Shaping Conservative Spinal Services with the Spine Tango Registry

Overview

Journal Eur Spine J

Specialty Orthopedics

Date 2018 Feb 2

PMID 29388090

Citations 2

Authors

Samuel Morris

James Booth

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: This study reports the results of a registry data collection project within a secondary care spinal osteopathy service.

Methods: Clinical and demographic data were collected using the Spine Tango Conservative registry data collection tool. Outcomes were assessed using the Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Neck Disability Index (NDI), COMI Low Back Conservative (COMI-LBC), COMI Neck Conservative (COMI-NC) and EQ5D. Global treatment outcome (GTO), satisfaction with care and therapeutic complications were reported using the Spine Tango Patient Self Assessment form (STPSA). The correlation of GTO and PROM change scores was analysed using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient.

Results: 262 patients presented during the study period. 100% of patients had chronic spinal pain and 98.8% had previously received other interventions for the same episode. Mean (standard deviation) improvements by PROM: NPRS low back 2.1 (2.5); NPRS neck 2.3 (2.3); COMI-LBC 2.1 (2.2); COMI-NC 2.0 (1.7); ODI 10.5 (12.1); NDI 14.5 (12.2); EQ5D 0.2 (0.3). 83.2% of patients reported that osteopathy had 'helped a lot' or 'helped'. 96.2% of patients were 'very satisfied' or 'satisfied' with care. There were no serious therapeutic complications.

Conclusions: The secondary care spinal osteopathy service demonstrated high satisfaction, few therapeutic complications and positive outcomes on all PROMs. Registry participation has facilitated robust clinical governance and the data support the use of osteopaths to deliver a conservative spinal service in this setting. Registry data collection is a significant administrative and clinical task which should be structured to minimise burden on patients and resources. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Citing Articles

Definition and classification for adverse events following spinal and peripheral joint manipulation and mobilization: A scoping review.

Funabashi M, Gorrell L, Pohlman K, Bergna A, Heneghan N PLoS One. 2022; 17(7):e0270671.

PMID: 35839253 PMC: 9286262. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0270671.

The Michel Benoist and Robert Mulholland yearly European Spine Journal review: a survey of the "surgical and research" articles in the European Spine Journal, 2018.

Mulholland R Eur Spine J. 2019; 28(1):1-9.

PMID: 30604293 DOI: 10.1007/s00586-018-5856-x.

References

Mannion A, Porchet F, Kleinstuck F, Lattig F, Jeszenszky D, Bartanusz V . The quality of spine surgery from the patient's perspective: part 2. Minimal clinically important difference for improvement and deterioration as measured with the Core Outcome Measures Index. Eur Spine J. 2009; 18 Suppl 3:374-9. PMC: 2899314. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-009-0931-y. View

Morris S, Booth J, Hegarty J . Spine Tango registry data collection in a conservative spinal service: a feasibility study. Eur Spine J. 2016; 25(9):2984-92. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-016-4697-8. View

Copay A, Subach B, Glassman S, Polly Jr D, Schuler T . Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods. Spine J. 2007; 7(5):541-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2007.01.008. View

van Hooff M, Jacobs W, Willems P, Wouters M, de Kleuver M, Peul W . Evidence and practice in spine registries. Acta Orthop. 2015; 86(5):534-44. PMC: 4564774. DOI: 10.3109/17453674.2015.1043174. View

Maniadakis N, Gray A . The economic burden of back pain in the UK. Pain. 1999; 84(1):95-103. DOI: 10.1016/S0304-3959(99)00187-6. View

Breakwell L . Understanding the need for spinal registries: Lee Breakwell reviews the importance of registries in spinal research and explains why the British Association of Spinal Surgeons (BASS) has decided to set up its own registry. Eur Spine J. 2013; 22 Suppl 1:S5-6. PMC: 3578520. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-013-2666-z. View

Roder C, Muller U, Aebi M . The rationale for a spine registry. Eur Spine J. 2005; 15 Suppl 1:S52-6. PMC: 3454550. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-005-1050-z. View

Crosby R, Kolotkin R, Williams G . Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003; 56(5):395-407. DOI: 10.1016/s0895-4356(03)00044-1. View

Vernon H, Mior S . The Neck Disability Index: a study of reliability and validity. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1991; 14(7):409-15. View

10.

Mannion A, Elfering A, Staerkle R, Junge A, Grob D, Semmer N . Outcome assessment in low back pain: how low can you go?. Eur Spine J. 2005; 14(10):1014-26. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-005-0911-9. View

11.

Cochrane A . Archie Cochrane in his own words. Selections arranged from his 1972 introduction to "Effectiveness and Efficiency: Random Reflections on the Health Services" 1972. Control Clin Trials. 1989; 10(4):428-33. DOI: 10.1016/0197-2456(89)90008-1. View

12.

Roder C, Staub L, Dietrich D, Zweig T, Melloh M, Aebi M . Benchmarking with Spine Tango: potentials and pitfalls. Eur Spine J. 2009; 18 Suppl 3:305-11. PMC: 2899327. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-009-0943-7. View

13.

Chou R, Huffman L . Nonpharmacologic therapies for acute and chronic low back pain: a review of the evidence for an American Pain Society/American College of Physicians clinical practice guideline. Ann Intern Med. 2007; 147(7):492-504. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-147-7-200710020-00007. View

14.

Standaert C, Friedly J, Erwin M, Lee M, Rechtine G, Henrikson N . Comparative effectiveness of exercise, acupuncture, and spinal manipulation for low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011; 36(21 Suppl):S120-30. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31822ef878. View

15.

Fairbank J, Pynsent P . The Oswestry Disability Index. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000; 25(22):2940-52; discussion 2952. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-200011150-00017. View

16.

Hoy D, Smith E, Cross M, Sanchez-Riera L, Buchbinder R, Blyth F . The global burden of musculoskeletal conditions for 2010: an overview of methods. Ann Rheum Dis. 2014; 73(6):982-9. DOI: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2013-204344. View

17.

Menezes Costa L, Maher C, Hancock M, McAuley J, Herbert R, Costa L . The prognosis of acute and persistent low-back pain: a meta-analysis. CMAJ. 2012; 184(11):E613-24. PMC: 3414626. DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.111271. View

18.

OKeeffe M, Purtill H, Kennedy N, Conneely M, Hurley J, OSullivan P . Comparative Effectiveness of Conservative Interventions for Nonspecific Chronic Spinal Pain: Physical, Behavioral/Psychologically Informed, or Combined? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Pain. 2016; 17(7):755-74. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpain.2016.01.473. View

19.

Last A, Hulbert K . Chronic low back pain: evaluation and management. Am Fam Physician. 2009; 79(12):1067-74. View

20.

Zweig T, Enke J, Mannion A, Sobottke R, Melloh M, Freeman B . Is the duration of pre-operative conservative treatment associated with the clinical outcome following surgical decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis? A study based on the Spine Tango Registry. Eur Spine J. 2016; 26(2):488-500. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-016-4882-9. View