Fluoroscopic devices can be used to visualize subcutaneous and osseous tissue, a useful feature during pedicle screw insertion in lumbar fusion surgery. It is important that both patient and surgeon are exposed as little as possible, since these devices use potential harmful ionizing radiation. This study aims to compare radiation exposure of different image-guided techniques in lumbar fusion surgery with pedicle screw insertion. Systematic review. Cochrane, Embase, PubMed and Web of Science databases were used to acquire relevant studies. Eligibility criteria were lumbar and/or sacral spine, pedicle screw, mGray and/or Sievert and/or mrem, radiation dose and/or radiation exposure. Image-guided techniques were divided in five groups: conventional C-arm, C-arm navigation, C-arm robotic, O-arm navigation and O-arm robotic. Comparisons were made based on effective dose for patients and surgeons, absorbed dose for patients and surgeons and exposure. Risk of bias was assessed using the 2017 Cochrane Risk of Bias tool on RCTs and the Cochrane ROBINS-I tool on NRCTs. Level of evidence was assessed using the guidelines of Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine 2011. A total of 1423 studies were identified of which 38 were included in the analysis and assigned to one of the five groups. Results of radiation dose per procedure and per pedicle screw were described in dose ranges. Conventional C-arm appeared to result in higher effective dose for surgeons, higher absorbed dose for patients and higher exposure, compared to C-arm navigation/robotic and O-arm navigation/robotic. Level of evidence was 3 to 4 in 29 studies. Risk of bias of RCTs was intermediate, mostly due to inadequate blinding. Overall risk of bias score in NRCTs was determined as 'serious'. Ranges of radiation doses using different modalities during pedicle screw insertion in lumbar fusion surgery are wide. Based on the highest numbers in the ranges, conventional C-arm tends to lead to a higher effective dose for surgeons, higher absorbed dose for patients and higher exposure, compared to C-arm-, and O-arm navigation/robotic. The level of evidence is low and risk of bias is fairly high. In future studies, heterogeneity should be limited by standardizing measurement methods and thoroughly describing the image-guided technique settings.

Objectives The present study is a systematic review conducted as part of a methodological approach to develop evidence-based recommendations for economic evaluations in spine surgery. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the methodology and quality of currently available clinical cost-effectiveness studies in spine surgery. Study design Systematic literature review. Data sources PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, EconLit and The National Institute for Health Research Economic Evaluation Database were searched through 8 December 2022. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Studies were included if they met all of the following eligibility criteria: (1) spine surgery, (2) the study cost-effectiveness and (3) clinical study. Model-based studies were excluded. Data extraction and synthesis The following data items were extracted and evaluated: pathology, number of participants, intervention(s), year, country, study design, time horizon, comparator(s), utility measurement, effectivity measurement, costs measured, perspective, main result and study quality. Results 130 economic evaluations were included. Seventy-four of these studies were retrospective studies. The majority of the studies had a time horizon shorter than 2 years. Utility measures varied between the EuroQol 5 dimensions and variations of the Short-Form Health Survey. Effect measures varied widely between Visual Analogue Scale for pain, Neck Disability Index, Oswestry Disability Index, reoperation rates and adverse events. All studies included direct costs from a healthcare perspective. Indirect costs were included in 47 studies. Total Consensus Health Economic Criteria scores ranged from 2 to 18, with a mean score of 12.0 over all 130 studies. Conclusions The comparability of economic evaluations in spine surgery is extremely low due to different study designs, follow-up duration and outcome measurements such as utility, effectiveness and costs. This illustrates the need for uniformity in conducting and reporting economic evaluations in spine surgery.

Objectives Despite the availability of general and national guidelines for the conduct and reporting of economic evaluations, there is heterogeneity in economic evolutions concerning spine surgery. This is partly the result of differing levels of adherence to the existing guidelines and the lack of disease-specific recommendations for economic evaluations. The extensive heterogeneity in study design, follow-up duration and outcome measurements limit the comparability of economic evaluations in spine surgery. This study has three objectives: (1) to create disease-specific recommendations for the design and conduct of trial-based economic evaluations in spine surgery, (2) to define recommendations for reporting economic evaluations in spine surgery as a complement to the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 checklist and (3) to discuss methodological challenges and defining the need for future research. Design A modified Delphi method according to the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method. Setting A four-step process was followed to create and validate disease-specific statements and recommendations for the conduct and reporting of trial-based economic evaluations in spine surgery. Consensus was defined as >75% agreement. Participants A total of 20 experts were included in the expert group. Validation of the final recommendations was obtained in a Delphi panel, which consisted of 40 researchers in the field who were not included in the expert group. Primary and secondary outcome measures The primary outcome measure is a set of recommendations for the conduct and reporting, as a complement to the CHEERS 2022 checklist, of economic evaluations in spine surgery. Results A total of 31 recommendations are made. The Delphi panel confirmed consensus on all of the recommendations in the proposed guideline. Conclusion This study provides an accessible and practical guideline for the conduct of trial-based economic evaluations in spine surgery. This disease-specific guideline is a complement to existing guidelines, and should aid in reaching uniformity and comparability.

Introduction: Spinal disorders are amongst the conditions with the highest burden of disease. To limit the increase of healthcare-related costs in the ageing population, the selection of different types of care for patients with spinal disorders should be optimized. The first step is to investigate the characteristics of these patients and the relationship with treatment. Research Question: The primary aim of this study was to provide insights in the characteristics, symptoms, diagnosis and treatment of patients referred to a specialized spinal health care centre. The secondary aim was to perform an in-depth analysis of resource utilization for a representative subgroup of patients. Methods: This study describes the characteristics of 4855 patients referred to a secondary spine centre. Moreover, an extensive analysis of a representative subgroup of patients (~20%) is performed. Results: The mean age was 58.1, 56% of patients were female, and the mean BMI was 28. In addition, 28% of patients used opioids. Mean self-reported health status was 53.3 (EuroQol 5D Visual Analogue Scale), and pain ranged from 5.8 to 6.7 (Visual Analogue Scale neck/back/arm/leg). Additional imaging was received by 67.7% of patients. Surgical treatment was indicated for 4.9% of patients. The majority (83%) of non-surgically treated patients received out-of-hospital treatment; 25% of patients received no additional imaging or in-hospital treatment. Conclusion: The vast majority of patients received non-surgical treatments. We observed that ~10% of patients did not receive in-hospital imaging or treatment and had acceptable or good questionnaire scores at the time of referral. These findings suggest that there is potential for improvement in efficacy of referral, diagnosis, and treatment. Future studies should aim to develop an evidence base for improved patient selection for clinical pathways. The efficacy of chosen treatments requires investigation of large cohorts.