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: 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: 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.
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: 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: A cross-sectional survey was carried out among spine surgeons in Asia Pacific. The questionnaires were focused on the usage, recycling and disposal of PPE.
RESULTS: Two hundred and twenty-two surgeons from 19 countries participated in the survey. When we sub-analysed the differences between countries, the provision of adequate PPE by hospitals ranged from 37.5% to 100%. The usage of PPE was generally high. The most used PPE were surgical face masks (88.7%), followed by surgical caps (88.3%), gowns (85.6%), sterile gloves (83.3%) and face shields (82.0%). The least used PPE were powered air-purifying respirators (PAPR) (23.0%) and shoes/boots (45.0%). The commonly used PPE for surgeries involving COVID-19 positive patients were N95 masks (74.8%), sterile gloves (73.0%), gowns (72.1%), surgical caps (71.6%), face shields (64.4%), goggles (64.0%), shoe covers (58.6%), plastic aprons (45.9%), shoes/boots (45.9%), surgical face masks (36.5%) and PAPRs (21.2%). Most PPE were not recycled. Biohazard bins were the preferred method of disposal for all types of PPE items compared to general waste.
CONCLUSIONS: The usage of PPE was generally high among most countries especially for surgeries involving COVID-19 positive patients except for Myanmar and Nepal. Overall, the most used PPE were surgical face masks. For surgeries involving COVID-19 positive patients, the most used PPE were N95 masks. Most PPE were not recycled. Biohazard bins were the preferred method of disposal for all types of PPE.
METHODS: Computed tomography scans from 74 patients were retrospectively evaluated between January 2008 and December 2012. Pedicle perforations were classified by two types of grading systems. For medial, lateral, superior and inferior perforations: grade 0 - no violation; grade 1 - <2 mm; grade 2 - 2-4 mm and grade 3 - >4 mm. For anterior perforations: grade 0 - no violation; grade 1 - <4 mm; grade 2 - 4-6 mm and grade 3 - >6 mm.
RESULTS: There were 35 (47.3%) male and 39 (52.7%) female patients with a total 260 thoracic pedicle screws (T1-T6) analysed. There were 32 screw perforations which account to a perforation rate of 12.3% (11.2% grade 1, 0.7% grade 2 and 0.4% grade 3). None led to pedicle screw-related complications. The perforation rate was highest at T1 (33.3%, all grade 1 perforations), followed by T6 (14.5%) and T4 (14.0%).
CONCLUSION: Fluoroscopic guided percutaneous pedicle screws of the upper thoracic spine (T1-T6) are technically more demanding and carry potential risks of serious complications. Extra precautions need to be taken when fluoroscopic guided percutaneous pedicle screws are placed at T1 and T2 levels, due to high medial pedicular angulation and obstruction of lateral fluoroscopic images by the shoulder girdle and at T4-T6 levels, due to smaller pedicular width.
METHODS: Three-dimensional computed tomographies of 180 subjects (60 from each ethnic) were analyzed. The length and angulations of C1LM screw and the location of internal carotid artery (ICA) in relation to C1LM were assessed and classified according to the classification by Murakami et al. The incidence of ponticulus posticus (PP) was determined and the differences among the population of these three ethnics were recorded.
RESULTS: The average base length was 8.5 ± 1.4 mm. The lengths within the lateral mass were between 14.7 ± 1.6 mm and 21.7 ± 2.3 mm. The prevalence of PP was 8.3%. 55.3% (199) of ICA were located in zone 0, 38.3% (138) in zone 1-1, 6.4% (23) in zone 1-2, and none in zone 1-3 and zone 2. The average angulation from the entry point to the ICA was 8.5° ± 6.4° laterally. The mean distance of ICA from C1 anterior cortex was 3.7 ± 1.7 mm (range: 0.6∼11.3). There was no difference in distribution of ICA in zone 1 among the three population (Chinese-47%, Indians-61%, and Malays-53%; p > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: No ICA is located medial to the entry point of C1LM screw. If bicortical purchase of C1LM screw is needed, screw protrusion of less than 3 mm or medially angulated is safe for ICA. The incidence of PP is 8.3% with higher prevalence among the Indian population.