Citations

Abstract Background Lumbar spinal stenosis ( LSS ) can lead to compression of neural elements and manifest as low back and leg pain. LSS has traditionally been treated with a variety of conservative (pain medications, physical therapy, epidural spinal injections) and invasive (surgical decompression) options. Recently, several minimally invasive procedures have expanded the treatment options. Methods The Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Consensus Group convened to evaluate the peer‐reviewed literature as the basis for making minimally invasive spine treatment ( MIST ) recommendations. Eleven consensus points were clearly defined with evidence strength, recommendation grade, and consensus level using U.S. Preventive Services Task Force criteria. The Consensus Group also created a treatment algorithm. Literature searches yielded 9 studies (2 randomized controlled trials [ RCT s]; 7 observational studies, 4 prospective and 3 retrospective) of minimally invasive spine treatments, and 1 RCT for spacers. Results The LSS treatment choice is dependent on the degree of stenosis; spinal or anatomic level; architecture of the stenosis; severity of the symptoms; failed, past, less invasive treatments; previous fusions or other open surgical approaches; and patient comorbidities. There is Level I evidence for percutaneous image‐guided lumbar decompression as superior to lumbar epidural steroid injection, and 1 RCT supported spacer use in a noninferiority study comparing 2 spacer products currently available. Conclusions MISTs should be used in a judicious and algorithmic fashion to treat LSS , based on the evidence of efficacy and safety in the peer‐reviewed literature. The MIST Consensus Group recommend that these procedures be used in a multimodal fashion as part of an evidence‐based decision algorithm.

Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) is projected to become the leading indication for liver transplantation (LT) in the next decade in the United States. Strategies to treat the underlying etiology of NASH, which is almost always obesity, are being pursued. One such strategy is the utilization of bariatric surgery (BS) in the peritransplant period. The use of BS prior to LT could prevent the progression of NASH and abrogate the need for LT. BS at the time of LT or postoperatively has the potential to not only improve obesity‐associated conditions such as diabetes, but also the potential to influence the incidence of NASH in the post‐LT setting. However, there continues to be no consensus on the use and timing of BS in this patient population. This review aims to discuss the current literature and possible future action.