Browsing by Author "Wood, Kirkham B"
Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Open Access Effectiveness of spinal fusion versus structured rehabilitation in chronic low back pain patients with and without isthmic spondylolisthesis: a systematic review.(Spine, 2011-10) Wood, Kirkham B; Fritzell, Peter; Dettori, Joseph R; Hashimoto, Robin; Lund, Teija; Shaffrey, ChrisStudy design
Systematic review.Objective
To determine if the presence of isthmic spondylolisthesis modifies the effect of treatment (fusion vs. multidimensional supervised rehabilitation) in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP).Summary of background data
Results of spinal surgery for CLBP are variable. It is unclear whether patients with CLBP and isthmic spondylolisthesis have more success with surgery versus a multidimensional supervised rehabilitation program when compared with those with CLBP but without spondylolisthesis.Methods
A systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE and the Cochrane Collaboration Library for articles published through January 2011. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included that compared spine fusion versus multidimensional supervised rehabilitation in patients with and without isthmic spondylolisthesis. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) and risk differences were calculated for common outcomes, and then compared to determine potential heterogeneity of treatment effect. The final strength of the body of literature was expressed as "high," "moderate," or "low" confidence that the evidence reflects the true effect.Results
No studies were found that directly compared the two subgroups. Three RCTs compared fusion with supervised nonoperative care in patients with CLBP without isthmic spondylolisthesis; one RCT evaluated these treatments in patients with isthmic spondylolisthesis. There were study differences in patient characteristics, type of fusion, the nature of the rehabilitation, outcomes assessed, and length of follow-up. The SMDs for pain in favor of fusion were modest at 2 years for those without isthmic spondylolisthesis, but large in favor of fusion for those with isthmic spondylolisthesis compared with rehabilitation. Similarly, the SMDs for function in patients without isthmic spondylolisthesis compared with rehabilitation was small at 2 years, but appreciably higher in favor of fusion in patients with isthmic spondylolisthesis.Conclusion
The overall strength of evidence evaluating whether the presence of isthmic spondylolisthesis modifies the effect of fusion compared with rehabilitation patients with CLBP is "low." Fusion should be considered for patients with low back pain and isthmic spondylolisthesis who have failed nonoperative treatment.Clinical recommendations
We recommend considering fusion for patients with isthmic spondylolisthesis and lower back pain who have failed nonoperative treatment.Recommendation
Weak.Item Open Access Therapeutic decision making in thoracolumbar spine trauma.(Spine, 2010-10) Oner, F Cumhur; Wood, Kirkham B; Smith, Justin S; Shaffrey, Christopher IStudy design
Systematic literature review.Objective
A systematic review was designed to answer 3 primary research questions: (1) What is the most useful classification system for surgical and nonsurgical decision-making with regard to thoracolumbar (TL) spine injuries? (2) For a TL burst fracture with incomplete neurologic deficit, what is the optimal surgical approach and stabilization technique? (3) Is complete disruption of the posterior ligamentous complex an indication for surgical intervention for TL burst fractures?Summary of background data
Despite a long history of descriptive and clinical series, there remains considerable controversy and wide variation in the treatment of traumatic TL spine injuries.Methods
A comprehensive search of the English literature was conducted using Medline and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Standardized grading systems were used to assess the level of evidence and quality of articles impacting the research questions.Results
Recommendations for the primary research questions were as follows: (1) Thoracolumbar Injury Classification System seems to be the best system available for therapeutic decision-making for TL spine injuries (strength of recommendation: weak; quality of evidence: low). (2) There is no specific surgical approach in the case of a TL burst fracture with incomplete neurologic deficit that has any advantage with regard to neurologic recovery (strength of recommendation: weak; quality of evidence: low). (3) Complete disruption of the posterior ligamentous complex as determined collectively by morphologic criteria using plain radiographs and computed tomography is an indication for surgical intervention in TL burst fractures (strength of recommendation: strong; quality of evidence: low).Conclusion
Based on this systematic review of the literature only very low to moderate quality studies could be identified to address clinical questions related to TL spine trauma. These findings suggest the need for further study, including emphasis on higher quality studies.Item Open Access Treatment of Axis Body Fractures: A Systematic Review.(Clinical spine surgery, 2017-12) Kepler, Christopher K; Vaccaro, Alexander R; Fleischman, Andrew N; Traynelis, Vincent C; Patel, Alpesh A; Dekutoski, Mark B; Harrop, James; Wood, Kirkham B; Schroeder, Gregory D; Bransford, Richard; Aarabi, Bizhan; Okonkwo, David O; Arnold, Paul M; Fehlings, Michael G; Nassr, Ahmad; Shaffrey, Christopher; Yoon, S Tim; Kwon, BrianStudy design
Evidence-based systematic review.Objectives
To define the optimal treatment of fractures involving the C2 body, including those with concomitant injuries, based upon a systematic review of the literature.Summary of background data
Axis body fractures have customarily been treated nonoperatively, but there are some injuries that may require operative intervention. High-quality literature is sparse and there are few class I or class II studies to guide treatment decisions.Materials and methods
A literature search was conducted using PubMed (MEDLINE), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Scopus (EMBASE, MEDLINE, COMPENDEX). The quality of literature was rated according to a grading tool developed by the Center for Evidence-based Medicine. Operative and nonoperative treatment of axis body fractures were compared using fracture bony union as the primary outcome measure. As risk factors for nonunion were not consistently reported, cases were analyzed individually.Results
The literature search identified 62 studies, of which 10 were case reports which were excluded from the analysis. A total of 920 patients from 52 studies were included. The overall bony union rate for all axis body fractures was 91%. Although the majority of fractures were treated nonoperatively, there has been an increasing trend toward operative intervention for Benzel type III (transverse) axis body fractures. Nearly 76% of axis body fractures were classified as type III fractures, of which 88% united successfully. Nearly all Benzel type I and type II axis body fractures were successfully treated nonoperatively. The risk factors for nonunion included: a higher degree of subluxation, fracture displacement, comminution, concurrent injuries, delay in treatment, and older age.Conclusions
High rates for fracture union are reported in the literature for axis body fractures with nonoperative treatment. High-quality prospective studies are required to develop consensus as to which C2 body fractures require operative fixation.