Back pain screening clinics are established to clinically screen patients with back pain for organic lumbar pathology. The aim of this study is to assess the relationship between clinical signs of organic pathology and the level of disability as measured by functional outcome scores. Methods: Notes from 581 consecutive patients who were seen in the back screening clinic was analyzed. Sixty-nine patients who were found to have clinical signs of organic pathology and 69 age and sex-matched patients from 512 patients who were found to have no signs of organic pathology in the same time period in the back pain screening clinic were selected. The Oswestry disability, Short form-36 and visual analogue (pain) scores between the two groups were statistically analyzed.

The correlation between the level of psychological morbidity, length of symptoms and presence of past history of symptoms against the level of disability was statistically assessed. Results: Although there was a signiþcant increase in the level of disability in the referred group with each score (Oswestry Disability Score P< 0.001, SF-36 physical component score P=0.014, Visual analogue pain score P< 0.001). We also found a strong relationship between psychological disability and the duration of back symptoms. Conclusions: High level of disability is associated with organic pathology. Acute back pain should be treated promptly to reduce it impact on the psychological disability.

The management of long bone infected non-unions; posttraumatic chronic osteomyelitis and primary segmental bone defects constitute some of the most difficult reconstructive challenges encountered by orthopaedic surgeons. Measures employed to treat these conditions are tantamount to limb salvage with amputation a likely outcome if reconstructive endeavors prove unsuccessful. The Ilizarov method of distraction osteogenesis and bone transport, following radical debridement in the case of infection, is one potential management option in such cases.

Aim: To assess outcome in a cohort of patients with long bone defects treated with this technique.

Methods: Clinical review coupled with retrospective chart study and radiographic assessment.

Results: 24 patients (20 adults, 4 children) underwent treatment over a 6-year period. 21 had defects of a primary traumatic aetiology (18 tibial and 3 femoral fractures). The mean interval between injury and commencing bone transport was 41.6 months. The mean defect dimension requiring transport was 9cm (range 4.5 to 28cm). The mean external fixation time was 14.6 months. Union occurred in 21 cases. Autologous bone grafting of the docking site was performed in 6 cases in order to stimulate union. Following removal, frames were reapplied in 4 cases due to refracture or development of angular deformity. Two patients proceeded to below knee amputations. According to ASAMI* criteria, the bone result was excellent in 12 patients, good in 5 patients, fair in one patient and poor in 6 patients. Functional outcome was excellent in 7 patients, good in 12, fair in 2 and poor in 3.

Conclusion: The Ilizarov method of bone transport is a reliable procedure providing consistent results in complex cases when frequently alternative treatment options have been exhausted. Outcome compares favorably with other treatment modalities such as vascularised free tissue transfer or Papineau type grafting procedures. The treatment period is lengthy and both major and minor complications are common but limb salvage is successful in the main part. More aggressive treatment and appropriate fracture management in the early stages may have a role to play in improving the prognosis of these patients.

*Association for the Study and Application of the Methods of Ilizarov

Posterior lumbar interbody fusion is a well described procedure for the treatment of back pain associated with degenerative disc disease and segmental instability. It allows decompression of the spinal canal and circumferential fusion through a single posterior incision.

Sixty-five consecutive patients who underwent posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) using carbon cages and pedicle fixation between 1993 and 2000 were recruited and contacted with a postal survey.

Clinical outcome was assessed by the assessment of postoperative clinical findings and complications and the fusion rate, which was assessed using standard X-rays with the scoring system described by Brantigan and Steffee. Functional outcome was measured by using improvement in the Oswestry Disability Index, PROLO score, return to work and satisfaction with the surgical outcome. The determinants of functional relief were analysed against the improvement in disability using multiple regression analysis.

The mean postoperative duration at the time of the study was 4.4 years. The response rate to the survey was 84%. Overall radiological fusion rate was ninety eight percent. There was a significant improvement in Oswestry Disability Index P< 0.001. There was 85% satisfaction with the surgical procedure and 58% return to pre-disease activity level and full employment. In the presence of near total union rate we found preoperative level of disability to be best the determinant of functional recovery irrespective of age or the degree of psychological morbidity (p< 0.0001).

The combination of posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and posterior instrumented fusion is a safe and effective method of achieving circumferential segmental fusion. This procedure gives sustained long-term improvement in functional outcome and high satisfaction rate. Direct relationship between preoperative level of disability and functional recovery suggests that spinal fusion should be performed to alleviate disability caused by degenerative spine.

Assessment and referral of spinal disease in a primary care setting is a challenge for the general practitioner. This has led to establishment of spinal assessment clinic to insure prompt access to the patient who requires treatment by a spinal surgeon. These clinics are run by a trained physiotherapist who liaises with a member of the spinal team and decides the need for referral to the spinal clinic on the bases of the patient’s history and clinical examination. In our clinic each patient is also assessed with Oswestry disability index, Short form-36, visual analogue score and hospital anxiety score (HADS), although these scores do not contribute to the clinical decision-making. The aim of this study is to assess the screening value of Oswestry disability score, Short form-36 scores in diagnosing acute spinal pathology.

Sixty-nine patients who were referred to the spine clinic from the assessment clinic between March and December 2001 were recruited. Sixty-nine age and sex-matched patients were randomly chosen from five hundred and twelve patients who were seen in the spinal assessment clinic and did not need referral to the specialised spine clinic. The Oswestry disability score, Short form-36 scores and pain visual analogue scores between the two groups were statistically compared. The correlation between the level of psychological morbidity, length of symptoms and presence of past history of symptoms against the level of disability was statistically assessed.

Although there was a significant increase in the level of disability in the referred group with each score (Oswestry Disability Score P< 0.001, SF-36 physical component score P=0.014, Visual analogue pain score P< 0.001). The variation in the scores makes the scoring system unspecific for use as a screening tool. We also found strong relationship between psychological disability and length of symptoms indicating the need for prompt treatment for back pain.

An initial report from an acute back pain screening clinic, the first of its kind in Ireland, run by two Chartered Physiotherapists under the supervision of a Consultant Spinal Surgeon. Patients are referred directly from their Primary Care Practitioners and the A& E Department. The objectives of the clinic are to fast track patients with spinal pathology requiring specialist treatment, identify patients requiring other treatments/ interventions and ultimately to attempt to prevent the development of the chronic back pain syndrome. Since March 2001, approximately 800 patients with acute low back pain of duration greater than 6 weeks and less than 1 year have been seen at this clinic. 30% were referred for formal physiotherapy, 11% to the orthopaedic spinal clinic, 1% to the specialist pain clinic and 30% were discharged following simple advice and education.

Study Objective: To assess patient and General Practitioner satisfaction with this service.

Design: A validated patient satisfaction questionnaire for back pain was administered to 100 consecutive patients who had attended the clinic at least 6 months previously. 70 General Practitioners who had utilised the service were asked to complete a further questionnaire.

Results: The response rate was 73% from the patients and 66% from GP’s. Patients reported satisfaction with the treatment, advice and information received at the clinic but felt more investigations were warranted. GP’s were pleased with the accessibility of the service but expressed reservations about the quality of correspondence from the clinic.

Conclusions: The back pain screening clinic represents an important development in the services available for those with acute low back pain as demonstrated by the satisfaction of both those referring to and attending the clinic.