DOCSLIB.ORG

The Treatment of Cervical Dysfunction with Thoracic Spine

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Treatment of Cervical Dysfunction with Thoracic Spine VALIDATION OF A CLINICAL PREDICTION RULE TO IDENTIFY PATIENTS LIKELY TO BENEFIT FROM SPINAL MANIPULATION: A RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIAL by John David Childs BS, Biology, U.S. Air Force Academy, 1994 MPT, Physical Therapy, U.S. Army-Baylor University, 1996 MBA, Business, University of Arizona, 2000 MS, Musculoskeletal Physical Therapy, University of Pittsburgh, 2002 Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Pittsburgh 2003 i UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH SCHOOL OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATION SCIENCES This dissertation was presented by John D. Childs It was defended on June 24th, 2003 and approved by ___________________________________________ Julie M. Fritz, PhD, PT, ATC (Dissertation Chair) Assistant Professor Department of Physical Therapy, University of Pittsburgh ___________________________________________ Timothy W. Flynn, PhD, PT, OCS, FAAOMPT Program Director and Associate Professor, US Army-Baylor University Graduate Program in Physical Therapy ___________________________________________ James J. Irrgang, PhD, PT, ATC Assistant Professor and Vice Chairman for Clinical Services, Department of Physical Therapy, University of Pittsburgh and Vice President of QI and Outcomes and Director of Sports and Orthopaedic Physical Therapy, Centers for Rehab Services ___________________________________________ Anthony Delitto, PhD, PT, FAPTA Associate Professor and Chair Department of Physical Therapy, University of Pittsburgh ii Copyright by John D. Childs 2003 iii VALIDATION OF A CLINICAL PREDICTION RULE TO IDENTIFY PATIENTS LIKELY TO BENEFIT FROM SPINAL MANIPULATION: A RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIAL John D. Childs, PhD University of Pittsburgh, 2003 Purpose: The primary aim of this study was to validate a clinical prediction rule (CPR) to identify patients with low back pain (LBP) likely to benefit from spinal manipulation. Subjects: 131 consecutive patients referred for physical therapy. Patients with positive neurologic signs or other red flags for spinal manipulation were excluded. Method: A multicenter, randomized clinical trial. After completing a standardized history and physical examination, patients were randomly assigned to receive spinal manipulation (n=70) or a stabilization exercise intervention (n=61). Patients were seen in physical therapy twice the first week, then once a week for the next three weeks, for a total of five sessions. A single manipulative intervention was used for patients who received spinal manipulation during each of the first two sessions, who then completed the stabilization exercise intervention for the remaining three weeks. Patients who achieved at least a 50% improvement in their Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (ODQ) score were classified as a success. Patients who met at least 4/5 criteria in the CPR were classified as positive. Analyses: A 2*2*3 repeated measures multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was performed, followed by a Bonferroni procedure for planned comparisons. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR) with associated 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Results: There was a significant three-way CPR*Intervention*Time interaction for the overall repeated measures MANOVA (p<.001). Patients classified as positive on the CPR and received spinal manipulation achieved 2.5 times the minimum clinically important difference iv (MCID) on the ODQ compared to patients classified as negative on the CPR and received spinal manipulation and 3.4 times the MCID compared to patients classified as positive on the CPR but received the stabilization exercise intervention (p<.001). These results were maintained at the four-week follow-up (p<.003). With a positive LR of 13.2 (3.4, 52.1) and based on a pre-test probability of success of 44.3%, this translates into a post-test probability of success of 91.2%. Conclusions: The results of this study support the validity of the spinal manipulation CPR. Clinical Relevance: Clinicians can accurately identify patients with LBP likely to benefit from spinal manipulation. v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Thank you to our fearless leader and department chair, Tony Delitto. Tony taught me how to stay out of people’s way and let them excel, just sticking your head in as needed to tear down the “red tape” that often stands in the way of progress. There is no better mentor or leader in our profession. It has been a privilege to be a small part of the Pittsburgh family. Many opportunities have been placed in my path simply based on being associated with many of the best in our profession. Thank you to my dissertation chair and adviser, Julie Fritz, for your being more than a mentor, but a genuine friend who works harder than almost anyone I know. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to run with a great project. I’m looking forward to years or friendship and working together. Thank you to my good friend and clinical mentor, Dick Erhard, who taught me much about how to treat patients and a little about everything else in life. There’s not much this man doesn’t know. By the way, now when is it that you are going to retire? Thank you to Jay Irrgang and Kelly Fitzgerald for introducing me to the PhD-level research process. You both have been first class mentors. Jay, you are a no-sleep machine. Kelly, you taught me how to never give up on a research question that deserves an answer. Thank you to my first clinical mentor and boss, Kevin Johnson, who gave me countless opportunities to grow professionally. Although Tim Flynn recently coined the phrase, Kevin was the first to show me to just “manip, and move on”. He is also a subject recruiting machine. Thank you to all of the physical therapists who assisted me with data collection. I could not have been successful without you: Kevin Johnson, Guy Majkowski, Maria West, Evan Kelley, David Browder, Mike Blowers, Sherri Morrow, Brian Langford, Jeff McGuire, Cory Middel, Trevor Petrou, and Kelly Rhoden. Thank you to one of my best friends and doctoral colleague, Sara Piva, who is almost as unable as I am to say “No” to a new project or adventure. This experience would not have been nearly as enjoyable if it weren’t for your friendship. I look forward to years of working together. Thank you to my friends and physical therapy colleagues from the military. To Rob Wainner, who, upon my being selected by the Air Force to pursue a PhD, let me know that Pitt was really the only program to consider. Your counsel was truly wise. To Tim Flynn, the “recovering biomechanist”, it has been a privilege having you my committee. You are one of the few who is a master clinician and researcher, all in one package. Julie Whitman, you’ve been a great friend and colleague with energy that doesn’t stop. Andrew Bennett, as a very young therapist, you’ve raised the bar for clinical excellence, showing me just how good a clinician can be. At the risk of forgetting someone, I’d like to thank a number of faculty, former doctoral colleagues, and other physical therapists that I’ve had the privilege of working with and getting vi to know at the University of Pittsburgh. You each have made a unique impact on my life: Steve George, Greg Hicks, Michelle Vignovic, Tara Ridge, Erica Baum, Joel Robb, Christian Lyons, David Browder, Pat Sparto, Jen Brach, and Kathy Kelly. Thank you to each of my parents for their unique contribution to my being able to succeed, but especially to Mom, who set an example on how to pursue excellence in everything you do. Thank you to my wonderful children, Emma and Lauren, who, although didn’t fully understand what Daddy was up to, patiently let me work from home. They had to listen to me say too many times, “I’ll be with you in just a little while.” I look forward to saying that much less often. Their rarely being impressed with anything I might do professionally helps me realize what really matters most in life. Thank you to my beautiful wife, Amy. You sacrificed countless hours of your own time letting me pursue my dreams. You made a decision early after our graduation from the Academy that becoming a fighter pilot had the potential to place an excessive burden on our family. Just as you already are as my wife and Mommy to our girls, no one doubts that you would have been among the “best of the best”. Many call it a sacrifice, but you see it simply as a blessing. Only our children and I can truly appreciate the impact of your decision in the short run. However, the passage of time through the legacy you leave will uncover you selflessness and dedication to our family for generations to come. I love you more than you will ever know. And lastly and most importantly, thank you to my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ for the provision of an opportunity to accomplish a dream. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Statement of the Problem.......................................................................................................................... 21 2. Background and Significance.................................................................................................................... 22 2.1 Prevalence and Costs Associated with LBP......................................................................................... 22 2.2 Attempts to Identify Effective Interventions for Low Back Pain............................................................ 22 2.3 Lumbopelvic Region Dysfunction a Potential Subgroup of Low Back Pain .......................................... 23
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Modified Plate-Only Open-Door Laminoplasty Versus Laminectomy and Fusion for the Treatment of Cervical Stenotic Myelopathy
    n Feature Article Modified Plate-only Open-door Laminoplasty Versus Laminectomy and Fusion for the Treatment of Cervical Stenotic Myelopathy LILI YANG, MD; YIFEI GU, MD; JUEQIAN SHI, MD; RUI GAO, MD; YANG LIU, MD; JUN LI, MD; WEN YUAN, MD, PHD abstract Full article available online at Healio.com/Orthopedics. Search: 20121217-23 The purpose of this study was to compare modified plate-only laminoplasty and lami- nectomy and fusion to confirm which of the 2 surgical modalities could achieve a better decompression outcome and whether a significant difference was found in postopera- tive complications. Clinical data were retrospectively reviewed for 141 patients with cervical stenotic myelopathy who underwent plate-only laminoplasty and laminectomy and fusion between November 2007 and June 2010. The extent of decompression was assessed by measuring the cross-sectional area of the dural sac and the distance of spinal cord drift at the 3 most narrowed levels on T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. Clinical outcomes and complications were also recorded and compared. Significant en- largement of the dural sac area and spinal cord drift was achieved and well maintained in both groups, but the extent of decompression was greater in patients who underwent Figure: T2-weighted magnetic resonance image laminectomy and fusion; however, a greater decompression did not seem to produce a showing the extent of decompression assessed by better clinical outcome. No significant difference was observed in Japanese Orthopaedic measuring the cross-sectional area of the dural sac Association and Nurick scores between the 2 groups. Patients who underwent plate-only (arrow). laminoplasty showed a better improvement in Neck Dysfunction Index and visual ana- log scale scores.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 Spine Coding Basics
    2019 Spine Coding Basics Presenter: Kerri Larson, CPC Directory of Coding and Audit Services 2019 Spine Surgery 01 Spine Surgery Terminology & Anatomy 02 Spine Procedures 03 Case Study 04 Diagnosis 05 Q & A Spine Surgery Terminology & Anatomy Spine Surgery Terminology & Anatomy Term Definition Arthrodesis Fusion, or permanent joining, of a joint, or point of union of two musculoskeletal structures, such as two bones Surgical procedure that replaces missing bone with material from the patient's own body, or from an artificial, synthetic, or Bone grafting natural substitute Corpectomy Surgical excision of the main body of a vertebra, one of the interlocking bones of the back. Cerebrospinal The protective body fluid present in the dura, the membrane covering the brain and spinal cord fluid or CSF Decompression A procedure to remove pressure on a structure. Diskectomy, Surgical removal of all or a part of an intervertebral disc. discectomy Dura Outermost of the three layers that surround the brain and spinal cord. Electrode array Device that contains multiple plates or electrodes. Electronic pulse A device that produces low voltage electrical pulses, with a regular or intermittent waveform, that creates a mild tingling or generator or massaging sensation that stimulates the nerve pathways neurostimulator Spine Surgery Terminology & Anatomy Term Definition The space that surrounds the dura, which is the outermost layer of membrane that surrounds the spinal canal. The epidural space houses the Epidural space spinal nerve roots, blood and lymphatic vessels, and fatty tissues . Present inside the skull but outside the dura mater, which is the thick, outermost membrane covering the brain or within the spine but outside Extradural the dural sac enclosing the spinal cord, nerve roots and spinal fluid.
    [Show full text]
  • Analysis of the Cervical Spine Alignment Following Laminoplasty and Laminectomy
    Spinal Cord (1999) 37, 20± 24 ã 1999 International Medical Society of Paraplegia All rights reserved 1362 ± 4393/99 $12.00 http://www.stockton-press.co.uk/sc Analysis of the cervical spine alignment following laminoplasty and laminectomy Shunji Matsunaga1, Takashi Sakou1 and Kenji Nakanisi2 1Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Kagoshima University; 2Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Kagoshima University, Sakuragaoka, Kagoshima, Japan Very little detailed biomechanical examination of the alignment of the cervical spine following laminoplasty has been reported. We performed a comparative study regarding the buckling- type alignment that follows laminoplasty and laminectomy to know the mechanical changes in the alignment of the cervical spine. Lateral images of plain roentgenograms of the cervical spine were put into a computer and examined using a program we developed for analysis of the buckling-type alignment. Sixty-four patients who underwent laminoplasty and 37 patients who underwent laminectomy were reviewed retrospectively. The subjects comprised patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) and those with ossi®cation of the posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL). The postoperative observation period was 6 years and 7 months on average after laminectomy, and 5 years and 6 months on average following laminoplasty. Development of the buckling-type alignment was found in 33% of patients following laminectomy and only 6% after laminoplasty. Development of buckling-type alignment following laminoplasty appeared markedly less than following laminectomy in both CSM and OPLL patients. These results favor laminoplasty over laminectomy from the aspect of mechanics. Keywords: laminoplasty; laminectomy; buckling; kyphosis; swan-neck deformity Introduction In 1930, Eiselberg1 reported a case of postoperative of postoperative abnormal alignment from the aspect kyphosis of the spine following laminectomy from the of the presence or absence of buckling-type alignment.
    [Show full text]
  • Lumbar Laminectomy
    Patient Education Lumbar Laminectomy Description The spine consists of five separate divisions: cervical (seven vertebrae), thoracic (12 vertebrae), lumbar (five vertebrae), the sacrum, and the coccyx. Each vertebra, interlocks with the segment above and below it through the superior and inferior articular processes. Between each vertebra is an intervertebral disc that provides cushioning for the spine. The lamina and pedicle, along with the vertebral body, provide the borders that create the spinal canal, which the spinal cord runs through to transmit nerve signals. There are several different scenarios or conditions that may produce symptoms that would lead your physician to further Medical Illustration © 2016 Nucleus Medical Art, Inc. investigate, and possibly recommend this surgery. Stenosis causing Radicular Pain Spinal stenosis is the narrowing of the articular spaces within the spine; this may impinge on the nerves or the spinal cord. This is a degenerative process and may eventually lead to further changes on the spine over time. Radicular symptoms are pain, numbness, weakness, tingling, etc., that radiate along a specific nerve root (or dermatome) to other parts of the body outside of the spine. Surgical correction of this problem may include a minimally invasive decompression (shaving bone away to create more space around the nerve), often referred to as laminectomy (removing part or all of the lamina in order to provide more space and relieve impingement). In some cases, movement of one vertebrae slipping against another (spondylolisthesis), may require a vertebral fusion. This may be performed open vs. minimally invasive. Disc Herniation Herniation of the intervertebral disc may be due to an acute traumatic incident.
    [Show full text]
  • Modern Advances in Joint Replacement and Rapid Recovery
    Modern Advances in Joint Replacement and Rapid Recovery UCSF Osher Mini-Med School Lecture Series Jeffrey Barry, M.D. Assistant Professor of Orthopaedic Surgery Division of Adult Reconstruction University of California, San Francisco Disclosures . No relevant disclosures to this talk About Me . Bay Area Native . UCSF - U Can Stay Forever Outline . Burden of Disease and Epidemiology . The Basics of Hip and Knee Replacement . What’s improving over the last decade - Longevity - Pain Management - Hospital Stay - Thromboembolism prophylaxis - Risk Reduction Question What is the most common inpatient surgery performed in the US? 1. Percutaneous coronary angioplasty 2. Total hip replacement 3. Lumbar Laminectomy 4. Appendectomy 5. Total knee replacement Burden of Disease . Arthritis = most common cause of disability in the US . 22.7% of adults have doctor-diagnosed arthritis - 43.2% of patients with arthritis report activity limitations due to disease . By 2030: - 3.5 million TKA (673%) - 570,000 THA (174%) . Curve updated 2014 – just as predicted! Causes of Increased Utilization . Aging Population . Patients receiving arthroplasty at a younger age - Improvements in technology - Obesity Why Replace a Joint? Arthritis arthro – joint itis – inflammation What is Arthritis – Disease of Cartilage . Cartilage Degeneration - Pain - Limp - Swelling - Loss of range of motion - Eventual deformity Arthritis Affects on Your Life • Quality of Life • Independence • Movement, Walking, Exercise • Self-image • Self-esteem • Family Life • Sleep • Everything and Everybody Causes of Arthritis . Osteoarthritis - “wear and tear” . Inflammatory arthritis . Trauma, old fractures . Infection . Osteonecrosis - “lack of oxygen to the bone” . Childhood/ developmental disease Diagnosis . Clinical Symptoms + Radiographic . Radiographs – Standing or Weight bearing! . MRI is RARELY needed!!! - Expensive - Brings in other issues - Unnecessary treatment - Unnecessary explanations Knee Arthritis .
    [Show full text]
  • Lumbar Laminectomy Or Laminotomy
    Patient Instructions: Lumbar Laminectomy or Laminotomy Surgical Technique A lumbar laminectomy or laminotomy is a surgical approach performed from the back of the lumbar spine. It is usually done through an incision in the middle of the back. Using minimally invasive techniques a small window of bone is drilled in the lamina to allow the surgeon to unpinch the underlying nerves (laminotomy), or in more severe cases the bone is removed completely on both sides to allow nerves on both sides of the spinal canal to be decompressed (laminectomy). It is done using an operating microscope and microsurgical technique. It is used to treat spinal stenosis or lateral recess stenosis and alleviate the pain and/or numbness that occurs in a patients lower back or legs. It can many times be performed on an outpatient basis without the need for an overnight stay in a hospital. Before Surgery • Seven days prior to surgery, please do not take any anti-inflammatory NSAID medications (Celebrex, Ibuprofen, Aleve, Naprosyn, Advil, etc.) as this could prolong your bleeding time during surgery. • Do not eat or drink anything after midnight the day before surgery. This means nothing to drink the morning of surgery except you may take your normal medication with a sip of water if needed. This includes your blood pressure medicine, which in general should be taken. Consult your surgeon or primary care doctor regarding insulin if you take it. • Please do not be late to check in on the day of surgery or it may be cancelled. • Please bring your preoperative folder with you to the surgery and have it when you check in.
    [Show full text]
  • Long-Term Follow-Up Review of Patients Who Underwent Laminectomy for Lumbar Stenosis: a Prospective Study
    Long-term follow-up review of patients who underwent laminectomy for lumbar stenosis: a prospective study Manucher J. Javid, M.D., and Eldad J. Hadar, M.D. Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Wisconsin Hospital and Clinics, Madison, Wisconsin Object. Decompressive laminectomy for stenosis is the most common operation performed on the lumbar spine in older patients. This prospective study was designed to evaluate long-term results in patients with symptomatic lumbar stenosis. Methods. Between January 1984 and January 1995, 170 patients underwent surgery for lumbar stenosis (86 patients), lumbar stenosis and herniated disc (61 patients), or lateral recess stenosis (23 patients). The male/female ratio for each group was 43:43, 39:22, and 14:9, respectively. The average age for all groups was 61.4 years. For patients with lumbar stenosis, the success rate was 88.1% at 6 weeks and 86.7% at 6 months. For patients with lumbar stenosis and herniated disc, the success rate was 80% at 6 weeks and 77.6% at 6 months, with no statistically significant difference between the two groups. For patients with lateral recess stenosis, the success rate was 58.7% at 6 weeks and 63.6% at 6 months; however, the sample was not large enough to be statistically significant. One year after surgery a questionnaire was sent to all patients; 163 (95.9%) responded. The success rate in patients with stenosis had declined to 69.6%, which was significant (p = 0.012); the rate for patients with stenosis and herniated disc was 77.2%; and that for lateral recess stenosis was 65.2%.
    [Show full text]
  • Indications for Fusion Following Decompression for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis
    Neurosurg Focus 3 (2): Article 2, 1997 Indications for fusion following decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis Mark W. Fox, M.D., and Burton M. Onofrio, M.D. Neurosurgery Associates, Limited, St. Paul, Minnesota; and Department of Neurosurgery, The Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis is a common condition affecting middle-aged and elderly people. Significant controversy exists concerning the appropriate indications for fusion following decompressive surgery. The purpose of this report is to compare the clinical outcomes of patients who were and were not treated with fusion following decompressive laminectomy for spinal stenosis and to identify whether fusion was beneficial. The authors conclude that patients in whom concomitant fusion procedures were performed fared better than patients who were treated by means of decompression alone when evidence of radiological instability existed preoperatively. Key Words * lumbar spinal stenosis * laminectomy * fusion * indication The decision to perform fusion following decompression for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis has been studied by many authors.[14,16,30,52,69] Unfortunately, no clear consensus has been reached to determine which patients are most likely to benefit from a concomitant lumbar fusion. Patient satisfaction following lumbar decompression alone ranges from 59 to 96%, with early surgical failures resulting from inadequate decompression and preoperative lumbar instability.[2,4,8,12,21,22,26,29,31,34,65] Late recurrence of back or leg problems may also result from acquired spinal instability. The goal of this study was to analyze clinical outcomes in patients treated with and without fusion following lumbar decompression to determine which patients benefited most. The ability to identify predictive factors for successful surgery with fusion would improve overall clinical results and decrease both early and late failures caused by persistent or acquired spinal instability.
    [Show full text]
  • Vertebral Augmentation Involving Vertebroplasty Or Kyphoplasty for Cancer-Related Vertebral Compression Fractures: a Systematic Review
    Health Quality Ontario The provincial advisor on the quality of health care in Ontario ONTARIO HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT SERIES Vertebral Augmentation Involving Vertebroplasty or Kyphoplasty for Cancer-Related Vertebral Compression Fractures: A Systematic Review KEY MESSAGES Cancer can start in one part of the body and spread to other regions, often involving the spine, causing significant pain and reducing a patient’s ability to walk or carry out everyday activities such as bathing, dressing, and eating. When cancer spreads to or occurs in a bone of the spine (a vertebral bone), the cancer can weaken and break this bone. These fractures, if left untreated, can negatively affect the quality of life of terminally ill patients and their families. Vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty are two types of procedures called vertebral augmentation. During vertebral augmentation, the physician injects bone cement into the broken vertebral bone to stabilize the spine and control pain. Kyphoplasty is a modified form of vertebroplasty in which a small balloon is first inserted into the vertebral bone to create a space to inject the cement; it also attempts to lift the fracture to restore it to a more normal position. Medical therapy and bed rest are not very effective in cancer patients with painful vertebral fractures, and surgery is not usually an option for patients with advanced disease and who are in poor health. Vertebral augmentation is a minimally invasive treatment option, performed on an outpatient basis without general anesthesia, for managing painful vertebral fractures that limit mobility and self-care. We reviewed the evidence to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty in cancer patients.
    [Show full text]
  • Scan Versus Computed Tomography for Bone Density Assessment
    Open Access Original Article DOI: 10.7759/cureus.13261 Dual-Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry (DEXA) Scan Versus Computed Tomography for Bone Density Assessment Malak Alawi 1 , Azra Begum 1 , Mohammed Harraz 2 , Hani Alawi 3 , Shahd Bamagos 4 , Abdulmalek Yaghmour 1 , Lubna Hafiz 5 1. Radiodiagnosis, King Abdul Aziz Hospital, Makkah, SAU 2. Radiodiagnosis, Mansoura University Hospital, Mansoura, EGY 3. Family Medicine, Primary Health Center Clinic, Makkah, SAU 4. Radiodiagnosis, Umm Al Qura University, Makkah, SAU 5. Family Medicine, Al Zaher Primary Health Care Center, Makkah, SAU Corresponding author: Azra Begum, [email protected] Abstract Rationale and objective Osteoporosis, a common non-pathological disease of bones, has been the cause of many disastrous consequences, in terms of physical, psychological, social, and economic loss. Therefore, it is crucial to diagnose it early for timely prevention and treatment of osteoporotic fractures. Dual-Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry (DEXA) is currently routinely used for determining bone mineral density. However, it has its limitations. Nowadays, CT technology has advanced so rapidly that the Hounsfield units (HU) values can be used in opportunistic screening for osteoporosis in patients during routine CT abdomen for other causes. Hence, there would be no need for additional study with DEXA and also reduce radiation exposure. The aim of our research is to determine whether there is a correlation between the bone mineral density and the T- score measured by DEXA and the HU values measured from the diagnostic CT images of L1-4 vertebrae. Also, to determine reference CT values that would help in screening the patients with osteoporosis. Materials and methods We conducted a retrospective study of 78 female patients who underwent CT lumbar spine, abdomen, and pelvis in our hospital between the years 2016-2020.
    [Show full text]
  • Review Laminectomy for Cervical Myelopathy
    Spinal Cord (2003) 41, 317–327 & 2003 International Spinal Cord Society All rights reserved 1362-4393/03 $25.00 www.nature.com/sc Review Laminectomy for cervical myelopathy NE Epstein*,1,2,3,4 1The Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY, USA; 2The North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health System, Manhasset, NY, USA; 3New Hyde Park, NY, USA; 4Winthrop University Hospital, Mineola, NY, USA Study design: Cervical laminectomy with or without fusion, or laminoplasty, successfully address congenital or acquired stenosis, multilevel spondylosis, ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL), and ossification of the yellow ligament (OYL). To optimize surgical results, however, these procedures should be applied to carefully selected patients. Objectives: To determine the clinical, neurodiagnostic, appropriate posterior cervical approaches to be employed in patients presenting with MR- and CT-documented multilevel cervical disease. To limit perioperative morbidity, dorsal decompressions with or without fusions should be performed utilizing awake intubation and positioning and continuous intraoperative somatosensory- evoked potential monitoring. Setting: United States of America. Methods: The clinical, neurodiagnostic, and varied dorsal decompressive techniques employed to address pathology are reviewed. Techniques, including laminectomy, laminoforaminotomy, and laminoplasty are described. Where preoperative dynamic X-rays document instability, simultaneous fusions employing wiring or lateral mass plate/screw or rod/screw techniques may be employed. Nevertheless, careful patient selection remains one of the most critical factors to operative success as older individuals with prohibitive comorbidities or fixed long-term neurological deficits should not undergo these procedures. Results: Short- and long-term outcomes following dorsal decompressions with or without fusions vary. Those with myelopathy over 65 years of age often do well in the short-term, but demonstrate greater long-term deterioration.
    [Show full text]
  • Machine Learning–Based Preoperative Predictive Analytics for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis
    NEUROSURGICAL FOCUS Neurosurg Focus 46 (5):E5, 2019 Machine learning–based preoperative predictive analytics for lumbar spinal stenosis Alessandro Siccoli, BMed,1 Marlies P. de Wispelaere, PDEng,2 Marc L. Schröder, MD, PhD,1 and Victor E. Staartjes, BMed1,3,4 1Department of Neurosurgery, Bergman Clinics, Amsterdam; 2Department of Clinical Informatics, Bergman Clinics, Amsterdam; 3Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Neurosurgery, Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; and 4Department of Neurosurgery, Clinical Neuroscience Centre, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Switzerland OBJECTIVE Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) following decompression surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) demonstrate considerable heterogeneity. Individualized prediction tools can provide valuable insights for shared decision-making. The authors aim to evaluate the feasibility of predicting short- and long-term PROMs, reoperations, and perioperative parameters by machine learning (ML) methods. METHODS Data were derived from a prospective registry. All patients had undergone single- or multilevel mini-open facet-sparing decompression for LSS. The prediction models were trained using various ML-based algorithms to predict the endpoints of interest. Models were selected by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). The endpoints were dichotomized by minimum clinically important difference (MCID) and included 6-week and 12-month numeric rating scales for back pain (NRS-BP) and leg pain (NRS-LP) severity and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), as well as prolonged surgery (> 45 minutes), extended length of hospital stay (> 28 hours), and reoperations. RESULTS A total of 635 patients were included. The average age was 62 ± 10 years, and 333 patients (52%) were male. At 6 weeks, MCID was seen in 63%, 76%, and 61% of patients for ODI, NRS-LP, and NRS-BP, respectively.
    [Show full text]