DOCSLIB.ORG

Evaluation and Treatment of Back Pain

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Evaluation and Treatment of Back Pain 2020-09-25 OBJECTIVES ❑Describe a clinical classification scheme for the patient presenting with spinal pain ❑Identify risk factors suggestive of a serious pathology to explain the spinal pain ❑Describe spinal imaging ❑Describe key history and physical exam parameters of radiculopathy due to disc herniation and spinal stenosis ❑Discuss indications for surgical referral in patients with refractory spinal pain Adil Shaikh, MD, ABPMR, ABIME ❑Discuss treatment as relevant to evidence and the most recent practice guidelines • Physical Medicine and EVALUATION AND TREATMENT Rehabilitation • Clinical Associate Professor, USD OF LOW BACK PAIN • Chair of Neuroscience Dept, Avera Mckennan • Avera Mckennan Hospital Spine Center TERMINOLOGY FOR LOW BACK PAIN DERMATOMES ❑Chronology: ➢Acute< 4 weeks (6 weeks) ➢Subacute 4-12 weeks ➢Chronic >12 weeks ❑Spinal Stenosis: Narrowing of vertebral canal ❑Spondylolysis: Fracture of pars interarticularis ❑Spondylolisthesis, Anterolistehsis, Retrolisthesis ❑Sciatica (Symptom): Pain/Paresthesia down foot ❑Radiculopathy (Sign): Impairment of nerve root 1 2020-09-25 MYOTOMES INTRODUCTION/EPIDEMIOLOGY ❑Lifetime incidence 84% ❑Prevalence 22-48% ❑Substantial direct health care costs- Second most common reason the see PCP ❑Indirect costs related to disability and loss of productivity ❑Number one work related injury ❑Significant litigation Deyo, R. A., & Tsui-Wu, Y. J. (1987). Descriptive epidemiology of low-back pain and its related medical care in the United States. Spine, 12(3), 264–268. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632- 198704000-00013 CAUSES/CLASSIFICATION SCHEME RED FLAGS ❑Non-Specific: Myofascial, >85% History Physical Examination ❑Non-Serious Etiologies 10%: ❑Cancer ❑Saddle anesthesia ➢Vertebral fracture <4%: localized low back pain ❑Unexplained weight loss ❑Loss of anal sphincter tone ➢Radiculopathy<3% : 90% L5 and S1 radics ❑Immunosuppression ➢Spinal Stenosis <3%: Spondylosis (Degen), Spondylolisthesis, thick ligamentum flavum ❑Intravenous drug use ❑Major motor weakness in lower ❑Serious Etiologies <1%: ❑Urinary tract infection extremities ➢Spinal cord or Cauda equina compression: Pain, weakness, sensation, bowel or bladder ❑Fever ❑Fever ➢Metastatic Cancer: Breast, Prostate, Lung, Thyroid, Kidney- 80%. MM if lytic lesions 60%. ❑Significant trauma relative to age ➢Spinal Epidural Abscess: Recent spinal injection, epidural cath, IV drug use, other infections ❑Neurologic findings persisting beyond ➢Vertebral Osteomyelitis: gradually increases over months, pain on palpation ❑Bladder or bowel incontinence one month or progressively worsening ❑Others: Ankylosing Spondylitis(<0.5%), OA (facet joints), Somatization, Piriformis, SI ❑Urinary retention (with overflow incontinence) Joint Chou R, Qaseem A, Snow V, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of low back pain: a joint clinical practice guideline from the Jarvik, J. G., & Deyo, R. A. (2002). Diagnostic evaluation of low back pain with emphasis on imaging. American College of Physicians and the American Pain Society. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147(7):478-491 Annals of internal medicine, 137(7), 586–597 2 2020-09-25 PHYSICAL EXAMINATION IMAGING ❑AAFP: DO NOT DO IMAGING IN THE FIRST 6 WEEKS, unless red flags are present ➢Inspection: Anatomic abnormalities eg. Scoliosis ❑Imaging before 6 weeks does not improve outcomes but does increase costs ➢Palpation: Vertebral vs Soft tissue tenderness ❑Studies show that patient with no back pain often show anatomic abnormalities ➢Neurologic Examination: Gait, Bulk, Tone, Reflex, Strength, Sensation ❑Cause unnecessary radiation exposure and patient labeling ❑The labeling phenomenon of patients with low back pain has been studied and shown to worsen ➢Special tests: SLR, Mod SLR, Slump test patients’ sense of well-being. ➢Labs: ESR, CRP, CBC based on clinical information ❑Increase rate of imaging in linked with the increase rate of surgery ❑Webster et al showed that patients with occupation-related back pain who had early magnetic ➢Non-Organic Signs (Waddell’s Signs) resonance imaging (MRI) had an eightfold increased risk of surgery. ❑Overreaction ❑Jarvik et al showed that patients with low back pain who had an MRI were more than twice as ❑Superficial or Widespread tenderness likely to undergo surgery compared with patients who had plain film imaging. ❑Inconsistent test e.g. SLR with distraction ❑A meta-analysis (Chou et al) found no clinically significant difference in patient outcomes between ❑Unexplainable neurologic deficits (non dermatomal sensory loss, sudden giving away on motor) those who had immediate lumbar imaging versus usual care. ❑Pain on simulated axial load (pressure on top of head) Jensen MC, Brant-Zawadzki MN, Obuchowski N, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the lumbar spine in people without back pain. NEJM. 1994:331;69-73. WHEN TO DO IMAGING TYPE OF IMAGING FOR SUSPECTED DISORDER ❑Red Flags ❑Failed conservative treatment options (for minimum 6 weeks) ❑Surgery consideration ❑Therapeutic injection ❑NOT FOR DIAGNOSIS ❑Communicate: “The good news is that based on your history and your normal physical examination I do not think that you need an x-ray.” ❑Empathy, partnership, legitimation: “I want to reassure you that your symptoms are very different from those of your brother or someone with a herniated disc causing issues” 3 2020-09-25 TREATMENT - ACUTE TREATMENT – ACUTE PHARMACOTHERAPY Goal of Care- Short-term Symptomatic relief 1. Non-Pharmacologic Treatment: Massage (dec spasm), Heat (dec spasm), ❑NSAIDs (Usually Ibuprofen 400 QID or Naproxen250-500BID) acupuncture (dec pain), spinal manipulation (increase ROM and dec pain) ❑Acetaminophen-2016 Cochrane review, similar to placebo (B evidence), use if no 2. NO Bed Rest: Bed=slower recovery, more pain safe alternatives 3. Gradual return to work/activity as tolerated – individualized ❑NON-BENZODIAZEPINE muscle relaxants: ➢Cylobenzaprine-2003 Cochrane review (A) 4. ? PT – not any more effective than NSAIDs, education ➢Methocarbamol, Tizanidine, Baclofen 5. Poor evidence: Cold (poor penetration), Muscle energy technique (contraction vs ❑OPIOIDS – Only if refractory, severe, contraindications to non-opioids (CDC 2016) assisted stretching), Traction, Lumbar supports, Yoga, Mattress changes, Paraspinal injections (Epidural, trigger points, facet) GRADES OF RECOMMENDATION: TREATMENT – SUBACUTE AND CHRONIC A: Good evidence (Level I studies with consistent findings) for or against ❑Self care: Maintain activity as tolerated, heat + stretching (20min q2h), self care recommending intervention. education B: Fair evidence (Level II or III studies with consistent findings) for or against ❑Exercise: ROM, Core strengthening, Core stabilization, directional preferences (eg recommending intervention. McKenzie), aerobics, Pilates, exercises that have a mind-body component (yoga and Tai Chi) C: Poor quality evidence (Level IV or V studies) for or against recommending ❑Avoidance of getting to chronic LBP: help preexisting psychological conditions, intervention. somatization, maladaptive pain coping behaviors (eg, fear avoidance or catastrophizing), high level of functional impairment, the presence of other types of I: Insufficient or conflicting evidence not allowing a recommendation for or against chronic pain, job dissatisfaction or stress, and dispute over compensation issues intervention. ❑Spinal Manipulation (Chiropractors, PT, Osteopaths): short term benefits ❑Acupuncture 4 2020-09-25 TREATMENT – SUBACUTE/CHRONIC PARASPINAL INJECTIONS: EPIDURAL INJECTIONS PHARMACOTHERAPY ❑“Leg pain dominant” pain-indicate lumbosacral nerve root irritation or entrapment 1St Line ❑NSAIDs (Ibuprofen and Naproxen) (B) ❑Inhibition of the synthesis or release of pro-inflammatory substances ❑Acetaminophen (esp. in NSAID allergy or other intolerance, chronic kidney disease, hypertension, peptic ulcer disease, or with cardiovascular disease) ❑12 randomized trials : 50% helped with pain, NNT 6 for short nd term benefit and NNT 11 for long term benefit 2 ➢Non-benzo muscle relaxants (Cyclobenzaprine, Tizanidine, Baclofen, Robaxin) Line ❑Cochrane review (April 2020): ➢Long-term-TCA/SNRIs (Duloxetine, Amitriptyline, gabapentin) [B] ➢25 clinical trials, 2470 participants, 0-100 pain scale, minor SEs ➢Pain-slightly effective MD 4.9 (95%CI 8.7-1.09) If all fails – Opioids for short-term only, less than 50MME (Morphine milligram ❖ ➢Disability – slightly effective MD 4.18 (95% CI 6.04-2.17) Equivalent) ➢Evidence inconclusive, Clinical experience drives practice ❖NOT RECCOMENDED [C]: Herbs (Except Capsicum frutescens), glucosamine, ❑Not cost effective (Leah et.al, 2018)-Quality adjusted life years Benzodiazepines (abuse, AEs and dependency), Lumbar supports gained Samanta, A., & Samanta, J. (2004). Is epidural injection of steroids effective for low back pain?. BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 328(7455), 1509–1510. PARASPINAL INJECTIONS: MBB AND RFA SPINAL CORD STIMULATOR ❑Concept of gate control theory (Wall and Melzack, 1965): ❑Radiofrequency ablation (RFA), a procedure using heat to Control pain by activating large, rapidly conducting fibers interrupt pain signals in spinal nerves ❑“Gate” is in the dorsal horn of spinal cord ❑Systematic review 1063 abstracts: ➢Small fibers=pain fibers. Impede inhibitory interneurons, allowing pain ➢Patients had back pain for at least 3 months information to travel up to the brain ➢Pain assessed 1 month after RFA ➢Large fibers= touch, pressure and other skin senses. Excites the inhibitory neurons, which diminishes the transmission of pain information ➢Improvement in pain for lumbar
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Spinal Deformity Study Group
    Spinal Deformity Study Group Editors in Chief Radiographic Michael F. O’Brien, MD Timothy R. Kuklo, MD Kathy M. Blanke, RN Measurement Lawrence G. Lenke, MD Manual B T2 T5 T2–T12 CSVL T5–T12 +X° -X +X° C7PL T12 L2 A S1 ©2008 Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc. – 0 + Radiographic Measurement Manual Editors in Chief Michael F. O’Brien, MD Timothy R. Kuklo, MD Kathy M. Blanke, RN Lawrence G. Lenke, MD Section Editors Keith H. Bridwell, MD Kathy M. Blanke, RN Christopher L. Hamill, MD William C. Horton, MD Timothy R. Kuklo, MD Hubert B. Labelle, MD Lawrence G. Lenke, MD Michael F. O’Brien, MD David W. Polly Jr, MD B. Stephens Richards III, MD Pierre Roussouly, MD James O. Sanders, MD ©2008 Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc. Acknowledgements Radiographic Measurement Manual The radiographic measurement manual has been developed to present standardized techniques for radiographic measurement. In addition, this manual will serve as a complimentary guide for the Spinal Deformity Study Group’s radiographic measurement software. Special thanks to the following members of the Spinal Deformity Study Group in the development of this manual. Sigurd Berven, MD Hubert B. Labelle, MD Randal Betz, MD Lawrence G. Lenke, MD Fabien D. Bitan, MD Thomas G. Lowe, MD John T. Braun, MD John P. Lubicky, MD Keith H. Bridwell, MD Steven M. Mardjetko, MD Courtney W. Brown, MD Richard E. McCarthy, MD Daniel H. Chopin, MD Andrew A. Merola, MD Edgar G. Dawson, MD Michael Neuwirth, MD Christopher DeWald, MD Peter O. Newton, MD Mohammad Diab, MD Michael F.
    [Show full text]
  • CERVICAL SPONDYLOSIS Pathogenesis the Canal Diameter Is
    CERVICAL SPONDYLOSIS Pathogenesis The canal diameter is reduced by 1. Osteophytes, thickened ligamentum flavum, protruded disc 2. Hyperextension of the spine reduces the canal diameter by shingling effect of lamina and buckling of Ligamentum flavum 3. Retrolisthesis with extension 4. Hypermobility in the level above degenerated disc can cause myelopathy 5. Vascular compromise in spondylosis may cause myelopathy Disc is innervated by sinu‐vertebral nerve formed from ventral nerve root and sympathetic plexus. This nerve turns back at intervertebral foramen and supplies: annulus fibrosus, posterior longitudinal ligament, and periosteum of the vertebra Clinical A B C 1. Axial Pain patterns proved during discography at each level A Level between C2‐3 B “ C3‐4 C “ C4‐5 D “ C5‐6 E “ C6‐7 D E Look for trigger points. Pain is more on extending the neck. 2. Red flags: Night pain Persistent pain > 3months Any associated primary tumour Weight loss and sweat 3. Referred or radicular pain C6 to the thumb, C7 to the middle finger C8 to the little finger C6 nerve root exist between C5‐C6 vertebra. At cervical spine, both disc herneation and stenosis affect the exit root [In the lumbar region, transit root is involved in disc herniation] If more than one nerve root involvement: rule out myelopathy Sometimes, the pain can be referred to heart lungs and TMJ joint from Cervical spondylosis 4. Spurling’s manoeuvre: Extension and lateral rotation to the side of pain [refer clinical examination] Differential diagnosis for radiculopathy Peripheral entrapment syndrome Rotator cuff syndrome Brachial plexitis and herpes Spinal tumours Cardiac ischemia Investigations X rays AP, Lateral, Flexion‐extension lateral MRI is gold standard Myelopathy Types 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Acquired Degenerative Changes of the Intervertebral Segments at And
    European Journal of Radiology 50 (2004) 134–158 Acquired degenerative changes of the intervertebral segments at and suprajacent to the lumbosacral junction A radioanatomic analysis of the nondiscal structures of the spinal column and perispinal soft tissues J. Randy Jinkins a,b,∗ a Department of Radiologic Sciences, Downstate Medical Center, State University of New York, Brooklyn, NY 11203, USA b Fonar Corporation, 110 Marcus Drive, Melville, NY 11747, USA Received 3 October 2003; received in revised form 9 October 2003; accepted 13 October 2003 Abstract A review of the imaging features of normal and degenerative anatomy of the spine on medical imaging studies shows features that have been largely overlooked or poorly understood by the imaging community in recent years. The imaging methods reviewed included computed tomography (CT) with multiplanar reconstructions and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). A routine part of the MRI examination included fat-suppressed T2 weighted fast-spin- or turbo-spin-echo acquisitions. As compared to the normal features in asymptomatic volunteers, alterations in the observed CT/MRI morphology and MR signal characteristics were sought in symptomatic individuals. Findings in symptomatic subjects which departed from the normal anatomic features of the posterior spinal elements in asymptomatic volunteers included: rupture of the interspinous ligament(s), neoarthrosis of the interspinous space with perispinous cyst formation, posterior spinal facet (zygapophyseal joint) arthrosis, related central spinal canal, lateral recess (subarticular zone) and neural foramen stenosis, posterior element alterations associated with various forms of spondylolisthesis, and perispinal muscle rupture/degeneration. These findings indicate that the posterior elements are major locations of degenerative spinal and perispinal disease that may accompany or even precede degenerative disc disease.
    [Show full text]
  • Pattern of Degenerative Lumbar Retrolisthesis in Basrah Thamer a Hamdan, Mubder a M
    Pattern of Degenerative lumbar Retrolisthesis in Basrah Thamer A Hamdan, Mubder A M. Saeed & Yas k. Hadood Basrah Journal Original Article Of Surgery Bas J Surg, June, 21, 2015 PATTERN OF DEGENERATIVE LUMBAR RETROLISTHESIS IN BASRAH Thamer A Hamdan*, Mubder A Mohammed Saeed# & Yas khudair Hadood@ *FRCS, FRCP, FICS, FACS, American Board (Orth.), Professor of Orthopedic Surgery. #FICMS, (Orth.) Assistant Prof. of Orthopedic Surgery. College of Medicine, University of Basrah, Basrah, Iraq. @MB,ChB, Postgraduate Arab Board Medical Specialization (Orth.) Abstract Although retrolisthesis is not a well-known condition by many medical specialists dealing with back problems and it has been regarded as a radiological incidental finding with no clinical significance, a growing prove is now evolving stating that retrolisthesis could be a cause of many backache complaints and a sequelae of an altered spine biomechanics. Objectives: to study and analyze the various biomechanical characteristics of retrolisthesis and its relationship with various radiological parameters of the lumbar spine and other patient’s factors. Patients and Method: Forty patients, twenty six males, and fourteen females with an age range from 40–66 years with radiological evidence of significant lumbar spine retrolisthesis (slip > 3 millimeters) were evaluated clinically and radiologically by plain radiography and MRI in Basra General Hospital and Ibn AL-Bittar Private Hospital, during the period from the 1st of August 2014 to the 1st of March 2015. After a thorough history and physical examination, various radiological parameters were obtained including the lumbar lordosis, sacral slop, pelvic incidence, pelvic tilt, all those measurements were done digitally. A statistical analysis was made via IBM SPSS ver.17 and the results were compared with that of similar studies.
    [Show full text]
  • A Technical Nuance to Avoid Lumbar Five Radiculopathy with Anterior Lumbar Fusion and Posterior Instrumentation
    Hindawi Case Reports in Orthopedics Volume 2021, Article ID 5514720, 4 pages https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/5514720 Case Report A Technical Nuance to Avoid Lumbar Five Radiculopathy with Anterior Lumbar Fusion and Posterior Instrumentation Matthew T. Neal, Maziyar A. Kalani , and Mark K. Lyons Department of Neurologic Surgery, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science, 5777 East Mayo Boulevard, Phoenix, AZ 85054, USA Correspondence should be addressed to Mark K. Lyons; [email protected] Received 5 January 2021; Revised 17 March 2021; Accepted 19 March 2021; Published 25 March 2021 Academic Editor: Taketoshi Yasuda Copyright © 2021 Matthew T. Neal et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) is a well-established procedure used to treat a multitude of spinal pathologies. When performed at the L5-S1 level, the ALIF is often supplemented with posterior pedicle screw and rod fixation. Because the interbody device can restore disk and foraminal height, one benefit of the ALIF procedure is indirect neural decompression in the spinal canal and neural foramina. If the contour of the posterior rod is not matched to the exact position of the tulip heads on the pedicle screws, spondylolisthesis can be introduced, leading to foraminal stenosis and nerve compression. This concern is particularly germane when the posterior instrumentation is placed percutaneously without any direct foraminal decompression. In this report, we describe a patient who had an L4-S1 ALIF, resulting in new L5-S1 retrolisthesis and worsening L5 radiculopathy.
    [Show full text]
  • Espa Ingles A.Pdf
    Documento descargado de http://www.elsevier.es el 02/11/2012. Copia para uso personal, se prohíbe la transmisión de este documento por cualquier medio o formato. Radiología. 2011;53(2):116-133 ISSN: 0033-8338 RADIOLOGÍA Publicación Oficial de la Sociedad Española de Radiología Médica RADIOLOGÍA Incluida en Index Medicus/MEDLINE www.elsevier.es/rx Actividad acreditada en base a la encomienda de gestión concedida por los Ministerios de Educación, Cultura y Deporte y de Sanidad y Consumo al Con sejo General de Colegios Oficiales de Médicos con 1 crédito, equivalente a 4 horas lectivas. www.seram.es www.elsevier.es/rx UPDATE Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging for painful spinal column: contributions and controversies F. Ruiz Santiago,* M.M. Castellano García, L. Guzmán Álvarez, M. Tello Moreno Sección de Radiología Musculoesquelética, Servicio de Radiodiagnóstico, Hospital de Traumatología, Ciudad Sanitaria Virgen de las Nieves, Granada, Spain Received 7 May 2010; accepted 22 October 2010 KEYWORDS Abstract The use of tomographic imaging techniques, computed tomography (CT) and Spine; magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), to complement or replace plain-fi lm radiography in the Magnetic resonance study of spine pain is becoming more and more common. imaging; The aim of this paper is to provide a general review of the CT and MRI manifestations of the Column; wide spectrum of lesions that can cause pain in the spinal column. This spectrum includes Computed degenerative disease, malalignment, tumors, inflammatory processes, and infectious tomography; processes. Back pain; Precise knowledge and accurate reporting of the fi ndings at CT and MRI are fundamental for Spinal column clinical decision making in patients with spine pain.
    [Show full text]
  • Cervical Spondylotic Radiculo-Myelopathy in Patients with Athetoid-Dystonic Cerebral Palsy: Clinical Evaluation and Surgical Treatment
    J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry: first published as 10.1136/jnnp.47.8.775 on 1 August 1984. Downloaded from Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry 1984;47:775-780 Cervical spondylotic radiculo-myelopathy in patients with athetoid-dystonic cerebral palsy: clinical evaluation and surgical treatment GENJIRO HIROSE, SATORU KADOYA From the Departments ofNeurology and Neurosurgery, Kanazawa Medical University, Ishikawa, Japan SUMMARY The acute onset of symptoms of severe cervical radiculo-myelopathy in four patients with athetoid-dystonic cerebral palsy is reported. Neurological and radiological examination showed that the spondylotic changes of the cervical spine were responsible for new neurological deficits leading to the patients being bedridden. Dystonic-athetoid neck movements may cause excessive axial neck rotation as well as flexion and extension movements of the spine. These repetitive exaggerated movements may result in early degenerative changes of the vertebrae which may enhance the radiculo-myelopathy. The four patients were treated with an anterior discectomy with interbody fusion. They were bedridden pre-operatively but all have since been able to walk with or without a cane. It is concluded that early anterior decompression with interbody fusion is a treatment of choice for cervical spondylotic radiculo-myelopathy in associa- Protected by copyright. tion with athetoid cerebral palsy. Trauma as a cause of cervical spondylosis, with or Neurological examination revealed generalised without neurological deficits, has often been pro- athetoid-dystonic movements. No muscle atrophy was posed. Reports allude to a causal relationship be- noted but she was barely able to extend her arms or to raise tween movement disorders of the neck and the her legs from the bed.
    [Show full text]
  • 18-0378 ) Issued: June 18, 2019 U.S
    United States Department of Labor Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board __________________________________________ ) K.C., Appellant ) ) and ) Docket No. 18-0378 ) Issued: June 18, 2019 U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, ) Painesville, OH, Employer ) __________________________________________ ) Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant1 Office of Solicitor, for the Director DECISION AND ORDER Before: PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge JURISDICTION On December 18, 2017 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from an August 31, 2017 merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP).2 Pursuant to the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act3 (FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board has jurisdiction over the merits of this case.4 1 In all cases in which a representative has been authorized in a matter before the Board, no claim for a fee for legal or other service performed on appeal before the Board is valid unless approved by the Board. 20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e). No contract for a stipulated fee or on a contingent fee basis will be approved by the Board. Id. An attorney or representative’s collection of a fee without the Board’s approval may constitute a misdemeanor, subject to fine or imprisonment for up to one year or both. Id.; see also 18 U.S.C. § 292. Demands for payment of fees to a representative, prior to approval by the Board, may be reported to appropriate authorities for investigation. 2 The Board notes that appellant’s surname has changed since the filing of the appeal.
    [Show full text]
  • Commented Glossary for Rheumatic Spinal Diseases, Based on Pathologyf
    Annals ofthe Rheumatic Diseases 1995; 54: 615-625 615 NOW AND THEN Ann Rheum Dis: first published as 10.1136/ard.54.8.615 on 1 August 1995. Downloaded from Commented glossary for rheumatic spinal diseases, based on pathologyf Robert J Franqois, Frits Eulderink, Eric G L Bywaters Abstract or the posterior facet joints' and in another3 as Objectives-To redefine and comment on 'dissolution of a vertebra' or as 'a condition terms on a pathological basis, in order to marked by platyspondylia, aplasia of the avoid the confusion due to the use ofterms posterior arch, and separation of the pars with different meanings, to standardise interarticularis'. Thus the simplest and most usage among clinicians, radiologists and common meaning, 'separation of the pars pathologists, and to facilitate literature interarticularis', is not given by either of these searches. two authoritative dictionaries. Methods-Within the Committee of The idea of standardising nomenclature in Pathology ofthe European League against this field arose in 1967, at the VIth European Rheumatism, a study group was set up to Congress of Rheumatology in Lisbon.4 It was analyse the medical literature and taken up again by the Committee on Pathology common practice concerning the nomen- of the European League against Rheumatism clature of rheumatic spinal diseases. The (EULAR): a subgroup was appointed to define group tried to amalgamate the main concepts, list synonyms, and recommend trends in the field, to reconcile etymology, preferred terms. After agreement was reached historical background, morphology, and on a number of items pertaining to the normal common practice. anatomy of the spine,5 a list of terms Results-The group warns against use of concerning pathological changes and diseases the terms 'acquired hyperostosis syn- is now proposed.
    [Show full text]
  • Preoperative Retrolisthesis As a Risk Factor of Postdecompression Lumbar Disc Herniation
    CLINICAL ARTICLE J Neurosurg Spine 24:592–601, 2016 Preoperative retrolisthesis as a risk factor of postdecompression lumbar disc herniation Shota Takenaka, MD, Kosuke Tateishi, MD, PhD, Noboru Hosono, MD, PhD, Yoshihiro Mukai, MD, PhD, and Takeshi Fuji, MD, PhD Orthopaedic Surgery, Japan Community Healthcare Organization Osaka Hospital, Osaka, Japan OBJECT In this study, the authors aimed to identify specific risk factors for postdecompression lumbar disc herniation (PDLDH) in patients who have not undergone discectomy and/or fusion. METHODs Between 2007 and 2012, 493 patients with lumbar spinal stenosis underwent bilateral partial laminectomy without discectomy and/or fusion in a single hospital. Eighteen patients (herniation group [H group]: 15 men, 3 women; mean age 65.1 years) developed acute sciatica as a result of PDLDH within 2 years after surgery. Ninety patients who did not develop postoperative acute sciatica were selected as a control group (C group: 75 men, 15 women; mean age 65.4 years). Patients in the C group were age and sex matched with those in the H group. The patients in the groups were also matched for decompression level, number of decompression levels, and surgery date. The radiographic variables measured included percentage of slippage, intervertebral angle, range of motion, lumbar lordosis, disc height, facet angle, extent of facet removal, facet degeneration, disc degeneration, and vertebral endplate degeneration. The threshold for PDLDH risk factors was evaluated using a continuous numerical variable and receiver operating charac- teristic curve analysis. The area under the curve was used to determine the diagnostic performance, and values greater than 0.75 were considered to represent good performance.
    [Show full text]
  • Correction of Sagittal Balance with Resection of Kissing Spines
    Open Access Case Report DOI: 10.7759/cureus.16874 Correction of Sagittal Balance With Resection of Kissing Spines Eris Spirollari 1 , Eric Feldstein 1 , Christina Ng 1 , Sima Vazquez 1 , Merritt D. Kinon 1 , Chirag Gandhi 1 , Rachana Tyagi 1 1. Neurosurgery, Westchester Medical Center, Valhalla, USA Corresponding author: Rachana Tyagi, [email protected] Abstract Kissing spines syndrome, also known as Baastrup’s disease, is a common yet underdiagnosed disorder involving close approximation of adjacent spinous processes. These painful pseudoarticulations may be secondary to the compensatory mechanisms that result from sagittal imbalance. Conventional operative correction of sagittal balance includes a wide range of procedures from facetectomies to vertebral column resection. Resection of kissing spines for the operative management of sagittal imbalance is a treatment modality not extensively discussed in the literature but may offer improved patient outcomes with shorter operative times, lower risk, and reduced length of stay. A 67-year old male with a history of degenerative disk disease and scoliosis presented with neurogenic claudication and severe back pain that worsened with walking and improved with sitting. X-ray imaging of the lumbar spine revealed straightening of the normal lumbar lordotic curvature with mild rotoscoliosis. There was also evidence of retrolisthesis of L2 on L3 that worsened with flexion. The patient had Baastrup’s disease at the L3-4 and L4, 5 levels that contributed to his reduced range of motion on extension imaging. Operative treatments including long-segment fusion with interbody cages to correct sagittal balance were considered with a discussion of possible debilitating and high-risk post-surgical outcomes.
    [Show full text]
  • Spondylolisthesis.Pdf
    Y Diagnosis and Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis | NASS Clinical Guidelines 1 G Evidence-Based Clinical Guidelines for Multidisciplinary ETHODOLO Spine Care M NE I DEL I U /G ON Diagnosis and Treatment of I NTRODUCT Degenerative Lumbar I Spondylolisthesis 2nd Edition NASS Evidence-Based Clinical Guidelines Committee Paul Matz, MD R.J. Meagher, MD Tim Lamer, MD William Tontz Jr, MD Committee Co-Chair Diagnosis/Imaging Medical/Interventional Surgical Treatment and and Surgical Treatment Section Chair Section Chair Value Section Chair Section Chair Thiru M. Annaswamy, MD John E. Easa, MD Terrence D. Julien, MD Jonathan N. Sembrano, MD R. Carter Cassidy, MD Dennis E. Enix, DC, MBA Matthew B. Maserati, MD Alan T. Villavicencio, MD Charles H. Cho, MD, MBA Bryan A. Gunnoe, MD Robert C. Nucci, MD Jens-Peter Witt, MD Paul Dougherty, DC Jack Jallo, MD, PhD, FACS John E. O’Toole, MD, MS North American Spine Society Clinical Guidelines for Multidisciplinary Spine Care Diagnosis and Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis Copyright © 2014 North American Spine Society 7075 Veterans Boulevard Burr Ridge, IL 60527 USA 630.230.3600 www.spine.org ISBNThis clinical 1-929988-36-2 guideline should not be construed as including all proper methods of care or excluding or other acceptable methods of care reason- ably directed to obtaining the same results. The ultimate judgment regarding any specific procedure or treatment is to be made by the physi- cian and patient in light of all circumstances presented by the patient and the needs and resources particular to the locality or institution. I NTRODUCT 2 Diagnosis and Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis | NASS Clinical Guidelines Financial Statement This clinical guideline was developed and funded in its entirety by the North American Spine Society (NASS).
    [Show full text]