Benchmarking with Spine Tango: potentials and pitfalls

The newly released online statistics function of Spine Tango allows comparison of own data against the aggregated results of the data pool that all other participants generate. This comparison can be considered a very simple way of benchmarking, which means that the quality of what one organization does is compared with other similar organizations. The goal is to make changes towards better practice if benchmarking shows inferior results compared with the pool. There are, however, pitfalls in this simplified way of comparing data that can result in confounding. This means that important influential factors can make results appear better or worse than they are in reality and these factors can only be identified and neutralized in a multiple regression analysis performed by a statistical expert. Comparing input variables, confounding is less of a problem than comparing outcome variables. Therefore, the potentials and limitations of automated online comparisons need to be considered when interpreting the results of the benchmarking procedure.

Surgical instrumentation for the in vivo determination of lumbar spinal segment stiffness and viscoelasticity

The definition of spinal instability is still controversial. For this reason, it is essential to better understand the difference in biomechanical behaviour between healthy and degenerated human spinal segments in vivo. A novel computer-assisted instrument was developed with the objective to characterize the biomechanical parameters of the spinal segment. Investigation of the viscoelastic properties as well as the dynamic spinal stiffness was performed during a minimally invasive procedure (microdiscectomy) on five patients. Measurements were performed intraoperatively and the protocol consisted of a dynamic part, where spinal stiffness was computed, and a static part, where force relaxation of the segment under constant elongation was studied. The repeatability of the measurement procedure was demonstrated with five replicated tests. The spinal segment tissues were found to have viscoelastic properties. Preliminary tests confirmed a decrease in stiffness after decompression surgery. Patients with non-relaxed muscles showed higher stiffness and relaxation rate compared to patients with relaxed muscles, which can be explained by the contraction and relaxation reflex of muscles under fast and then static elongation. The results show the usefulness of the biomechanical characterization of the human lumbar spinal segment to improve the understanding of the contribution of individual anatomical structures to spinal stability.

Thoracolumbar spine fractures in patients who have sustained severe trauma: depiction with multi-detector row CT

PURPOSE: To determine if multi–detector row computed tomography (CT) can replace conventional radiography and be performed alone in severe trauma patients for the depiction of thoracolumbar spine fractures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred consecutive severe trauma patients who underwent conventional radiography of the thoracolumbar spine as well as thoracoabdominal multi–detector row CT were prospectively identified. Conventional radiographs were reviewed independently by three radiologists and two orthopedic surgeons; CT images were reviewed by three radiologists. Reviewers were blinded both to one another’s reviews and to the results of initial evaluation. Presence, location, and stability of fractures, as well as quality of reviewed images, were assessed. Statistical analysis was performed to determine sensitivity and interobserver agreement for each procedure, with results of clinical and radiologic follow-up as the standard of reference. The time to perform each examination and the radiation dose involved were evaluated. A resource cost analysis was performed. RESULTS: Sixty-seven fractured vertebrae were diagnosed in 26 patients. Twelve patients had unstable spine fractures. Mean sensitivity and interobserver agreement, respectively, for detection of unstable fractures were 97.2% and 0.951 for multi–detector row CT and 33.3% and 0.368 for conventional radiography. The median times to perform a conventional radiographic and a multi–detector row CT examination, respectively, were 33 and 40 minutes. Effective radiation doses at conventional radiography of the spine and thoracoabdominal multi–detector row CT, respectively, were 6.36 mSv and 19.42 mSv. Multi–detector row CT enabled identification of 146 associated traumatic lesions. The costs of conventional radiography and multi–detector row CT, respectively, were $145 and $880 per patient. CONCLUSION: Multi–detector row CT is a better examination for depicting spine fractures than conventional radiography. It can replace conventional radiography and be performed alone in patients who have sustained severe trauma.

How well do radiographic absorptiometry and quantitative ultrasound predict osteoporosis at spine or hip? A cost-effectiveness analysis

Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is widely accepted as the reference method for diagnosis and monitoring of osteoporosis and for assessment of fracture risk, especially at hip. However, axial-DXA is not suitable for mass screening, because it is usually confined to specialized centers. We propose a two-step diagnostic approach to postmenopausal osteoporosis: the first step, using an inexpensive, widely available screening technique, aims at risk stratification in postmenopausal women; the second step, DXA of spine and hip is applied only to potentially osteoporotic women preselected on the basis of the screening measurement. In a group of 110 healthy postmenopausal woman, the capability of various peripheral bone measurement techniques to predict osteoporosis at spine and/or hip (T-score < -2.5SD using DXA) was tested using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves: radiographic absorptiometry of phalanges (RA), ultrasonometry at calcaneus (QUS. CALC), tibia (SOS.TIB), and phalanges (SOS.PHAL). Thirty-three women had osteoporosis at spine and/or hip with DXA. Areas under the ROC curves were 0.84 for RA, 0.83 for QUS.CALC, 0.77 for SOS.PHAL (p < 0.04 vs RA) and 0.74 for SOS.TIB (p < 0.02 vs RA and p = 0.05 vs QUS.CALC). For levels of sensitivity of 90%, the respective specificities were 67% (RA), 64% (QUS.CALC), 48% (SOS.PHAL), and 39% (SOS.TIB). In a cost-effective two-step, the price of the first step should not exceed 54% (RA), 51% (QUS.CALC), 42% (SOS.PHAL), and 25% (SOS.TIB). In conclusion, RA, QUS.CALC, SOS.PHAL, and SOS.TIB may be useful to preselect postmenopausal women in whom axial DXA is indicated to confirm/exclude osteoporosis at spine or hip.