Aims. We compared decompression alone to decompression with fusion surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis, with or without degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS). The aim was to evaluate if five-year outcomes differed between the groups. The two-year results from the same trial revealed no differences. Methods. The Swedish Spinal Stenosis Study was a multicentre randomized controlled trial with recruitment from September 2006 to February 2012. A total of 247 patients with one- or two-level central lumbar spinal stenosis, stratified by the presence of DS, were randomized to decompression alone or decompression with fusion. The five-year Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were the EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D), visual analogue scales for back and leg pain, and patient-reported satisfaction, decreased pain, and increased walking distance. The reoperation rate was recorded. Results. Five-year follow-up was completed by 213 (95%) of the eligible patients (mean age 67 years; 155 female (67%)). After five years, ODI was similar irrespective of treatment, with a mean of 25 (SD 18) for decompression alone and 28 (SD 22) for decompression with fusion (p = 0.226). Mean EQ-5D was higher for decompression alone than for fusion (0.69 (SD 0.28) vs 0.59 (SD 0.34); p = 0.027). In the no-DS subset, fewer patients reported decreased leg pain after fusion (58%) than with decompression alone (80%) (relative risk (RR) 0.71 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 0.97). The frequency of subsequent spinal surgery was 24% for decompression with fusion and 22% for decompression alone (RR 1.1 (95% CI 0.69 to 1.8)). Conclusion. Adding fusion to decompression in spinal stenosis surgery, with or without spondylolisthesis, does not improve the five-year ODI, which is consistent with our two-year report. Three secondary outcomes that did not differ at two years favoured decompression alone at five years. Our results support decompression alone as the preferred method for operating on spinal stenosis. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(7):705–712

Aims. Vertebral body tethering (VBT) is a non-fusion technique to correct scoliosis. It allows correction of scoliosis through growth modulation (GM) by tethering the convex side to allow concave unrestricted growth similar to the hemiepiphysiodesis concept. The other modality is anterior scoliosis correction (ASC) where the tether is able to perform most of the correction immediately where limited growth is expected. Methods. We conducted a retrospective analysis of clinical and radiological data of 20 patients aged between 9 and 17 years old, (with a 19 female: 1 male ratio) between January 2014 to December 2016 with a mean five-year follow-up (4 to 7). Results. There were ten patients in each group with a total of 23 curves operated on. VBT-GM mean age was 12.5 years (9 to 14) with a mean Risser classification of 0.63 (0 to 2) and VBT-ASC was 14.9 years (13 to 17) with a mean Risser classification of 3.66 (3 to 5). Mean preoperative VBT-GM Cobb was 47.4° (40° to 58°) with a Fulcrum unbend of 17.4 (1° to 41°), compared to VBT-ASC 56.5° (40° to 79°) with 30.6 (2° to 69°)unbend. Postoperative VBT-GM was 20.3° and VBT-ASC Cobb angle was 11.2°. The early postoperative correction rate was 54.3% versus 81% whereas Fulcrum Bending Correction Index (FBCI) was 93.1% vs 146.6%. The last Cobb angle on radiograph at mean five years’ follow-up was 19.4° (VBT-GM) and 16.5° (VBT-ASC). Patients with open triradiate cartilage (TRC) had three over-corrections. Overall, 5% of patients required fusion. This one patient alone had a over-correction, a second-stage tether release, and final conversion to fusion. Conclusion. We show a high success rate (95%) in helping children avoid fusion at five years post-surgery. VBT is a safe technique for correction of scoliosis in the skeletally immature patient. This is the first report at five years that shows two methods of VBT can be employed depending on the skeletal maturity of the patient: GM and ASC. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(2):123–129

Objectives

To employ a simple and fast method to evaluate those patients with neurological deficits and misplaced screws in relatively safe lumbosacral spine, and to determine if it is necessary to undertake revision surgery.