header advert
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

Spine

THE 2008 RECOMMENDED STANDARDS OF CARE FOR PATIENTS WITH SPINAL DEFORMITY - A NATIONAL AUDIT OF UK SPINAL DEFORMITY CENTRES

Combined British Scoliosis Society/Nordic Spinal Deformity Society (BSS/NSDS)



Abstract

Introduction

The British Scoliosis Society published a document in 2008 which set out the minimum standards for paediatric spinal deformity services to achieve over a period of time. But how do the UK paediatric spinal deformity centres measure up to these benchmarks?

Methods

We performed a telephonic survey, contacting every UK spinal deformity centre. The questionnaire probed how each unit compared to the recommended standards.

Results

Twenty three centres were interviewed, covering 81 surgeons in total (range 1-8 surgeons per centre). Four centres (17%) did not have 24-hour access to a MRI scanner and all but 2 centres had on-site facilities for long-cassette films/scoliograms. Five centres (22%) always had 2 consultant surgeons per case, 9 centres (39%) routinely have only 1 consultant surgeon per case, and the rest had 1 or 2 consultant surgeons depending on seniority. Six centres (26%) did not routinely have shared care of their patients with the paediatric team. All centres used intra-operative SSEP monitoring, a minority used MEP monitoring (34%), and all but 2 centres had either direct or indirect supervision by a consultant neurophysiologist. All centres have cell saver units available with over half using them routinely (14/23). None of the centres used routine chemoprophylaxis. All units used thromboembolic stockings, with five centres (22%) routinely using foot pumps. Nineteen centres (83%) routinely sent their spinal deformity patients to ITU/PICU postoperatively.

Our survey also asked each center what supporting facilities were available, whether they ran adolescent clinics, and whether they participate in multi-disciplinary meetings and audit. In addition, we questioned what typed of drains each center used and the length of time that patients were followed-up.

Conclusion

This survey shows how the UK spinal deformity units stand up against the BSS standards, provides an insight in to current UK practice and highlights areas for improvement.



Ethics approval: None

Interest Statement: None