With resumption of elective spine surgery services following the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic, we conducted a multi-centre BASS collaborative study to examine the clinical outcomes of surgeries. Prospective data was collected from eight spinal centres in the first month of operating following restoration of elective spine surgery following the first wave. Primary outcomes measures were the 30-day mortality rate and postoperative Covid-19 infection rate. Secondary outcomes analysed were the surgical, medical adverse events and length of inpatient stay.Abstract
Aim
Methods
To assess whether oncologists are adhering to the NICE guidelines on MSCC. All patients who received radiotherapy for metastatic spinal cord compression from 1st June 2009 – 1st June 2010 were identified. This information was then compared to the data collected via the MSCC Coordinator. The notes and radiological investigations were reviewed by the spinal consultant. 34 patients received radiotherapy for MSCC, 15 patients were not referred to the spinal team prior to radiotherapy. On reviewing each individual case 2 patients may have potentially benefited from surgical intervention.Aim
Methods and Results
To assess the effectiveness of dynamic stabilisation as a treatment for discogenic pain compared to standard treatment of interbody fusion. All patients were referred for a 2 year back-pain management programme. Patients with continued pain following conservative treatment underwent discography & MRI. Patients with painful degenerate discs on the above investigations were selected. Patients underwent interbody fusion (PLIF/TLIF) or dynamic stabilisation. Mean follow-up was 24 months with a minimum follow-up of 12 months. All patients had pre-operative ODI and VAS scores. Patients were then sent further questionnaires at 6 month intervals. The mean improvement in ODI following dynamic stabilisation was 20% (-20% → 56%), the mean improvement in the pain score was 2.4 (0→8). The mean improvement in ODI following interbody fusion was 11% (-14%→48%), the mean improvement in the pain score was 2.6 (-4→9). 10 patients in the dynamic stabilisation group had a greater than 20% improvement in ODI, 7 patients in the interbody fusion group had similar results. The above results demonstrate that dynamic stabilisation is at least as effective at treating discogenic pain as interbody fusion. The results however do question the validity of either interbody fusion (PLIF/TLIF) or dynamic stabilisation in the management of discogenic pain.
Previous studies have shown improved outcome following surgery for spinal cord compression due to metastatic disease. Further papers have shown that many patients with metastatic disease are not referred for orthopaedic opinion. The aims of this paper are to study the survival and morbidity of patients with spinal metastatic disease who receive radiotherapy. Do patients develop instability and progressive neurological compromise? Can we predict which patients will benefit from surgery? Retrospective review of patients receiving radiotherapy for pain relief or cord compression as a result of metastatic disease. Patients were scored with regards to Tomita and Tokuhashi, survival and for deterioration in neurology or spinal instability. 94 patients reviewed. All patients were followed up for a minimum of 1 year or until deceased. Majority of patients had a primary diagnosis of lung, prostate or breast carcinoma. Mean Tomita score of 6, Tokuhashi score 7, and mean survival following radiotherapy of 8 months. 11:94 patients referred for surgical opinion. Poor correlation with Tomita scores (-0.25) & Tokuhashi scores (0.24) to predict survival. Four patients developed progressive neurology on follow-up. One patient developed spinal instability. The remainder of the patients did not deteriorate in neurology and did not develop spinal instability. All patients with normal neurology at time of radiotherapy did not develop spinal cord compression or cauda equina at a later date. This study suggests that the vast majority of patients with spinal metastatic disease do not progress to spinal instability or cord compression, and that prophylactic surgery would not be of benefit. The predictive scoring systems remain unreliable making it difficult to select those patients who would benefit. The referral rate to spinal surgeons remains low as few patients under the care of the oncologists develop spinal complications.
The two commonest types of hemiarthroplasty used for the treatment of a displaced intracapsular fracture are the uncemented Austin Moore Prosthesis and cemented Thompson hemiarthroplasty. To determine if any difference in outcome exists between these implants we undertook a prospective randomised controlled trial of 300 patients with a displaced intracapsular hip fractures. All operations were performed or supervised by one orthopaedic surgeon and all by a standard anterolateral approach. Patients were followed by a nurse blinded in the type of prosthesis to assess residual pain and mobility. The average age of the patients was 83 years and 23% were male. 73% came from their own home with the remainder from institutional care. There was no statistically significant difference in mortality between groups, with 34/151 having died at one year in the cemented group and 45/149 in the uncemented group. Pain scores (grade 1-6) were less for those treated by a cemented prosthesis (mean score 1.8 versus 2.4, p value <0.00001). Mobility change was also less for those treated with a cemented implant (p=0002). No difference was found in hospital stay. Operative complications are as listed. One case of non-fatal intraoperative cardiac arrest occurred in the cemented group. In summary a cemented Thompson Hemiarthroplasty causes less pain and less deterioration in mobility compared to uncemented Austin Moore hemiarthroplasty, without any increase in complications. The continued use of an uncemented Austin Moore cannot be recommended.
To assess the effectiveness of dynamic stabilisation as a treatment for discogenic pain compared to standard treatment of interbody fusion. Study Design & Subjects All patients were referred for a 2 year back-pain management programme. Patients with continued pain following conservative treatment underwent discography & MRI. Patients with painful degenerate discs on the above investigations were selected. Patients underwent interbody fusion (PLIF/TLIF) or dynamic stabilisation. Mean follow-up was 24 months with a minimum follow-up of 12 months. All patients had pre-operative ODI and VAS scores. Patients were then sent further questionnaires at 6 month intervals.Objective
Outcome Measures
Previous studies have shown improved outcome following surgery for spinal cord compression due to metastatic disease. Further papers have shown that many patients with metastatic disease are not referred for orthopaedic opinion. The aims of this paper are to study the survival and morbidity of patients with spinal metastatic disease who receive radiotherapy. Do patients develop instability and progressive neurological compromise? Do patients require surgery or are the majority adequately treated by oncologists? Review of patients receiving radiotherapy for pain relief or cord compression as a result of metastatic disease. Patients were scored with regards to Tomita and Tokuhashi, survival and for deterioration in neurology or spinal instability. 94 patients reviewed. All patients were followed up for a minimum of 1 year or until deceased. Majority of patients had a primary diagnosis of lung, prostate or breast carcinoma. Mean Tomita score of 6, Tokuhashi score 7, and mean survival following radiotherapy of 8 months. 11:94 patients referred for surgical opinion. Four patients developed progressive neurology on follow-up. One patient developed spinal instability. The remainder of the patients did not deteriorate in neurology and did not develop spinal instability. All patients with normal neurology at time of radiotherapy did not develop spinal cord compression or cauda equina at a later date. This study suggests that the vast majority of patients with spinal metastatic disease do not progress to spinal instability or cord compression, and that prophylactic surgery would not be of benefit. The referral rate to spinal surgeons remains low as few patients under the care of the oncologists develop spinal complications.
To assess the referral system, clinical notes and radiographs of patients presenting with metastatic disease of long bones in a regional oncology unit. Thirty questionnaires were sent to oncologists asking about reasons for referral to orthopaedics and use of scoring system to assess risk of pathological fracture. Ninety three percent of oncologists did not use a reliable scoring system to assess risk of pathological fracture. The majority referred in respect to pain on mobilising and the presence of a lytic lesion. Sixty percent felt an improvement in communication between the departments was required. The notes and radiographs were reviewed of thirty-seven patients presenting with femoral metastatic lesions to the oncology department. Sixteen patients had a Mirels score of greater than eight. Four patients were referred for an Orthopaedic opinion. All patients underwent prophylactic fixation. Twelve patients with a score of greater than eight were not referred. Seven of theses patients suffered a pathological fracture within three months. Five patients had a Mirels score of 8. One patient had prophylactic fixation. No fractures occurred. Sixteen patients had a Mirels score of less than 8. None of these patients were referred for an orthopaedic opinion. None of these patients had a pathological fracture within three months. In conclusion, we presently do not offer a multidisciplinary approach to metastatic disease affecting the appendicular skeleton. The majority of patients’ who score eight or above in the Mirels scoring system are at risk of fracture and do require prophylactic surgery. In keeping with the BOA guidelines, “Metastatic Bone Disease: A Guide to Good Practice”, we would recommend that the introduction of a multidisciplinary approach and the use of a recognised scoring system is essential to improve patient care.
To assess the referral system and the clinical notes and radiographs of patients presenting with metastatic disease of long bones. All oncology consultants and registrars received a questionnaire regarding referral to the orthopaedic department for metastatic disease of the appendicular skeleton. Ninety three percent of oncologists did not use a reliable scoring system to assess risk of pathological fracture. The majority of oncologists referred with regards to degree of cortical erosion and increased pain on weight-bearing. Sixty percent felt an improvement in communication between the departments was required. The notes and radiographs were reviewed of twentyfive patients presenting with femoral metastatic lesions to the oncology department. Mirels scoring system was then applied to each patient to assess the risk of the possibility of a pathological fracture. Ten patients had a Mirels score of greater than eight. Three patients were referred for an Orthopaedic opinion regarding prophylactic fixation. Two patients had no fracture of the femur after three months. Five patients had a pathological fracture within three months, resulting in an emergency admission for surgery. Three patients had a Mirels score of 8. One patient suffered a pathological fracture. Twelve patients had a Mirels score of less than 8. None of these patients were referred for an Orthopaedic opinion. None of these patients had a pathological fracture within three months. In conclusion, we presently do not offer a multidisciplinary approach to metastatic disease affecting the appendicular skeleton. The majority of patients’ who score eight or above in the Mirels scoring system are at risk of fracture and do require prophylactic surgery. In keeping with the BOA guidelines, “Metastatic Bone Disease: A Guide to Good Practice”, we would recommend the introduction of a multidisciplinary approach and the use of a recognised scoring system to improve patient care.
Recent history of injury associated with one or more of the following:
Acute haemarthrosis Clinical instability Disproportionate pain Locking Referrals were assessed as fulfilling or not fulfilling the criteria, and also as to the ultimate diagnosed pathology. Part II: From the results of these two audits, a multidisciplinary treatment proforma was created and distributed to Accident and Emergency. This included physiotherapy as a primary treatment option. Referrals were then reassessed as in the previous audits for a 4-month period.
There was a significant increase in patients referred directly from Accident and Emergency to the physiotherapy department, which means minor injuries receive physiotherapy earlier than if they initially came to clinic. The proforma was well received by the junior doctors in Accident and Emergency due to its simplicity. Overall the use of the proforma has improved the standard of care at our unit.
