The objective of this guideline is to outline the role of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in clinical decision making and outcome prediction in patients with traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI).A systematic review of the literature was conducted to address key questions related to the use of MRI in patients with traumatic SCI. This review focused on longitudinal studies that controlled for baseline neurologic status. A multidisciplinary Guideline Development Group (GDG) used this information, their clinical expertise, and patient input to develop recommendations on the use of MRI for SCI patients. Based on GRADE (Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation), a strong recommendation is worded as "we recommend," whereas a weaker recommendation is indicated by "we suggest."Based on the limited available evidence and the clinical expertise of the GDG, our recommendations were: (1) "We suggest that MRI be performed in adult patients with acute SCI prior to surgical intervention, when feasible, to facilitate improved clinical decision-making" (quality of evidence, very low) and (2) "We suggest that MRI should be performed in adult patients in the acute period following SCI, before or after surgical intervention, to improve prediction of neurologic outcome" (quality of evidence, low).These guidelines should be implemented into clinical practice to improve outcomes and prognostication for patients with SCI.
In Brief Study Design. Systematic review. Objective. To summarize and critically review the economic literature evaluating the cost-effectiveness of minimal access surgery (MAS) compared with conventional open procedures for the cervical and lumbar spine. Summary of Background Data. MAS techniques may improve perioperative parameters (length of hospital stay and extent of blood loss) compared with conventional open approaches. However, some have questioned the clinical efficacy of these differences and the associated cost-effectiveness implications. When considering the long-term outcomes, there seem to be no significant differences between MAS and open surgery. Methods. PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration database, University of York, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (NHS-EED and HTA), and the Tufts CEA Registry were reviewed to identify full economic studies comparing MAS with open techniques prior to December 24, 2013, based on the key questions established a priori. Only economic studies that evaluated and synthesized the costs and consequences of MAS compared with conventional open procedures (i.e., cost-minimization, cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness, or cost-utility) were considered for inclusion. Full text of the articles meeting inclusion criteria were reviewed by 2 independent investigators to obtain the final collection of included studies. The Quality of Health Economic Studies instrument was scored by 2 independent reviewers to provide an initial basis for critical appraisal of included economic studies. Results. The search strategy yielded 198 potentially relevant citations, and 6 studies met the inclusion criteria, evaluating the costs and consequences of MAS versus conventional open procedures performed for the lumbar spine; no studies for the cervical spine met the inclusion criteria. Studies compared MAS tubular discectomy with conventional microdiscectomy, minimal access transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, and multilevel hemilaminectomy via MAS versus open approach. Conclusion. Overall, the included cost-effectiveness studies generally supported no significant differences between open surgery and MAS lumbar approaches. However, these conclusions are preliminary because there was a paucity of high-quality evidence. Much of the evidence lacked details on methodology for modeling, related assumptions, justification of economic model chosen, and sources and types of included costs and consequences. The follow-up periods were highly variable, indirect costs were not frequently analyzed or reported, and many of the studies were conducted by a single group, thereby limiting generalizability. Prospective studies are needed to define differences and optimal treatment algorithms. Level of Evidence: 3 We performed a systematic review of the literature evaluating the cost-effectiveness of minimal access surgery compared with conventional open procedures. We found 6 studies on the lumbar spine and none for the cervical. The studies generally supported no significant differences between open and minimal access surgery approaches. Major study limitations exist.
Systematic review.To determine whether various preoperative factors affect patient outcome after cervical laminoplasty for cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) and/or ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL).Cervical laminoplasty is a procedure designed to decompress the spinal cord by enlarging the spinal canal while preserving the lamina. Prior research has identified a variety of potential predictive factors that might affect outcomes after this procedure.A systematic search of multiple major medical reference databases was conducted to identify studies explicitly designed to evaluate the effect of preoperative factors on patient outcome after cervical laminoplasty for CSM or OPLL. Studies specifically designed to evaluate potential predictive factors and their associations with outcome were included. Only cohort studies that used multivariate analysis, enrolled at least 20 patients, and adjusted for age as a potential confounding variable were included. JOA (Japanese Orthopaedic Association), modified JOA, and JOACMEQ-L (JOA Cervical Myelopathy Evaluation Questionnaire lower extremity function section) scores were the main outcome measures. Clinical recommendations and consensus statements were made through a modified Delphi approach by applying the GRADE (Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation)/AHRQ (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality) criteria.The search strategy yielded 433 citations, of which 1 prospective and 11 retrospective cohort studies met our inclusion criteria. Overall, the strength of evidence from the 12 studies is low or insufficient for most of the predictive factors. Increased age was not associated with poorer JOA outcomes for patients with CSM, but there is insufficient evidence to make a conclusion for patients with OPLL. Increased severity of disease and a longer duration of symptoms might be associated with JOA outcomes for patients with CSM. Hill-shaped lesions might be associated with poorer JOA outcomes for patients with OPLL. There is insufficient evidence to permit conclusions regarding other predictive factors.Overall, the strength of evidence for all of the predictive factors was insufficient or low. Given that cervical myelopathy due to CSM tends to be progressive and that increased severity of myelopathy and duration of symptoms might be associated with poorer outcomes after cervical laminoplasty for CSM, it is preferable to perform laminoplasty in patients with CSM earlier rather than waiting for symptoms to get worse. Further research is needed to more clearly identify predictive factors that affect outcomes after cervical laminoplasty because there were relatively few studies identified that used multivariate analyses to control for confounding factors and many of these studies did not provide a detailed description of the multivariate analyses or the magnitude of effect estimates. EVIDENCE-BASED CLINICAL RECOMMENDATIONS:For patients with CSM, increased age is not a strong predictor of clinical neurological outcomes after laminoplasty; therefore, age by itself should not preclude cervical laminoplasty for CSM.Low.Strong.For patients with CSM, increased severity of disease and a longer duration of symptoms might be associated with poorer clinical neurological outcomes after laminoplasty; therefore, we recommend that patients be informed about this.Low.Strong. SUMMARY STATEMENTS: For patients with OPLL, hill-shaped lesions might be associated with poorer clinical neurological outcomes after laminoplasty; therefore, surgeons might consider potential benefits and risks of alternative or additional surgery.
