Spine
-
Fourteen cadaveric specimens were separated into two groups: (1) L3 pedicle subtraction osteotomy (PSO) with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) or (2) lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF). A 2-rod configuration (2R) was compared with two supplemental rod configurations: 4-rod (4R) with accessory rods (ARs) using connectors or 4R with satellite rods (SRs) without connectors. ⋯ Both supplemental rod configurations reduced motion in both groups. Constructs with the SR configuration increased the primary rod strain and the sacral screw bending moment compared with AR constructs, which can share strain. Deep-seated SRs, which have become increasingly popular, may be more vulnerable to failure than ARs. LLIF provided more stability in sagittal plane. Protective effect of supplemental rods on rod strain was more effective with TLIF.Level of Evidence: NA.
-
Delphi expert panel consensus. ⋯ Although telemedicine was initially introduced out of necessity, this technology most likely will remain due to evidence of high patient satisfaction and significant cost savings. This study was able to provide a framework for appropriate telemedicine utilization in spine surgery from a panel of experts. However, several questions remain for future research, such as whether or not an in-person consultation is necessary prior to surgery and which physical exam maneuvers are appropriate for telemedicine.Level of Evidence: 4.
-
Genetic cross-over study of intervertebral disc degeneration (IDD) and its associated risk factors. ⋯ Genetic association between IDD and risk factors in the general population was revealed by association network. Important gene-related molecular pathways and chemical drugs closely related to IDD have been found. Further study can provide guidance for the treatment and prognosis of IDD.Level of Evidence: N/A.
-
Systematic literature review. ⋯ The results of this systematic review indicate that increased curve flexibility is strongly associated with increased initial in-brace correction.Level of Evidence: 1.
-
The 2001 Functional Rating Index (FRI) was not developed under today's standard psychometric analysis. The original data of 108 cases were re-analyzed using Rasch item response theory. In 2015, 2 alternative forms were administered to an additional 140 patients for establishing and perhaps improving its psychometric characteristics. ⋯ The original FRI and alternative forms all fail failed crucial psychometric tests and fail to accurately measure more than one latent construct. It is thus unfit as a pain, function, and disability assessment. Only reducing the number of Likert choices improved the test. Other back pain assessments should be used instead, and all surveys would benefit from periodic item responses to adjust to shifts in grammar and meaning.Level of Evidence: 3.