Between 2002 and 2012 were identified. Patients’ charts, radiographs, and outcome questionnaires were reviewed. Parkinson disease severity was assessed with use of the modified Hoehn and Yahr staging scale. Complications and subsequent surgeries were analyzed. Risk for reoperation was assessed. Results: Ninety-six patients underwent lumbar spine surgery. The mean patient age was 63.0 years. The mean follow-up duration was 30.1 months. The Parkinson disease severity stage was <2 in thirteen patients, 2 in thirty patients, 2.5 in twenty-three patients, and ≥3 in thirty patients. The primary indication for surgery was spinal stenosis in seventy-two patients, spondylolisthesis in seventeen patients, and coronal and/or sagittal deformity in seven patients. There were nineteen early complications, including postoperative infections requiring surgical irrigation and debridement and long-term antibiotics in ten patients. The visual analog scale for back pain improved from 7.4 cm preoperatively to 1.8 cm postoperatively (p < 0.001). The visual analog scale for lower-limb pain improved from 7.7 cm preoperatively to 2.3 cm postoperatively (p < 0.001). The Oswestry Disability Index score dropped from 54.1 points to 17.7 points at the time of the latest follow-up (p < 0.001). The Short Form-12 Physical Component Summary score improved from 26.6 points preoperatively to 30.5 points postoperatively (p < 0.05). Twenty patients required revision surgery. Risks for further surgery included a Parkinson disease severity stage of ≥3 (p < 0.05), a history of diabetes mellitus, treatment for osteoporosis, and a combined anterior and posterior approach. Conclusions: Despite a higher rate of complications than in the general population, the overall outcome of spine surgery in patients with mild to moderate Parkinson disease is good, with improvement of spine-related pain. A larger prospective study is warranted. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence....

Study Design Systematic review. Study Rationale Neck pain is a prevalent condition. Spinal manipulation and mobilization procedures are becoming an accepted treatment for neck pain. However, data on the effectiveness of these treatments have not been summarized. Objective To compare manipulation or mobilization of the cervical spine to physical therapy or exercise for symptom improvement in patients with neck pain. Methods A systematic review of the literature was performed using PubMed, the National Guideline Clearinghouse Database, and bibliographies of key articles, which compared spinal manipulation or mobilization therapy with physical therapy or exercise in patients with neck pain. Articles were included based on predetermined criteria and were appraised using a predefined quality rating scheme. Results From 197 citations, 7 articles met all inclusion and exclusion criteria. There were no differences in pain improvement when comparing spinal manipulation to exercise, and there were inconsistent reports of pain improvement in subjects who underwent mobilization therapy versus physical therapy. No disability improvement was reported between treatment groups in studies of acute or chronic neck pain patients. No functional improvement was found with manipulation therapy compared with exercise treatment or mobilization therapy compared with physical therapy groups in patients with acute pain. In chronic neck pain subjects who underwent spinal manipulation therapy compared to exercise treatment, results for short-term functional improvement were inconsistent. Conclusion The data available suggest that there are minimal short- and long-term treatment differences in pain, disability, patient-rated treatment improvement, treatment satisfaction, health status, or functional improvement when comparing manipulation or mobilization therapy to physical therapy or exercise in patients with neck pain. This systematic review is limited by the variability of treatment interventions and lack of standardized outcomes to assess treatment benefit.

Malnutrition and starvation’s possible adverse impacts on bone health and bone quality first came into the spotlight after the horrors of the Holocaust and the ghettos of World War II. Famine and food restrictions led to a mean caloric intake of 200–800 calories a day in the ghettos and concentration camps, resulting in catabolysis and starvation of the inhabitants and prisoners. Severely increased risks of fracture, poor bone mineral density, and decreased cortical strength were noted in several case series and descriptive reports addressing the medical issues of these individuals. A severe effect of severely diminished food intake and frequently concomitant calcium- and Vitamin D deficiencies was subsequently proven in both animal models and the most common cause of starvation in developed countries is anorexia nervosa. This review attempts to summarize the literature available on the impact of the metabolic response to Starvation on overall bone health and bone quality.