Establishing Consensus on the Best Practice Guidelines for Use of Halo Gravity Traction for Pediatric Spinal Deformity.

BACKGROUND: Although halo gravity traction (HGT) has been used to treat children with severe spinal deformity for decades, there is a distinct lack of high-quality evidence to speak to its merits or to dictate ideal manner of implementation. In addition, no guidelines exist to drive research or assist surgeons in their practice. The aim of this study was to establish best practice guidelines (BPG) using formal techniques of consensus building among a group of experienced pediatric spinal deformity surgeons to determine ideal indications and implementation of HGT for pediatric spinal deformity. METHODS: The Delphi process and nominal group technique were used to formally derive consensus among leaders in pediatric spine surgery. Initial work identified significant areas of variability in practice for which we sought to garner consensus. After review of the literature, 3 iterative surveys were administered from February through April 2018 to nationwide experts in pediatric spinal deformity. Surveys assessed anonymous opinions on ideal practices for indications, preoperative evaluation, protocols, and complications, with agreement of 80% or higher considered consensus. Final determination of consensus items and equipoise were established using the Nominal group technique in a facilitated meeting. RESULTS: Of the 42 surgeons invited, responses were received from 32, 40, and 31 surgeons for each survey, respectively. The final meeting included 14 experts with an average 10.5 years in practice and average 88 annual spinal deformity cases. Experts reached consensus on 67 items [indications (17), goals (1), preoperative evaluations (5), protocols (36), complications (8)]; these were consolidated to create final BPG in all categories, including statements to help dictate practice such as using at least 6 to 8 pins under 4 to 8 lbs of torque, with a small, tolerable starting weight and reaching goal weight of 50% TBW in ∼2 weeks. Nine items remained items of equipoise for the purposes of guiding future research. CONCLUSIONS: We developed consensus-based BPG for the use and implementation of HGT for pediatric spinal deformity. This can serve as a measure to help drive future research as well as give new surgeons a place to begin their practice of HGT. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V-expert opinion.

Functional Changes in Patients and Morphological Changes in the Lumbar Intervertebral Disc after Applying Lordotic Curve-Controlled Traction: A Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Study.

Background and Objectives: Lumbar traction is widely used as a non-operative treatment for lumbar intervertebral disc disease. The effect of traditional traction (TT) using linear-type traction devices remains controversial for various reasons, including technical limitations. Thus, the purpose of this study was to compare the effects of the newly developed lumbar lordotic curve-controlled traction (L-LCCT) and TT on functional changes in patients and morphological changes in the vertebral disc. Materials and Methods: A total of 40 patients with lumbar intervertebral disc disease at the L4/5 or L5/S1 level as confirmed by magnetic resonance imaging were recruited and divided into two groups (L-LCCT or TT). The comprehensive health status changes of the patients were recorded using pain and functional scores (the visual analogue scale, the Oswestry Disability Index, and the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire) and morphological changes (in the lumbar central canal area) before and after traction treatment. Results: Pain scores were significantly decreased after traction in both groups (p < 0.05). However, functional scores and morphological changes improved significantly after treatment in the L-LCCT group only (p < 0.05). Conclusions: We suggest that L-LCCT is a viable option for resolving the technical limitations of TT by maintaining the lumbar lordotic curve in patients with lumbar intervertebral disc disease.

ED plaster-of-Paris jacket for infantile scoliosis.

BACKGROUND: There are various articles published in last few years which consider surgical methods like growing rod instrumentation and modulation of the growth as a "gold standard" for the treatment of early onset severe scoliosis. We emphasize orthopaedic correction with serial casting as another option for such progressive deformity. The key to the success of this treatment is to understand the strategy and the technique involved in the effective casting. METHODS: The conventional technique of elongation, derotation, flexion cast (named EDF by Cotrel) is described with some modifications like wedging the cast (gypsotomy) in order to produce the flexion component. RESULTS: Serial casting with ED casts for the treatment of progressive idiopathic infantile scoliosis is an effective tool for the benign types of curves (Mehta) and spinal fusion was not necessary in two-third of our cases. CONCLUSION: Surgical option for treatment of early onset scoliosis is not a "gold standard". Orthopaedic treatment with serial elongation, derotation casts remain the centerpiece of this treatment. Each detail to understand the technique must be known in order to obtain the best result.

Spinal fusion for spastic neuromuscular scoliosis: is anterior releasing necessary when intraoperative halo-femoral traction is used?

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective radiographic and clinical study. OBJECTIVE: To compare the complications and radiographic outcomes of 2 types of surgical treatments, posterior-only fusion and circumferential fusion, in patients with nonambulatory quadriplegic cerebral palsy treated with adjunctive intraoperative halo-femoral traction. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Circumferential anterior-posterior spinal fusion (A/PSF) has been used to improve deformity correction and rate of fusion in patients with neuromuscular scoliosis (NMS) but is associated with increased morbidity. Anterior procedures may increase operative time (OR time) and estimated blood loss (EBL) as well as compromise pulmonary function. Posterior-only spinal fusion (PSF-only) may be sufficient, thereby forgoing the need for the anterior approach without sacrificing deformity correction or outcome. METHODS: Twenty-six patients (age <21 years) who underwent PSF-only for spastic NMS (quadriplegic cerebral palsy) were matched with a comparison cohort of 26 patients who underwent A/PSF (11 staged, 15 same day). All posterior fusions extended from the proximal thoracic spine (T2/T3) to the pelvis. Anterior fusions used a thoracoabdominal approach. All 52 patients underwent intraoperative halo-femoral traction. Mean follow-up for PSF-only was 2.9 years and A/PSF 3.3 years. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in demographic data or preoperative radiographic measures. The PSF-only group had statistically significant shorter OR time (6.1 vs. 10.3 hours), lower EBL (873 vs. 1361 mL), lower frequency of postoperative intubation (38% vs. 81%), shorter length of postoperative intubation (2 vs. 6.5 days), and lower frequency of postoperative pulmonary complications (7.7% vs. 26.9%). There were no statistically significant differences at the final follow-up for thoracolumbar/lumbar curve Cobb, % correction of thoracolumbar/lumbar Cobb, pelvic obliquity, C7 plumb line and the center sacral vertical line, sagittal T5-T12, sagittal T10-L2, and sagittal T12-S1 Cobb measurements. There were no halo-femoral traction-related complications. CONCLUSIONS: When intraoperative halo-femoral traction is used, PSF-only surgery for NMS can provide excellent curve correction and spinal balance. In this study, the PSF-only group had shorter OR time, lower EBL, lower frequency of postoperative intubation, and fewer cases of pneumonias when compared with A/PSF with similar radiographic outcomes at 2-year follow-up.

Basic principles of management for cervical spine trauma.

This article reviews the basic principles of management of cervical trauma. The technique and critical importance of careful assessment is described. Instability is defined, and the incidence of a second injury is highlighted. The concept of spinal clearance is discussed. Early reduction and stabilisation techniques are described, and the indications, and approach for surgery reviewed. The importance of the role of post-injury rehabilitation is identified.

Surgical treatment of upper, middle and lower cervical injuries and non-unions by anterior procedures.

The goals of any treatment of cervical spine injuries are: return to maximum functional ability, minimum of residual pain, decrease of any neurological deficit, minimum of residual deformity and prevention of further disability. The advantages of surgical treatment are the ability to reach optimal reduction, immediate stability, direct decompression of the cord and the exiting roots, the need for only minimum external fixation, the possibility for early mobilisation and clearly decreased nursing problems. There are some reasons why those goals can be reached better by anterior surgery. Usually the bony compression of the cord and roots comes from the front therefore anterior decompression is usually the procedure of choice. Also, the anterior stabilisation with a plate is usually simpler than a posterior instrumentation. It needs to be stressed that closed reduction by traction can align the fractured spine and indirectly decompress the neural structures in about 70%. The necessary weight is 2.5 kg per level of injury. In the upper cervical spine, the odontoid fracture type 2 is an indication for anterior surgery by direct screw fixation. Joint C1/C2 dislocations or fractures or certain odontoid fractures can be treated with a fusion of the C1/C2 joint by anterior transarticular screw fixation. In the lower and middle cervical spine, anterior plating combined with iliac crest or fibular strut graft is the procedure of choice, however, a solid graft can also be replaced by filled solid or expandable vertebral cages. The complication of this surgery is low, when properly executed and anterior surgery may only be contra-indicated in case of a significant lesion or locked joints.

Role of conservative treatment of cervical spine injuries.

Conservative treatment still has an important role to play, despite the increasing possibilities of surgical treatment. Treatment starts at the site of trauma. Transportation and immobilisation in braces are discussed. Skeletal skull traction can be used for realignment and reduction, and eventually used in halo-vest treatment. The advantages and disadvantages of these different treatment options are discussed.

The timing and influence of MRI on the management of patients with cervical facet dislocations remains highly variable: a survey of members of the Spine Trauma Study Group.

BACKGROUND: Traumatic cervical facet dislocations are potentially devastating injuries. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is an excellent means of assessing ligamentous disruption, disk herniation, and compression of the neural elements. However, despite an improved understanding of these facet dislocations with imaging, treatment remains controversial. PURPOSE: To survey the timing and influence of MRI on the management of patients with traumatic cervical facet dislocations. STUDY DESIGN: Questionnaire study. METHODS: Clinical vignettes, plain radiographs, and computed tomography scans of 10 cases of cervical facet dislocation were presented to 25 fellowship trained spine surgeons. Participants were analyzed as to their next step in diagnosis or treatment: closed reduction, obtaining an MRI, or proceeding directly with open treatment. A revised vignette was then presented; however, on this occasion, an MRI was included with the imaging and had been obtained before a reduction attempt. Participants were then surveyed on their choice of closed or open reduction. Each of the vignettes consisted of 3 different clinical scenarios based on neurologic examination: intact, incomplete, or complete spinal cord injury. RESULTS: The interrater reliability of treatment decisions was very poor, and the reliability after MRI was available and was significantly worse when the patient was considered to have a complete spinal cord injury. After reviewing the MRI, orthopedic surgeons were significantly more likely to choose a closed versus open reduction. Neurosurgeons were significantly more likely than orthopedic surgeons to order an MRI before open or closed treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The timing and utilization of MRI for patients with traumatic cervical facet dislocations remains variable. Further outcome analysis in the form of evidence-based algorithms is necessary to optimize patient management and outcomes.

A clinical prediction rule for classifying patients with low back pain who demonstrate short-term improvement with mechanical lumbar traction.

The objective of the study was to develop a clinical prediction rule for identifying patients with low back pain, who improved with mechanical lumbar traction. A prospective, cohort study was conducted in a physiotherapy clinic at a local hospital. Patients with low back pain, referred to physiotherapy were included in the study. The intervention was a standardized mechanical lumbar traction program, which comprised three sessions provided within 9 days. Patient demographic information, standard physical examination, numeric pain scale, fear-avoidance beliefs questionnaire and Oswestry low back pain disability index (pre- and post-intervention) were recorded. A total of 129 patients participated in the study and 25 had positive response to the mechanical lumbar traction. A clinical prediction rule with four variables (non-involvement of manual work, low level fear-avoidance beliefs, no neurological deficit and age above 30 years) was identified. The presence of all four variables (positive likelihood ratio = 9.36) increased the probability of response rate with mechanical lumbar traction from 19.4 to 69.2%. It appears that patients with low back pain who were likely to respond to mechanical lumbar traction may be identified.

Development of a clinical prediction rule to identify patients with neck pain likely to benefit from cervical traction and exercise.

The objective of the study was to develop a clinical prediction rule (CPR) to identify patients with neck pain likely to improve with cervical traction. The study design included prospective cohort of patients with neck pain referred to physical therapy. Development of a CPR will assist clinicians in classifying patients with neck pain likely to benefit from cervical traction. Eighty patients with neck pain received a standardized examination and then completed six sessions of intermittent cervical traction and cervical strengthening exercises twice weekly for 3 weeks. Patient outcome was classified at the end of treatment, based on perceived recovery according to the global rating of change. Patients who achieved a change > or =+6 ("A great deal better" or "A very great deal better") were classified as having a successful outcome. Univariate analyses (t tests and chi-square) were conducted on historical and physical examination items to determine potential predictors of successful outcome. Variables with a significance level of P < or = 0.15 were retained as potential prediction variables. Sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative likelihood ratios (LRs) were then calculated for all variables with a significant relationship with the reference criterion of successful outcome. Potential predictor variables were entered into a step-wise logistic regression model to determine the most accurate set of clinical examination items for prediction of treatment success. Sixty-eight patients (38 female) were included in data analysis of which 30 had a successful outcome. A CPR with five variables was identified: (1) patient reported peripheralization with lower cervical spine (C4-7) mobility testing; (2) positive shoulder abduction test; (3) age > or =55; (4) positive upper limb tension test A; and (5) positive neck distraction test. Having at least three out of five predictors present resulted in a +LR equal to 4.81 (95% CI = 2.17-11.4), increasing the likelihood of success with cervical traction from 44 to 79.2%. If at least four out of five variables were present, the +LR was equal to 23.1 (2.5-227.9), increasing the post-test probability of having improvement with cervical traction to 94.8%. This preliminary CPR provides the ability to a priori identify patients with neck pain likely to experience a dramatic response with cervical traction and exercise. Before the rule can be implemented in routine clinical practice, future studies are necessary to validate the rule. The CPR developed in this study may improve clinical decision-making by assisting clinicians in identifying patients with neck pain likely to benefit from cervical traction and exercise.

Effects of different cervical traction weights on neck pain and mobility.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: This study investigated the effects of 3 different traction weights on neck pain and range of motion/mobility. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety subjects, 42 men and 48 women, with neck pain due to cervical spondylosis participated in the study. They were assigned into three groups, each of which was subjected to a different cervical traction(CT) weight namely: group A = 7.5% total body weight(TBW), group B = 10%TBW, and group C =15%TBW CT respectively. Pain intensity and neck mobility, pre-treatment and post-treatment, were assessed using visual analogue scale(VAS) and universal goniometer respectively. RESULTS: There was no significant difference(p < 0.05) pre-treatment, but existed post-treatment (p < 0.05) between the groups for neck pain and mobility. Nineteen subjects had reactions due to the CT application: 3,5 and 11 in groups A,B and C respectively. The least reactions were recorded with the use of 7.5% TBW traction and the highest with the 15% TBW traction. The 10%TBW CT recorded the most significant pain relief and neck flexibility/mobility compared with the 7.5% TBW and 15% TBW CT therapy. CONCLUSION: This study established the 10% TBW CT as the ideal weight with minimal side effects and with highest therapeutic efficacy. Therefore clinicians could adopt this weight in managing neck disorders requiring traction.

Basilar impression in osteogenesis imperfecta: can it be treated with halo traction and posterior fusion?

Basilar impression (BI) and hydrocephalus complicating osteogenesis imperfecta (OI) is usually treated by anterior transoral decompression and posterior fixation. Nevertheless, it may be questioned if posterior fusion following axial halo traction is adequate in patients with symptomatic BI complicating OI. We report on a case with progressive symptomatic hydrocephalus and BI complicating OI that was successfully treated by halo traction followed by posterior occipitocervical fusion. However, after a symptom free interval of 2 years the patient suffered from recurrence of symptomatic hydrocephalus needing additional ventriculoperitoneal (VP) shunt placement. In conclusion, posterior fusion without additional VP shunt placement may not be effective in the long term for ameliorating symptoms and signs and halting progressive hydrocephalus in BI complicating OI.

Halo traction in basilar invagination: technical case report.

BACKGROUND: In the management of basilar invagination, traction therapy may help by pulling down the odontoid process away from the brain stem that may result in clinical and radiological improvement. We aimed to discuss the role of the halo vest apparatus traction on the reduction of severe anterior compression pathologies in basilar invagination. CASE DESCRIPTION: We describe a simple and safe cervical traction method by the halo vest apparatus that is followed by rigid posterior occipitocervical fixation and foramen magnum decompression in a patient who presented with basilar invagination and symptoms of severe brain stem compression. An MR-suitable halo vest apparatus was used for reduction of the deformity. The reduction of the basilar invagination was achieved gradually by distracting the halo crown in stages. CONCLUSION: The halo vest apparatus can be safely used in complex craniocervical junction anomalies. An effective cervical traction can be performed in basilar invagination, and reduction of the deformity may be achieved without the risk of overdistraction. In some cases, even partial reduction of the deformity may facilitate brain stem and spinal cord relief without any need of posterior decompression. Patients may benefit from ambulatory functions because bed rest is eliminated in this procedure. Neurovascular structures and the degree of the reduction can be observed on MRIs when an MR-suitable device is used.

Surgical treatment of scoliosis with pelvic obliquity in cerebral palsy: the influence of intraoperative traction.

STUDY DESIGN: Continuous retrospective series. OBJECTIVES: To compare two techniques sequentially used for surgical correction of neuromuscular scoliosis with pelvic obliquity in children with cerebral palsy. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: In nonwalking patients with cerebral palsy, scoliosis is frequently associated with pelvic obliquity. We compared intraoperative traction with no traction with instrumentation to the pelvis to correct pelvic obliquity. METHODS: The initial 59 patients had surgery in the knee-chest position with pelvic obliquity correction by posterior vertebral instrumentation distraction, rotation, and compression. The sequential 51 patients were placed prone and had asymmetric traction applied between a halo and the high pelvic side lower extremity with pelvic correction maneuvers done before posterior surgery and instrumentation. RESULTS: Anesthetic duration was longer in Group 1 because of complexity of the intraoperative correction maneuvers, which also produced less correction of scoliosis and pelvic obliquity compared with the asymmetric traction technique. At 8.6 years of follow-up, frontal and sagittal plane correction improved in all surviving patients. CONCLUSION: We think that intraoperative reduction by asymmetric traction is a reliable and safe technique to correct neuromuscular scoliosis and pelvic obliquity in nonwalking spastic quadriplegic patients.

Traction for low back pain with or without sciatica: an updated systematic review within the framework of the Cochrane collaboration.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. OBJECTIVE: To determine if traction is more effective than reference treatments, placebo/sham traction, or no treatment for low back pain (LBP). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Various types of traction are used in the treatment of LBP, often in conjunction with other treatments. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL to November 2004, and screened the latest issue of the Cochrane Library (2004, issue 4) and references in relevant reviews and our personal files. We selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving any type of traction for the treatment of acute (less than 4 weeks duration), subacute (4-12 weeks), or chronic (more than 12 weeks) nonspecific LBP with or without sciatica. Sets of 2 reviewers independently performed study selection, methodological quality assessment, and data extraction. Because available studies did not provide sufficient data for statistical pooling, we performed a qualitative "levels of evidence" analysis, systematically estimating the strength of the cumulative evidence on the difference/lack of difference observed in trial outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 24 RCTs (2177 patients) were included. There were 5 trials considered high quality. For mixed groups of patients with LBP with and without sciatica, we found: (1) strong evidence that there is no statistically significant difference in short or long-term outcomes between traction as a single treatment, (continuous or intermittent) and placebo, sham, or no treatment; (2) moderate evidence that traction as a single treatment is no more effective than other treatments; and (3) limited evidence that adding traction to a standard physiotherapy program does not result in significantly different outcomes. For LBP with sciatica, we found conflicting evidence in several of the comparisons: autotraction compared to placebo, sham, or no treatment; other forms of traction compared to other treatments; and different forms of traction. In the remaining comparisons, there were no statistically significant differences; level of evidence is moderate regarding continuous or intermittent traction compared to placebo, sham, or no treatment, and is limited regarding different forms of traction. CONCLUSION: Based on the current evidence, intermittent or continuous traction as a single treatment for LBP cannot be recommended for mixed groups of patients with LBP with and without sciatica. Neither can traction be recommended for patients with sciatica because of inconsistent results and methodological problems in most of the studies involved. However, because high-quality studies within the field are scarce, because many are underpowered, and because traction often is supplied in combination with other treatment modalities, the literature allows no firm negative conclusion that traction, in a generalized sense, is not an effective treatment for patients with LBP.

Interventions that increase or decrease the likelihood of a meaningful improvement in physical health in patients with sciatica.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The purpose of our study was to determine whether physical therapy interventions predicted meaningful short-term improvement in physical health for patients diagnosed with sciatica. SUBJECTS: We examined data from 1,804 patients (age: mean=52.1 years, SD=15.6 years; 65.7% female, 34.3% male) who had been diagnosed with sciatica and who had completed an episode of outpatient physical therapy. METHODS: Principal components factor analysis was used to define intervention categories from specific treatments applied during the plan of care. A nested-model logistic regression analysis identified intervention categories that predicted meaningful improvement in physical health. Meaningful improvement was defined as a change of 14 or more points on the Physical Component Scale-12 (PCS-12) summary score. RESULTS: Twenty-six percent (n=473) of patients had a meaningful improvement in physical health. Improvement was more likely in patients receiving joint mobility interventions (odds ratio [OR]=2.5, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.5-4.4) or general exercise (OR=1.5, 95% CI=1.2-2.0). Patients who received spasm reduction interventions were less likely to improve (OR=0.77, 95% CI=0.60-0.98). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Physical therapists should emphasize the use of joint mobility interventions and exercise when treating patients with sciatica, whereas interventions for spasm reduction should be avoided.

Changes in sagittal lumbar configuration with a new method of extension traction: nonrandomized clinical controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if a new method of lumbar extension traction can increase lordosis in chronic low back pain (LBP) subjects with decreased lordosis. DESIGN: Nonrandomized controlled trial with follow-up at 3 months and 1(1/2) years. SETTING: Primary care spine clinic in Nevada. PATIENTS: Beginning in mid-1998, the first 48 consecutive patients, who met the inclusion criteria of chronic LBP with decreased lordosis and who completed the treatment program were matched for sex, age, height, weight, and pain scores to 30 control subjects with chronic LBP, who received no treatment. INTERVENTIONS: A new form of 3-point bending lumbar extension traction was provided in-office 3 to 4 times a week for 12+/-4 weeks. Per session, traction duration was started at 3 minutes and was increased to a maximum of 20 minutes. For short-term pain relief, torsion lumbar spinal manipulation was provided in the initial 3 weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pain as measured on a visual analog scale (VAS) and standing lateral lumbar radiographic measurements. RESULTS: Pain scales and radiographic measurements did not change in the control subjects. In the traction group, VAS ratings decreased from mean +/- standard deviation of 4.4+/-1.9 pretreatment to 0.6+/-0.9 posttreatment (P<.001), and radiographic angles (except at T12-L1) showed statistically significant changes. Mean changes were 5.7 degrees at L4-5 (P<.001), 11.3 degrees between posterior tangents on L1 and L5 (P<.001), 9.1 degrees in Cobb angle at T12-S1 (P<.001), 4.6 degrees in pelvic tilt (P<.001), and 4.7 degrees in Ferguson's sacral base angle (P<.001). At long-term follow-up (17(1/2)mo), 34 of the 48 (71%) subjects returned. Improvements in lordosis were maintained in all 34. CONCLUSIONS: This new method of lumbar extension traction is the first nonsurgical rehabilitative procedure to show increases in lumbar lordosis in chronic LBP subjects with hypolordosis. The fact that there was no change in control subjects' lumbar lordosis indicates the stability of the lumbar lordosis and the repeatability of x-ray procedures. Because, on average, chronic LBP patients have hypolordosis, additional randomized trials should be performed to evaluate the clinical significance of restoration of the lumbar lordosis in chronic LBP subjects.