Spine
-
Multicenter Study Clinical Trial
Perioperative changes in pulmonary function after anterior scoliosis instrumentation: thoracoscopic versus open approaches.
A prospective evaluation of pulmonary function in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis undergoing surgical correction. ⋯ The thoracoscopic approach causes a smaller decline in pulmonary function 3 months and 1 year after surgery as compared to the more invasive technique of open thoracotomy for anterior spinal instrumentation for correction of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis.
-
A prospective, interventional case series design. ⋯ In a sample of people from a Middle Eastern culture undergoing exercise intervention for LBP for which they are not receiving workers' compensation, the preintervention physical activity subscale of the FABQ is predictive of negative outcome when the observed scores are > or =29. Despite significant improvements in all variables after intervention, anticipated pain remained significantly higher than reported pain during physical performance testing but did not predict outcome.
-
A cross-sectional survey was conducted using face-to-face interviews. ⋯ In comparison with other developing countries, point prevalence of LBP is higher in Turkey and approximates to prevalence estimates of LBP in developed countries. Smoking may be associated with both occurrence and severity of LBP. Although piety is not associated with having LBP, religious people are more likely to have restricted activity related to LBP.
-
In vitro biomechanical study to evaluate the stability of different types of instrumentation in the lumbar spine following corpectomy in relation to bone mineral density (BMD). ⋯ Single ventral instrumentation can provide sufficient stability following corpectomy in the lumbar spine under the condition of a high BMD. Determination of BMD and the use of this guideline provides a valid tool for surgical planning.
-
Retrospective review of articles published in the journal Spine. ⋯ Industry funded studies demonstrated a statistically greater likelihood to report positive results than studies with other funding sources. Potential explanations for this are biased study design, biased experimental technique, biased result interpretation, or publication bias. Although the expense of research and limited funding sources have forced an increased reliance on industry support for funding basic science and clinical spine research, this does introduce the potential for bias and must be recognized by the reader.