European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society
-
To assess the methodologic quality of guidelines for the management of low back pain (LBP) and compare their recommendations. ⋯ Considering all guidelines, only one had a "low" overall score, while half of them were rated as of "high" quality. Future guidelines might take this into account to improve clinical applicability.
-
The aim of this study was to provide an overview of the recommendations regarding the diagnosis and treatment contained in current clinical practice guidelines for patients with non-specific low back pain in primary care. We also aimed to examine how recommendations have changed since our last overview in 2010. ⋯ We identified 15 clinical practice guidelines for the management of low back pain in primary care. For diagnosis of patients with non-specific low back pain, the clinical practice guidelines recommend history taking and physical examination to identify red flags, neurological testing to identify radicular syndrome, use of imaging if serious pathology is suspected (but discourage routine use), and assessment of psychosocial factors. For treatment of patients with acute low back pain, the guidelines recommend reassurance on the favourable prognosis and advice on returning to normal activities, avoiding bed rest, the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and weak opioids for short periods. For treatment of patients with chronic low back pain, the guidelines recommend the use of NSAIDs and antidepressants, exercise therapy, and psychosocial interventions. In addition, referral to a specialist is recommended in case of suspicion of specific pathologies or radiculopathy or if there is no improvement after 4 weeks. While there were a few discrepancies across the current clinical practice guidelines, a substantial proportion of recommendations was consistently endorsed. In the current review, we identified some differences compared to the previous overview regarding the recommendations for assessment of psychosocial factors, the use of some medications (e.g., paracetamol) as well as an increasing amount of information regarding the types of exercise, mode of delivery, acupuncture, herbal medicines, and invasive treatments. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
-
Retrospective kinematic analysis of treated level, adjacent levels, and overall cervical spine after single-level dynamic cervical implant (DCI) stabilization versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). ⋯ DCI stabilization for the treatment of cervical DDD cannot preserve the normal kinematics of the cervical spine for a long time, especially the treated level. DCI stabilization cannot decrease the risk of ASD compared with ACDF. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
-
To investigate the different cervical strategies for maintaining horizontal gaze in asymptomatic subjects. ⋯ Subjects with cervical kyphosis presented with more posterior global alignment and lower TK than subjects with lordosis. In order to maintain horizontal gaze, subjects with cervical kyphosis presented with a more lordotic upper cervical spine than subjects with cervical lordosis. Subjects with straight cervical curvature presented with an intermediate sagittal alignment. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
-
To translate, cross-culturally adapt, and validate the Croatian version of the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). ⋯ The Croatian version of the ODI has acceptable psychometric properties. It appears to be suitable for assessment of LBP and treatment outcomes in Croatian-speaking patients. Overall, there was no evidence to reject the original unidimensional structure in favor of a two-factor solution. As such, the unidimensional structure should continue to be used in future studies. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.