FORECAST is a prospective longitudinal cohort study exploring mechanism-based prognostic factors for pain persistence in sciatica. Here, we share an update on this largest deeply-phenotyped primary care sciatica cohort. Our cohort includes 180 people with sciatica (score >4 on Stynes’ Sum Score), aged 18–85, within 3 months of symptom onset. Psychosocial factors, self-reported sensory profiling, clinical examination, quantitative sensory testing (QST), biological samples (blood and skin samples), and Magnetic Resonance Neurography of lumbar nerve roots were collected at baseline. Pain persistence was determined at three and twelve months with the Sciatica Bothersomeness Index (SBI) and a numeric pain rating scale (NRS) as primary outcomes. Recruitment nears completion, with 160 participants enrolled to date. 127 and 96 participants have completed 3 and 12 months follow-up respectively. Overall, 56% of our cohort are female, with a mean age (SD) of 54.14yrs (16.57). Ethnicity data approximates local populations. SBI at baseline was (median [IQR]) 13[10-17], and interim longitudinal data shows stepwise improvement at 3 and 12 months. Baseline ‘average’ pain intensity was 5.56 (2.15) for leg pain, and 4.14(2.82) for low back pain (LBP). Overall, pain scores decreased at 3 and 12 months, with greater reductions in leg pain than LBP at 12 months. However, around 55–80% and 40–65% of people reported persistent pain at 3 and 12 months respectively.Background
Methods/results
Specifically designed control interventions can account for expectation effects in clinical trials. For the interpretation of efficacy trials of physical, psychological, and self-management interventions for people living with pain, the design, conduct, and reporting of control interventions is crucial. To establish a quality standard in the field, core recommendations are presented alongside additional considerations and a reporting checklist for control interventions.Background
Objectives
Parallel operating lists are a contentious subject. Many people feel that supervision, training and quality of patient care is negatively affected and consider this an outdated model in modern practice. Dual and parallel lists have been largely abandoned due to training committees' opinions that standards of orthopaedic training were being negatively affected. A new model of dual lists was implemented in a district general hospital as part of an arthroplasty service. The training impact was evaluated. Adjacent theatres were utilised for a single session. Two joint replacement surgeries were undertaken in each theatre. The sequential timing of the lists allowed the consultant to perform or supervise all of the operations in a consecutive manor. Staggering the start times allowed the consultant to approach and implant the first joint replacement, leaving the junior doctor or nurse practitioner to close the first operation and get the patient off the table while the consultant transferred to the adjoining theatre where the registrar had positioned, painted and draped the second patient, allowing the consultant to perform or supervise the second surgery. The process was then repeated until all four cases were performed. Evaluation of two registrar's elogbooks was undertaken and compared to the national average. During a twelve month period the trainees was involved in a mean of 72 joint replacement surgeries compared to a national average of 49. The trainees were the primary surgeon in a significantly higher number of operations compared to the national average. This model of sequential operating lists facilitated a service of high volume arthroplasty surgeries and significantly increased the exposure of the training registrar to joint replacements. Supervision of trainees was not significantly impacted. The model requires effective support services and a dedicated team of theatre staff, but can be very rewarding for consultant surgeon and trainee alike.
We undertook the current study to analyze the factors involved with failed previous stabilization surgery for patients with anterior or anteroinferior glenohumeral instability. Between 1997 and 2003 we treated seventy-four patients with traumatic unidirectional instability. The average age was thirty-two and the average follow up was fifty-eight months. There were sixteen females and fifty-eight males. All patients underwent a primary diagnostic arthroscopy followed by arthroscopic stabilization in forty-seven and open stabilization in twenty-seven cases. Ten had a recurrence of instability. Of these two had significant trauma. Of the remaining, six were in the arthroscopic group and two in the open procedure group. Analyze the factors involved with failed previous stabilization surgery for patients with anterior or anteroinferior glenohumeral instability. Between 1997 and 2003 we treated seventy-four patients with traumatic unidirectional instability. The average age was thirty-two years (range nineteen to forty-seven). There were sixteen females and fifty-eight males. The average follow up was fifty-eight months (range seven to eighty-three). All patients underwent a primary diagnostic arthroscopy followed by arthroscopic stabilization in forty-seven and open stabilization in twenty-seven cases. The arthroscopic procedure involved two Suretac II labral reattachment and capsular shrinkage using electrocautery. The open procedure involved a Bristow/Latarjet procedure using a delto-pectoral approach and reattachment of coracoid process using a single malleolar screw. Ten patients had a recurrence of instability. Of these two had significant trauma, one each group. Of the remaining eight, six were in the arthroscopic group and two in the open procedure group. In the arthroscopic recurrence group, three had a large Hill Sach’s lesion and one a large Bankart Lesion. In the open procedure group, both had a large Hill Sach’s and Bankart’s lesion. This gave a recurrence rate of 12.7% in the arthroscopic group and 7.4% in the open group. A large Hill-Sach lesion >
2mm is a contra-indication to arthroscopic repair and the optimum stabilisation procedure is an open repair (Bristow/Laterjet). Without a significant Hill-Sach’s lesion an arthroscopic Suretac II labral re-attachment is an effective way of achieving stability. Those who have a large Hill-Sach and significant Bankart’s lesion may need a combination of Bankart’s repair plus an extra-articular procedure like a Bristow/Laterjet procedure.
