Necessary or unnecessary? a critical glance on spine surgery

Patients with complaints and symptoms caused by spinal degenerative diseases demonstrate a high rate of spontaneous improvement. Except of severe neurological symptoms such as high grade motor deficits, medically intractable pain and vegetative symptoms (cauda syndrome) operations require 1) symptoms, 2) a mechanical cause visible on imaging that sufficiently explains the symptoms, 3) a completed conservative treatment protocol performed over a 4) 6-12 week period. According to the evidence found in the literature, patients with lumbar disk herniation significantly benefit from surgery by a faster relieve of pain and return to social and professional activity, however, the results are converging after a period of 1-2 years. Surgery of lumbar spinal stenosis is considered a gold standard and superior to conservative care when symptoms are severe and leg pain is present. Bilateral microsurgical decompression using a bilateral or a unilateral approach with over-the-top decompression of the contralateral nerve root are superior to laminectomy as the decompression procedure. Lumbar fusion is only indicated in patients with spinal stenosis when a major or mobile spondylolisthesis is diagnosed. There is no indication of prophylactic surgery to avoid a "dangerous" deficit that might develop in the future.

Differences across health care systems in outcome and cost-utility of surgical and conservative treatment of chronic low back pain: a study protocol

BACKGROUND: There is little evidence on differences across health care systems in choice and outcome of the treatment of chronic low back pain (CLBP) with spinal surgery and conservative treatment as the main options. At least six randomised controlled trials comparing these two options have been performed; they show conflicting results without clear-cut evidence for superior effectiveness of any of the evaluated interventions and could not address whether treatment effect varied across patient subgroups. Cost-utility analyses display inconsistent results when comparing surgical and conservative treatment of CLBP. Due to its higher feasibility, we chose to conduct a prospective observational cohort study. METHODS: This study aims to examine if1. Differences across health care systems result in different treatment outcomes of surgical and conservative treatment of CLBP2. Patient characteristics (work-related, psychological factors, etc.) and co-interventions (physiotherapy, cognitive behavioural therapy, return-to-work programs, etc.) modify the outcome of treatment for CLBP3. Cost-utility in terms of quality-adjusted life years differs between surgical and conservative treatment of CLBP.This study will recruit 1000 patients from orthopaedic spine units, rehabilitation centres, and pain clinics in Switzerland and New Zealand. Effectiveness will be measured by the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) at baseline and after six months. The change in ODI will be the primary endpoint of this study.Multiple linear regression models will be used, with the change in ODI from baseline to six months as the dependent variable and the type of health care system, type of treatment, patient characteristics, and co-interventions as independent variables. Interactions will be incorporated between type of treatment and different co-interventions and patient characteristics. Cost-utility will be measured with an index based on EQol-5D in combination with cost data. CONCLUSION: This study will provide evidence if differences across health care systems in the outcome of treatment of CLBP exist. It will classify patients with CLBP into different clinical subgroups and help to identify specific target groups who might benefit from specific surgical or conservative interventions. Furthermore, cost-utility differences will be identified for different groups of patients with CLBP. Main results of this study should be replicated in future studies on CLBP.

The value of conservative treatment in ruptures of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL)

BACKGROUND: Thirty-eight of the 73 consecutive acute ruptures of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) proven by a magnetic resonance imaging scan (MRI) in skeletally mature patients (16-55 years old) were classified as suitable for primarily conservative treatment. Patient selection was performed using a preoperative screening protocol based on the structural damage, clinical symptoms, compliance, sportive activity, and the consent of a well-informed patient. METHODS: In 12 of the 38 treated patients, the conservative protocol showed a good to very good outcome, 2 patients had persistent giving-way and were considering ACL reconstruction, 14 patients had a secondary ACL reconstruction in our clinic (average 5.3 months after injury), 9 patients were operated on in other hospitals (average 13.3 months after injury), and 1 patient was lost to follow-up. RESULTS: All patients with successful conservative treatment were able to perform low-risk pivoting sports and two patients are practicing high-risk pivoting sports. The average International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score was 92.5 (82.8-98.9); the subjective overall knee function was 93% (60% to 100%). Of the 12 patients with good and very good results, 6 continued playing the same sports at an unreduced intensity, 4 patients reduced their activities slightly, and 1 patient played more sports than before. CONCLUSIONS: Although the authors performed a preoperative screening to select patients suitable for conservative treatment, almost two-thirds of the primarily conservatively treated ACL ruptures needed an operative reconstruction in the long term. In one-third of the patients, conservative treatment led to a good or very good result. At the endpoint of the study only 12 (16%) of a total of 73 patients with acute injuries of the ACL had successful conservative treatment. Therefore, patients must be comprehensively instructed about the treatment program and the chances of success of conservative ACL treatment.

Organized inpatient (stroke unit) care in very old patients

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: It is unclear whether very old patients benefit from organized inpatient (stroke unit) care. The aim of this work was to compare the clinical outcome of patients with first-ever ischemic stroke aged either >or=80 or <80 years who were treated conservatively (without cerebral revascularization) in a university-based stroke unit. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We included 147 (11%) patients >or=80 years and 1241 (89%) patients, <80 years. All patients underwent clinical examination, blood tests, electrocardiography (ECG), brain imaging and cerebrovascular ultrasound. Additional investigations were done at the discretion of the treating physician. The modified Rankin scale (mRS) score was used to assess the 3-month outcome (favorable: mRS, 0-1; poor: mRS, 2-6; death of any cause). RESULTS: Stroke severity did not differ between both groups [median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score, 4]. Younger patients underwent magnetic resonance (MR) imaging of the brain, MR and catheter angiography and echocardiography (p<0.001) more frequently, whereas older patients underwent computed tomography of the brain and 24-hour ECG (p<0.001) more frequently. Stroke prevention included clopidogrel (p<0.001) and heparin (p=0.047) more often in older patients and aspirin (p=0.016) in younger patients. Recurrent ischemic events were similarly frequent in old (7%) and young (5%) patients. Favorable outcome was equally prevalent in old (71%) and young (76%) patients, whereas mortality was higher in older patients (7 and 3%, p=0.007). Admission NIHSS score >or=12 was the only independent predictor of unfavorable outcome (odds ratio, 19.6; 95% confidence interval, 9.7-39.6; p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Our work provides further evidence that also the oldest patients may benefit from conservative stroke unit care.