Development and Validation of Instruments to Evaluate Adverse Events After Spinal Manipulation Therapy

2014 ◽  
Vol 20 (5) ◽  
pp. A49-A49 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katherine Pohlman ◽  
Maeve O'Beirne ◽  
Haymo Thiel ◽  
J David Cassidy ◽  
Silvano Mior ◽  
...  
2002 ◽  
Vol 13 (6) ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
David G. Malone ◽  
Nevan G. Baldwin ◽  
Frank J. Tomecek ◽  
Christopher M. Boxell ◽  
Steven E. Gaede ◽  
...  

Object The authors report a series of 22 patients in whom major complications developed after cervical spinal manipulation therapy (CSMT). A second objective was to estimate the regional incidence of these complications and to compare it with the very low incidences reported in the literature. Methods During a 5-year period, practioners at a single group neurosurgical practice in Tulsa, Oklahoma, treated 22 patients, who were markedly worse during, or immediately after, CSMT. The details of these cases are reported. The 1995 US Government National Census was used to define the regional referral population for Tulsa. The published data regarding the incidence of serious CSMT-related complications and the rate of CSMTs undertaken nationally were used to estimate the expected number of CSMT-related complications in the authors' region. The number (22 cases) reported in this series was used to estimate the actual regional incidence. Complications in the series included radiculopathy (21 cases), myelopathy (11 cases), Brown–Séquard syndrome (two cases), and vertebral artery (VA) occlusion (one case). Twenty-one patients underwent surgery. Poor outcomes were observed in three, outcome was unchanged in one, and 17 improved. The number of patients in this series exceeded the expected number for the region. Conclusions Cervical spinal manipulation therapy may worsen preexisting cervical disc herniation or cause disc herniation resulting in radiculopathy, myelopathy, or VA compression. In cases of cervical spondylosis, CSMT may also worsen preexisting myelopathy or radiculopathy. Manipulation of the cervical spine may also be associated with higher complication rates than previously reported.


2009 ◽  
Vol 90 (2) ◽  
pp. 366-368 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory N. Kawchuk ◽  
Rick Haugen ◽  
Julie Fritz

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-11
Author(s):  
Sebastian Lohmann ◽  
Tobias Brix ◽  
Julian Varghese ◽  
Nils Warneke ◽  
Michael Schwake ◽  
...  

OBJECTIVEVarious quality indicators are currently under investigation, aiming at measuring the quality of care in neurosurgery; however, the discipline currently lacks practical scoring systems for accurately assessing risk. The aim of this study was to develop three accurate, easy-to-use risk scoring systems for nosocomial infections, reoperations, and adverse events for patients with cerebral and spinal tumors.METHODSThe authors developed a semiautomatic registry with administrative and clinical data and included all patients with spinal or cerebral tumors treated between September 2017 and May 2019. Patients were further divided into development and validation cohorts. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to develop risk scores by assigning points based on β coefficients, and internal validation of the scores was performed.RESULTSIn total, 1000 patients were included. An unplanned 30-day reoperation was observed in 6.8% of patients. Nosocomial infections were documented in 7.4% of cases and any adverse event in 14.5%. The risk scores comprise variables such as emergency admission, nursing care level, ECOG performance status, and inflammatory markers on admission. Three scoring systems, NoInfECT for predicting the incidence of nosocomial infections (low risk, 1.8%; intermediate risk, 8.1%; and high risk, 26.0% [p < 0.001]), LEUCut for 30-day unplanned reoperations (low risk, 2.2%; intermediate risk, 6.8%; and high risk, 13.5% [p < 0.001]), and LINC for any adverse events (low risk, 7.6%; intermediate risk, 15.7%; and high risk, 49.5% [p < 0.001]), showed satisfactory discrimination between the different outcome groups in receiver operating characteristic curve analysis (AUC ≥ 0.7).CONCLUSIONSThe proposed risk scores allow efficient prediction of the likelihood of adverse events, to compare quality of care between different providers, and further provide guidance to surgeons on how to allocate preoperative care.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document