Weak.

Patients can be advised that single-level arthroplasty and ACDF result in clinically similar kinematic changes at short-term follow-up. Strength of Statement: Strong.

Study design: Systematic review.Study rationale: Chronic sacroiliac joint pain (CSJP) is a common clinical entity with highly controversial treatment options. A recent systematic review compared surgery with denervation, but the current systematic review compares outcomes of surgical intervention with therapeutic injection for the treatment of CSJP and serves as the next step for evaluating current evidence on the comparative effectiveness of treatments for non-traumatic sacroiliac joint pain.Objective or clinical question: In adult patients with injection-confirmed CSJP, does surgical treatment lead to better outcomes and fewer complications than injection therapy?Methods: A systematic review of the English-language literature was undertaken for articles published between 1970 and June 2012. Electronic databases and reference lists of key articles were searched to identify studies evaluating surgery or injection treatment for injection-confirmed CSJP. Studies involving traumatic onset or non-injection–confirmed CSJP were excluded. Two independent reviewers assessed the level of evidence quality using the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) system, and disagreements were resolved by consensus.Results: We identified twelve articles (seven surgical and five injection treatment) meeting our inclusion criteria. Regardless of the type of treatment, most studies reported over 40% improvement in pain as measured by Visual Analog Scale or Numeric rating Scale score. Regardless of the type of treatment, most studies reported over 20% improvement in functionality. Most complications were reported in the surgical studies.Conclusion: Surgical fusion and therapeutic injections can likely provide pain relief, improve quality of life, and improve work status. The comparative effectiveness of these interventions cannot be evaluated with the current literature.

Object Using a systematic approach, the authors evaluated the current utilization, safety, and effectiveness of cellular therapies for traumatic spinal cord injuries (SCIs) in humans. Methods A systematic search and critical review of the literature published through mid-January 2012 was performed. Articles included in the search were restricted to the English language, studies with at least 10 patients, and those analyzing cellular therapies for traumatic SCI. Citations were evaluated for relevance using a priori criteria, and those that met the inclusion criteria were critically reviewed. Each article was then designated a level of evidence that was developed by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. Results The initial literature search identified 651 relevant articles, which decreased to 350 after excluding case reports and reviews. Evaluation of articles at the title/abstract level, and later at the full-text level, limited the final article set to 12 papers. The following cellular therapies employed in humans with SCI are reviewed: bone marrow mesenchymal and hematopoietic stem cells (8 studies), olfactory ensheathing cells (2 studies), Schwann cells (1 study), and fetal neurogenic tissue (1 study). Overall the quality of the literature was very low, with 3 Grade III levels of evidence and 9 Grade IV studies. Conclusions Several different cellular-mediated strategies for adult SCI have been reported to be relatively safe with varying degrees of neurological recovery. However, the literature is of low quality and there is a need for improved preclinical studies and prospective, controlled clinical trials.

There is a need to enhance the pipeline of discovery and evaluation of neuroprotective pharmacological agents for patients with spinal cord injury (SCI). Although much effort and money has been expended on discovering effective agents for acute and subacute SCI, no agents that produce major benefit have been proven to date. The deficiencies of all aspects of the pipeline, including the basic science input and the clinical testing output, require examination to determine remedial strategies. Where has the neuroprotective/pharmacotherapy preclinical process failed and what needs to be done to achieve success? These are the questions raised in the present review, which has 2 objectives: 1) identification of articles that address issues related to the translational readiness of preclinical SCI pharmacological therapies; and 2) examination of the preclinical studies of 5 selected agents evaluated in animal models of SCI (including blunt force trauma, penetrating trauma, or ischemia). The 5 agents were riluzole, glyburide, magnesium sulfate, nimodipine, and minocycline, and these were selected because of their promise of translational readiness as determined by the North American Clinical Trials Network Consortium. The authors found that there are major deficiencies in the effort that has been extended to coordinate and conduct preclinical neuroprotection/pharmacotherapy trials in the SCI field. Apart from a few notable exceptions such as the NIH effort to replicate promising strategies, this field has been poorly coordinated. Only a small number of articles have even attempted an overall evaluation of the neuroprotective/pharmacotherapy agents used in preclinical SCI trials. There is no consensus about how to select the agents for translation to humans on the basis of their preclinical performance and according to agreed-upon preclinical performance criteria. In the absence of such a system and to select the next agent for translation, the Consortium has developed a Treatment Strategy Selection Committee, and this committee selected the most promising 5 agents for potential translation. The results show that the preclinical work on these 5 agents has left numerous gaps in knowledge about their preclinical performance and confirm the need for significant changes in preclinical neuroprotection/pharmacotherapy trials in SCI. A recommendation is made for the development and validation of a preclinical scoring system involving worldwide experts in preclinical and clinical SCI.