Factors Influencing Surgical Decision-Making in the Posterior Laminectomy With Fixation for Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy (POLYFIX-DCM) Trial: Survey Study.
cervical myelopathy
decision-making
decompression
degeneration
disability
disc herniation
laminectomy
myelopathy
ossification posterior longitudinal ligament
questionnaire
recovery
spinal cord
spondylosis
spondylotic stenosis
stress
surgeons
surgery
Journal
JMIR formative research
ISSN: 2561-326X
Titre abrégé: JMIR Form Res
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101726394
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 Sep 2023
12 Sep 2023
Historique:
received:
19
04
2023
accepted:
30
06
2023
revised:
12
06
2023
medline:
12
9
2023
pubmed:
12
9
2023
entrez:
12
9
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) is estimated to affect 2% of the adult population. DCM occurs when degenerative processes cause compression and injure the spinal cord. Surgery to remove the stress caused by the compression of the spinal cord is the mainstay of treatment, with a range of techniques in use. Although various factors are described to inform the selection of these techniques, there needs to be more consensus and limited comparative evidence. The main objective of this survey was to explore the variation of practice and decision-making, with a focus on laminectomy versus laminectomy and fusion in posterior surgery of the cervical spine. We present the results of a survey conducted among the principal investigators (PIs) of the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) randomized controlled trial on posterior laminectomy with fixation for degenerative cervical myelopathy (POLYFIX-DCM). A series of 7 cases were shared with 24 PIs using SurveyMonkey. Each case consisted of a midsagittal T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging and lateral cervical x-rays in flexion and extension. Surgeons were asked if their preferred approach was anterior or posterior. If posterior, they were asked whether they preferred to instrument and whether they had the equipoise to randomize in the NIHR POLYFIX-DCM trial. Variability in decision-making was then explored using factors reported to inform decision-making, such as alignment, location of compression, number of levels operated, presence of mobile spondylolisthesis, and patient age. The majority of PIs (16/30, 53%) completed the survey. Overall, PIs favored a posterior approach (12/16, 75%) with instrumentation (75/112, average 66%) and would randomize (67/112, average 62%) most cases. Factors reported to inform decision-making poorly explained variability in responses in both univariate testing and with a multivariate model (R2=0.1). Only surgeon experience of more than 5 years and orthopedic specialty training background were significant predictors, both associated with an anterior approach (odds ratio [OR] 1.255; P=.02 and OR 1.344; P=.007, respectively) and fusion for posterior procedures (OR 0.628; P<.001 and OR 1.344; P<.001, respectively). Surgeon experience also significantly affected the openness to randomize, with those with more than 5 years of experience less likely to randomize (OR -0.68; P<.001). In this representative sample of spine surgeons participating in the POLYFIX-DCM trial as investigators, there is no consensus on surgical strategy, including the role of instrumented fusion following posterior decompression. Overall, this study supports the view that there appears to be a clinical equipoise, and conceptually, a randomized controlled trial appears feasible, which sets the scene for the NIHR POLYFIX-DCM trial.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) is estimated to affect 2% of the adult population. DCM occurs when degenerative processes cause compression and injure the spinal cord. Surgery to remove the stress caused by the compression of the spinal cord is the mainstay of treatment, with a range of techniques in use. Although various factors are described to inform the selection of these techniques, there needs to be more consensus and limited comparative evidence.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
The main objective of this survey was to explore the variation of practice and decision-making, with a focus on laminectomy versus laminectomy and fusion in posterior surgery of the cervical spine. We present the results of a survey conducted among the principal investigators (PIs) of the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) randomized controlled trial on posterior laminectomy with fixation for degenerative cervical myelopathy (POLYFIX-DCM).
METHODS
METHODS
A series of 7 cases were shared with 24 PIs using SurveyMonkey. Each case consisted of a midsagittal T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging and lateral cervical x-rays in flexion and extension. Surgeons were asked if their preferred approach was anterior or posterior. If posterior, they were asked whether they preferred to instrument and whether they had the equipoise to randomize in the NIHR POLYFIX-DCM trial. Variability in decision-making was then explored using factors reported to inform decision-making, such as alignment, location of compression, number of levels operated, presence of mobile spondylolisthesis, and patient age.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The majority of PIs (16/30, 53%) completed the survey. Overall, PIs favored a posterior approach (12/16, 75%) with instrumentation (75/112, average 66%) and would randomize (67/112, average 62%) most cases. Factors reported to inform decision-making poorly explained variability in responses in both univariate testing and with a multivariate model (R2=0.1). Only surgeon experience of more than 5 years and orthopedic specialty training background were significant predictors, both associated with an anterior approach (odds ratio [OR] 1.255; P=.02 and OR 1.344; P=.007, respectively) and fusion for posterior procedures (OR 0.628; P<.001 and OR 1.344; P<.001, respectively). Surgeon experience also significantly affected the openness to randomize, with those with more than 5 years of experience less likely to randomize (OR -0.68; P<.001).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
In this representative sample of spine surgeons participating in the POLYFIX-DCM trial as investigators, there is no consensus on surgical strategy, including the role of instrumented fusion following posterior decompression. Overall, this study supports the view that there appears to be a clinical equipoise, and conceptually, a randomized controlled trial appears feasible, which sets the scene for the NIHR POLYFIX-DCM trial.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37698903
pii: v7i1e48321
doi: 10.2196/48321
pmc: PMC10523224
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e48321Informations de copyright
©Stefan Yordanov, Xiaoyu Yang, Oliver Mowforth, Andreas K Demetriades, Marcel Ivanov, Pierluigi Vergara, Adrian Gardner, Erlick Pereira, Antony Bateman, Alexander Alamri, Jibin Francis, Rikin Trivedi, Mark Kotter, Benjamin Davies, Alexandru Budu, POLYFIX-DCM research Collaborative Group. Originally published in JMIR Formative Research (https://formative.jmir.org), 12.09.2023.
Références
Neurosurgery. 2014 Oct;75(4):334-46
pubmed: 24991714
Front Surg. 2022 Mar 14;9:849096
pubmed: 35360421
Global Spine J. 2022 Feb;12(1_suppl):147S-158S
pubmed: 35174733
BMJ Open. 2019 May 5;9(5):e027000
pubmed: 31061045
Spine J. 2015 Mar 1;15(3):388-97
pubmed: 25549860
J Neurosurg. 1996 Sep;85(3):447-51
pubmed: 8751631
J Clin Neurosci. 2021 May;87:84-88
pubmed: 33863541
J Neurosurg Spine. 2017 May;26(5):572-576
pubmed: 28291407
Radiographics. 2019 May-Jun;39(3):820-821
pubmed: 31059402
BMJ Case Rep. 2019 Apr 11;12(4):
pubmed: 30975783
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015 Jun 15;40(12):E675-93
pubmed: 25839387
J Clin Neurosci. 2022 May;99:53-61
pubmed: 35255357
Global Spine J. 2017 Sep;7(3 Suppl):70S-83S
pubmed: 29164035
Surg Neurol Int. 2012;3(Suppl 3):S225-31
pubmed: 22905328
Neurospine. 2019 Sep;16(3):421-434
pubmed: 31607074
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1998 Feb 15;23(4):440-7
pubmed: 9516698
Global Spine J. 2021 May;11(4):597-607
pubmed: 32677521
BMJ. 2018 Feb 22;360:k186
pubmed: 29472200
BMJ Open. 2019 Oct 10;9(10):e031486
pubmed: 31601597
Global Spine J. 2022 Feb;12(1_suppl):78S-96S
pubmed: 35174728
JAMA. 2021 Mar 9;325(10):942-951
pubmed: 33687463
J Clin Med. 2021 Aug 18;10(16):
pubmed: 34441949
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013 Dec 15;38(26):2247-52
pubmed: 24108289
Asian Spine J. 2008 Dec;2(2):114-26
pubmed: 20404967
Br J Neurosurg. 2023 Feb;37(1):71-81
pubmed: 34791981
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013 Sep 18;95(18):1651-8
pubmed: 24048552
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015 Sep 1;40(17):1322-8
pubmed: 26020847
Age Ageing. 2021 May 5;50(3):705-715
pubmed: 33219816
J Neurosurg. 2000 Oct;93(2 Suppl):199-204
pubmed: 11012049
Br J Neurosurg. 2022 Jun;36(3):340-345
pubmed: 35132923