Displaying all 6 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Johnson CD, Haldeman S, Nordin M, Chou R, Côté P, Hurwitz EL, et al.
    Eur Spine J, 2018 09;27(Suppl 6):786-795.
    PMID: 30151808 DOI: 10.1007/s00586-018-5723-9
    PURPOSE: The purpose of this report is to describe the Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) contributors, disclosures, and methods for reporting transparency on the development of the recommendations.

    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.

    Matched MeSH terms: Spinal Diseases/epidemiology*
  2. Johnson CD, Haldeman S, Chou R, Nordin M, Green BN, Côté P, et al.
    Eur Spine J, 2018 09;27(Suppl 6):925-945.
    PMID: 30151805 DOI: 10.1007/s00586-018-5720-z
    PURPOSE: Spine-related disorders are a leading cause of global disability and are a burden on society and to public health. Currently, there is no comprehensive, evidence-based model of care for spine-related disorders, which includes back and neck pain, deformity, spine injury, neurological conditions, spinal diseases, and pathology, that could be applied in global health care settings. The purposes of this paper are to propose: (1) principles to transform the delivery of spine care; (2) an evidence-based model that could be applied globally; and (3) implementation suggestions.

    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.

    Matched MeSH terms: Spinal Diseases/epidemiology
  3. Haldeman S, Nordin M, Chou R, Côté P, Hurwitz EL, Johnson CD, et al.
    Eur Spine J, 2018 09;27(Suppl 6):776-785.
    PMID: 30151809 DOI: 10.1007/s00586-018-5722-x
    PURPOSE: Spinal disorders, including back and neck pain, are major causes of disability, economic hardship, and morbidity, especially in underserved communities and low- and middle-income countries. Currently, there is no model of care to address this issue. This paper provides an overview of the papers from the Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI), which was convened to develop an evidence-based, practical, and sustainable, spinal healthcare model for communities around the world with various levels of resources.

    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.

    Matched MeSH terms: Spinal Diseases/epidemiology*
  4. Chiu CK, Chan CYW, Cheung JPY, Cheung PWH, Gani SMA, Kwan MK
    J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong), 2021 2 12;29(1):2309499020988176.
    PMID: 33569998 DOI: 10.1177/2309499020988176
    PURPOSE: In this study we investigated on the personal protective equipment (PPE) usage, recycling, and disposal among spine surgeons in the Asia Pacific region.

    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.

    Matched MeSH terms: Spinal Diseases/epidemiology
  5. Razak M, Kamari ZH, Roohi S
    Med J Malaysia, 2000 Sep;55 Suppl C:18-28.
    PMID: 11200039
    A retrospective review of thirty-eight patients (16 males and 22 females) with spinal infection between 1993 and 1998 revealed that the mean age was 39.9 years and the peak incidence was in the 5th decade of life. Infections in thirty-two patients (84.2%) were tuberculous in origin, 13.2% were pyogenic and 2.6% were fungal. Back pain was a symptom in 94.7% while 55.8% had neurological deficits, of which two-thirds were tuberculous in origin. Twenty-two patients (57.9%) had an impaired immune status secondary to pulmonary either tuberculosis, diabetes mellitus, intravenous drug abuse, prolonged steroid treatment, malnutrition, or advanced age. History of contact with tuberculous patients was elicited in 31.3%, extraskeletal tuberculosis was found in 28.1%, while Mantoux test was only positive in 53.1% of tuberculous patients. Majority of the cases (57.9%) involved lumbar vertebra. The histopathological examination was only positive in 22.2% from material taken via CT guided biopsy but 93.3% were found to be conclusive from open biopsy. 4 out of 5 patients who had a pyogenic infection were treated conservatively and produced a good result. There was no difference in outcome for tuberculosis patients treated with either the 3 drug or 4 drug regimen. Anterior decompression and bone grafting in tuberculous patients was superior in terms of a faster fusion rate, early pain relief and prevention of kvphotic deformity. The initial neurological deficit did not reflect the future prognosis of patients with spinal infection.
    Matched MeSH terms: Spinal Diseases/epidemiology
  6. Chiu CK, Kwan MK, Chan CY, Schaefer C, Hansen-Algenstaedt N
    Bone Joint J, 2015 Aug;97-B(8):1111-7.
    PMID: 26224830 DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.97B8.35330
    We undertook a retrospective study investigating the accuracy and safety of percutaneous pedicle screws placed under fluoroscopic guidance in the lumbosacral junction and lumbar spine. The CT scans of patients were chosen from two centres: European patients from University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany, and Asian patients from the University of Malaya, Malaysia. Screw perforations were classified into grades 0, 1, 2 and 3. A total of 880 percutaneous pedicle screws from 203 patients were analysed: 614 screws from 144 European patients and 266 screws from 59 Asian patients. The mean age of the patients was 58.8 years (16 to 91) and there were 103 men and 100 women. The total rate of perforation was 9.9% (87 screws) with 7.4% grade 1, 2.0% grade 2 and 0.5% grade 3 perforations. The rate of perforation in Europeans was 10.4% and in Asians was 8.6%, with no significant difference between the two (p = 0.42). The rate of perforation was the highest in S1 (19.4%) followed by L5 (14.9%). The accuracy and safety of percutaneous pedicle screw placement are comparable to those cited in the literature for the open method of pedicle screw placement. Greater caution must be taken during the insertion of L5 and S1 percutaneous pedicle screws owing to their more angulated pedicles, the anatomical variations in their vertebral bodies and the morphology of the spinal canal at this location.
    Matched MeSH terms: Spinal Diseases/epidemiology
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator ([email protected])

External Links