Objective. To determine consensus among an international, multidisciplinary group of experts regarding defini-tions of spinal osteoarthritis for research and for clinical practice.Methods. A 15... Show moreObjective. To determine consensus among an international, multidisciplinary group of experts regarding defini-tions of spinal osteoarthritis for research and for clinical practice.Methods. A 15-member, multidisciplinary steering committee generated 117 statements for a 3-round Delphi study. Experts in back pain and/or osteoarthritis were identified and invited to participate. In round 1, participants could propose additional statements for voting. All statements were rated on a 1-9 Likert scale, and consensus was set at >= 70% of respondents agreeing or disagreeing with the statement and < 15% of respondents providing the opposite response.Results. In total, 255 experts from 11 different professional backgrounds were invited. From 173 available experts, 116 consented to participate. In round 1, 103 participants completed the survey, followed by 85 of 111 participants in round 2 (77%) and 87 of 101 participants in round 3 (86%). One-third of participants were from Europe (30%), most were male (58%), one-fifth were physical therapists (21%), and over one-third had been in their profession for 11-20 years (35%). Of 131 statements, consensus was achieved for 71 statements (54%): 53 in agreement (75%) and 18 in disagreement (25%).Conclusion. Although there was consensus for statements for definitions of spinal osteoarthritis that were analogous to definitions of osteoarthritis in appendicular joints, a future definition still needs refinement. Importantly, this Delphi highlighted that a future definition should be considered across a spectrum of structural changes and patient symptoms and expressed on a progressive scale. Show less
Gadjradj, P.S.; Harhangi, B.S.; Amelink, J.; Susante, J. van; Kamper, S.; Tulder, M. van; ... ; Rubinstein, S.M. 2021
Study Design. Systematic review and meta-analysis. Objective. To give a systematic overview of effectiveness of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) compared with open... Show moreStudy Design. Systematic review and meta-analysis. Objective. To give a systematic overview of effectiveness of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) compared with open microdiscectomy (OM) in the treatment of lumbar disk herniation (LDH). Summary of Background Data. The current standard procedure for the treatment of sciatica caused by LDH, is OM. PTED is an alternative surgical technique which is thought to be less invasive. It is unclear if PTED has comparable outcomes compared with OM. Methods. Multiple online databases were systematically searched up to April 2020 for randomized controlled trials and prospective studies comparing PTED with OM for LDH. Primary outcomes were leg pain and functional status. Pooled effect estimates were calculated for the primary outcomes only and presented as standard mean differences (SMD) with their 95% confidence intervals (CI) at short (1-day postoperative), intermediate (3-6 months), and long-term (12 months). Results. We identified 2276 citations, of which eventually 14 studies were included. There was substantial heterogeneity in effects on leg pain at short term. There is moderate quality evidence suggesting no difference in leg pain at intermediate (SMD 0.05, 95% CI -0.10-0.21) and long-term follow-up (SMD 0.11, 95% CI -0.30-0.53). Only one study measured functional status at short-term and reported no differences. There is moderate quality evidence suggesting no difference in functional status at intermediate (SMD -0.09, 95% CI -0.24-0.07) and long-term (SMD -0.11, 95% CI -0.45-0.24). Conclusion. There is moderate quality evidence suggesting no difference in leg pain or functional status at intermediate and long-term follow-up between PTED and OM in the treatment of LDH. High quality, robust studies reporting on clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness on the long term are lacking. Show less
IntroductionLumbar spinal decompression procedures are well known in their techniques and outcomes. However, outcomes of lumbar spinal surgery in patients with obesity are relatively unknown. The... Show moreIntroductionLumbar spinal decompression procedures are well known in their techniques and outcomes. However, outcomes of lumbar spinal surgery in patients with obesity are relatively unknown. The aim of this review is to assess the effect of obesity on post-operative outcomes of lumbar non-instrumented decompressive spinal surgery.Methods and materialsA literature search through PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane was performed. Articles were included if they reported outcomes of obese patients after non-instrumented lumbar decompression surgery, if these outcomes were described using patient-reported outcome measures and if there was at least two months of follow-up. Risk of bias was assessed using an adjusted version of the Cowley score.ResultsFrom the 222 unique articles, 14 articles, comprising 13,653 patients, met the inclusion criteria. Eight out of 14 studies had a low risk of bias, while the remaining six had an intermediate risk of bias. Thirteen studies evaluated leg and back pain, and the vast majority demonstrated less decrease in pain in the obese group. Six studies evaluated disability and all but one showed less improvement in obese patients. Five studies evaluated functionality and wellbeing and all but one showed less satisfactory outcome in obese patients.ConclusionsLiterature does not reveal a difference in clinical outcome nor in complications in patients undergoing non-instrumented lumbar surgery with a BMI lower than 30 or equal to or higher than 30. This may be used by physicians to inform patients prior to lumbar decompression surgery. Show less
Objective:To develop and validate an outcome scale for the cervical radicular syndrome and to build a mapping, predicting EQ-5D utility from the new scale. Study design and setting:An item pool was... Show moreObjective:To develop and validate an outcome scale for the cervical radicular syndrome and to build a mapping, predicting EQ-5D utility from the new scale. Study design and setting:An item pool was developed based on literature and patient and clinician interviews. Item selection was based on symptomatology, factor analysis, and internal consistency. We assessed: (a) test-retest reliability by standard error of measurement and intraclass correlation coefficients; (b) construct validity by testing 22 hypotheses on relationships with existing measures and known-group differences. For the mapping, performance was assessed by mean absolute error and root mean squared error. Results:A total of 254 patients with cervical radicular syndrome completed the first questionnaire, 61 stable patients a retest. Item selection led to a 21-item questionnaire consisting of three subscales: Symptoms, Energy and postures, and Actions and activities. Standard error of measurement values ranged from 6.7 to 11.2 on a 0 to 100 scale. All subscales showed good reliability (intraclass correlation coefficients: 0.84, 0.87, and 0.94). All hypotheses for construct validity were confirmed. A linear utility mapping was preferred, with reasonable statistical performance. Conclusion:We developed a reliable and valid cervical radicular syndrome specific outcome scale, called the Cervical Radiculopathy Impact Scale (CRIS). This new questionnaire may facilitate (cost-)effectiveness studies in this field. Show less
Verheijen, E.; Munts, A.G.; Haagen, O. van; Vries, D. de; Dekkers, O.; Hout, W. van den; Vleggeert-Lankamp, C. 2019
