Aims. People with severe, persistent low back pain (LBP) may be offered lumbar spine fusion surgery if they have had insufficient benefit from recommended non-surgical treatments. However, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) 2016 guidelines recommended not offering spinal fusion surgery for adults with LBP, except as part of a randomized clinical trial. This survey aims to describe UK clinicians’ views about the suitability of patients for such a future trial, along with their views regarding equipoise for randomizing patients in a future clinical trial comparing lumbar spine fusion surgery to best conservative care (BCC; the FORENSIC-UK trial). Methods. An online cross-sectional survey was piloted by the multidisciplinary research team, then shared with clinical professional groups in the UK who are involved in the management of adults with severe, persistent LBP. The survey had seven sections that covered the demographic details of the clinician, five hypothetical case vignettes of patients with varying presentations, a series of questions regarding the preferred management, and whether or not each clinician would be willing to recruit the example patients into future clinical trials. Results. There were 72 respondents, with a response rate of 9.0%. They comprised 39 orthopaedic spine surgeons, 17 neurosurgeons, one pain specialist, and 15 allied health professionals. Most respondents (n = 61,84.7%) chose conservative care as their first-choice management option for all five case vignettes. Over 50% of respondents reported willingness to randomize three of the five cases to either surgery or BCC, indicating a willingness to participate in the future randomized trial. From the respondents, transforaminal interbody fusion was the preferred approach for spinal fusion (n = 19, 36.4%), and the preferred method of BCC was a combined programme of physical and psychological therapy (n = 35, 48.5%). Conclusion. This survey demonstrates that there is uncertainty about the role of lumbar spine fusion surgery and BCC for a range of example patients with severe, persistent LBP in the UK. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(7):612–620

The Spine Adverse Events Severity System (SAVES) and Orthopaedic Surgical Adverse Events Severity System (OrthoSAVES) are standardised assessment tools designed to record adverse events (AEs) in orthopaedic patients. The primary objective was to compare AEs recorded prospectively by orthopaedic surgeons compared to trained independent clinical reviewers. The secondary objective was to compare AEs following spine, hip, knee, and shoulder orthopaedic procedures. Over a 10-week period, three orthopaedic spine surgeons recorded AEs following all elective procedures to the point of patient discharge. Three orthopaedic surgeons (hip, knee, and shoulder) also recorded AEs for their elective procedures. Two independent reviewers used SAVES and OrthoSAVES to record AEs after reviewing clinical notes by surgeons and other healthcare professionals (e.g. nurses, physiotherapists). At discharge, AEs recorded by the surgeons and independent reviewers were recorded in a database. AE data for 164 patients were collected (48 spine, 52 hip, 33 knee, and 31 shoulder). Overall, 98 AEs were captured by the independent reviewers, compared to 14 captured by the surgeons. Independent reviewers recorded significantly more AEs than surgeons overall, as well as for each individual group (i.e. spine, hip, knee, shoulder) (p2), but surgeons failed to record minor events that were captured by the independent reviewers (e.g. urinary retention and cutaneous injuries; AEs Grade 0.05). AEs were reported in 21 (43.8%), 19 (36.5%), 12 (36.4%), and five (16.1%) spine, hip, knee, and shoulder patients, respectively. Nearly all reported AEs required only simple or minor treatment (e.g. antibiotic, foley catheter) and had no effect on outcome. Two patients experienced AEs that required invasive or complex treatment (e.g. surgery, monitored bed) that had a temporary effect on outcome. Similar complication rates were reported in spine, hip, knee, and shoulder patients. Independent reviewers reported more AEs compared to surgeons. These findings suggest that independent reviewers are more effective at capturing AEs following orthopaedic surgery, and thus, could be recruited in order to capture more AEs, enhance patient safety and care, and maximise different complication diagnoses in alignment with proposed diagnosis-based funding models

Aim. To use Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) to determine the effectiveness of lumbar spinal surgery at a single UK institution. Methods. Consecutive patients who underwent lumbar spinal surgery (discectomies or decompressions) from 1 January 2011 to 13 March 2013 at a UK District General Hospital were assessed. The procedures were performed or supervised by a senior Consultant Orthopaedic spinal surgeon. All patients completed PROM questionnaires before and three months following surgery. These included Visual Analogue Scores (VAS), SF-12, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Roland Morris Low Back Pain Questionnaire (RMQ). Results. A total of 230 patients had surgery. Of these, 189 (82%) completed both pre- and post-operative questionnaires. All PROMs showed improvement: VAS for constant back pain improved from 4.1 to 2.1 and exacerbations of back pain from 5.8 to 2.4. VAS for constant leg pain improved from 6.3 to 1.7 and for exacerbations of leg pain from 8.2 to 1.8. Mean ODI from 47 to 21; RMQ from13 to 5; and SF12-psychological and physical components increased by 7.2 and 12.4, respectively. Those patients with better psychological health pre-operatively, (high SF-12 score, >60 [n=14]) had a reduction in mean score (decrease of 3.2) post-operatively. However, those with poorer psychological health pre-operatively (low SF-12 score, <30 [n=18]) showed a marked improvement in mean score post-operatively (increase of 18.9). Conclusions. These results show that lumbar spinal surgery is safe and effective at a District General Hospital. Baseline psychological scores may help predict psychological outcomes following surgery. This warrants further prospective evaluation. This abstract has not been previously published in whole or substantial part nor has it been presented previously at a national meeting. Conflicts of interest: No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: No funding obtained

In the last few decades pedicle screw placement has brought in a genuine scientific revolution in the surgical care of spinal disorders. The technique has dramatically improved the outcomes of spinal reconstruction requiring spinal fusion. Short segment surgical treatments based on the use of pedicle screws for the treatment of neoplastic, developmental, congenital, traumatic and degenerative conditions have been proved to be practical, safe and effective. The reported incidence of nerve root damage after the use of pedicle screws ranges from 2% to 32%. The utilization of computerized image-guided technology in lumbosacral spinal fusion surgery offers increased accuracy of pedicle screw placement. We decided to review our x-rays of pedicle screw placement, and to assess the percentage misplacement of pedicle screws inserted without computer assistance. This is a retrospective study and our results are compared with those in the literature. 80 Post operative radiographs of patients operated on for trauma and degenerative conditions of the thoracolumbar spine were studied. Initially these were looked at independently by 2 orthopaedic spinal surgeons and a radiologist, and subsequently all x-rays were reviewed together to see where consensus could be reached where there was any disagreement. The percentage of misplaced screws inserted under fluoroscopy was obtained, and compared to the percentage of misplaced screws inserted under image guidance reported in the literature. Our study shows that there is no significant difference between the 2 techniques

Introduction. Following the publication of our original survey in 2000 (Eur. Sp. J. 11(6):515-8 2002) we have sought to re-evaluate the perceptions and attitudes towards spinal surgery of the current UK orthopaedic Specialist Registrars (SpRs), and to identify factors influencing an interest in spinal surgery. At that time 175 orthopaedic spinal surgeons in the UK needed to increase by 25% to satisfy parity with other European countries. Methods. A postal questionnaire was sent to all 917 SpRs. The questionnaire sought to identify perceptions in spinal surgery, levels of current training and practice, and intentions to pursue a career in spinal surgery. Results. A 61% response rate has confirmed that 74% of trainees intend to avoid spinal surgery (69% in 2000). However 10% are committed to become a Specialist Spinal Surgeon (6.5% in 2000). Their perceptions were wide ranging but most concluded that the intellectual challenge and opportunities for research are widely recognised. However enthusiasm is dampened by poor perceptions of outcomes from surgery, negative somatisation and depression associations, complications and the fear of litigation. In some areas there is inadequate exposure to spinal surgery during the first 4 years of training. Conclusions. Spinal surgery remains a career choice for 10% of surgical trainees (up 3.5% since 2000). With a large SpR expansion (578 to 917 SpRs in the last 5 years) an average of 9 new spinal surgeons annually will be produced over the next six years. This has improved on the figure of 6 per year from 2000. These figures suggest that by 2011 and allowing for retirement, there should be enough spinal surgeons to meet the desired UK/Europe ratio

Background. Although the aetiology of chronic low back pain (CLBP) is unknown, it is suggested that several subgroups among CLBP-patients might be identified who are likely to benefit from different interventions. The results of these interventions might be improved by matching interventions to patient characteristics. Purpose. The purpose of this longitudinal study is to determine which subgroup of CLBP-patients benefits most from the short, intensive pain management program of RealHealth_NL. Methods. A prospective cohort of 524 selected consecutive CLBP-patients was followed. Potential predictive indicators included demographic characteristics, functional disability, experienced pain and cognitive behavioural factors as measured at pre-treatment assessment. The outcome is defined as one year improvement in functional disability. A successful outcome is a value as seen in healthy populations. The two-week residential program is in line with recommendations in international guidelines, based on cognitive behavioural principles and delivered in collaboration with orthopedic spine surgeons. Results. Multivariate logistic regression revealed pre-treatment being employed (OR 3.609 [95%CI 1.795–7.256]), and functional disability (OR 0.943 [95%CI 0.921–0.965]) as significant predictive factors of a successful outcome in functional disability at one year follow-up. Conclusion. The results imply that CLBP-patients, who are employed, and less disabled at pre-treatment assessment, who participated in the RealHealth_NL program, are consistently associated with one year follow-up improvement of functional disability toward normal values. A small set of indicators is more easily identified and addressed and CLBP-patients who are more likely to benefit from the program could be given a higher entry priority. Conflict of Interest: J O'Dowd owns shares in RealHealth_NL; Research Development & Education independent research organisation; Sint Maartenskliniek health care provider and referral organisation. Source of funding: None. This abstract has not been previously published in whole or substantial part nor has it been presented previously at a national meeting

Introduction: Following the publication of our original survey in 2000 (. Eur. Sp. J. 11. (6):. 515. –8 . 2002. ) we have sought to re-evaluate the perceptions and attitudes towards spinal surgery of the current UK orthopaedic Specialist Registrars (SpR’s), and to identify factors influencing an interest in spinal surgery. At that time 175 orthopaedic spinal surgeons in the UK needed to increase by 25% to satisfy parity with other European countries. Methods: A postal questionnaire was sent to all 950 SpR’s. The questionnaire sought to identify perceptions in spinal surgery, levels of current training and practice, and intentions to pursue a career in spinal surgery. Results: As before, a 70% response rate has confirmed that 74% of trainees intend to avoid spinal surgery (69% in 2000). However 10% are committed to become a Specialist Spinal Surgeon (9% in 2000). Their perceptions were wide ranging but most concluded that the intellectual challenge and opportunities for research are widely recognised. However enthusiasm is dampened by poor perceptions of outcomes from surgery, negative somatization and depression associations, complications and the fear of litigation. In some areas there is inadequate exposure to spinal surgery during the first 4 years of training. Conclusions: Spinal surgery remains a career choice for 10% of surgical trainees (up 1% since 2000). With a large SpR expansion (578 to 950 SpRs in the last 5 years) an average of 16 new spinal surgeons annually will be produced over the next six years. This has improved on the figure of 8.6 per year from 2000 and represents a 200% increase in numbers per year. These figures suggest that by 2011 and allowing for retirement, there should be enough spinal surgeons to meet the desired UK/Europe ratio

The referral time for spine surgery consultation in Halifax is approximately one year. We currently do not understand the significance of delay in surgical consultation, nor do we have documentation of patient-perceived effects of this delay. Identifying patient characteristics associated with spine pathology mandating earlier surgical intervention would have obvious benefit in streamlining this population in our referral pattern. Furthermore, outlining patient characteristics who are unlikely to benefit from orthopaedic surgical assessment for spine surgery may facilitate community management of spinal pathology and accordingly improve wait times for surgical consultation. The aim of this study was to Identify patient variables that are predictive of need for early surgical evaluation. Also, to assess patient and surgeon satisfaction with wait times for consultation. Demographic data and questionnaires were prospectively collected on all consenting patients seen by two orthopaedic spine surgeons over a two week period. Patient and surgeon impression of wait was documented, in addition to Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores, and the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) to document pain. Surgeon reasons for scheduling or delaying surgical planning were also documented and correlated to patient scores. The average wait time for surgical consultation was 9.7 months, with a mode of sixteen months. 62.8% of patients felt that earlier consultation would be more appropriate, while 31.1% felt that they had deteriorated due to the delay. In addition, 26% felt that the delay negatively influenced their prognosis. Treating surgeons felt that the patient should have been seen sooner in 39% of cases, and that delay in consultation negatively affected prognosis in 6.2% of cases. Of two hundred and forty-two patients completing the survey over the two week period, only ten (4.1%) were scheduled for surgery. Both patients and physicians felt that prolonged referral-consultation wait times were unacceptable, and deleteriously affected prognosis in a significant proportion of cases. The majority of patients seen were not deemed surgical candidates, indicating room for improvement in referral patterns

Objective: The purpose of this study was to determine the safety and efficacy and evaluate several radiographic parameters after implantation of coflex™ for the primary diagnosis of spinal stenosis (1 or 2 levels) in patients with neurogenic claudication and low back pain between the ages of 40 and 80 years old. Methods: Retrospective data were gathered on 589 patients from 5 sites with 429 patients having contemporaneous clinical and radiographic follow-up. Clinical analysis was performed on 209 patients with spinal stenosis using VAS and objective examination measures to determine safety and efficacy of the coflex in relieving neurogenic claudication, radiculopathy and back pain. The median follow-up was 20 months (range 6 to 121 months) For the 209 patients, radiographic data was collected for evaluation of spinal segment motion (index and adjacent levels), implant position, migration and bony remodeling at the bone-implant interface. All device complications were recorded and independently reviewed by Medical Metrics, Inc. (Houston, TX) and an independent orthopaedic spinal surgeon (KP). Results: Moderate to severe low back pain improved in 75% of patients, while leg pain improved in 88% of patients. Claudication improved in 91% of patients and improvement in walking distance occurred in 79% of the patients. These results were achieved at 1 year and did not deteriorate over the long-term. Patient satisfaction was 88%. Complete radiographs with excellent quality were available for 180 implanted coflex devices. Sagittal rotation and translation measurements were essentially the same for all diagnoses, follow-up time points and levels of implantation. No expulsions and only 1 migration (> 5 mm) was observed. Mild and moderate bone-implant interface remodeling was noted in 15.4 %. No broken or permanently deformed implants were noted. Conclusions: coflex interspinous stabilization after microsurgical decompression for spinal stenosis demonstrates excellent short term and long term results for back pain, neurogenic claudication and patient satisfaction

Purpose: Few opportunities exist for physicians to easily obtain immediate insights or solicit direct advice from a respected peer on a complicated case. As a result, physicians end up relying heavily on journals, textbooks, and other dated resources that may prove to be dated or inadequate in addressing unique patient problems. Furthermore, the typical training modules available are limited to a one- or two-day experience. Often times this situation does not provide an adequate understanding of the surgical indications, techniques, and potential complications in the application of new technology. Consequently, many surgeons fail to adopt new technologies due to their lack of understanding of the application of such novel technologies. Recently, Reynolds et al studied the effect of peer collaboration among surgeons at a weekly surgery conference. They found that changes in surgical decision-making occurred in 12.5% of all cases reviewed and in 20% of the complex cases. However, collaboration should not be limited to weekly meetings or annual conferences. The Internet has introduced Collaborative Knowledge Networks (CKNs) that allow communities of surgeons to collaborate virtually on complex patient cases—allowing for rapid, bidirectional information. SpineConnect has surfaced as an example of a CKN that allows orthopedic spine surgeons to discuss surgical decisions. Method: We studied the use of Internet collaboration among spine surgeons using the SpineConnect website. We also compared the improvement in the adoption rate of novel technologies using technology fellowships versus traditional training modules. These fellowships use both in-person and virtual collaboration through the Spine-Connect platform as a new means of training physicians. Results: Using the SpineConnect website, surgical decision-making and planning was altered in 34% of active users and 90% agreed that the ability to collaborate with their peers, using a dedicated website, has improved their ability to practice spinal surgery. Continuous communication and dialogue resulting from the technology training fellowships encouraged better understanding of surgical indications, a greater comprehension of surgical technique, and a mechanism to discuss and solve complications. When such fellowships were implemented, we found a 30% improvement in adoption rate over traditional training modules. Conclusion: The treatment of spine surgery patients has benefited from the utilization of collaborative platforms such as SpineConnect. In spine surgeon training and education, we found that CKNs promoted better surgical decision-making and increased understanding of new technology application

Aims

Medical comorbidities are a critical factor in the decision-making process for operative management and risk-stratification. The Hierarchical Condition Categories (HCC) risk adjustment model is a powerful measure of illness severity for patients treated by surgeons. The HCC is utilized by Medicare to predict medical expenditure risk and to reimburse physicians accordingly. HCC weighs comorbidities differently to calculate risk. This study determines the prevalence of medical comorbidities and the average HCC score in Medicare patients being evaluated by neurosurgeons and orthopaedic surgeon, as well as a subset of academic spine surgeons within both specialities, in the USA.

Objectives

The objective of this study was to assess the association between whole body sagittal balance and risk of falls in elderly patients who have sought treatment for back pain. Balanced spinal sagittal alignment is known to be important for the prevention of falls. However, spinal sagittal imbalance can be markedly compensated by the lower extremities, and whole body sagittal balance including the lower extremities should be assessed to evaluate actual imbalances related to falls.