinal stenosis with or without degenerative spondylolisthesis, we found good evidence that decompressive surgery is moderately superior to nonsurgical therapy through 1 to 2 years. For both conditions, patients on average experience improvement either with or without surgery, and benefits associated with surgery decrease with long-term follow-up in some trials. Although there is fair evidence that artificial disc replacement is similarly effective compared to fusion for single level degenerative disc disease and that an interspinous spacer device is superior to nonsurgical therapy for 1- or 2-level spinal stenosis with symptoms relieved with forward flexion, insufficient evidence exists to judge long-term benefits or harms. CONCLUSION: Surgery for radiculopathy with herniated lumbar disc and symptomatic spinal stenosis is associated with short-term benefits compared to nonsurgical therapy, though benefits diminish with long-term follow-up in some trials. For nonradicular back pain with common degenerative changes, fusion is no more effective than intensive rehabilitation, but associated with small to moderate benefits compared to standard nonsurgical therapy.

Interventional therapies, surgery, and interdisciplinary rehabilitation for low back pain: an evidence-based clinical practice guideline from the American Pain Society.

STUDY DESIGN: Clinical practice guideline. OBJECTIVE: To develop evidence-based recommendations on use of interventional diagnostic tests and therapies, surgeries, and interdisciplinary rehabilitation for low back pain of any duration, with or without leg pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Management of patients with persistent and disabling low back pain remains a clinical challenge. A number of interventional diagnostic tests and therapies and surgery are available and their use is increasing, but in some cases their utility remains uncertain or controversial. Interdisciplinary rehabilitation has also been proposed as a potentially effective noninvasive intervention for persistent and disabling low back pain. METHODS: A multidisciplinary panel was convened by the American Pain Society. Its recommendations were based on a systematic review that focused on evidence from randomized controlled trials. Recommendations were graded using methods adapted from the US Preventive Services Task Force and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Working Group. RESULTS: Investigators reviewed 3348 abstracts. A total of 161 randomized trials were deemed relevant to the recommendations in this guideline. The panel developed a total of 8 recommendations. CONCLUSION: Recommendations on use of interventional diagnostic tests and therapies, surgery, and interdisciplinary rehabilitation are presented. Due to important trade-offs between potential benefits, harms, costs, and burdens of alternative therapies, shared decision-making is an important component of a number of the recommendations.

Antibiotic prophylaxis in spine surgery: an evidence-based clinical guideline for the use of prophylactic antibiotics in spine surgery.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The objective of the North American Spine Society's (NASS) Evidence-Based Clinical Guideline on Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Spine Surgery is to provide evidence-based recommendations on key clinical questions concerning the use of prophylactic antibiotics in spine surgery. The guideline is intended to address these questions based on the highest quality clinical literature available on this subject as of December 2006. The goal of the guideline recommendations is to assist in delivering optimum, efficacious treatment to prevent surgical site infection. PURPOSE: To provide an evidence-based, educational tool to assist spine surgeons in preventing surgical site infections. STUDY DESIGN: Evidence-based Clinical Guideline. METHODS: This report is from the Antibiotic Prophylaxis Work Group of the NASS's Evidence-Based Clinical Guideline Development Committee. The work group comprised multidisciplinary surgical spine care specialists, who were trained in the principles of evidence-based analysis. Each member of the group formatted a series of clinical questions to be addressed by the group. The final questions agreed upon by the group are the subjects of this report. A literature search addressing each question and using a specific search protocol was performed on English language references found in MEDLINE, EMBASE (Drugs and Pharmacology), and four additional, evidence-based, databases. The relevant literature was then independently rated by at least three reviewers using the NASS-adopted standardized levels of evidence. An evidentiary table was created for each of the questions. Final grades of recommendation for the answer to each clinical question were arrived at via Webcast meetings among members of the work group using standardized grades of recommendation. When Level I to Level IV evidence was insufficient to support a recommendation to answer a specific clinical question, expert consensus was arrived at by the work group through the modified nominal group technique and is clearly identified in the guideline. RESULTS: Eleven clinical questions addressed the efficacy and appropriateness of antibiotic prophylaxis protocols, repeat dosing, discontinuation, wound drains, and special considerations related to the potential impact of comorbidities on antibiotic prophylaxis. The responses to these 11 clinical questions are summarized in this document. The respective recommendations were graded by the strength of the supported literature which was stratified by levels of evidence. CONCLUSIONS: A clinical guideline addressing the use of antibiotic prophylaxis in spine surgery has been created using the techniques of evidence-based medicine and the best available evidence. This educational tool will assist spine surgeons in preventing surgical site infections. The entire guideline document, including the evidentiary tables, suggestions for future research, and references, is available electronically at the NASS Web site (www.spine.org) and will remain updated on a timely schedule.

Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: an evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The objective of the North American Spine Society (NASS) evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS) is to provide evidence-based recommendations to address key clinical questions surrounding the diagnosis and treatment of DLSS. The guideline is intended to reflect contemporary treatment concepts for symptomatic DLSS as reflected in the highest quality clinical literature available on this subject as of April 2006. The goals of the guideline recommendations are to assist in delivering optimum, efficacious treatment, and functional recovery from this spinal disorder. PURPOSE: To provide an evidence-based tool that assists practitioners in improving the quality and efficiency of care delivered to patients with DLSS. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Evidence-based clinical guideline. METHODS: This report is from the Spinal Stenosis Work Group of the NASS Clinical Guidelines Committee. The work group comprised medical, diagnostic, interventional, and surgical spinal care specialists, all of whom were trained in the principles of evidence-based analysis. In the development of this guideline, the work group arrived at a consensus definition of a working diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis by use of a modification of the nominal group technique. Each member of the group formatted a series of clinical questions to be addressed by the group and the final list of questions agreed on by the group is the subject of this report. A literature search addressing each question and using a specific literature search protocol was performed on English language references found in MEDLINE, EMBASE (Drugs and Pharmacology), and four additional, evidence-based, databases. The relevant literature to answer each clinical question was then independently rated by at least two reviewers using the NASS-adopted standardized levels of evidence. An evidentiary table was created for each of the questions. Any discrepancies in evidence levels among the initial raters were resolved by at least two additional members' review of the reference and independent rating. Final grades of recommendation for the answer to each clinical question were arrived at in face-to-face meetings among members of the work group using the NASS-adopted standardized grades of recommendation. When Levels I to IV evidence was insufficient to support a recommendation to answer a specific clinical question, expert consensus was arrived at by the work group through the modified nominal group technique and is clearly identified as such in the guideline. RESULTS: Eighteen clinical questions were asked, addressing issues of prognosis, diagnosis, and treatment of DLSS. The answers to these 18 clinical questions are summarized in this document along with their respective levels of evidence and grades of recommendation in support of these answers. CONCLUSIONS: A clinical guideline for DLSS has been created using the techniques of evidence-based medicine and using the best available evidence as a tool to aid both practitioners and patients involved with the care of this disease. The entire guideline document including the evidentiary tables, suggestions for future research, and all references is available electronically at the NASS Web site (www.spine.org) and will remain updated on a timely schedule.

Charcot arthropathy because of congenital insensitivity to pain in an adult.

BACKGROUND: Congenital insensitivity to pain is a rare disorder that can lead to neuropathic arthropathy of any joint including the spine. Most of the case reports in the literature are in the pediatric population. PURPOSE: This case report emphasizes the importance of anterior and posterior fusion in patients with congenital insensitivity to pain. The patient was initially treated as if the deformity was postinfectious. STUDY DESIGN SETTING: The patient was treated in a university-based tertiary care center. METHODS: The patient underwent an anterior decompression and fusion with instrumentation that failed with ambulation. An anterior and posterior revision with instrumentation was then performed to stabilize the Charcot spine. RESULTS: The patient had an excellent final outcome. At 2 years postoperatively, he is solidly fused and back to his normal occupation. CONCLUSION: Anterior and posterior fusion is essential in neuropathic spinal arthropathy. Congenital insensitivity to pain can manifest problems into adulthood.

Spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis in the athlete.

Though athletes may be able to return to their sport after treatment of spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis, prevention of back injury in at-risk patient athletes should be the treating physician's primary goal.