METHODOLOGY: An online cross-sectional study was conducted via non-probabilistic convenience sampling. Data were collected on sociodemographic characteristics, lifestyle, COVID-19 related influences. Mental health status was assessed with depression, anxiety, and stress scale (DASS-21).
RESULTS: 388 students participated this study (72.4% female; 81.7% Bachelor's student). The prevalence of moderate to severe depression, anxiety and stress among university students are 53.9%, 66.2% and 44.6%, respectively. Multivariable logistic regression analysis found that the odds of depression were lower among students who exercise at least 3 times per week (OR: 0.380, 95% CI: 0.203-0.711). The odd ratio of student who had no personal history of depression to had depression, anxiety and stress during this pandemic was also lower in comparison (OR: 0.489, 95% CI: 0.249-0.962; OR: 0.482, 95% CI: 0.241-0.963; OR: 0.252, 95% CI: 0.111-0.576). Surprisingly, students whose are currently pursuing Master study was associated with lower stress levels (OR: 0.188, 95% CI: 0.053-0.663). However, student who had poorer satisfaction of current learning experience were more likely to experience stress (OR: 1.644, 95% CI: 1.010-2.675).
LIMITATIONS: It is impossible to establish causal relationships between variables on mental health outcomes, and there is a risk of information bias.
CONCLUSION: The prevalence of mental health issues among university students is high. These findings present essential pieces of predictive information when promoting related awareness among them.
METHODS: The record of all patients with cervical facet pain who were treated with RF neurotomy medial branch of dorsal rami between January 2016 and December 2019 were reviewed retrospectively. Comparisons were made between patients who underwent RF neurotomy with multiple skin entry posterolateral approach and those who underwent RF neurotomy with single entry posterior parasagittal approach. The primary outcome was measured as the mean changes in numerical rating scale (NRS), and the secondary outcomes were duration and complications related to both approaches.
RESULTS: Thirty-one patients who underwent RF neurotomy via posterolateral approach were compared with 40 patients who underwent the procedure via posterior parasagittal approach. Both approaches showed a significant decrease in the NRS from baseline values. However, the differences in the NRS lowering effect at 3 and 12 months between these 2 approaches were not statistically significant. The duration of the procedure was significantly shorter with posterior parasagittal approach (44.13 ± 4.72 minutes vs 54.68 ± 7.39 minutes; P < 0.001). There were no serious complications encountered in both approaches.
CONCLUSIONS: With comparable efficacy and safety profile between the posterior parasagittal and the conventional posterolateral approaches, the former single skin entry approach offers the added advantage of being less time-consuming. Further randomized prospective studies are necessary to validate these findings.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the prevalence of burnout, assess the personal and professional characteristics associated with burnout in spine surgeons and determine their quality of life.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Burnout is a syndrome characterized by emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and decreased sense of accomplishment that leads to decreased effectiveness at work. To date, there has been a lack of information on the prevalence of burnout among spine surgeons worldwide and the risk factors associated with this condition.
METHODS: An electronic survey with members of AO Spine was performed in May 2018. The survey evaluated demographic variables, practice characteristics, burnout, and quality of life. Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) and EuroQol 5-dimensions (EQ5D) were used to evaluate burnout and quality of life, respectively.
RESULTS: A total of 818 surgeons from 86 countries completed the survey. The prevalence of burnout was 30.6%. In the multiple linear model, emotional fatigue was independently associated with younger age (B = -0.17, CI95% = -0.26 to -0.07, P
OBJECTIVE: Anterior-alone surgery has gained wider reception for subaxial cervical spine facets dislocation. Questions remain on its efficacy and safety as a stand-alone entity within the contexts of concurrent facet fractures, unilateral versus bilateral dislocations, anterior open reduction, and old dislocation.
METHODS: A systematic review was performed with search strategy using translatable MESH terms across MEDLINE, EMBASE, VHL Regional Portal, and CENTRAL databases on patients with subaxial cervical dislocation intervened via anterior-alone approach. Two reviewers independently screened for eligible studies. PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis) flow chart was adhered to. Nine retrospective studies were included. Narrative synthesis was performed to determine primary outcomes on spinal fusion and revisions and secondary outcomes on new occurrence or deterioration of neurology and infection rate.
RESULTS: Nonunion was not encountered across all contexts. A total of 0.86% of unilateral facet dislocation (1 out of 116) with inadequate reduction due to facet fragments between the facet joints removed its malpositioned plate following fusion. No new neurological deficit was observed. Cases that underwent anterior open reduction did not encounter failure that require subsequent posterior reduction surgery. One study (N = 52) on old dislocation incorporated partial corpectomy in their approach and limited anterior-alone approach to cases with persistent instability.
CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review supports the efficacy and success of anterior reduction, fusion, and instrumentation for cervical facet fracture dislocation. It is safe from a neurological standpoint. Revision rate due to concurrent facet fracture is low. Certain patients may require posteriorly based surgery or in specific cases combined anterior and posterior procedures.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the inter-rater reliability of Rajasekaran's kyphosis classification through a multicenter validation study.
OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: The classification of kyphosis, developed by Rajasekaran, incorporates factors related to curve characteristics, including column deficiency, disc mobility, curve magnitude, and osteotomy requirements. Although the classification offers significant benefits in determining prognosis and management decisions, it has not been subjected to multicenter validation.
METHODS: A total of 30 sets of images, including plain radiographs, computed tomography scans, and magnetic resonance imaging scans, were randomly selected from our hospital patient database. All patients had undergone deformity correction surgery for kyphosis. Twelve spine surgeons from the Asia-Pacific region (six different countries) independently evaluated and classified the deformity types and proposed their surgical recommendations. This information was then compared with standard deformity classification and surgical recommendations.
RESULTS: The kappa coefficients for the classification were as follows: 0.88 for type 1A, 0.78 for type 1B, 0.50 for type 2B, 0.40 for type 3A, 0.63 for type 3B, and 0.86 for type 3C deformities. The overall kappa coefficient for the classification was 0.68. Regarding the repeatability of osteotomy recommendations, kappa values were the highest for Ponte's (Schwab type 2) osteotomy (kappa 0.8). Kappa values for other osteotomy recommendations were 0.52 for pedicle subtraction/disc-bone osteotomy (Schwab type 3/4), 0.42 for vertebral column resection (VCR, type 5), and 0.30 for multilevel VCRs (type 6).
CONCLUSIONS: Excellent accuracy was found for types 1A, 1B, and 3C deformities (ends of spectrum). There was more variation among surgeons in differentiating between one-column (types 2A and 2B) and two-column (types 3A and 3B) deficiencies, as surgeons often failed to recognize the radiological signs of posterior column failure. This failure to identify column deficiencies can potentially alter kyphosis management. There was excellent consensus among surgeons in the recommendation of type 2 osteotomy; however, some variation was observed in their choice for other osteotomies.
METHODS: World Spine Care convened the GSCI to develop an evidence-based, practical, and sustainable healthcare model for spinal care. The initiative aims to improve the management, prevention, and public health for spine-related disorders worldwide; thus, global representation was essential. A series of meetings established the initiative's mission and goals. Electronic surveys collected contributorship and demographic information, and experiences with spinal conditions to better understand perceptions and potential biases that were contributing to the model of care.
RESULTS: Sixty-eight clinicians and scientists participated in the deliberations and are authors of one or more of the GSCI articles. Of these experts, 57 reported providing spine care in 34 countries, (i.e., low-, middle-, and high-income countries, as well as underserved communities in high-income countries.) The majority reported personally experiencing or having a close family member with one or more spinal concerns including: spine-related trauma or injury, spinal problems that required emergency or surgical intervention, spinal pain referred from non-spine sources, spinal deformity, spinal pathology or disease, neurological problems, and/or mild, moderate, or severe back or neck pain. There were no substantial reported conflicts of interest.
CONCLUSION: The GSCI participants have broad professional experience and wide international distribution with no discipline dominating the deliberations. The GSCI believes this set of papers has the potential to inform and improve spine care globally. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
METHODS: The Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) meetings and literature reviews were synthesized into a seed document and distributed to spine care experts. After three rounds of a modified Delphi process, all participants reached consensus on the final model of care and implementation steps.
RESULTS: Sixty-six experts representing 24 countries participated. The GSCI model of care has eight core principles: person-centered, people-centered, biopsychosocial, proactive, evidence-based, integrative, collaborative, and self-sustaining. The model of care includes a classification system and care pathway, levels of care, and a focus on the patient's journey. The six steps for implementation are initiation and preparation; assessment of the current situation; planning and designing solutions; implementation; assessment and evaluation of program; and sustain program and scale up.
CONCLUSION: The GSCI proposes an evidence-based, practical, sustainable, and scalable model of care representing eight core principles with a six-step implementation plan. The aim of this model is to help transform spine care globally, especially in low- and middle-income countries and underserved communities. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
METHODS: Leading spine clinicians and scientists around the world were invited to participate. The interprofessional, international team consisted of 68 members from 24 countries, representing most disciplines that study or care for patients with spinal symptoms, including family physicians, spine surgeons, rheumatologists, chiropractors, physical therapists, epidemiologists, research methodologists, and other stakeholders.
RESULTS: Literature reviews on the burden of spinal disorders and six categories of evidence-based interventions for spinal disorders (assessment, public health, psychosocial, noninvasive, invasive, and the management of osteoporosis) were completed. In addition, participants developed a stratification system for surgical intervention, a classification system for spinal disorders, an evidence-based care pathway, and lists of resources and recommendations to implement the GSCI model of care.
CONCLUSION: The GSCI proposes an evidence-based model that is consistent with recent calls for action to reduce the global burden of spinal disorders. The model requires testing to determine feasibility. If it proves to be implementable, this model holds great promise to reduce the tremendous global burden of spinal disorders. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
METHODS: The Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) care pathway development team extracted interventions recommended for the management of spinal disorders from six GSCI articles that synthesized the available evidence from guidelines and relevant literature. Sixty-eight international and interprofessional clinicians and scientists with expertise in spine-related conditions were invited to participate. An iterative consensus process was used.
RESULTS: After three rounds of review, 46 experts from 16 countries reached consensus for the care pathway that includes five decision steps: awareness, initial triage, provider assessment, interventions (e.g., non-invasive treatment; invasive treatment; psychological and social intervention; prevention and public health; specialty care and interprofessional management), and outcomes. The care pathway can be used to guide the management of patients with any spine-related concern (e.g., back and neck pain, deformity, spinal injury, neurological conditions, pathology, spinal diseases). The pathway is simple and can be incorporated into educational tools, decision-making trees, and electronic medical records.
CONCLUSION: A care pathway for the management of individuals presenting with spine-related concerns includes evidence-based recommendations to guide health care providers in the management of common spinal disorders. The proposed pathway is person-centered and evidence-based. The acceptability and utility of this care pathway will need to be evaluated in various communities, especially in low- and middle-income countries, with different cultural background and resources. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
METHODS: Contents from the Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) Classification System and GSCI care pathway papers provided a foundation for the resources list. A seed document was developed that included resources for spine care that could be delivered in primary, secondary and tertiary settings, as well as resources needed for self-care and community-based settings for a wide variety of spine concerns (e.g., back and neck pain, deformity, spine injury, neurological conditions, pathology and spinal diseases). An iterative expert consensus process was used using electronic surveys.
RESULTS: Thirty-five experts completed the process. An iterative consensus process was used through an electronic survey. A consensus was reached after two rounds. The checklist of resources included the following categories: healthcare provider knowledge and skills, materials and equipment, human resources, facilities and infrastructure. The list identifies resources needed to implement a spine care program in any community, which are based upon spine care needs.
CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the first international and interprofessional attempt to develop a list of resources needed to deliver care in an evidence-based care pathway for the management of people presenting with spine-related concerns. This resource list needs to be field tested in a variety of communities with different resource capacities to verify its utility. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
Objectives: To continue the line of a previous publication using steroid for acute spinal cord injury (SCI) by spine surgeons from Latin America (LA) and assess the current status of methylprednisolone (MP) prescription in Europe (EU), Asia Pacific (AP), North America (NA), and Middle East (ME) to determine targets for educational activities suitable for each region.
Methods: The English version of a previously published questionnaire was used to evaluate opinions about MP administration in acute SCI in LA, EU, AP, NA, and ME. This Internet-based survey was conducted by members of AOSpine. The questionnaire asked about demographic features, background with management of spine trauma patients, routine administration of MP in acute SCI, and reasons for MP administration.
Results: A total of 2659 responses were obtained for the electronic questionnaire from LA, EU, AP, NA, and ME. The number of spine surgeons that treat SCI was 2206 (83%). The steroid was used by 1198 (52.9%) surgeons. The uses of MP were based predominantly on the National Acute Spinal Cord Injury Study III study (n = 595, 50%). The answers were most frequently given by spine surgeons from AP, ME, and LA. These regions presented a statistically significant difference from North America (P < .001). The number of SCI patients treated per year inversely influenced the use of MP. The higher the number of patients treated, the lower the administration rates of MP observed.
Conclusions: The study identified potential targets for educational campaigns, aiming to reduce inappropriate practices of MP administration.
METHODS: A questionnaire survey was sent by e-mail to members of AOSpine to evaluate their familiarity and use of PROMs instruments and to assess the barriers to their use in spine care practice in LA, EU, AP, NA, and ME.
RESULTS: A total of 1634 AOSpine members from LA, EU, AP, NA, and ME answered the electronic questionnaire. The percentage of spine surgeons who were familiar with the generic health-related quality of life questionnaire was 71.7%. In addition, 31.9% of respondents did not use any PROMs routinely. The main barriers to implementing PROMs were lack of time to administer the questionnaires (57%) followed by lack of staff to assist in data collection (55%), and the long time to fill out the questionnaires (46%). The routine use of questionnaires was more frequent in NA and EU and less common in LA and ME (P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: We found that 31.9% of spine surgeons do not use the PROMs questionnaire routinely. This appears to occur because of lack of knowledge regarding their importance, absence of reimbursement for this extra work, minimal financial support for clinical research, the cost of implementation, and lack of concern among physicians.