The international spine registry SPINE TANGO: status quo and first results

With an official life time of over 5 years, Spine Tango can meanwhile be considered the first international spine registry. In this paper we present an overview of frequency statistics of Spine Tango for demonstrating the genesis of questionnaire development and the constantly increasing activity in the registry. Results from two exemplar studies serve for showing concepts of data analysis applied to a spine registry. Between 2002 and 2006, about 6,000 datasets were submitted by 25 centres. Descriptive analyses were performed for demographic, surgical and follow-up data of three generations of the Spine Tango surgery and follow-up forms. The two exemplar studies used multiple linear regression models to identify potential predictor variables for the occurrence of dura lesions in posterior spinal fusion, and to evaluate which covariates influenced the length of hospital stay. Over the study period there was a rise in median patient age from 52.3 to 58.6 years in the Spine Tango data pool and an increasing percentage of degenerative diseases as main pathology from 59.9 to 71.4%. Posterior decompression was the most frequent surgical measure. About one-third of all patients had documented follow-ups. The complication rate remained below 10%. The exemplar studies identified "centre of intervention" and "number of segments of fusion" as predictors of the occurrence of dura lesions in posterior spinal fusion surgery. Length of hospital stay among patients with posterior fusion was significantly influenced by "centre of intervention", "surgeon credentials", "number of segments of fusion", "age group" and "sex". Data analysis from Spine Tango is possible but complicated by the incompatibility of questionnaire generations 1 and 2 with the more recent generation 3. Although descriptive and also analytic studies at evidence level 2++ can be performed, findings cannot yet be generalised to any specific country or patient population. Current limitations of Spine Tango include the low number and short duration of follow-ups and the lack of sufficiently detailed patient data on subgroup levels. Although the number of participants is steadily growing, no country is yet represented with a sufficient number of hospitals. Nevertheless, the benefits of the project for the whole spine community become increasingly visible.

How to Tango: a manual for implementing Spine Tango

The generic approach of the Spine Tango documentation system, which uses web-based technologies, is a necessity for reaching a maximum number of participants. This, in turn, reduces the potential for customising the Tango according to the individual needs of each user. However, a number of possibilities still exist for tailoring the data collection processes to the user's own hospital workflow. One can choose between a purely paper-based set-up (with in-house scanning, data punching or mailing of forms to the data centre at the University of Bern) and completely paper-free online data entry. Many users work in a hybrid mode with online entry of surgical data and paper-based recording of the patients' perspectives using the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) questionnaires. Preoperatively, patients can complete their questionnaires in the outpatient clinic at the time of taking the decision about surgery or simply at the time of hospitalisation. Postoperative administration of patient data can involve questionnaire completion in the outpatient clinic, the handing over the forms at the time of discharge for their mailing back to the hospital later, sending out of questionnaires by post with a stamped addressed envelope for their return or, in exceptional circumstances, conducting telephone interviews. Eurospine encourages documentation of patient-based information before the hospitalisation period and surgeon-based information both before and during hospitalisation; both patient and surgeon data should be acquired for at least one follow-up, at a minimum of three to six months after surgery. In addition, all complications that occur after discharge, and their consequences should be recorded.

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.

Patient outcomes after laminotomy, hemilaminectomy, laminectomy and laminectomy with instrumented fusion for spinal canal stenosis: a propensity score-based study from the Spine Tango registry.

PURPOSE To compare patient outcomes and complication rates after different decompression techniques or instrumented fusion (IF) in lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). METHODS The multicentre study was based on Spine Tango data. Inclusion criteria were LSS with a posterior decompression and pre- and postoperative COMI assessment between 3 and 24 months. 1,176 cases were assigned to four groups: (1) laminotomy (n = 642), (2) hemilaminectomy (n = 196), (3) laminectomy (n = 230) and (4) laminectomy combined with an IF (n = 108). Clinical outcomes were achievement of minimum relevant change in COMI back and leg pain and COMI score (2.2 points), surgical and general complications, measures taken due to complications, and reintervention on the index level based on patient information. The inverse propensity score weighting method was used for adjustment. RESULTS Laminotomy, hemilaminectomy and laminectomy were significantly less beneficial than laminectomy in combination with IF regarding leg pain (ORs with 95% CI 0.52, 0.34-0.81; 0.25, 0.15-0.41; 0.44, 0.27-0.72, respectively) and COMI score improvement (ORs with 95% CI 0.51, 0.33-0.81; 0.30, 0.18-0.51; 0.48, 0.29-0.79, respectively). However, the sole decompressions caused significantly fewer surgical (ORs with 95% CI 0.42, 0.26-0.69; 0.33, 0.17-0.63; 0.39, 0.21-0.71, respectively) and general complications (ORs with 95% CI 0.11, 0.04-0.29; 0.03, 0.003-0.41; 0.25, 0.09-0.71, respectively) than laminectomy in combination with IF. Accordingly, the likelihood of required measures was also significantly lower after laminotomy (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.17-0.46), hemilaminectomy (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.15-0.53) and after laminectomy (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.22-0.68) in comparison with laminectomy with IF. The likelihood of a reintervention was not significantly different between the treatment groups. DISCUSSION As already demonstrated in the literature, decompression in patients with LSS is a very effective treatment. Despite better patient outcomes after laminectomy in combination with IF, caution is advised due to higher rates of surgical and general complications and consequent required measures. Based on the current study, laminotomy or laminectomy, rather than hemilaminectomy, is recommendable for minimum relevant pain relief.

Total disc arthroplasty versus anterior cervical interbody fusion: use of the Spine Tango registry to supplement the evidence from randomized control trials.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have compared patient outcomes of anterior (cervical) interbody fusion (AIF) with those of total disc arthroplasty (TDA). Because RCTs have known limitations with regard to their external validity, the comparative effectiveness of the two therapies in daily practice remains unknown. PURPOSE This study aimed to compare patient-reported outcomes after TDA versus AIF based on data from an international spine registry. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING A retrospective analysis of registry data was carried out. PATIENT SAMPLE Inclusion criteria were degenerative disc or disc herniation of the cervical spine treated by single-level TDA or AIF, no previous surgery, and a Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) completed at baseline and at least 3 months' follow-up. Overall, 987 patients were identified. OUTCOME MEASURES Neck and arm pain relief and COMI score improvement were the outcome measures. METHODS Three separate analyses were performed to compare TDA and AIF surgical outcomes: (1) mimicking an RCT setting, with admission criteria typical of those in published RCTs, a 1:1 matched analysis was carried out in 739 patients; (2) an analysis was performed on 248 patients outside the classic RCT spectrum, that is, with one or more typical RCT exclusion criteria; (3) a subgroup analysis of all patients with additional follow-up longer than 2 years (n=149). RESULTS Matching resulted in 190 pairs with an average follow-up of 17 months that had no residual significant differences for any patient characteristics. Small but statistically significant differences in outcome were observed in favor of TDA, which are potentially clinically relevant. Subgroup analyses of atypical patients and of patients with longer-term follow-up showed no significant differences in outcome between the treatments. CONCLUSIONS The results of this observational study were in accordance with those of the published RCTs, suggesting substantial pain reduction both after AIF and TDA, with slightly greater benefit after arthroplasty. The analysis of atypical patients suggested that, in patients outside the spectrum of clinical trials, both surgical interventions appeared to work to a similar extent to that shown for the cohort in the matched study. Also, in the longer-term perspective, both therapies resulted in similar benefits to the patients.

Comparative effectiveness research across two spine registries

Comparative effectiveness research in spine surgery is still a rarity. In this study, pain alleviation and quality of life (QoL) improvement after lumbar total disc arthroplasty (TDA) and anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) were anonymously compared by surgeon and implant.

The rationale for a spine registry

In the discussion about the rationale for spine registries, two basic questions have to be answered. The first one deals with the value of orthopaedic registries per se, considering them as observational studies and comparing the evidence they generate with that of randomised controlled trials. The second question asks if the need for registries in spine surgery is similar to that in the arthroplasty sector. The widely held view that randomised controlled trials are the 'gold standard' for evaluation and that observational methods have little or no value ignores the limitations of randomised trials. They may prove unnecessary, inappropriate, impossible, or inadequate. In addition, the external validity and hence the ability to make generalisations about the results of randomised trials is often low. Therefore, the false conflict between those who advocate randomised trials in all situations and those who believe observational data provide sufficient evidence needs to be replaced with mutual recognition of their complementary roles. The fact that many surgical techniques or technologies were introduced into the field of spine surgery without randomised trials or prospective cohort comparisons makes obvious an even increased need for spine registries compared to joint arthroplasty. An essential methodological prerequisite for a registry is a common terminology for reporting results and a sophisticated technology that networks all participants so that one central data pool is created and accessed. Recognising this need, the Spine Society of Europe has researched and developed Spine Tango, the first European spine registry, which can be accessed under www.eurospine.org.

BETASCAN: probable beta-amyloids identified by pairwise probabilistic analysis

Amyloids and prion proteins are clinically and biologically important beta-structures, whose supersecondary structures are difficult to determine by standard experimental or computational means. In addition, significant conformational heterogeneity is known or suspected to exist in many amyloid fibrils. Recent work has indicated the utility of pairwise probabilistic statistics in beta-structure prediction. We develop here a new strategy for beta-structure prediction, emphasizing the determination of beta-strands and pairs of beta-strands as fundamental units of beta-structure. Our program, BETASCAN, calculates likelihood scores for potential beta-strands and strand-pairs based on correlations observed in parallel beta-sheets. The program then determines the strands and pairs with the greatest local likelihood for all of the sequence's potential beta-structures. BETASCAN suggests multiple alternate folding patterns and assigns relative a priori probabilities based solely on amino acid sequence, probability tables, and pre-chosen parameters. The algorithm compares favorably with the results of previous algorithms (BETAPRO, PASTA, SALSA, TANGO, and Zyggregator) in beta-structure prediction and amyloid propensity prediction. Accurate prediction is demonstrated for experimentally determined amyloid beta-structures, for a set of known beta-aggregates, and for the parallel beta-strands of beta-helices, amyloid-like globular proteins. BETASCAN is able both to detect beta-strands with higher sensitivity and to detect the edges of beta-strands in a richly beta-like sequence. For two proteins (Abeta and Het-s), there exist multiple sets of experimental data implying contradictory structures; BETASCAN is able to detect each competing structure as a potential structure variant. The ability to correlate multiple alternate beta-structures to experiment opens the possibility of computational investigation of prion strains and structural heterogeneity of amyloid. BETASCAN is publicly accessible on the Web at http://betascan.csail.mit.edu.

Patient-rated Outcomes of Lumbar Fusion in Patients with Degenerative Disease of the Lumbar Spine: Does Age Matter?

Introduction: Current demographic changes are characterized by population aging, such that the surgical treatment of degenerative spine conditions in the elderly is gaining increasing relevance. However, there is a general reluctance to consider spinal fusion procedures in this patient age group due to the increased likelihood of complications. The aim of this study was to assess the patient-rated outcome and complication rates associated with lumbar fusion procedures in three different age groups. Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from consecutive patients who underwent first-time, one to three level posterior instrumented fusion between 2004 and 2011, due to degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Data were obtained from our Spine Surgery Outcomes Database (linked to the International Spine Tango Register). Before surgery, patients completed the multidimensional Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI), and at 3 and 12 months after surgery they completed the COMI and rated the Global Treatment Outcome (GTO) and their satisfaction with care. Patients were divided into three groups according to their age: younger (≥50y <65y; n = 317), older (≥65y <80y; n = 350), and geriatric (≥ 80y; n = 40). Results: 707 consecutive patients were included. The preoperative comorbidity status differed significantly (p < 0.0001) between the age groups, with the highest scores in the geriatric group. General medical complications during surgery were lower in the younger age group (7%) than in the older (13.4%; p = 0.006) and geriatric groups (17.5%; p = 0.007). Duration of hospital stay was longer (p = 0.006) in the older group (10.8 ± 3.7 days) than the younger (10.0 ± 3.6 days) group. There were no significant group differences (p>0.05) for any of the COMI domains covering pain, function, symptom specific well-being, general quality of life, and social and work disability at either 3 months’ or 12 months’ follow-up. Similarly, there were no differences (p>0.05) between the age groups for GTO and patient-rated satisfaction at either follow-up. Conclusions: Preoperative comorbidity and general medical complications during lumbar fusion for degenerative disorders of the lumbar spine are both greater in geriatric patients than in younger patients. However, patient-rated outcome is as good in the elderly as it is in younger age groups. These data suggest that geriatric age per se is not a contraindication to instrumented fusion for lumbar degenerative disease.

Patient-Rated Outcomes of Lumbar Fusion in Patients with Degenerative Disease of the Lumbar Spine: Does Age Matter?

STUDY DESIGN Single centre retrospective study of prospectively collected data, nested within the Eurospine Spine Tango data acquisition system. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to assess the patient-rated outcome and complication rates associated with lumbar fusion procedures in three different age groups. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA There is a general reluctance to consider spinal fusion procedures in elderly patients due to the increased likelihood of complications. METHODS Before and at 3, 12, and 24 months after surgery, patients completed the multidimensional Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI). At the 3-, 12-, and 24-month follow-ups they also rated the Global Treatment Outcome (GTO) and their satisfaction with care. Patients were divided into three age groups: younger (≥50y < 65y; n = 317), older (≥65y < 80y; n = 350), and geriatric (≥ 80y; n = 40). RESULTS 707 consecutive patients were included. The preoperative comorbidity status differed significantly (p < 0.0001) between the age groups, with the highest scores in the geriatric group. Medical complications during surgery were lower in the younger age group (7%) than in the older (13.4%; p = 0.006) and geriatric groups (17.5%; p = 0.007); surgical complications tended to be higher in the elderly group (younger, 6.3%; older, 6.0%; geriatric, 15.0%; p = 0.09). There were no significant group differences (p > 0.05) for the scores on any of the COMI domains, GTO, or patient-rated satisfaction at either 3-, 12-, and 24-months follow-up. CONCLUSIONS Despite greater comorbidity and complication rates in geriatric patients, the patient-rated outcome was as good in the elderly as it was in younger age groups up to two years after surgery. These data indicate that geriatric age needs careful consideration of associated risks but is not per se a contraindication for fusion for lumbar degenerative disease. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE 4.