Study Design Randomized Controlled Trial. Objective Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a major public health concern that will continue to grow with the expected aging of the population. The purpose of this study was to examine the clinical effect of a personalized, home-based biomechanical intervention compared to traditional physical therapy in patients with CLBP. Methods This was a randomized controlled trial. One-hundred and sixty-two patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to a home-based biomechanical intervention (HBBI, AposHealth) or traditional physical therapy (TPT), respectively. Patients were assessed at baseline and after 12 weeks and 52 weeks. The primary outcome measure was pain at 52 weeks, using a standard Numeric Rating Scale (NRS). Secondary outcomes included pain and function metrics, quality of life and objective spatio-temporal gait test. A Linear Mixed Model assessed changes over time across all study visits. Results A significant reduction in NRS was found after 52 weeks with a superiority effect of the HBBI arm compared to TPT (F = 13.82, P < 0.001). Patients in the HBBI arm demonstrated a marginal mean reduction of 3.5 points, from 6.2 to 2.7 (a 56% reduction), while patients in the TPT arm reported a mean decrease of 1.8 points from 6.9 to 5.1 (a 26% reduction). Conclusions A new foot-worn, home-based, biomechanical intervention for patients with chronic non-specific back pain was found to be clinically effective. Given the lack of non-surgical, non-pharmacological interventions for this populations, this treatment might serve as an adjunct to the current standard of care.

The intent of this article is to examine the methods utilized in teaching interventional spine procedures to resident physicians both historically and currently as well as to discuss what future training models may look like and what opportunities may present. Advances in technology have brought about new teaching styles and techniques, which may not only be beneficial to trainees, but to patients as well. The use of fluoroscopic guidance in spine procedures is a vitally important skill for interventionalists. The educational methods of teaching residents how to safely and accurately perform these procedures have and will continue to evolve with time. Progression from the traditional “see one, do one, teach one” method of learning, has led to the use of cadaveric, as well as low and high fidelity simulation models. With rapid technologic advances, newer approaches to learning including the use of Augmented and Virtual reality may be rapidly approaching.

Much of the burden of living with a disability is concentrated among those populations least financially able to bear the burden. As the price of 3 dimensional (3D) printing decreases, individual access to this technology increases. 3D-printed prostheses can be designed specifically for use in resource-poor settings, including developing countries, to minimize the cost of consumable parts while optimizing durability in harsh environmental conditions.

Introduction The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requires that residents in the Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (PM&R) residency observe or perform certain interventional procedures, one of which is an interlaminar epidural steroid injection (ILESI). While the traditional learning model relying heavily on observation is commonplace, it leaves the practice phase of learning to happen on real patients. High-fidelity simulation may be a worthwhile alternative as a training approach to increase physician comfort with the procedure and improve patient safety. Methods Current PM&R residents from two programs between their second and fourth year, inclusively, who lacked prior training experience in ILESI attended one hour of either: (1) an experimental arm of supervised hands-on training on a simulation device or (2) a control arm observing the procedures performed by an attending on the same device. Assignments were made based on resident schedule availability. Pre-training knowledge, training, and post-training knowledge were assessed at the Multidisciplinary Pain Clinic at Montefiore Medical Center. Participants were assessed on their procedural competence using an adapted version of a previously published grading checklist before the session. Participants also evaluated their confidence in performing the procedure prior to and after training. Data was analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test and the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. SAS Version 9.4 was used for analysis. Results Fifteen residents initially participated, but three residents dropped out at the 15-week follow-up. There was a significant increase in test scores in both arms immediately after the intervention (p=0.008 in control, p=0.016 in the experiment), with greater improvement shown in the hands-on training group (p=0.063). At the 15-week follow-up, there was no significant change in test scores in the control arm (p=0.969) while there was a decrease in the experiment arm (p<0.001). Conclusion Hands-on learning with high-fidelity simulation demonstrated more improvement for short-term motor-skill acquisition, while observational learning with repetition showed more benefits for long-term retention. Optimal procedural training should employ both educational modalities for best short- and long-term results.

Despite the well documented importance and success of interventional pain procedures in the management of painful spine conditions, detractors have questioned their role as part of the care paradigm since their inception. One of the many unexpected consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States was the forced shut down of elective procedures in early 2020. This caused many patients suffering with pain, who had already been deemed appropriate for an interventional procedure to have to wait an extended period of time. This unprecedented period in modern healthcare provided the opportunity for a long term examination of how this cohort of patients suffering with pain faired while being forced to wait for pain relieving intervention, and to demonstrate the vital importance of these procedures for not only pain relief but for improvement in quality of life. This study will show that an overwhelming number of patients reported that their pain had not improved spontaneously over time, and were anxious to proceed with intervention once given the opportunity.

Chronic back and leg pain are leading causes of disability worldwide. The purpose of this study was to compare the care in a unidisciplinary (USC) versus multidisciplinary (MSC) spine clinic, where patients are evaluated by different specialists during the same office visit. Adult patients presenting with a chief complaint of back and/or leg pain between June 2018 and July 2019 were assessed for eligibility. The main outcome measures included the first treatment recommendations, the time to treatment order, and the time to treatment occurrence. A 1:1 propensity score-matched analysis was performed on 874 patients (437 in each group). For all patients, the most common recommendation was physical therapy (41.4%), followed by injection (14.6%), and surgery (9.7%). Patients seen in the MSC were more likely to be recommended injection (p < 0.001) and less likely to be recommended surgery as first treatment (p = 0.001). They also had significantly shorter times to the injection order (log-rank test, p = 0.004) and the injection occurrence (log-rank test, p < 0.001). In this study, more efficient care for patients with back and/or leg pain was delivered in the MSC setting, which was evidenced by the shorter times to the injection order and occurrence. The impact of the MSC approach on patient satisfaction and health-related quality-of-life outcome measures warrants further investigation.

The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus causing the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is known to lead to the complicated sequelae of severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. Proning has been used as an adjunctive treatment to improve oxygenation in both ventilated and non-ventilated patients. Although patients respond well to this strategy, complications from this arise as well. It is hypothesized that COVID-19 intensive care unit (ICU) proned ventilation is associated with new cases of foot drops or compressive unilateral ankle dorsiflexion weakness during the early 2020 COVID-19 pandemic. Five patients presented to an acute rehabilitation facility with unilateral ankle dorsiflexion weakness after ICU proned ventilation during the COVID-19 pandemic. Three patients were found to have primarily subacute left sensory-motor dysmyelinating common peroneal neuropathies located around the fibular head. Two patients were found to have primarily subacute sensory-motor dysmyelinating right-sided common peroneal neuropathies above the fibular head and distal to biceps femoris muscle. Compressive unilateral common peroneal neuropathies during the pandemic are possibly related to the impromptu, unconventional, and unfamiliar use of proned ventilation.

Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) guidelines endorse early rehabilitation to improve outcomes in hospitalized patients, but the evidence base to support this recommendation is lacking. We examined the association between early rehabilitation and in-hospital deaths in COVID-19 patients. Method A single-center retrospective study, involving 990 COVID-19 patients (42.4% women, mean age 67.8 years) admitted between March 1, 2020 and May 31, 2020 to a community hospital, was conducted. Association of rehabilitation during hospitalization with in-hospital mortality was examined using logistic regression analysis adjusted for demographics, length of stay, body mass index, comorbid illnesses, functional status as well as for COVID-19 presentations, treatments, and complications. Results Over the 3-month study period, 475 (48.0%) inpatients were referred for rehabilitation. Patients who received rehabilitation were older (73.7 +/- 14.0 vs 62.3 +/- 17.2). There were 61 hospital deaths (12.8%) in the rehabilitation group and 165 (32.0%) in the nonrehabilitation group. Receiving rehabilitation was associated with an 89% lower in-hospital mortality (odds ratio [OR]: 0.11, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.06-0.19) after adjusting for multiple confounders and COVID-19 disease markers. In sensitivity analyses, the results were significant in subpopulations defined by age group, sex, race, length of hospitalization, or pulmonary presentations. Each additional rehabilitation session was associated with a 29% lower risk of in-hospital mortality (OR per session: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.64-0.79) in the fully adjusted model. Conclusion Among hospitalized COVID-19 patients, receiving early rehabilitation was associated with lower in-hospital mortality. Our findings support implementation of rehabilitation services for COVID-19 patients in acute care settings, but further research from randomized clinical trials is needed.

The response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in the United States has resulted in rapid modifications in the delivery of health care. Key among them has been surge preparation to increase both acute care hospital availability and staffing while using state and federal waivers to provide appropriate and efficient delivery of care. As a large health system in New York City, the epicenter of the pandemic in the United States, we were faced with these challenges early on, including the need to rapidly transition patients from acute care beds to provide bed capacity for the acute care hospitals. Rehabilitation medicine has always played an essential role in the continuum of care, establishing functional goals while identifying patients for postacute care planning. During this crisis, this expertise and the overwhelming need to adapt and facilitate patient transitions resulted in a collaborative process to efficiently assess patients for postacute care needs. We worked closely with our skilled nursing facility, home care partners, and an acute inpatient rehabilitation hospital to adapt their admissions processes to the patient population with COVID-19, all the while grappling with varying access to vital supplies, testing, and manpower. As the patient criteria were established, rapid pathways were created to postacute care, and we were able to create much needed bed capacity in our acute care hospitals.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT Complex spine surgery carries a high complication rate that can produce suboptimal outcomes for patients undergoing these extensive operations. However, multidisciplinary pathways introduced at multiple institutions have demonstrated a promising potential toward reducing the burden of complications in patients being treated for spinal deformities. To date, there has been no effort to systematically collate the multidisciplinary approaches in use at various institutions. PURPOSE The present study aims to determine effective multidisciplinary strategies for reducing the complication rate in complex spine surgery by analyzing existing institutional multidisciplinary approaches and delineating common themes across multiple practice settings. STUDY DESIGN Systematic review. METHODS We followed guidelines established under the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The studies reported on data from PubMed, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Web of Science and Cochrane. We included articles that described either approaches to, or results from, the implementation of multidisciplinary paradigms during the preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative phases of care for patients undergoing complex spine surgery. We excluded studies that only targeted one complication unless such an approach was in coordination with more extensive multidisciplinary planning at the same institution. RESULTS A total of 406 unique articles were identified. Following an initial determination based on title and abstract, 22 articles met criteria for full-text review, and 10 met the inclusion criteria to be included in the review. Key aspects of multidisciplinary approaches to complex spine surgery included extensive preoperative workup and interdisciplinary conferencing, intraoperative communication and monitoring, and postoperative floor management and discharge planning. These strategies produced decreases in surgical duration and complication rates. CONCLUSIONS This study represents the first to systematically analyze multidisciplinary approaches to reduce complications in complex spine surgery. This review provides a roadmap toward reducing the elevated complication rate for patients undergoing complex spine surgery.

STUDY DESIGN Case series. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the impact of a multidisciplinary spine surgery indications conference (MSSIC) on surgical planning for elective spine surgeries. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA Identifying methods for pairing the proper patient with the optimal intervention is of the utmost importance for improving spine care and patient outcomes. Prior studies have evaluated the utility of multidisciplinary spine conferences for patient management, but none have evaluated the impact of a MSSIC on surgical planning and decision making. METHODS We implemented a mandatory weekly MSSIC with all spine surgeons at our institution. Each elective spine surgery in the upcoming week is presented. Subsequently, a group consensus decision is achieved regarding the best treatment option based on the expertise and opinions of the participating surgeons. We reviewed cases presented at the MSSIC from September 2019 to December 2019. We compared the surgeon's initial proposed surgery for a patient with the conference attendees' consensus decision on the best treatment and measured compliance rates with the group's recommended treatment. RESULTS The conference reviewed 100 patients scheduled for elective spine surgery at our indications conference during the study period. Surgical plans were recommended for alteration in 19 cases (19%) with the proportion statistically significant from zero indicated by a binomial test (p < 0.001). The median absolute change in the invasiveness index of the altered procedures was 3 (interquartile range [IQR] 1-4). Participating surgeons complied with the group's recommendation in 96.5% of cases. CONCLUSION In conjunction with other multidisciplinary methods, MSSICs can lead to surgical planning alterations in a significant number of cases. This could potentially result in better selection of surgical candidates and procedures for particular patients. Although long-term patient outcomes remain to be evaluated, this care model will likely play an integral role in optimizing the care spine surgeons provide patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE 4.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has necessitated drastic changes across the spectrum of health care, all of which have occurred with unprecedented rapidity. The need to accommodate change on such a large scale has required ingenuity and decisive thinking. The field of physical medicine and rehabilitation has been faced with many of these challenges. Healthcare practitioners in New York City, the epicenter of the pandemic in the United States, were among the first to encounter many of these challenges. One of the largest lessons included learning how to streamline admissions and transfer process into an acute rehabilitation hospital as part of a concerted effort to make acute care hospital beds available as quickly as possible.

The current COVID-19 pandemic has put the global health-care system into an unprecedented crisis, leaving hospitals overwhelmed and desperate for additional capacity. As of April 20th, 2020, New York State had the most COVID-19 cases in the US. We here describe the process of transforming our freestanding rehabilitation hospital to help to create additional capacity for our parent system, the Montefiore Health System. This transformation required creating a capacity to handle an increased number of patients with higher medical complexity. The sequence of steps taken at Burke Rehabilitation Hospital to rise to the challenge is outlined in this article.

INTRODUCTION: Spinal disorders are a leading cause of disability and lost productivity. Streamlining the route to specialist consultation and/or intervention can mitigate healthcare costs and improve patient outcomes and satisfaction. We instituted a multidisciplinary spine clinic (MSC) with physicians from neurosurgery, orthopaedics, pain medicine, and physiatry, where patients are simultaneously seen by providers from all these specialties, as appropriate. We hypothesized that patients from an underserved population initially seen in the MSC would experience reduced lead times to specialist visits and appropriate interventions compared to similar patients seen in a traditional unidisciplinary neurosurgery clinic (UDC). METHODS: Records from 150 consecutive outpatients seen by a spine-specialized neurosurgeon either in the MSC or UDC from April 2018 July 2018 were abstracted. Multiple linear regression was used to determine if utilization of a MSC led to shorter lead times from initial visit with a spine surgeon (IV) to pain specialist visit (SV) and/or intervention. RESULTS: The analytic sample consisted of 150 patients (n = 49 UDC, n = 101 MSC). Median time to SV and intervention in the UDC were 49 d (IQR 32-111) and 63 d (IQR 42-172), respectively. In the MSC, median time to SV was 20 d (IQR 0-38) and median time to intervention was 43 d (IQR 22-79). After controlling for differences between the two groups, multivariate analysis showed that the time to SV was reduced by 45 d (coef. −45.9, 95% CI [−69.5, −22.2], P < .001) and time to intervention was reduced by 60 d (coef. −55.0, 95% CI [−94.1, −15.8], P = .007) for patients seen in the MSC. CONCLUSION: By centralizing providers in a MSC, outpatients with degenerative spinal conditions experienced shorter lead times to specialist consultation and intervention. As the direct and indirect costs of caring for spinal diseases balloon, implementation of MSCs can improve care coordination for patients. This model can be implemented successfully for socioeconomically disadvantaged populations.

Background Spinal cord stimulation is an established treatment option for certain chronic pain conditions which have been previously unresponsive to conservative therapies or potentially for a subset of patients who have not improved following spine surgery. Prior to permanent lead implantation, stimulator lead trials are performed to ensure adequate patient benefit. During these trials, one of the most common complications and reasons for failure is the displacement and migration of the trial leads, resulting in lost therapeutic coverage. Other complications include infection and dislodged bulky dressings. There is a paucity of literature describing an adequate procedural method to prevent these common complications. Objective This study utilizes a series of 19 patients to evaluate a new technique for securing percutaneous spinal cord simulator trial leads, which may minimize dislodgement and migration complications and improve the rate of trial success. Study Design Retrospective case series. Setting New Jersey Medical School, Department of Anesthesiology, Pain Management Division. Methods A retrospective chart review was conducted on 19 consecutive patients undergoing placement of the percutaneous thoracic spinal cord stimulator trial leads for pain associated with lumbar spine pathology over a two-year period (2010–2012). Results Of the 19 patients in our cohort, there was one trial lead displacement, no lead migrations, and no site infections. Thirteen patients went on to permanent lead implantation. This improved trial lead placement technique had a high success rate with a low number of complications. Limitations Small sample size, retrospective case series, and no control group for comparison. Conclusion This case series was able to demonstrate that our described novel spinal cord stimulator trial lead placement and dressing technique can decrease the incidence of lead displacement and migration, thus improving trial success.

—made up of seven vertebral bodies and the occiput (insert diagrams):