To determine presenting features, treatment modalities and associated outcome following treatment of spinal dural arteriovenous fistulas in a tertiary centre. Retrospective cohort study of patients with SDAVF assessed at a single tertiary referral centre, between 1999 and 2009. Medical records were used to identify intervention type, pre- and post-intervention Aminoff-Logue disability score (ALDS), recurrence rate, follow-up time and discharge status. Statistical analysis was performed using Wilcoxon signed rank. 26 patients were identified with 23 receiving intervention. Two were unavailable for follow up. Endovascular embolization was performed successfully in 13 patients, recurrence occurred in 6 of these, 3 of which were subsequently treated surgically. Surgery was the initial treatment for 10 patients due to either unsuccessful embolization attempt or proximity of the fistula to spinal artery feeders; only 1 of these recurred. ALDS-gait reduced (improved) by a mean of 0.33 points following intervention but this was not statistically significant ( Both embolisation and surgery achieved the primary aim of reducing disease progression, leading to an improved ALDS. Outcome was superior if initially treated surgically and recurrence occurred more frequently in patients treated endovascularly. The small number of patients in our cohort emphasise the need for further studies into this group of patients.
projecting turns – turns which indicate that the surgeon will produce an extended turn; parenthetical remarks – self-qualifying remarks inserted into a turn underway; ‘brightsides’ – comments which emphasize something positive about the patient’s case or condition; syllogisms – turns which allow patients to make logical deductions about the nature of the recommendation to come; and usual case or general course descriptions. Additionally, even though surgery is not being recommended, NFS recommendations are positioned in relation to surgery. Surgeons use this cluster of devices to manage a range of competing demands, for example, showing that they are taking the patient’s problem seriously, being attentive to the patient’s treatment expectations, explaining the rationale for the recommendation, and positioning the recommendation not for surgery in relation to surgery – e.g., explaining why surgery is not being recommended now, and/or the conditions under which surgery would be offered in the future. Through this cluster of devices, surgeons forecast the nature of the recommendation to come, lay bare the evidential basis for the recommendation and work to obtain patients’ subsequent acceptance of the recommendation. The cluster, as a whole, constitutes a persuasive argument for the upcoming recommendation.