GLORIA

GEOMAR Library Ocean Research Information Access

X

Your email was sent successfully. Check your inbox.

An error occurred while sending the email. Please try again.

Proceed reservation?

Export
  • 1
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    Spinal Instability Neoplastic Score: An Analysis of Reliability and Validity From the Spine Oncology Study Group
    American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) ; 2011
    In:  Journal of Clinical Oncology Vol. 29, No. 22 ( 2011-08-01), p. 3072-3077
    Details
    In: Journal of Clinical Oncology, American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), Vol. 29, No. 22 ( 2011-08-01), p. 3072-3077
    Abstract: Standardized indications for treatment of tumor-related spinal instability are hampered by the lack of a valid and reliable classification system. The objective of this study was to determine the interobserver reliability, intraobserver reliability, and predictive validity of the Spinal Instability Neoplastic Score (SINS). Methods Clinical and radiographic data from 30 patients with spinal tumors were classified as stable, potentially unstable, and unstable by members of the Spine Oncology Study Group. The median category for each patient case (consensus opinion) was used as the gold standard for predictive validity testing. On two occasions at least 6 weeks apart, each rater also scored each patient using SINS. Each total score was converted into a three-category data field, with 0 to 6 as stable, 7 to 12 as potentially unstable, and 13 to 18 as unstable. Results The κ statistics for interobserver reliability were 0.790, 0.841, 0.244, 0.456, 0.462, and 0.492 for the fields of location, pain, bone quality, alignment, vertebral body collapse, and posterolateral involvement, respectively. The κ statistics for intraobserver reliability were 0.806, 0.859, 0.528, 0.614, 0.590, and 0.662 for the same respective fields. Intraclass correlation coefficients for inter- and intraobserver reliability of total SINS score were 0.846 (95% CI, 0.773 to 0.911) and 0.886 (95% CI, 0.868 to 0.902), respectively. The κ statistic for predictive validity was 0.712 (95% CI, 0.676 to 0.766). Conclusion SINS demonstrated near-perfect inter- and intraobserver reliability in determining three clinically relevant categories of stability. The sensitivity and specificity of SINS for potentially unstable or unstable lesions were 95.7% and 79.5%, respectively.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0732-183X , 1527-7755
    URL: Article
    DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2010.34.3897
    RVK:
    XA 52760
    RVK:
    XA 10000
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
    Publication Date: 2011
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2005181-5
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
    Online Resource
  • 2
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    Deep Learning for Adjacent Segment Disease at Preoperative MRI for Cervical Radiculopathy
    Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) ; 2021
    In:  Radiology Vol. 301, No. 3 ( 2021-12), p. E446-E446
    Details
    In: Radiology, Radiological Society of North America (RSNA), Vol. 301, No. 3 ( 2021-12), p. E446-E446
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0033-8419 , 1527-1315
    URL: Article
    DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2021219023
    RVK:
    XA 10000
    Language: English
    Publisher: Radiological Society of North America (RSNA)
    Publication Date: 2021
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 80324-8
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2010588-5
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
    Online Resource
  • 3
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    Cervical laminoplasty for the treatment of cervical degenerative myelopathy
    Journal of Neurosurgery Publishing Group (JNSPG) ; 2009
    In:  Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine Vol. 11, No. 2 ( 2009-08), p. 157-169
    Details
    In: Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine, Journal of Neurosurgery Publishing Group (JNSPG), Vol. 11, No. 2 ( 2009-08), p. 157-169
    Abstract: The objective of this systematic review was to use evidence-based medicine to examine the efficacy of cervical laminoplasty in the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). Methods The National Library of Medicine and Cochrane Database were queried using MeSH headings and keywords relevant to cervical laminoplasty and CSM. Abstracts were reviewed and studies meeting the inclusion criteria were selected. The guidelines group assembled an evidentiary table summarizing the quality of evidence (Classes I–III). Disagreements regarding the level of evidence were resolved through an expert consensus conference. The group formulated recommendations that contained the degree of strength based on the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines network. Validation was done through peer review by the Joint Guidelines Committee of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons and Congress of Neurological Surgeons. Results Cervical laminoplasty has improved functional outcome in the setting of CSM or ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament. Using the Japanese Orthopaedic Association scale score, ~ 55–60% average recovery rate has been observed (Class III). The functional improvement observed after laminoplasty may be limited by duration of symptoms, severity of stenosis, severity of myelopathy, and poorly controlled diabetes as negative risk factors (Class II). There is conflicting evidence regarding age, with 1 study citing it as a negative risk factor, and another not demonstrating this result. Conclusions Cervical laminoplasty is recommended for the treatment of CSM or ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (Class III).
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 1547-5654
    URL: Article
    DOI: 10.3171/2009.1.SPINE08726
    RVK:
    XA 55270.1
    Language: Unknown
    Publisher: Journal of Neurosurgery Publishing Group (JNSPG)
    Publication Date: 2009
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
    Online Resource
  • 4
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    Indications for anterior cervical decompression for the treatment of cervical degenerative radiculopathy
    Journal of Neurosurgery Publishing Group (JNSPG) ; 2009
    In:  Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine Vol. 11, No. 2 ( 2009-08), p. 174-182
    Details
    In: Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine, Journal of Neurosurgery Publishing Group (JNSPG), Vol. 11, No. 2 ( 2009-08), p. 174-182
    Abstract: The objective of this systematic review was to use evidence-based medicine to identify the indications and utility of anterior cervical nerve root decompression. Methods The National Library of Medicine and Cochrane Database were queried using MeSH headings and key words relevant to surgical management of cervical radiculopathy. Abstracts were reviewed after which studies meeting inclusion criteria were selected. The guidelines group assembled an evidentiary table summarizing the quality of evidence (Classes I–III). Disagreements regarding the level of evidence were resolved through an expert consensus conference. The group formulated recommendations that contained the degree of strength based on the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines network. Validation was done through peer review by the Joint Guidelines Committee of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons/Congress of Neurological Surgeons. Results Anterior nerve root decompression via anterior cervical discectomy (ACD) with or without fusion for radiculopathy is associated with rapid relief (3–4 months) of arm/neck pain, weakness, and/or sensory loss compared with physical therapy (PT) or cervical collar immobilization. Anterior cervical discectomy and ACD with fusion (ACDF) are associated with longer term (12 months) improvement in certain motor functions compared to PT. Other rapid gains observed after anterior decompression (diminished pain, improved sensation, and improved strength in certain muscle groups) are also maintained over the course of 12 months. However, comparable clinical improvements with PT or cervical immobilization therapy are also present in these clinical modalities (Class I). Conflicting evidence exists as to the efficacy of anterior cervical foraminotomy with reported success rates of 52–99% but recurrent symptoms as high as 30% (Class III). Conclusions Anterior cervical discectomy, ACDF, and anterior cervical foraminotomy may improve cervical radicular symptoms. With regard to ACD and ACDF compared to PT or cervical immobilization, more rapid relief (within 3–4 months) may be seen with ACD or ACDF with maintenance of gains over the course of 12 months (Class I). Anterior cervical foraminotomy is associated with improvement in clinical function but the quality of data are weaker (Class III), and there is a wide range of efficacy (52–99%).
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 1547-5654
    URL: Article
    DOI: 10.3171/2009.3.SPINE08720
    RVK:
    XA 55270.1
    Language: Unknown
    Publisher: Journal of Neurosurgery Publishing Group (JNSPG)
    Publication Date: 2009
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
    Online Resource
  • 5
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    Management of anterior cervical pseudarthrosis
    Journal of Neurosurgery Publishing Group (JNSPG) ; 2009
    In:  Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine Vol. 11, No. 2 ( 2009-08), p. 228-237
    Details
    In: Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine, Journal of Neurosurgery Publishing Group (JNSPG), Vol. 11, No. 2 ( 2009-08), p. 228-237
    Abstract: The objective of this systematic review was to use evidence-based medicine to identify the best methodology for diagnosis and treatment of anterior pseudarthrosis. Methods The National Library of Medicine and Cochrane Database were queried using MeSH headings and key words relevant to pseudarthrosis and cervical spine surgery. Abstracts were reviewed, after which studies meeting inclusion criteria were selected. The guidelines group assembled an evidentiary table summarizing the quality of evidence (Classes I–III). Disagreements regarding the level of evidence were resolved through an expert consensus conference. The group formulated recommendations that contained the degree of strength based on the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines network. Validation was done through peer review by the Joint Guidelines Committee of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons/Congress of Neurological Surgeons. Results Evaluation for pseudarthrosis is warranted, as there may be an association between clinical outcome and pseudarthrosis. The strength of this association cannot be accurately determined because of the variable incidence of symptomatic and asymptomatic pseudarthroses (Class III). Revision of a symptomatic pseudarthrosis may be considered because arthrodesis is associated with improved clinical outcome (Class III). Both posterior and anterior approaches have proven successful for surgical correction of an anterior pseudarthrosis. Posterior approaches may be associated with higher fusion rates following repair of an anterior pseudarthrosis (Class III). Conclusions If suspected, pseudarthrosis should be investigated because there may be an association between arthrodesis and outcome. However, the strength of this association cannot be accurately determined. Anterior and posterior approaches have been successful.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 1547-5654
    URL: Article
    DOI: 10.3171/2009.2.SPINE08729
    RVK:
    XA 55270.1
    Language: Unknown
    Publisher: Journal of Neurosurgery Publishing Group (JNSPG)
    Publication Date: 2009
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
    Online Resource
  • 6
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 7: Lumbar fusion for intractable low-back pain without stenosis or spondylolisthesis
    Journal of Neurosurgery Publishing Group (JNSPG) ; 2014
    In:  Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine Vol. 21, No. 1 ( 2014-07), p. 42-47
    Details
    In: Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine, Journal of Neurosurgery Publishing Group (JNSPG), Vol. 21, No. 1 ( 2014-07), p. 42-47
    Abstract: Establishing an appropriate treatment strategy for patients presenting with low-back pain, in the absence of stenosis or spondylolisthesis, remains a controversial subject. Inherent to this situation is often an inability to adequately identify the source of low-back pain to justify various treatment recommendations, such as lumbar fusion. The current evidence does not identify a single best treatment alternative for these patients. Based on a number of prospective, randomized trials, comparable outcomes, for patients presenting with 1- or 2-level degenerative disc disease, have been demonstrated following either lumbar fusion or a comprehensive rehabilitation program with a cognitive element. Limited access to such comprehensive rehabilitative programs may prove problematic when pursuing this alternative. For patients whose pain is refractory to conservative care, lumbar fusion is recommended. Limitations of these studies preclude the ability to present the most robust recommendation in support of lumbar fusion. A number of lesser-quality studies, primarily case series, also support the use of lumbar fusion in this patient population.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 1547-5654
    URL: Article
    DOI: 10.3171/2014.4.SPINE14270
    RVK:
    XA 55270.1
    Language: Unknown
    Publisher: Journal of Neurosurgery Publishing Group (JNSPG)
    Publication Date: 2014
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
    Online Resource
  • 7
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 9: Lumbar fusion for stenosis with spondylolisthesis
    Journal of Neurosurgery Publishing Group (JNSPG) ; 2014
    In:  Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine Vol. 21, No. 1 ( 2014-07), p. 54-61
    Details
    In: Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine, Journal of Neurosurgery Publishing Group (JNSPG), Vol. 21, No. 1 ( 2014-07), p. 54-61
    Abstract: Patients presenting with stenosis associated with a spondylolisthesis will often describe signs and symptoms consistent with neurogenic claudication, radiculopathy, and/or low-back pain. The primary objective of surgery, when deemed appropriate, is to decompress the neural elements. As a result of the decompression, the inherent instability associated with the spondylolisthesis may progress and lead to further misalignment that results in pain or recurrence of neurological complaints. Under these circumstances, lumbar fusion is considered appropriate to stabilize the spine and prevent delayed deterioration. Since publication of the original guidelines there have been a significant number of studies published that continue to support the utility of lumbar fusion for patients presenting with stenosis and spondylolisthesis. Several recently published trials, including the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial, are among the largest prospective randomized investigations of this issue. Despite limitations of study design or execution, these trials have consistently demonstrated superior outcomes when patients undergo surgery, with the majority undergoing some type of lumbar fusion procedure. There is insufficient evidence, however, to recommend a standard approach to achieve a solid arthrodesis. When formulating the most appropriate surgical strategy, it is recommended that an individualized approach be adopted, one that takes into consideration the patient's unique anatomical constraints and desires, as well as surgeon's experience.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 1547-5654
    URL: Article
    DOI: 10.3171/2014.4.SPINE14274
    RVK:
    XA 55270.1
    Language: Unknown
    Publisher: Journal of Neurosurgery Publishing Group (JNSPG)
    Publication Date: 2014
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
    Online Resource
  • 8
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 6: Discography for patient selection
    Journal of Neurosurgery Publishing Group (JNSPG) ; 2014
    In:  Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine Vol. 21, No. 1 ( 2014-07), p. 37-41
    Details
    In: Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine, Journal of Neurosurgery Publishing Group (JNSPG), Vol. 21, No. 1 ( 2014-07), p. 37-41
    Abstract: Identifying the etiology of pain for patients suffering from chronic low-back pain remains problematic. Noninvasive imaging modalities, used in isolation, have not consistently provided sufficient evidence to support performance of a lumbar fusion. Provocative testing has been used as an adjunct in this assessment, either alone or in combination with other modalities, to enhance the diagnostic capabilities when evaluating patients with low-back pain. There have been a limited number of studies investigating this topic since the publication of the original guidelines. Based primarily on retrospective studies, discography, as a stand-alone test, is not recommended to formulate treatment strategies for patients with low-back pain. A single randomized cohort study demonstrated an improved potential of discoblock over discography as a predictor of success following lumbar fusion. It is therefore recommended that discoblock be considered as a diagnostic option. There is a possibility, based on a matched cohort study, that an association exists between progression of degenerative disc disease and the performance of a provocative discogram. It is therefore recommended that patients be counseled regarding this potential development prior to undergoing discography.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 1547-5654
    URL: Article
    DOI: 10.3171/2014.4.SPINE14269
    RVK:
    XA 55270.1
    Language: Unknown
    Publisher: Journal of Neurosurgery Publishing Group (JNSPG)
    Publication Date: 2014
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
    Online Resource
  • 9
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    Cervical surgical techniques for the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy
    Journal of Neurosurgery Publishing Group (JNSPG) ; 2009
    In:  Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine Vol. 11, No. 2 ( 2009-08), p. 130-141
    Details
    In: Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine, Journal of Neurosurgery Publishing Group (JNSPG), Vol. 11, No. 2 ( 2009-08), p. 130-141
    Abstract: The objective of this systematic review was to use evidence-based medicine to compare the efficacy of different surgical techniques for the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). Methods The National Library of Medicine and Cochrane Database were queried using MeSH headings and keywords relevant to anterior and posterior cervical spine surgery and CSM. The guidelines group assembled an evidentiary table summarizing the quality of evidence (Classes I–III). The group formulated recommendations that contained the degree of strength based on the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines network. Validation was done through peer review by the Joint Guidelines Committee of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons/Congress of Neurological Surgeons. Results A variety of techniques have improved functional outcome after surgical treatment for CSM, including anterior cervical discectomy with fusion (ACDF), anterior cervical corpectomy with fusion (ACCF), laminoplasty, laminectomy, and laminectomy with fusion (Class III). Anterior cervical discectomy with fusion and ACCF appear to yield similar results in multilevel spine decompression for lesions at the disc level. The use of anterior plating allows for equivalent fusion rates between these techniques (Class III). If anterior fixation is not used, ACCF may provide a higher fusion rate than multilevel ACDF but also a higher graft failure rate than multilevel ACDF (Class III). Anterior cervical discectomy with fusion, ACCF, laminectomy, laminoplasty, and laminectomy with arthrodesis all provide near-term functional improvement for CSM. However, laminectomy is associated with late deterioration compared with the other types of anterior and posterior surgeries (Class III). Conclusions Multiple approaches exist with similar near-term improvements; however, laminectomy appears to have a late deterioration rate that may need to be considered when appropriate.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 1547-5654
    URL: Article
    DOI: 10.3171/2009.3.SPINE08728
    RVK:
    XA 55270.1
    Language: Unknown
    Publisher: Journal of Neurosurgery Publishing Group (JNSPG)
    Publication Date: 2009
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
    Online Resource
  • 10
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 14: Brace therapy as an adjunct to or substitute for lumbar fusion
    Journal of Neurosurgery Publishing Group (JNSPG) ; 2014
    In:  Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine Vol. 21, No. 1 ( 2014-07), p. 91-101
    Details
    In: Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine, Journal of Neurosurgery Publishing Group (JNSPG), Vol. 21, No. 1 ( 2014-07), p. 91-101
    Abstract: The utilization of orthotic devices for lumbar degenerative disease has been justified from both a prognostic and therapeutic perspective. As a prognostic tool, bracing is applied prior to surgery to determine if immobilization of the spine leads to symptomatic relief and thus justify the performance of a fusion. Since bracing does not eliminate motion, the validity of this assumption is questionable. Only one low-level study has investigated the predictive value of bracing prior to surgery. No correlation between response to bracing and fusion outcome was observed; therefore a trial of preoperative bracing is not recommended. Based on low-level evidence, the use of bracing is not recommended for the prevention of low-back pain in a general working population, since the incidence of low-back pain and impact on productivity were not reduced. However, in laborers with a history of back pain, a positive impact on lost workdays was observed when bracing was applied. Bracing is recommended as an option for treatment of subacute low-back pain, as several higher-level studies have demonstrated an improvement in pain scores and function. The use of bracing following instrumented posterolateral fusion, however, is not recommended, since equivalent outcomes have been demonstrated with or without the application of a brace.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 1547-5654
    URL: Article
    DOI: 10.3171/2014.4.SPINE14282
    RVK:
    XA 55270.1
    Language: Unknown
    Publisher: Journal of Neurosurgery Publishing Group (JNSPG)
    Publication Date: 2014
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
    Online Resource
Close ⊗
This website uses cookies and the analysis tool Matomo. More information can be found here...