|
|
2008 Curve/Countercurve Survey Results
|
Fusion vs Interspinous Device for Lumbar Spondylolisthesis |
|
Management of Sacral Insufficiency Fractures |
|
Web survey results for:
Scioscia T, Wallach C, Wang JC. Fusion vs Interspinous Device for Lumbar Spondylolisthesis. SpineLine. 2008;1(January/February):19-23. |
|
Web survey results for:
Frey ME, Kasturi G, Adler RA, Cifu DX, Qutubuddin A, Prather H. Management of Sacral Insufficiency Fractures. SpineLine. 2008;2(March/April):10-16. |
|
1. Interspinous spacers are a reasonable Tx for properly selected patients with lumbar spinal stenois?
35.7% True
64.3% False |
|
1. If you were treating this patient, what would you recommend?
0 Bed rest unti pain is controlled
33.3% Medications, physical therapy, activity modification
0 Medications, nerve root injections for pain
66.7% Sacroplasty |
|
2. In this specific clinical situation, use of interspinous spacers is a reasonable Tx option?
54.5% True
45.5% False |
|
2. If you do not recommend sacroplasty to your patient it is because:
100% The evidence for sacroplasty is not sound at this point
0 The potential for complications and severity is too great at this time
0 Sacroplasty is not available in your medical community
0 You were previously unaware of the benefits of sacroplasty |
|
3. If this patient failed conservative care and wished to pursue surgical options, I'd recommend:
25% Interspinous spacer
16.7% Minimally invasive decompression alone
16.7% Traditional decompression alone
41.7% Decompression and fusion |
|
3. Would you recommend treatment or a referral to a physician to evaluate this patient's osteoporosis?
100% Yes
0 No |
|
|
|
|
| TLIF, XLIF or ALIF for Adjacent Segment Degenerative Disc Disease? |
|
Management of Osteoporotic Compression Facture: Conservative Care or Vertebral Augmentation? |
| Web survey results for: Bhatia NN, Timon S, Wieser ES, Wang JC. TLIF, XLIF or ALIF for Adjacent Segment Degenerative Disc Disease? SpineLine. 2008;3(May-June);19-25. |
|
Web survey results for: Lee Y, Yoon T, Wang JC. BMP for Cervical Fusion SpineLine. 2008;4(July-August);18-22. |
|
1. If this was your patient who was considering fusion surgery, what procedure would you recommend?
15.2% ALIF
30.3% TLIF
0 PLIF
33.3% XLIF
21.2% Other approach |
|
1. I have used BMP for cervical fusions off-label in my practice.
50% Yes
50% No |
|
2. Is this patient a candidate for lumbar disc arthroplasty?
19.4% Yes
80.6% No |
|
2. I believe that the use of BMP off-label for cervical fusions is appropriate for certain clinical situations.
75% True
25% False |
|
3. Is this patient a candidate for a posterior motion preservation device?
16.7% Yes
83.3% No |
|
3. I think the case described in this article is an appropriate case for the use of BMP.
50% True
50% False |
|
4. Is this patient a candidate for surgery at this time?
90.3% Yes
9.7% No |
|
|
| Surgery vs Radiosurgery for Spine Metastases |
|
|
| Web survey results for: Bradley JD, Buchowski JM, Rose PS, Prather H.Surgery vs Radiosurgery for Spine Metastases. SpineLine. 2008;5(September-October);27-32. |
|
|
|
1. What treatment would you recommend to this patient?
33.3% stereotactic radiation
66.7% surgical resection and stabilization
0 medical palliative care only
0 referral for chemotherapy |
|
|
|
2. Had the patient not received previous radiation to the spine, would that change your recommendation?
0 Yes
100% No |
|
|
|
3. If the patient had lower extremity pain and weakness, what would you recommend?
0 stereotactic radiation
100% surgical resection and stabilization
0 medical palliative care only
0 referral for chemotherapy |
|
|
|