Tourniquet use in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remains a subject of considerable debate. A recent study questioned the need for tourniquets based on associated risks. However, the study omitted analysis of crucial tourniquet-related parameters which have been demonstrated in numerous studies to be associated with safe tourniquet use and reduction of adverse events. The current utilization and preferences of tourniquet use in Canada remain unknown. Our primary aim was to determine the current practices, patterns of use, and opinions of tourniquet use in TKA among members of the Canadian Arthroplasty Society (CAS). Additionally, we sought to determine the need for updated best practice guidelines to inform optimal tourniquet use and to identify areas requiring further research. A self-administered survey was emailed to members of the CAS in October 2021(six-week period). The response rate was 57% (91/161). Skip logic branching was used to administer a maximum of 59 questions related to tourniquet use, beliefs, and practices. All respondents were staff surgeons and 88% were arthroplasty fellowship trained. Sixty-five percent have been in practice for ≥11 years and only 16% for 50 TKA/year, 59% have an academic practice, and >67% prefer cemented TKA. Sixty-six percent currently use tourniquets, 25% no longer do but previously did, and 9% never used tourniquets. For those not using tourniquets, the most common reasons are potential harm/risks and publications/conferences. Among current users, 48% use in all cases and an additional 37% use in 76-99% of cases. The top reason for use was improved visualization/bloodless field (88%), followed by performing a cemented TKA, used in training, and faster operative times. The main patient factor influencing selective tourniquet use was peripheral vascular disease and main surgical factors were operative duration and cementless TKA. The most frequent adverse events reported were bruising/pinching under the tourniquet and short-term pain, which majority believed were related to improper tourniquet use (prolonged time, high-pressures, poor cuff fit), yet only 8% use contoured tourniquets and 32% don't use limb protection. Despite substantial evidence in literature that tourniquet safety and probability of harm are affected by tourniquet time and pressure, only 83% and 72% of respondents believe reducing tourniquet time and pressure respectively reduce the probability of harm. In addition, no surgeon utilizes personalized limb occlusion pressure which has been demonstrated to substantially reduce tourniquet pressure while being safe and effective. Furthermore, 62% always use fixed pressure and 37% will modify the pressure based on patient parameters, most often systolic blood pressure and limb size. Almost all (88%) were interested in new evidence-based guidelines regarding these parameters. Tourniquet use in TKA remains prevalent among arthroplasty surgeons in the CAS; however tremendous practice variability regarding several key parameters required for optimal use exists. Current best practices of tourniquet use regarding personalized pressures, time, and type are not being utilized across Canada. There is considerable interest and need for further research and updated guidelines regarding key parameters of safe tourniquet usage to optimize tourniquet use in TKA.
This study aims to 1) determine reported cannabis use among patients waiting for thoracolumbar surgery and to 2) identify demographics and health differences between cannabis-users and non-cannabis users. This observational cohort study is a retrospective national multicenter review data from the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network registry. Patients were dichotomized as cannabis users and non-cannabis users. Variables of interest: age, sex, BMI, smoking status, education, work status, exercise, modified Oswestry Disability Index (mODI), the Numerical Rating Scales (NRS) for leg and back pain, tingling/numbness scale, SF-12 Quality of Life Questionnaire - Mental Health Component (MCS), use of prescription cannabis, recreational cannabis, and narcotic pain medication. Continuous variables were compared using an independent t-test and categorical variables were compared using chi-square analyses. Cannabis-use was reported by 28.4% of pre-operative patients (N=704), 47% of whom used prescription cannabis. Cannabis-use was reported most often by patients in Alberta (43.55%), British Colombia (38.09%) and New Brunswick (33.73%). Patients who reported using cannabis were significantly younger (mean=52.9 versus mean=61.21,). There was a higher percentage of concurrent narcotic-use (51.54 %) and smoking (21.5%) reported in cannabis-users in comparison to non-cannabis users (41.09%,p=0.001; 9.51%, p=0.001, respectively). There were significant differences in cannabis-use based on pathology (p=0.01). Patients who report using cannabis had significantly worse MCS scores (difference=3.93, p=0.001), and PHQ-8 scores (difference=2.51, p=0.001). There was a significant difference in work status (p=0.002) with cannabis-users reporting higher rates (20%) of being employed, but not working compared to non-cannabis users (11.13%). Non-cannabis users were more likely to be retired (45.92%) compared to cannabis-users (31.31%). There were no significant differences based on cannabis use for sex, education, exercise, NRS-back, NRS-Leg, tingling-leg, mODI, or health state. Thoracolumbar spine surgery patients are utilizing cannabis prior to surgery both through recreational use and prescription. Patients who are using cannabis pre-operatively did not differ in regards to reported pain or disability from non-users, though they did in demographic and mental health variables.
This study aims to 1) determine reported cannabis use among patients waiting for thoracolumbar surgery and to 2) identify demographics and health differences between cannabis-users and non-cannabis users. This observational cohort study is a retrospective national multicenter review data from the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network registry. Patients were dichotomized as cannabis users and non-cannabis users. Variables of interest: age, sex, BMI, smoking status, education, work status, exercise, modified Oswestry Disability Index (mODI), the Numerical Rating Scales (NRS) for leg and back pain, tingling/numbness scale, SF-12 Quality of Life Questionnaire - Mental Health Component (MCS), use of prescription cannabis, recreational cannabis, and narcotic pain medication. Continuous variables were compared using an independent t-test and categorical variables were compared using chi-square analyses. Cannabis-use was reported by 28.4% of pre-operative patients (N=704), 47% of whom used prescription cannabis. Cannabis-use was reported most often by patients in Alberta (43.55%), British Colombia (38.09%) and New Brunswick (33.73%). Patients who reported using cannabis were significantly younger (mean=52.9 versus mean=61.21,). There was a higher percentage of concurrent narcotic-use (51.54 %) and smoking (21.5%) reported in cannabis-users in comparison to non-cannabis users (41.09%,p=0.001; 9.51%, p=0.001, respectively). There were significant differences in cannabis-use based on pathology (p=0.01). Patients who report using cannabis had significantly worse MCS scores (difference=3.93, p=0.001), and PHQ-8 scores (difference=2.51, p=0.001). There was a significant difference in work status (p=0.002) with cannabis-users reporting higher rates (20%) of being employed, but not working compared to non-cannabis users (11.13%). Non-cannabis users were more likely to be retired (45.92%) compared to cannabis-users (31.31%). There were no significant differences based on cannabis use for sex, education, exercise, NRS-back, NRS-Leg, tingling-leg, mODI, or health state. Thoracolumbar spine surgery patients are utilizing cannabis prior to surgery both through recreational use and prescription. Patients who are using cannabis pre-operatively did not differ in regards to reported pain or disability from non-users, though they did in demographic and mental health variables.
Pain management in spine surgery can be challenging. Cannabis might be an interesting choice for analgesia while avoiding some side effects of opioids. Recent work has reported on the potential benefits of cannabinoids for multimodal pain control, but very few studies focus on spinal surgery patients. This study aims to examine demographic and health status differences between patients who report the use of (1) cannabis, (2) narcotics, (3) cannabis and narcotics or (4) no cannabis/narcotic use. Retrospective cohort study of thoracolumbar patients enrolled in the CSORN registry after legalization of cannabis in Canada. Variables included: age, sex, modified Oswestry Disability Index (mODI), Numerical Rating Scales (NRS) for leg and back pain, tingling/numbness leg sensation, SF-12 Quality of Life- Mental Health Component (MCS), Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), and general health state. An ANCOVA with pathology as the covariate and post-hoc analysis was run. The majority of the 704 patients enrolled (mean age: 59; female: 46.9%) were non-users (41.8%). More patients reported narcotic-use than cannabis-use (29.7% vs 12.9%) with 13.4% stating concurrent-use. MCS scores were significantly lower for patients with concurrent-use compared to no-use (mean of 39.95 vs 47.98, p=0.001) or cannabis-use (mean=45.66, p=0.043). The narcotic-use cohort had significantly worse MCS scores (mean=41.37, p=0.001) than no-use. Patients reporting no-use and cannabis-use (mean 41.39 vs 42.94) had significantly lower ODI scores than narcotic-use (mean=54.91, p=0.001) and concurrent-use (mean=50.80, p=0.001). Lower NRS-Leg pain was reported in cannabis-use (mean=5.72) compared to narcotic-use (mean=7.19) and concurrent-use (mean=7.03, p=0.001). No-use (mean=6.31) had significantly lower NRS-Leg pain than narcotic-use (p=0.011), and significantly lower NRS-back pain (mean=6.17) than narcotic-use (mean=7.16, p=0.001) and concurrent-use (mean=7.15, p=0.012). Cannabis-use reported significantly lower tingling/numbness leg scores (mean=4.85) than no-use (mean=6.14, p=0.022), narcotic-use (mean=6.67, p=0.001) and concurrent-use (mean=6.50, p=0.01). PHQ-9 scores were significantly lower for the no-use (mean=6.99) and cannabis-use (mean=8.10) than narcotic-use (mean=10.65) and concurrent-use (mean=11.93) cohorts. Narcotic-use reported a significantly lower rating of their overall health state (mean=50.03) than cannabis-use (mean=60.50, p=0.011) and no-use (mean=61.89, p=0.001). Patients with pre-operative narcotic-use or concurrent use of narcotics and cannabis experienced higher levels of disability, pain and depressive symptoms and worse mental health functioning compared to patients with no cannabis/narcotic use and cannabis only use. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first and largest study to examine the use of cannabis amongst Canadian patients with spinal pathology. This observational study lays the groundwork to better understand the potential benefits of adding cannabinoids to control pain in patients waiting for spine surgery. This will allow to refine recommendations about cannabis use for these patients.
Periprosthetic femoral fracture (PFF) incidence following hip replacement surgery continues to rise. There is a national drive to centralise PFF treatment within specialist centres to improve clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness. The financial implications of treating PFFs must be analysed to guide allocation of funding. Data were collected for 129 PFFs admitted from 02/04/2014–19/05/2020. Financial data were provided by the Patient Level Information and Costing Systems (PLICS) team. Primary outcomes were cost, revenue and margin for each PFF. Additional data were collected on length of stay (LOS), critical care requirements and clinical outcomes. Statistical comparisons were made between treatment type (fixation vs revision). Significance was set to p<0.05. Across the entire cohort, total cost was £2,389,901, total revenue was £1,695,435 and total loss was £694,481. Highest costs were ward stay (£714,591), theatre utilisation (£382,625), and overheads (£249,110). Median cost was £15,863 (IQR, £11,092-£22,221), median revenue was £11,305 (IQR, £7,147-£15,222) and median loss was £3,795 (IQR, £605-£8687). Median LOS was 21 days (IQR 13–34) and 28.7% patients required critical care admission. Ninety-six patients were treated operatively with either fixation (n=53) or revision (n=43). Median operating time was lower for fixation versus revision (132 [IQR, 115–185] vs 201 [IQR, 159–229] minutes, p=0.001). Median cost (£17,455 [IQR, £13,095-£22,824] vs £17,399 [£13,394-£23,404]) and median loss (£5,774 [IQR, £2,092-£10,472] vs £3,860 [IQR, £96-£7,601]) were similar for fixation and revision (p=0.99 and p=0.18, respectively). Median revenue was greater for revision versus fixation (£13,925 [IQR, £11,294-£17,037] vs £12,160 [IQR, £8,486-£14,390], p=0.02). There was no difference in LOS (21 [13–34] vs 21 [14–30] days, p=0.94), critical care requirements (20 [37.7%] vs 11 [25.6%], p=0.30), reoperations (3 [5.7%] vs 6 [14.0%], p=0.29], local complications (8 [15.1%) vs 12 [27.9%], p=0.20) or systemic complications (11 [20.8%] vs 11 [25.6%], p=0.75) between fixation and revision. PFF treatment costs are high with inadequate reimbursement through tariff. Work is needed to address this disparity and reduce costs associated with LOS, theatre utilisation and implants. Treatment cost should not be used when deciding between fixation and revision surgery.
The purpose of this study was to design a questionnaire to evaluate patients’ satisfaction with the healthcare system relating to their spinal procedure, and to gather information relating to pre and post operative management. If successful, this questionnaire will be incorporated into the FASTER (Function after spinal treatment, exercise and rehabilitation) study, with the aim of identifying common care pathways and to understand where stumbling blocks arise. The questionnaire included three sections: Care before surgery, care after surgery, plus general measures of satisfaction. Patients were randomly selected from the hospital records if they had undergone a lumbar discectomy or lateral nerve root decompression within the past year; this included both NHS and private patients. 34 pilot questionnaires were sent, to date 18 have been returned (9 NHS and 9 private patients). It was found that 79% of patients went to their GP when first experiencing pain/discomfort; however, alarmingly, an overwhelming majority of these patients felt their problem was not dealt with correctly at this stage. Fifty percent of the patients who went through the NHS “Definitely” felt left alone to deal with their problem. Only 10% of patients had physiotherapy prior to surgery and none went to pain management classes. 32% of patients received physiotherapy after leaving hospital; however, in all but one case this was after returning with symptoms. Despite this, patients in general were very pleased with the care they received during there hospital stay. This pilot data provides an insight into the issues experienced by spinal surgery patients.
The FASTER study (Function after spinal treatment, exercise and rehabilitation) aims to evaluate, via a factorial RCT, the benefits of a rehabilitation programme and an education booklet for the postoperative management of patients undergoing discectomy or lateral nerve root decompression, each compared with “usual care”. Since the scientific literature reveals little evidence in favour of any specific exercises or approach, the rehabilitation programme had a general focus on simply getting people exercising and was based on Klaber-Moffett &
Frost’s [2000] “Back to fitness” programme; classes include elements of stretching, strengthening, relaxation and an opportunity for discussion. Currently, 128 patients have been recruited into the study of which 65 have been randomised to receive rehabilitation, which is offered 6 weeks after their surgery. At the end of the 6 week period of rehabilitation classes, participants are requested to complete a questionnaire containing forced and open questions on the content, style, length, timeliness and usefulness of these classes. Feedback is very positive. In terms of class length 95% felt it was about right and easy to follow. All knew why they were doing the exercises, and 90% felt they had enough support and assistance during the classes. 95% would recommend to others. Important elements were noted to be; being with other people with the same problem, learning to exercise, gaining confidence and support and information from the staff. The average overall rating of the classes was 8.5/10. The results show that content of the rehabilitation classes appears to be pitched at the right level for post-operative patients and that the attendees are benefiting from interactions with each other and learning to exercise and be active. The impact of these classes on outcome remains to be determined.
The FASTER study (Function after spinal treatment, exercise and rehabilitation) aims to evaluate, via a factorial RCT, the benefits of a rehabilitation programme and an education booklet To date, 128 patients have been recruited into the study of which 63 have been randomised to receive the booklet. At 3 months post-surgery all of these patients are requested to complete a questionnaire on the booklet. This questionnaire contained forced-choice questions on readability etc and open questions regarding content. Finally, patients were asked their overall rating of the booklet on a scale from 1 to 10. Feedback is very positive. The average overall rating of the booklet was 8.3/10. Over 85% found it easy to read, interesting, and of appropriate length. Over 90% also stated they had learnt new and helpful information. All subjects stated that they would recommend the booklet to a friend, and the majority stated that they frequently referred to the booklet. The predominant messages received and understood by the patients were related to the safe benefits of early activation and return to normal activities. The results show that spinal surgery patients appreciate evidence-based information in booklet form, and suggest that this booklet may be an important adjunct to post-operative management of spinal patients.
To date, 80 patients have been recruited into the study of which 34 have been randomised to receive the booklet. At 6 months post-surgery all of these patients are requested to complete a questionnaire on the booklet. This questionnaire contained forced-choice questions on readability, style, information level, believability, length, content and helpfulness. Further open questions concern the booklet’s messages, giving patients the opportunity to identify anything they did not like or understand, voice any concerns that were not covered, and say if they thought the booklet would change what they did after surgery. Finally, they were asked their overall rating of the booklet on a scale from 1 to 10. Feedback is very positive. The average overall rating of the booklet was 8.6/10. Over 80% found it easy to read, interesting, and of appropriate length. Over 80% also stated they had learnt new and helpful information. All subjects stated that they would recommend the booklet to a friend, and the majority stated that they frequently referred to the booklet. The predominant messages received and understood by the patients were related to the safe benefits of early activation and return to normal activities. The results show that spinal surgery patients appreciate evidence-based information in booklet form, and suggest that this booklet may be an important adjunct to post-operative management of spinal patients.
