RESUMO
Background: Endoscopically visualized spine surgery has become an essential tool that aids in identifying and treating anatomical spine pathologies that are not well demonstrated by traditional advanced imaging, including MRI. These pathologies may be visualized during endoscopic lumbar decompression (ELD) and categorized into primary pain generators (PPG). Identifying these PPGs provides crucial information for a successful outcome with ELD and forms the basis for our proposed personalized spine care protocol (SpineScreen). Methods: a prospective study of 412 patients from 7 endoscopic practices consisting of 207 (50.2%) males and 205 (49.8%) females with an average age of 63.67 years and an average follow-up of 69.27 months was performed to compare the durability of targeted ELD based on validated primary pain generators versus image-based open lumbar laminectomy, and minimally invasive lumbar transforaminal interbody fusion (TLIF) using Kaplan-Meier median survival calculations. The serial time was determined as the interval between index surgery and when patients were censored for additional interventional and surgical treatments for low back-related symptoms. A control group was recruited from patients referred for a surgical consultation but declined interventional and surgical treatment and continued on medical care. Control group patients were censored when they crossed over into any surgical or interventional treatment group. Results: of the 412 study patients, 206 underwent ELD (50.0%), 61 laminectomy (14.8%), and 78 (18.9%) TLIF. There were 67 patients in the control group (16.3% of 412 patients). The most common surgical levels were L4/5 (41.3%), L5/S1 (25.0%), and L4-S1 (16.3%). At two-year f/u, excellent and good Macnab outcomes were reported by 346 of the 412 study patients (84.0%). The VAS leg pain score reduction was 4.250 ± 1.691 (p < 0.001). No other treatment during the available follow-up was required in 60.7% (125/206) of the ELD, 39.9% (31/78) of the TLIF, and 19.7% (12/61 of the laminectomy patients. In control patients, only 15 of the 67 (22.4%) control patients continued with conservative care until final follow-up, all of which had fair and poor functional Macnab outcomes. In patients with Excellent Macnab outcomes, the median durability was 62 months in ELD, 43 in TLIF, and 31 months in laminectomy patients (p < 0.001). The overall survival time in control patients was eight months with a standard error of 0.942, a lower boundary of 6.154, and an upper boundary of 9.846 months. In patients with excellent Macnab outcomes, the median durability was 62 months in ELD, 43 in TLIF, and 31 months in laminectomy patients versus control patients at seven months (p < 0.001). The most common new-onset symptom for censoring was dysesthesia ELD (9.4%; 20/206), axial back pain in TLIF (25.6%;20/78), and recurrent pain in laminectomy (65.6%; 40/61) patients (p < 0.001). Transforaminal epidural steroid injections were tried in 11.7% (24/206) of ELD, 23.1% (18/78) of TLIF, and 36.1% (22/61) of the laminectomy patients. The secondary fusion rate among ELD patients was 8.8% (18/206). Among TLIF patients, the most common additional treatments were revision fusion (19.2%; 15/78) and multilevel rhizotomy (10.3%; 8/78). Common follow-up procedures in laminectomy patients included revision laminectomy (16.4%; 10/61), revision ELD (11.5%; 7/61), and multilevel rhizotomy (11.5%; 7/61). Control patients crossed over into ELD (13.4%), TLIF (13.4%), laminectomy (10.4%) and interventional treatment (40.3%) arms at high rates. Most control patients treated with spinal injections (55.5%) had excellent and good functional outcomes versus 40.7% with fair and poor (3.7%), respectively. The control patients (93.3%) who remained in medical management without surgery or interventional care (14/67) had the worst functional outcomes and were rated as fair and poor. Conclusions: clinical outcomes were more favorable with lumbar surgeries than with non-surgical control groups. Of the control patients, the crossover rate into interventional and surgical care was 40.3% and 37.2%, respectively. There are longer symptom-free intervals after targeted ELD than with TLIF or laminectomy. Additional intervention and surgical treatments are more often needed to manage new-onset postoperative symptoms in TLIF- and laminectomy compared to ELD patients. Few ELD patients will require fusion in the future. Considering the rising cost of surgical spine care, we offer SpineScreen as a simplified and less costly alternative to traditional image-based care models by focusing on primary pain generators rather than image-based criteria derived from the preoperative lumbar MRI scan.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Patient adherence is often not monitored because existing methods of evaluating adherence are either burdensome or do not accurately predict treatment outcomes. AIM: To examine whether two simple, single-item physician-administered measures of patient adherence to antihypertensive medication are predictive of blood pressure outcomes. DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective database analysis of patients with hypertension treated in Belgian primary care. METHOD: Using pooled data from five observational studies, a sample was identified of 9725 patients who were assessed using two single-item physician-administered measures of adherence to antihypertensive medication: the first item of the Basel Assessment of Adherence Scale (BAAS) and the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). These two assessment tools were administered by GPs during regular appointments with patients. Systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and combined SBP/DBP were measured at baseline and at 90 days. RESULTS: BAAS-identified adherent patients achieved lower mean SBP and DBP compared with non-adherent patients at 90 days (P<0.001), and had odds ratios of achieving blood pressure control of 0.66 (95% confidence intervals (CI) = 0.61 to 0.73, P<0.001) for SBP, 0.69 (95% CI = 0.62 to 0.76, P<0.001) for DBP, and 0.65 (95% CI = 0.59 to 0.72, P<0.001) for combined SBP/DBP. For VAS-identified adherent patients, the odds ratios of achieving blood pressure control were 0.93 (95% CI = 0.86 to 1.00, P<0.001) for SBP, 0.79 (95% CI = 0.73 to 0.85, P<0.001) for DBP, and 0.91 (95% CI = 0.84 to 0.99, P<0.001) for combined SBP/DBP. CONCLUSIONS: The first item of the BAAS and the VAS are independent predictors of blood pressure control. These methods can be integrated seamlessly into routine clinical practice by allowing GPs to quickly evaluate a patient's adherence and tailor treatment recommendations accordingly.