The MIST Guidelines: The Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Consensus Group Guidelines for Minimally Invasive Spine Treatment.

Consensus Decompression, Surgical / methods Humans Injections, Epidural Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures / methods Spinal Stenosis / diagnostic imaging Systematic Reviews as Topic
epidural injection interspinous spacer lumbar spinal stenosis minimally invasive spine treatment percutaneous image-guided lumbar decompression systematic literature review

Journal

Pain practice : the official journal of World Institute of Pain
ISSN: 1533-2500
Titre abrégé: Pain Pract
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101130835

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
03 2019
Historique:
received: 04 06 2018
revised: 11 10 2018
accepted: 18 10 2018
pubmed: 29 10 2018
medline: 18 6 2019
entrez: 29 10 2018
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) can lead to compression of neural elements and manifest as low back and leg pain. LSS has traditionally been treated with a variety of conservative (pain medications, physical therapy, epidural spinal injections) and invasive (surgical decompression) options. Recently, several minimally invasive procedures have expanded the treatment options. The Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Consensus Group convened to evaluate the peer-reviewed literature as the basis for making minimally invasive spine treatment (MIST) recommendations. Eleven consensus points were clearly defined with evidence strength, recommendation grade, and consensus level using U.S. Preventive Services Task Force criteria. The Consensus Group also created a treatment algorithm. Literature searches yielded 9 studies (2 randomized controlled trials [RCTs]; 7 observational studies, 4 prospective and 3 retrospective) of minimally invasive spine treatments, and 1 RCT for spacers. The LSS treatment choice is dependent on the degree of stenosis; spinal or anatomic level; architecture of the stenosis; severity of the symptoms; failed, past, less invasive treatments; previous fusions or other open surgical approaches; and patient comorbidities. There is Level I evidence for percutaneous image-guided lumbar decompression as superior to lumbar epidural steroid injection, and 1 RCT supported spacer use in a noninferiority study comparing 2 spacer products currently available. MISTs should be used in a judicious and algorithmic fashion to treat LSS, based on the evidence of efficacy and safety in the peer-reviewed literature. The MIST Consensus Group recommend that these procedures be used in a multimodal fashion as part of an evidence-based decision algorithm.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) can lead to compression of neural elements and manifest as low back and leg pain. LSS has traditionally been treated with a variety of conservative (pain medications, physical therapy, epidural spinal injections) and invasive (surgical decompression) options. Recently, several minimally invasive procedures have expanded the treatment options.
METHODS
The Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Consensus Group convened to evaluate the peer-reviewed literature as the basis for making minimally invasive spine treatment (MIST) recommendations. Eleven consensus points were clearly defined with evidence strength, recommendation grade, and consensus level using U.S. Preventive Services Task Force criteria. The Consensus Group also created a treatment algorithm. Literature searches yielded 9 studies (2 randomized controlled trials [RCTs]; 7 observational studies, 4 prospective and 3 retrospective) of minimally invasive spine treatments, and 1 RCT for spacers.
RESULTS
The LSS treatment choice is dependent on the degree of stenosis; spinal or anatomic level; architecture of the stenosis; severity of the symptoms; failed, past, less invasive treatments; previous fusions or other open surgical approaches; and patient comorbidities. There is Level I evidence for percutaneous image-guided lumbar decompression as superior to lumbar epidural steroid injection, and 1 RCT supported spacer use in a noninferiority study comparing 2 spacer products currently available.
CONCLUSIONS
MISTs should be used in a judicious and algorithmic fashion to treat LSS, based on the evidence of efficacy and safety in the peer-reviewed literature. The MIST Consensus Group recommend that these procedures be used in a multimodal fashion as part of an evidence-based decision algorithm.

Identifiants

DOI: 10.1111/papr.12744 PMID: 30369003
pubmed: 30369003
doi: 10.1111/papr.12744
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Practice Guideline Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

250-274

Subventions

Organisme : Unrestricted educational grant to the West Virginia Society of Interventional Pain Physicians from Vertos Medical
Pays : International

Informations de copyright

© 2018 World Institute of Pain.

Auteurs

Timothy R Deer (TR)

Center for Pain Relief, Charleston, West Virginia, U.S.A.

Jay S Grider (JS)

UKHealthCare Pain Services, Department of Anesthesiology, University of Kentucky College of Medicine, Lexington, Kentucky, U.S.A.

Jason E Pope (JE)

Evolve Restorative Clinic, Santa Rosa, California, U.S.A.

Steven Falowski (S)

Functional Neurosurgery, St. Lukes University Health Network, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.

Tim J Lamer (TJ)

Division of Pain Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, U.S.A.

Aaron Calodney (A)

Texas Spine and Joint Hospital, Tyler, Texas, U.S.A.

David A Provenzano (DA)

Pain Diagnostics and Interventional Care, Sewickley, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.

Dawood Sayed (D)

University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas, U.S.A.

Eric Lee (E)

Summit Pain Alliance, Sonoma, California, U.S.A.

Sayed E Wahezi (SE)

Montefiore Medical Center, SUNY-Buffalo, Buffalo, New York, U.S.A.

Chong Kim (C)

Center for Pain Relief, Charleston, West Virginia, U.S.A.

Corey Hunter (C)

Ainsworth Institute of Pain Management, New York, New York, U.S.A.

Mayank Gupta (M)

Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, HCA Midwest Health, Overland Park, Kansas, U.S.A.

Rasmin Benyamin (R)

Millennium Pain Center, Bloomington, Illinois, U.S.A.
College of Medicine, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Illinois, U.S.A.

Bohdan Chopko (B)

Stanford Health Care, Henderson, Nevada, U.S.A.

Didier Demesmin (D)

Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Department of Pain Medicine, Saint Peter's University Hospital, New Brunswick, New Jersey, U.S.A.

Sudhir Diwan (S)

Manhattan Spine and Pain Medicine, Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, New York, U.S.A.

Christopher Gharibo (C)

Pain Medicine and Orthopedics, NYU Langone Hospitals Center, New York, New York, U.S.A.

Leo Kapural (L)

Carolina's Pain Institute at Brookstown, Wake Forest Baptist Health, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, U.S.A.

David Kloth (D)

Department of Anesthesiology, Danbury Hospital, Danbury, Connecticut, U.S.A.

Brian D Klagges (BD)

Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Amoskeag Anesthesiology, Manchester, New Hampshire, U.S.A.

Michael Harned (M)

Department of Anesthesiology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, U.S.A.

Tom Simopoulos (T)

Department of Anesthesiology, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.A.

Tory McJunkin (T)

Pain Doctor Inc., Phoenix, Arizona, U.S.A.

Jonathan D Carlson (JD)

Arizona Pain, Midwestern Medical School, Glendale, Arizona, U.S.A.

Richard W Rosenquist (RW)

Pain Management, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, U.S.A.

Timothy R Lubenow (TR)

Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.

Nagy Mekhail (N)

Evidence-Based Pain Management Research and Education, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, U.S.A.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female

Evaluation of Low-Value Services Across Major Medicare Advantage Insurers and Traditional Medicare.

Ciara Duggan, Adam L Beckman, Ishani Ganguli et al.
1.00
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C

Effectiveness of Virtual Yoga for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Hallie Tankha, Devyn Gaskins, Amanda Shallcross et al.
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH

questionsmedicales.fr › Phénomènes psychologiques › Processus mentaux › Pensée (activité mentale) › Prise de décision › Consensus › The MIST Guidelines: The Lumbar Spinal...
questionsmedicales.fr › Procédures de chirurgie opératoire › Décompression chirurgicale › The MIST Guidelines: The Lumbar Spinal...
questionsmedicales.fr › Eucaryotes › Animaux › Chordés › Vertébrés › Mammifères › Eutheria › Primates › Haplorhini › Catarrhini › Hominidae › Humains › The MIST Guidelines: The Lumbar Spinal...
questionsmedicales.fr › Thérapeutique › Traitement médicamenteux › Voies d'administration de substances chimiques et des médicaments › Injections › Injections rachidiennes › Injections épidurales › The MIST Guidelines: The Lumbar Spinal...
questionsmedicales.fr › Procédures de chirurgie opératoire › Interventions chirurgicales mini-invasives › The MIST Guidelines: The Lumbar Spinal...
questionsmedicales.fr › Maladies ostéomusculaires › Maladies osseuses › Maladies du rachis › Sténose du canal vertébral › The MIST Guidelines: The Lumbar Spinal...
questionsmedicales.fr › Sciences de l'information › Sources d'information › Moyens de communication › Publications › Littérature de revue comme sujet › Revues systématiques comme sujet › The MIST Guidelines: The Lumbar Spinal...