Rajiv K. Sethi

The initial assessment and management of the multiple-trauma patient with an associated spine injury

Study Design. Review and summary of the relevant literature from multiple disciplines. Objective. Provide the readership with evidence-based guidelines on the initial assessment and treatment of the multiple-trauma patient with an associated spinal column injury. Summary of Background Data. Early operative stabilization of the isolated spinal column injury has decreased hospital and intensive care unit length of stay. Early intervention has not provided consistently improved neurologic outcomes. The timing of spinal column stabilization in the multiple-trauma patient continues to be a source of discussion. Methods. Review of published English literature from 1990 to present using key words: spinal trauma, multiple-trauma with spinal injury; timing of spinal injury treatment; spinal fracture management; and Advanced Trauma Life Support. Conclusions. The treatment of the poly-trauma patient with an associated spinal column injury requires strict adherence to Advanced Trauma Life Support principles. Once life and limb-threatening injuries have been identified and addressed, spinal column assessment and neurologic protection must be maintained at the highest priority. Early spinal stabilization can be performed safely in the multiple-trauma patient in medical centers, in which medical and ancillary staff is available on a 24-hour basis and is familiar with these procedures.

Adult Spinal Deformity: Epidemiology, Health Impact, Evaluation, and Management

Spinal deformity in the adult is a common medical disorder with a significant and measurable impact on health-related quality of life. The ability to measure and quantify patient self-reported health status with disease-specific and general health status measures, and to correlate health status with radiographic and clinical measures of spinal deformity, has enabled significant advances in the assessment of the impact of deformity on our population, and in the evaluation and management of spinal deformity using an evidence-based approach. There has been a significant paradigm shift in the evaluation and management of patients with adult deformity. The paradigm shift includes development of validated, disease-specific measures of health status, recognition of deformity in the sagittal plane as a primary determinant of health status, and information on results of operative and medical/interventional management strategies for adults with spinal deformity. Since its inception in 1966, the Scoliosis Research Society (SRS) has been an international catalyst for improving the research and care for patients of all ages with spinal deformity. The SRS Adult Spinal Deformity Committee serves the mission of developing and defining an evidence-based approach to the evaluation and management of adult spinal deformity. The purpose of this overview from the SRS Adult Deformity Committee is to provide current information on the epidemiology and impact of adult deformity, and to provide patients, physicians, and policy makers a guide to the evidence-based evaluation and management of patients with adult deformity.

Complication avoidance with pre-operative screening: insights from the Seattle spine team

Complication rates for complex adult lumbar scoliosis surgery are unacceptably high. Standardized preoperative evaluation protocols have been shown to significantly reduce the likelihood of a spectrum of negative outcomes associated with complex adult lumbar scoliosis surgery. To increase patient safety and reduce complication risk, an entire medical and surgical team should work together to care for adult lumbar scoliosis patients. This article describes preoperative patient evaluation strategies with a particular focus on adult lumbar scoliosis surgery involving six or more levels of spinal fusion. Domains considered include recent preoperative evaluation literature, predictive risk modeling, the appropriate management of medical conditions, and the composition and activities of a multidisciplinary conference review team. An evidence-based comprehensive systematic preoperative surgical evaluation process is described.

Quality and Quantity of Published Studies Evaluating Lumbar Fusion during the Past 10 Years: A Systematic Review.

Study Design Systematic review. Clinical Questions (1) Has the proportion and number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) as an indicator of quality of evidence regarding lumbar fusion increased over the past 10 years? (2) Is there a difference in the proportion of RCTs among the four primary fusion diagnoses (degenerative disk disease, spondylolisthesis, deformity, and adjacent segment disease) over the past 10 years? (3) Is there a difference in the type and quality of clinical outcomes measures reported among RCTs over time? (4) Is there a difference in the type and quality of adverse events measures reported among RCTs over time? (5) Are there changes in fusion surgical approach and techniques over time by diagnosis over the past 10 years? Methods Electronic databases and reference lists of key articles were searched from January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2013, to identify lumbar fusion RCTs. Fusion studies designed specifically to evaluate recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 or other bone substitutes, revision surgery studies, nonrandomized comparison studies, case reports, case series, and cost-effectiveness studies were excluded. Results Forty-two RCTs between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2013, met the inclusion criteria and form the basis for this report. There were 35 RCTs identified evaluating patients diagnosed with degenerative disk disease, 4 RCTs evaluating patients diagnosed with degenerative spondylolisthesis, and 3 RCTs evaluating patients with a combination of degenerative disk disease and degenerative spondylolisthesis. No RCTs were identified evaluating patients with deformity or adjacent segment disease. Conclusions This structured review demonstrates that there has been an increase in the available clinical database of RCTs using patient-reported outcomes evaluating the benefit of lumbar spinal fusion for the diagnoses of degenerative disk disease and degenerative spondylolisthesis. Gaps remain in the standardization of reportage of adverse events in such trials, as well as uniformity of surgical approaches used. Finally, continued efforts to develop higher-quality data for other surgical indications for lumbar fusion, most notably in the presence of adult spinal deformity and revision of prior surgical fusions, appear warranted.

Multidisciplinary Evaluation Leads to the Decreased Utilization of Lumbar Spine Fusion: An Observational Cohort Pilot Study

Study Design. Observational cohort pilot study. Objective. To determine the impact of a multidisciplinary conference on treatment decisions for lumbar degenerative spine disease. Summary of Background Data. Multidisciplinary decision making improves outcomes in many disciplines. The lack of integrated systems for comprehensive care for spinal disorders has contributed to the inappropriate overutilization of spine surgery in the United States. Methods. We implemented a multidisciplinary conference involving physiatrists, anesthesiologists, pain specialists, neurosurgeons, orthopaedic spine surgeons, physical therapists, and nursing staff. Over 10 months, we presented patients being considered for spinal fusion or who had a complex history of prior spinal surgery. We compared the decision to proceed with surgery and the proposed surgical approach proposed by outside surgeons with the consensus of our multidisciplinary conference. We also assessed comprehensive demographics and comorbidities for the patients and examined outcomes for surgical patients. Results. A total of 137 consecutive patients were reviewed at our multidisciplinary conference during the 10-month period. Of these, 100 patients had been recommended for lumbar spine fusion by an outside surgeon. Consensus opinion of the multidisciplinary conference advocated for nonoperative management in 58 patients (58%) who had been previously recommended for spinal fusion at another institution (&khgr; 2  = 26.6; P < 0.01). Furthermore, the surgical treatment plan was revised as a product of the conference in 28% (16 patients) of the patients who ultimately underwent surgery (&khgr; 2  = 43.6; P < 0.01). We had zero 30-day complications in surgical patients. Conclusion. Isolated surgical decision making may result in suboptimal treatment recommendations. Multidisciplinary conferences can reduce the utilization of lumbar spinal fusion, possibly resulting in more appropriate use of surgical interventions with better candidate selection while providing patients with more diverse nonoperative treatment options. Although long-term patient outcomes remain to be determined, such multidisciplinary care will likely be essential to improving the quality and value of spine care. Level of Evidence: 3

A systematic multidisciplinary initiative for reducing the risk of complications in adult scoliosis surgery

OBJECTIVE Systematic multidisciplinary approaches to improving quality and safety in complex surgical care have shown promise. Complication rates from complex spine surgery range from 10% to 90% for all surgeries, and the overall mortality rate is 1%-4%. These rates suggest the need for improved perioperative complex spine surgery processes designed to minimize risk and improve quality. METHODS The Group Health Research Institute and Virginia Mason Medical Center implemented a systematic multidisciplinary protocol, the Seattle Spine Team Protocol, in 2010. This protocol involves the following elements: 1) a comprehensive multidisciplinary conference including clinicians from neurosurgery, anesthesia, orthopedics, internal medicine, behavioral health, and nursing, collaboratively deciding on each patients suitability for surgery; 2) a mandatory patient education course that reviews the risks of surgery, preparation for the surgery, and postoperative care; 3) a dual-attending-surgeon approach involving 1 neurosurgeon and 1 orthopedic spine surgeon; 4) a dedicated specialist complex spine anesthesia team; and 5) rigorous intraoperative monitoring of a patients blood loss and coagulopathy. The authors identified 71 patients who underwent complex spine surgery involving fusion of 6 or more levels before implementation of the protocol (surgery between 2008 and 2010) and 69 patients who underwent complex spine surgery after the implementation of the protocol (2010 and 2012). All patient demographic variables, including age, sex, body mass index, smoking status, diagnosis of diabetes and/or osteoporosis, previous surgery, and the nature of the spinal deformity, were comprehensively assessed. Also comprehensively assessed were surgical variables, including operative time, number of levels fused, and length of stay. The authors assessed overall complication rates at 30 days and 1 year and detailed deaths, cardiovascular events, infections, instrumentation failures, and CSF leaks. Chi-square and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used to assess differences in patient characteristics for patients with a procedure in the preimplementation period from those in the postimplementation period under a Poisson distribution model. RESULTS Patients who underwent surgery after implementation of the Seattle Spine Team Protocol had a statistically significant reduction (relative risk 0.49 [95% CI 0.30-0.78]) in all measured complications, including cardiovascular events, wound infections, other perioperative infections, and implant failures within 30 days after surgery; the analysis was adjusted for age and Charlson comorbidity score. A trend toward fewer deaths in this group was also found. CONCLUSIONS This type of systematic quality improvement strategy can improve quality and patient safety and might be applicable to other complex surgical disciplines. Implementation of these strategies in the treatment of adult spinal deformity will likely lead to better patient outcomes.

Results of the 2015 Scoliosis Research Society Survey on Single Versus Dual Attending Surgeon Approach for Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery

Study Design. An electronic survey administered to Scoliosis Research Society (SRS) membership. Objective. To characterize surgeon practices and views regarding the use of two attending surgeons for adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery. Summary of Background Data. The use of two experienced attending surgeons can decrease the operative time, estimated blood loss, and perioperative complication rates. However, the current practice patterns for the use of two attending surgeons remains unknown. Methods. An electronic, 27-question survey regarding single/dual attending surgeons was administered to the SRS membership. Determinants included: surgeon/practice demographics, assistant type/level of training, and questions regarding use of two attending surgeons. Overall reporting and comparisons between groups were made: US versus international, academic versus private practice, and experience <15 years versus >15 years. Results. A total of 199 surgeons responded from 27 different countries. Overall and between the groups, the respondents significantly reported believing that two attending spine surgeons improves safety, decreases complications, and improves outcomes (P < 0.01). Approximately, 67.3% reported using a second attending ⩽25% of the time (33.2% do not), and 24.1% use one ≥51% of the time (similar between groups); 51.1% that have a second attending feel its limited by reimbursement and access concerns and 71.9% have difficulty getting the second attending reimbursed. 72.3% use a second attending for ALL of the following reasons (no difference between groups): “its safer/reduces complications,” “it decreases operative time,” “it decreases blood loss,” “it results in improved outcomes,” “its less work and stress for me.” If reimbursement was equal/assured for a second attending, 67.5% would use one “more often” or “always.” Conclusion. The respondents feel that having a second attending surgeon improves patient care, however most do not use one often. Reasons include reimbursement/access concerns and the majority would use one if reimbursement was equal and assured. Based on the current literature and these results, there is a need for working with third party payers to improve dual surgeon reimbursement rates in complex cases. Level of Evidence: 5

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Utility for Predicting Spinal Surgery in an Integrated Spine Practice

For the majority of patients, spinal surgery is an elective treatment. The decision as to whether and when to pursue surgery is complicated and influenced by myriad factors, including pain intensity and duration, impact on functional activities, referring physician recommendation, and surgeon preference. By understanding the factors that lead a patient to choose surgery, we may better understand the decision‐making process, improve outcomes, and provide more effective care.

Preoperative Clinical Evaluation of Adult Lumbar Scoliosis

Complication rates for complex adult lumbar scoliosis surgery are high. Standardized protocols encompassing a comprehensive set of perioperative processes have been shown to significantly reduce the likelihood of a spectrum of complications associated with complex adult lumbar scoliosis surgery. To increase patient safety and reduce risk, an entire team should work together appropriately and effectively to deliver care for the adult lumbar scoliosis patient from their preoperative state through to their recovery.This chapter describes preoperative patient evaluation in adult lumbar scoliosis surgery. Areas of focus include (1) the appropriate management of medical conditions; (2) the role, composition, and activities of a multidisciplinary conference review team; and (3) considerations for the management of osteoporosis. A comprehensive systematic preoperative surgical evaluation process is described. Patient evaluation approaches and processes are scientifically supported by the evidence-based Seattle Spine Team Protocol and by recently published research literature.