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.

Biomechanical analysis of torsion and shear forces in lumbar and lumbosacral spine segments of nonchondrodystrophic dogs

OBJECTIVE: To determine stiffness and load-displacement curves as a biomechanical response to applied torsion and shear forces in cadaveric canine lumbar and lumbosacral specimens. STUDY DESIGN: Biomechanical study. ANIMALS: Caudal lumbar and lumbosacral functional spine units (FSU) of nonchondrodystrophic large-breed dogs (n=31) with radiographically normal spines. METHODS: FSU from dogs without musculoskeletal disease were tested in torsion in a custom-built spine loading simulator with 6 degrees of freedom, which uses orthogonally mounted electric motors to apply pure axial rotation. For shear tests, specimens were mounted to a custom-made shear-testing device, driven by a servo hydraulic testing machine. Load-displacement curves were recorded for torsion and shear. RESULTS: Left and right torsion stiffness was not different within each FSU level; however, torsional stiffness of L7-S1 was significantly smaller compared with lumbar FSU (L4-5-L6-7). Ventral/dorsal stiffness was significantly different from lateral stiffness within an individual FSU level for L5-6, L6-7, and L7-S1 but not for L4-5. When the data from 4 tested shear directions from the same specimen were pooled, level L5-6 was significantly stiffer than L7-S1. CONCLUSIONS: Increased range of motion of the lumbosacral joint is reflected by an overall decreased shear and rotational stiffness at the lumbosacral FSU. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Data from dogs with disc degeneration have to be collected, analyzed, and compared with results from our chondrodystrophic large-breed dogs with radiographically normal spines.

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.