Dennis E. Dominguez

Dr. Dennis E. Dominguez

Division of Orthopedic and Trauma Surgery, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland
orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

10Years (2017-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
6 February 2024 in Journal of Clinical Medicine
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
KTKhalid Al Taha
Khalid Al Taha
NLNicolas Lauper
Nicolas Lauper
DBDavid E. Bauer
David E. Bauer
ATANDREAS TSOUPRAS
ANDREAS TSOUPRAS
ETEnrico Tessitore
Enrico Tessitore
Dennis E. DominguezDennis E. Dominguez
Dennis E. Dominguez
Osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs) present a significant health concern, affecting a substantial portion of the older adult population worldwide. This narrative review explores the prevalence, diagnostic challenges and management strategies for OVCFs. Despite the increasing incidence and impact on morbidity and mortality, existing clinical guidelines lack consistency and clear diagnostic and therapeutic recommendations. The review addresses key questions faced by physicians dealing with older adult patients experiencing acute back pain, offering insights into triage, radiological assessments and classification systems. We propose a comprehensive algorithm for clearing OVCF, considering clinical presentation, radiological findings and morphological aspects. Emphasis is placed on the importance of medically treating osteoporosis alongside OVCF management. The review encompasses relevant literature from 1993 to 2023, provides a detailed discussion on triage issues and incorporates a clinically oriented classification system developed by the German Society for Orthopaedics and Trauma. The Material and Methods section outlines the extensive literature search carried out in PUBMED, encompassing clinical and experimental studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The articles retained focused mainly on answering critical questions regarding radiological assessments, imaging modalities and the presence of a specific classification system for OVCFs. The review emphasises that the evaluation and management of OVCFs necessitates a multidisciplinary approach involving spine specialists and bone disease experts. It also addresses the role of conservative versus surgical treatments, with a focus on percutaneous vertebral augmentation. The conclusion summarises the algorithm derived for use in emergency departments and general practice, aiming to streamline OVCF management, reduce unnecessary examinations and ensure optimal patient care. The algorithm recommends primary diagnosis using computed tomography, with magnetic resonance imaging reserved for specific cases. The review advocates a holistic approach, integrating medical and surgical interventions to address the complex challenges posed by OVCFs in ageing populations.

23 April 2018 in JMIR Research Protocols
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
KRKevin Rose-Dulcina
Kevin Rose-Dulcina
NVNicolas VUILLERME
Nicolas VUILLERME
ATAnne Tabard-Fougère
Anne Tabard-Fougère
RDRomain Dayer
Romain Dayer
Dennis E. DominguezDennis E. Dominguez
Dennis E. Dominguez
SGStéphane Genevay
Stéphane Genevay
Background: Low back pain, especially nonspecific chronic low back pain (LBP), the leading cause of disability worldwide, represents both social and economic problems. Different therapeutic management techniques can be used, but their effects vary. Clinicians and researchers attribute the variation in the efficacy of therapeutic and management techniques to the heterogeneity of the nonspecific chronic low back pain population, and they agree that nonspecific chronic LBP must be subgrouped. Objective: This study aims to identify nonspecific chronic LBP subgroups based on a multifactorial approach, including biomechanical, physical, and psychosocial data. Methods: A total of 100 nonspecific chronic LBP patients and 30 healthy participants aged between 18 and 60 years will be recruited for this prospective study. A psychosocial profile will be established using questionnaires on anxiety, depression, functional disability, pain, fear of pain, avoidance belief, and physical activity. A physical capacity evaluation will be conducted. It will evaluate flexibility of the hips, lumbar spine, and lateral thoracolumbar segment, as well as trunk (extensor and flexor) muscle endurance. The subjects will perform functional daily life activities, such as walking, object lifting, forward bending, sit-to-stand, stand-to-sit, balance, and usual postures. Full body kinematics, kinetics, and surface electromyography of the trunk and hip muscles will be assessed during these tasks. The clustering classification methods for the statistical analysis will be determined according to the data and will be used to identify the subgroups of nonspecific chronic LBP patients. Results: Data collection started in September 2017 and will be completed with the inclusion of all the participants (100 nonspecific chronic LBP and 30 control). The study results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at relevant international conferences. Conclusions: Numerous studies have showed that the therapeutic management of nonspecific chronic LBP is difficult and has inconstant effects caused by the complexity and heterogeneity of nonspecific chronic LBP. Identifying subgroups with a multifactorial approach is more comprehensive and closer to the pathophysiology of nonspecific chronic LBP. It also represents benefit interests and a challenge both clinically and socially. The perspective of this study is expected to support clinicians for a more adapted therapeutic management for each subgroup.

1 April 2020 in EFORT Open Reviews
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
MMMichaël Moeri
Michaël Moeri
DRDominique A. Rothenfluh
Dominique A. Rothenfluh
CLChristoph J. Laux
Christoph J. Laux
Dennis E. DominguezDennis E. Dominguez
Dennis E. Dominguez
No definite consensus exists for the clearance of the cervical spine (C-spine) after blunt trauma, despite many validated algorithms, recommendations and guidelines. We intend to answer the most relevant questions with which physicians are confronted when clearing C-spines after blunt trauma in emergency departments (EDs). To exclude significant C-spine injuries we designed an algorithm to be compatible with clinical practice, to simplify patient management and avoid unrewarding evaluation. We conducted an exploratory PubMed search including articles published from January 2000 to October 2018. Keywords used were “cervical spine”, “injury”, “clearance”, “Canadian C-spine Rule”, “CCR” and “national emergency x-radiography utilization study”. Clinical and experimental studies were included in a detailed review. We based our literature review on 33 articles. While answering fundamental triage questions from daily clinical practice, the current literature is discussed in detail. We designed an algorithm for the C-spine clearance suitable for any trauma centre with a high-quality multiplanar reconstruction computerized tomography (CT) scan continuously available. The high sensitivity of the Canadian C-spine Rule (CCR) prevents missing C-spine injuries while limiting the amount of unnecessary radiologic examinations. Plain radiographs were fully abandoned for C-spine clearance. A negative CT scan is sufficient to clear the majority of C-spine injuries and allows for collar removal. In case of motor symptoms or radio-clinical discrepancy, the advice of a specialized spine surgeon must be requested. Magnetic resonance imaging must not be routinely used. Neck pain despite negative imaging is not a reason to delay removal of stiff cervical collars. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2020;5:253-259. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.5.190047

13 September 2019 in European Spine Journal
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
KRKevin Rose-Dulcina
Kevin Rose-Dulcina
SAStéphane ARMAND
Stéphane ARMAND
Dennis E. DominguezDennis E. Dominguez
Dennis E. Dominguez
SGStéphane Genevay
Stéphane Genevay
NVNicolas VUILLERME
Nicolas VUILLERME

1 February 2022 in Gait & Posture
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
KRKevin Rose-Dulcina
Kevin Rose-Dulcina
CVCédric Vassant
Cédric Vassant
NLNicolas Lauper
Nicolas Lauper
Dennis E. DominguezDennis E. Dominguez
Dennis E. Dominguez
SAStéphane ARMAND
Stéphane ARMAND
Clinical assessment of sagittal plane hip mobility is usually performed using the Modified Thomas Test (for extension) and the Straight-Leg-Raise (for flexion) with a goniometer. These tests have limited reliability, however. An active swinging leg movement test (the SWING test), assessed using 3D motion analysis, could provide an alternative to these passive clinical tests. Is the SWING test a more reliable alternative to evaluate hip mobility, in comparison to the clinical extension and flexion tests? Ten asymptomatic adult participants were evaluated by two investigators over three sessions. Participants performed 10 maximal hip extensions and flexions, with both legs straight and no trunk movement (the SWING test). Hip kinematics was assessed using a 3D motion analysis system. Maximal and minimal hip angles were calculated for each swing and represented maximal hip flexion (SWING flexion) and extension (SWING extension), respectively. The Modified Thomas Test and Straight-Leg-Raise were repeated 3 times for each leg. On the first day, both investigators performed all the tests (SWING + Modified Thomas Test + Straight-Leg-Raise). A week later, a single investigator repeated all the tests. Inter-rater, intra-rater, within-day and between-day reliability were evaluated using intra-class correlation. Intra-class correlation coefficients for all the tests were superior to 0.8, except for the Modified Thomas Test's intra-rater, between-day (intra-class correlation 0.673) and the Straight-Leg-Raise's inter-rater, within-day (intra-class correlation 0.294). The SWING test always showed a higher intra-class correlation coefficient than the passive clinical tests. The only significant correlation found was for the Straight-Leg-Raise and SWING flexion (r = 0.48; P < 0.001). The SWING test seems to be an alternative to existing passive clinical tests, offering better reliability for assessing sagittal plane hip mobility.

20 October 2017 in JMIR Preprints
Verified
Preprint
Open access
KRKevin Rose-Dulcina
Kevin Rose-Dulcina
NVNicolas Vuillerme
Nicolas Vuillerme
ATAnne Tabard-Fougère
Anne Tabard-Fougère
RDRomain Dayer
Romain Dayer
Dennis E. DominguezDennis E. Dominguez
Dennis E. Dominguez
SGStéphane Genevay
Stéphane Genevay
BACKGROUND Low back pain, especially nonspecific chronic low back pain (LBP), the leading cause of disability worldwide, represents both social and economic problems. Different therapeutic management techniques can be used, but their effects vary. Clinicians and researchers attribute the variation in the efficacy of therapeutic and management techniques to the heterogeneity of the nonspecific chronic low back pain population, and they agree that nonspecific chronic LBP must be subgrouped. OBJECTIVE This study aims to identify nonspecific chronic LBP subgroups based on a multifactorial approach, including biomechanical, physical, and psychosocial data. METHODS A total of 100 nonspecific chronic LBP patients and 30 healthy participants aged between 18 and 60 years will be recruited for this prospective study. A psychosocial profile will be established using questionnaires on anxiety, depression, functional disability, pain, fear of pain, avoidance belief, and physical activity. A physical capacity evaluation will be conducted. It will evaluate flexibility of the hips, lumbar spine, and lateral thoracolumbar segment, as well as trunk (extensor and flexor) muscle endurance. The subjects will perform functional daily life activities, such as walking, object lifting, forward bending, sit-to-stand, stand-to-sit, balance, and usual postures. Full body kinematics, kinetics, and surface electromyography of the trunk and hip muscles will be assessed during these tasks. The clustering classification methods for the statistical analysis will be determined according to the data and will be used to identify the subgroups of nonspecific chronic LBP patients. RESULTS Data collection started in September 2017 and will be completed with the inclusion of all the participants (100 nonspecific chronic LBP and 30 control). The study results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at relevant international conferences. CONCLUSIONS Numerous studies have showed that the therapeutic management of nonspecific chronic LBP is difficult and has inconstant effects caused by the complexity and heterogeneity of nonspecific chronic LBP. Identifying subgroups with a multifactorial approach is more comprehensive and closer to the pathophysiology of nonspecific chronic LBP. It also represents benefit interests and a challenge both clinically and socially. The perspective of this study is expected to support clinicians for a more adapted therapeutic management for each subgroup.