Purpose: Factors influencing patient willingness to undergo elective surgery are poorly understood.

Method: We prospectively evaluated patient concerns prior to surgical consultation for elective spinal, hip, knee, shoulder/elbow (S/E), or foot/ankle (F/A) conditions. Patients were surveyed for demographic data, SF 36 quality of life (QOL) scores and asked to report their greatest concern about considering surgery for their condition, as well as their willingness to undergo surgery if it was offered to them by their treating surgeon.

Results: In our prospective cohort of 743 patients, 364 (51%) were male and 293 (39 %) were evaluated for a spine condition, 74 (10 %) hip, 192 (26 %) knee, 69 (9 %) S/E, and 115 (16 %) F/A. Mean QOL scores were similar for patients across specialities. The top three greatest concerns for undergoing elective musculoskeletal surgery were potential complications (20%), effectiveness (15%) and recovery time (15%) of surgery. When categorized by specialty, concern of surgical complications was the most prevalent in spine (23%) and F/A patients (30%). However, patients were most commonly unsure of risks associated with their respective subspecialty surgery (spine – 56%; hip – 53%; knee – 44%; S/E – 48% and F/A – 33%). The majority of hip patients (89%) perceived a high success rate for hip surgery, while 65% of spine patients where unsure of the success of spine surgery. Patient willingness to undergo surgery was greatest for hip (84%), knee (78%), and S/E (82%) surgery and least for spine (68%) and F/A surgery (74%).

Conclusion: Although patient willingness to consider surgery is clearly a multifactorial decision, patient perception of surgical risk or success prior to surgical consultation are significant factors.

Purpose: MetS has been shown to be a risk factor for chronic diseases such as cardiovascular diseases (CVD), including myocardial infarction and stroke, and dementia. Moreover, the risk factors that make up the MetS (central obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure, and dyslipidemia) have also been demonstrated to have independent relationships to degenerative joint disease. The relationship between the metabolic factors and spine OA have been examined by few, however the predictive value of MetS on the incidence or prevalence of this disease has not been studied. In this study, we asked whether the prevalence of spinal OA increases with the number of MS risk factors.

Method: We reviewed data from a single surgeon, high volume, spine surgery practice between the years of 2002–2007. Demographic data including the components of the MetS risk factors were collected. Prevalent severe OA was defined as degenerative spondylolisthesis or cervical or lumbar stenosis causing neurologically based symptoms, and early OA as those with lumbar and cervical spondylosis causing axial pain only. Logistic regression modeling was used to determine the odds (adjusted for age and sex) of having severe spine OA with an increasing number of the MetS risk factors.

Results: In our cohort of 1502 patients, there were 839/1502 (55.9%) patients defined as severe spinal OA and 663/839 (44.1%) patients with early OA. Those with severe spinal OA were significantly older, with a greater percentage of females, and had a greater BMI than those with early spinal OA (p < .05). The prevalence of severe spinal OA varied across groups defined by the number of MetS risk factors: 353/748 (47.2%) in those with 0 MetS risk factors, 236/392 (60.2 %) in those with 1 MetS risk factors, 148/228 (64.9 %) in those with 2 MetS risk factors, 76/104 (73.1 %) in those with 3 MetS risk factors, and 26/30 (86.7 %) in those with all 4 MetS risk factors. The overall prevalence of MetS was 30/1502 (2.0%), 26/839 (3.1%) in the severe OA group and 4/663 (0.6%) in the early OA group.(p= .001) Logistic regression modeling showed the odds of having severe spinal OA increased with an increasing number of MetS risk factors relative to having no MetS risk factors. Those patients having defined as MetS had almost a 4 times greater odds of having severe spinal OA as compared to those with no MetS risk factors, adjusted for age and gender [OR 3.9,(1.4, 11.6), p= .01].

Conclusion: The components of MetS are more prevalent in those with severe spinal OA causing neurological symptoms compared to those with spondylosis causing axial pain. Future work should examine for an association between MetS and incident OA.

Study Design: A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data on 18 consecutive patients undergoing en bloc resection of primary bronchogenic tumours that locally invaded the adjacent spinal column with a minimum of 12 months follow-up.

Objectives: To report on operative details, outcome scores, survival and satisfaction in this group of patients.

Summary of Background: Primary thoracic tumours with direct spinal extension have traditionally been regarded as being unresectable and thus, associated with a poor prognosis. However, en bloc surgery is now emerging as being the goal of primary tumor surgery offering the best results for survival.

Methods: We reviewed 18 consecutive patients undergoing concomitant lung and vertebral resection performed by a combined team of an orthopedic surgeon and a thoracic surgeon during 2002–2006. All patients had negative staging for systemic disease (T4 N0 M0).

Results: Mean age of patients was 62.5 +/−11.6 years (33–76 years) with a mean follow-up of 26.1 months (13–60 months). Seven patients had a one-stage procedure and 11 had en bloc resections in two stages. Mean length of operation was 995.8 minutes (280–1965 minutes). Mean estimated blood loss was 5425.8 mls (1430–12830 mls). Mean length of hospital stay was 31 days (range 9–122 days). In total, an average of 3.0 (range 2–4) vertebrae were resected – two patients had a partial vertebrectomy, 10 had a hemivertebrectomy, 2 had a total vertebrectomy and 4 had a combination. Three patients had a ‘palliative’ procedure as a result of local tumour invasion (around the great vessels and dura). The remaining 15 patients were operated with ‘curative’ intent.

The ODI (Oswestry Disability Index) score was 27.4 (+/−13) preoperatively and 42.2 (+/−10.9) post operatively (p=0.004). The scores for SF-36 (Short Form-36) were 34.0 (+/−10.9) preoperatively and 29.7 (+/−6.3) post-operatively (physical component summary; p=0.3); 39.2 (+/−7.9) preoperative and 40.6 (+/− 14.9) postoperative (mental component summary; p=0.85).

There were 6 major complications (1- wound break-down, 3 – required extended respiratory support of which 1 required thoracotomy for lung re-expansion, 1- developed severe distal junctional kyphosis requiring revision, 1 – recurrent laryngeal palsy needing thoraco-plasty) and 3 minor (2- dural tears, 1-chyle leak).

The survival in the ‘curative’ group was 10/15 (67%) with a mean follow-up of 27.3 months; five patients died at a mean of 115 days (86–129 days) due to respiratory complications. All ten surviving patients reported that they were satisfied/very satisfied with surgery. The survival in the ‘palliative’ group was 192 days (48–360).

Conclusions: There is a significant complication rate following en-bloc tumour surgery (> 50%), but curative resections are achievable at the expense of pain and function.

To determine the range of in-vivo magnification error in lateral spinal digital radiographs, and determine the effect of BMI on this error.

An analysis of two hundred and fifty patients with digital radiographs and CT/MRIs was performed. Digital imaging software was used to measure the antero-posterior vertebral body dimensions (VBD) at C2, C5, L1, and L4. Magnification values were determined in comparison to CT/MRI. CT measurements were also compared to MRI. BMI for each patient was obtained by chart review.

The difference between the mean VBD as measured on CT and MRI was < 0.1mm (n=130, p< 0.2514, paired t-test). Mean magnification at the cervical spine was 21% (1.21 ± 0.01; range = 1.06–1.57 (n=177)) and 31% at the lumbar spine (1.31 ± 0.01; range = 1.09–1.63 (n=284)). Linear regression showed a significant positive correlation between BMI and magnification at both the cervical and lumbar spine (Cervical: n=96; p=0.0019; Lumbar: n=144; p< 0.0001). There was a significant difference in magnification between non-obese and obese patients at both the cervical and lumbar levels. Cervical: 1.19 ± 0.01 magnification for non-obese (n=136), versus 1.26 ± 0.01 for obese (n=39) (p< 0.0001). Lumbar: 1.28 ± 0.01 (n=207), versus 1.38 ± 0.01 (n=71) (p< 0.0001), respectively.

Linear in-vivo measurements obtained on digital radiographs are subject to magnification errors at both cervical and lumbar spine. This error correlates to the patient’s BMI. Consequently, clinical-decision making, regardless of the anatomical area, that is based on linear measurements obtained from radiographs that do not account for this error are invalid. In the scenario that this measurement is crucial (e.g. dynamic radiographs), this error can be corrected by comparison to morphometric data from CT/MRI.