Study Design: This is a systematic review. Objective: To systematically review (1) the reliability of the physical examination of the spine using telehealth as it pertains to spinal pathology and (2) patient satisfaction with the virtual spine physical examination. Methods: We searched EMBASE, PubMed, Medline Ovid, and SCOPUS databases from inception until April 2020. Eligible studies included those that reported on performing a virtual spine physical examination. Two reviewers independently assessed all potential studies for eligibility and extracted data. The primary outcome of interest was the reliability of the virtual spine physical exam. Secondary outcomes of interest were patient satisfaction with the virtual encounter. Results: A total of 2321 studies were initially screened. After inclusion criteria were applied, 3 studies (88 patients) were included that compared virtual with in-person spine physical examinations. These studies showed acceptable reliability for portions of the low back virtual exam. Patient satisfaction surveys were conducted in 2 of the studies and showed general satisfaction (>80% would recommend). Conclusions: These results suggest that the virtual spine examination may be comparable to the in-person physical examination for low back pain, though there is a significant void in the literature regarding the reliability of the physical examination as it pertains to specific surgical pathology of the spine. Because patients are overall satisfied with virtual spine assessments, validating a virtual physical examination of the spine is an important area that requires further research.

Context: Return-to-play (RTP) outcomes in elite athletes after cervical spine surgery are currently unknown. Objective: To systematically review RTP outcomes in elite athletes after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), cervical disc replacement (CDR), or posterior foraminotomy (PF) surgery. Data Sources: EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane, and Medline databases from inception until April 2020. Keywords included elite athletes, return to play, ACDF, foraminotomy, and cervical disc replacement. Study Selection: Eligible studies included those that reported RTP outcomes in elite athletes after cervical spine surgery. Study Design: Systematic review. Level of Evidence: Level 4. Data Extraction: Data were extracted by 2 independent reviewers. Results: The primary outcomes of interest were rates and timing of RTP. Secondary outcomes included performance on RTP. A total of 1720 studies were initially screened. After inclusion criteria were applied, 13 studies with a total of 349 patients were included. A total of 262 (75%) played football, 37 (11%) played baseball, 19 (5%) played rugby, 10 (3%) played basketball, 10 (3%) played hockey, 9 (3%) were wresters, and 2 (1%) played soccer. ACDF was reported in 13 studies, PF in 3 studies, and CDR in 2 studies. The majority of studies suggest that RTP after surgical management is safe in elite athletes who are asymptomatic after their procedure and may lead to higher rates and earlier times of RTP. There is limited evidence regarding RTP or outcomes after CDR or multilevel surgery. Conclusion: The management and RTP in elite athletes after cervical spine injury is a highly complex and multifactorial topic. The overall evidence in this review suggests that RTP in asymptomatic athletes after both ACDF and PF is safe, and there is little evidence for decreased performance postoperatively. Surgical management results in a higher RTP rate compared with athletes managed conservatively.

Study Design: Systematic Review Objectives: To determine the radiographic and clinical utility of postoperative orthoses following cervical spine surgery. Methods: We performed a search of the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Medline Ovid, and SCOPUS databases from inception until November 2021. Eligible studies included outcomes of postoperative bracing vs no bracing following cervical spine surgery. The primary outcome of interest was fusion rates after cervical surgery in braced vs unbraced patients. Secondary outcomes included patient reported outcomes and complication rates. Results: A total of 3232 titles were initially screened. After inclusion criteria were applied, 7 studies (550 patients) were included, which compared results of braced vs unbraced patients after cervical spine surgery. These studies showed acceptable reliability for inclusion based on the Methodical Index for Non-Randomized studies and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme assessment tools. There were no significant differences in fusion rates or complications between braced vs unbraced patients identified in any study. Patient reported pain and quality of life measures between braced and unbraced groups varied amongst studies, without any clear overall advantages favoring either method. Conclusions: This systematic review found that external bracing, though widely used following cervical spine surgery, may not offer any advantages in patient-reported outcomes, as compared to not bracing. In regard to the effect of bracing on fusion rates, no strong consensus can be made as the methods of fusion assessment in the included studies were heterogenous and suboptimal. Future high-quality studies using recommended methods of fusion assessment are needed to adequately address this important question.

No abstract

No abstract