Management of vertebral fragility fractures

a clinical care pathway developed by a multispecialty panel using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method

Joshua A. Hirsch, Douglas P. Beall, M. Renée Chambers, Thomas G. Andreshak, Allan L. Brook, Brian M. Bruel, H. Gordon Deen, Peter C. Gerszten, D. Scott Kreiner, Charles A. Sansur, Sean M. Tutton, Peter van der Meer, Herman J. Stoevelaar

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Vertebral fragility fractures (VFFs), mostly due to osteoporosis, are very common and are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. There is a lack of consensus on the appropriate management of patients with or suspected of having a VFF. PURPOSE: This work aimed at developing a comprehensive clinical care pathway (CCP) for VFF. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was used to develop patient-specific recommendations for the various components of the CCP. The study included two individual rating rounds and two plenary discussion sessions. METHODS: A multispecialty expert panel (orthopedic and neurosurgeons, interventional [neuro]radiologists and pain specialists) assessed the importance of 20 signs and symptoms for the suspicion of VFF, the relevance of 5 diagnostic procedures, the appropriateness of vertebral augmentation versus nonsurgical management for 576 clinical scenarios, and the adequacy of 6 aspects of follow-up care. RESULTS: The panel identified 10 signs and symptoms believed to be relatively specific for VFF. In patients suspected of VFF, advanced imaging was considered highly desirable, with MRI being the preferred diagnostic modality. Vertebral augmentation was considered appropriate in patients with positive findings on advanced imaging and in whom symptoms had worsened and in patients with 2 to 4 unfavorable conditions (eg, progression of height loss and severe impact on functioning), dependent on their relative weight. Time since fracture was considered less relevant for treatment choice. Follow-up should include evaluation of bone mineral density and treatment of osteoporosis. CONCLUSIONS: Using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method, a multispecialty expert panel established a comprehensive CCP for the management of VFF. The CCP may be helpful to support decision-making in daily clinical practice and to improve quality of care.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalSpine Journal
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Jan 1 2018

Fingerprint

Critical Pathways
Osteoporosis
Signs and Symptoms
Aftercare
Quality of Health Care
Bone Density
Orthopedics
Consensus
Decision Making
Morbidity
Weights and Measures
Pain
Mortality
Therapeutics

Keywords

  • Balloon kyphoplasy
  • Clinical care pathway
  • Osteoporosis
  • RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method
  • Vertebral augmentation
  • Vertebral compression fracture
  • Vertebroplasty

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Clinical Neurology

Cite this

Management of vertebral fragility fractures : a clinical care pathway developed by a multispecialty panel using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method. / Hirsch, Joshua A.; Beall, Douglas P.; Chambers, M. Renée; Andreshak, Thomas G.; Brook, Allan L.; Bruel, Brian M.; Deen, H. Gordon; Gerszten, Peter C.; Kreiner, D. Scott; Sansur, Charles A.; Tutton, Sean M.; van der Meer, Peter; Stoevelaar, Herman J.

In: Spine Journal, 01.01.2018.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Hirsch, JA, Beall, DP, Chambers, MR, Andreshak, TG, Brook, AL, Bruel, BM, Deen, HG, Gerszten, PC, Kreiner, DS, Sansur, CA, Tutton, SM, van der Meer, P & Stoevelaar, HJ 2018, 'Management of vertebral fragility fractures: a clinical care pathway developed by a multispecialty panel using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method', Spine Journal. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2018.07.025
Hirsch, Joshua A. ; Beall, Douglas P. ; Chambers, M. Renée ; Andreshak, Thomas G. ; Brook, Allan L. ; Bruel, Brian M. ; Deen, H. Gordon ; Gerszten, Peter C. ; Kreiner, D. Scott ; Sansur, Charles A. ; Tutton, Sean M. ; van der Meer, Peter ; Stoevelaar, Herman J. / Management of vertebral fragility fractures : a clinical care pathway developed by a multispecialty panel using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method. In: Spine Journal. 2018.
@article{3d3e9a6c86084bcd8b418f81d051d39c,
title = "Management of vertebral fragility fractures: a clinical care pathway developed by a multispecialty panel using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method",
abstract = "BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Vertebral fragility fractures (VFFs), mostly due to osteoporosis, are very common and are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. There is a lack of consensus on the appropriate management of patients with or suspected of having a VFF. PURPOSE: This work aimed at developing a comprehensive clinical care pathway (CCP) for VFF. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was used to develop patient-specific recommendations for the various components of the CCP. The study included two individual rating rounds and two plenary discussion sessions. METHODS: A multispecialty expert panel (orthopedic and neurosurgeons, interventional [neuro]radiologists and pain specialists) assessed the importance of 20 signs and symptoms for the suspicion of VFF, the relevance of 5 diagnostic procedures, the appropriateness of vertebral augmentation versus nonsurgical management for 576 clinical scenarios, and the adequacy of 6 aspects of follow-up care. RESULTS: The panel identified 10 signs and symptoms believed to be relatively specific for VFF. In patients suspected of VFF, advanced imaging was considered highly desirable, with MRI being the preferred diagnostic modality. Vertebral augmentation was considered appropriate in patients with positive findings on advanced imaging and in whom symptoms had worsened and in patients with 2 to 4 unfavorable conditions (eg, progression of height loss and severe impact on functioning), dependent on their relative weight. Time since fracture was considered less relevant for treatment choice. Follow-up should include evaluation of bone mineral density and treatment of osteoporosis. CONCLUSIONS: Using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method, a multispecialty expert panel established a comprehensive CCP for the management of VFF. The CCP may be helpful to support decision-making in daily clinical practice and to improve quality of care.",
keywords = "Balloon kyphoplasy, Clinical care pathway, Osteoporosis, RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method, Vertebral augmentation, Vertebral compression fracture, Vertebroplasty",
author = "Hirsch, {Joshua A.} and Beall, {Douglas P.} and Chambers, {M. Ren{\'e}e} and Andreshak, {Thomas G.} and Brook, {Allan L.} and Bruel, {Brian M.} and Deen, {H. Gordon} and Gerszten, {Peter C.} and Kreiner, {D. Scott} and Sansur, {Charles A.} and Tutton, {Sean M.} and {van der Meer}, Peter and Stoevelaar, {Herman J.}",
year = "2018",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.spinee.2018.07.025",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Spine Journal",
issn = "1529-9430",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Management of vertebral fragility fractures

T2 - a clinical care pathway developed by a multispecialty panel using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method

AU - Hirsch, Joshua A.

AU - Beall, Douglas P.

AU - Chambers, M. Renée

AU - Andreshak, Thomas G.

AU - Brook, Allan L.

AU - Bruel, Brian M.

AU - Deen, H. Gordon

AU - Gerszten, Peter C.

AU - Kreiner, D. Scott

AU - Sansur, Charles A.

AU - Tutton, Sean M.

AU - van der Meer, Peter

AU - Stoevelaar, Herman J.

PY - 2018/1/1

Y1 - 2018/1/1

N2 - BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Vertebral fragility fractures (VFFs), mostly due to osteoporosis, are very common and are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. There is a lack of consensus on the appropriate management of patients with or suspected of having a VFF. PURPOSE: This work aimed at developing a comprehensive clinical care pathway (CCP) for VFF. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was used to develop patient-specific recommendations for the various components of the CCP. The study included two individual rating rounds and two plenary discussion sessions. METHODS: A multispecialty expert panel (orthopedic and neurosurgeons, interventional [neuro]radiologists and pain specialists) assessed the importance of 20 signs and symptoms for the suspicion of VFF, the relevance of 5 diagnostic procedures, the appropriateness of vertebral augmentation versus nonsurgical management for 576 clinical scenarios, and the adequacy of 6 aspects of follow-up care. RESULTS: The panel identified 10 signs and symptoms believed to be relatively specific for VFF. In patients suspected of VFF, advanced imaging was considered highly desirable, with MRI being the preferred diagnostic modality. Vertebral augmentation was considered appropriate in patients with positive findings on advanced imaging and in whom symptoms had worsened and in patients with 2 to 4 unfavorable conditions (eg, progression of height loss and severe impact on functioning), dependent on their relative weight. Time since fracture was considered less relevant for treatment choice. Follow-up should include evaluation of bone mineral density and treatment of osteoporosis. CONCLUSIONS: Using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method, a multispecialty expert panel established a comprehensive CCP for the management of VFF. The CCP may be helpful to support decision-making in daily clinical practice and to improve quality of care.

AB - BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Vertebral fragility fractures (VFFs), mostly due to osteoporosis, are very common and are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. There is a lack of consensus on the appropriate management of patients with or suspected of having a VFF. PURPOSE: This work aimed at developing a comprehensive clinical care pathway (CCP) for VFF. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was used to develop patient-specific recommendations for the various components of the CCP. The study included two individual rating rounds and two plenary discussion sessions. METHODS: A multispecialty expert panel (orthopedic and neurosurgeons, interventional [neuro]radiologists and pain specialists) assessed the importance of 20 signs and symptoms for the suspicion of VFF, the relevance of 5 diagnostic procedures, the appropriateness of vertebral augmentation versus nonsurgical management for 576 clinical scenarios, and the adequacy of 6 aspects of follow-up care. RESULTS: The panel identified 10 signs and symptoms believed to be relatively specific for VFF. In patients suspected of VFF, advanced imaging was considered highly desirable, with MRI being the preferred diagnostic modality. Vertebral augmentation was considered appropriate in patients with positive findings on advanced imaging and in whom symptoms had worsened and in patients with 2 to 4 unfavorable conditions (eg, progression of height loss and severe impact on functioning), dependent on their relative weight. Time since fracture was considered less relevant for treatment choice. Follow-up should include evaluation of bone mineral density and treatment of osteoporosis. CONCLUSIONS: Using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method, a multispecialty expert panel established a comprehensive CCP for the management of VFF. The CCP may be helpful to support decision-making in daily clinical practice and to improve quality of care.

KW - Balloon kyphoplasy

KW - Clinical care pathway

KW - Osteoporosis

KW - RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method

KW - Vertebral augmentation

KW - Vertebral compression fracture

KW - Vertebroplasty

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85053002033&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85053002033&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.spinee.2018.07.025

DO - 10.1016/j.spinee.2018.07.025

M3 - Article

JO - Spine Journal

JF - Spine Journal

SN - 1529-9430

ER -