The goals of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines in medicine are to promote best practices and reduce variations. Ideally they should improve physician performance and patient outcomes. Although controversy exists about the definition of a high quality guideline and how guidelines will be used in our health care system, there is a call for their use to help improve quality patient care. Guidelines related to musculoskeletal topics should be developed by national orthopaedic organisations and subspecialty societies using the best available clinical evidence. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons has, since 2007, developed nine evidence-based guidelines in the areas of hand, sports, foot/ankle, shoulder, paediatrics and total joint replacement. The keys to successful guideline development include an expert methodologist, an experienced evidence analysis staff, strict adherence to established rules to minimise bias, and strong communication with relevant subspecialty societies. The AAOS process allows any individual or group to submit a potential topic for consideration. A physician workgroup of 5-8 members is selected after wide advertisement of the topic. Workgroup members must have no relevant financial conflicts of interest to the topic and are required to fill out an enhanced disclosure form. The workgroup is comprised of orthopaedic surgeons and other specialists with expertise in the topic. There are two in-person meetings between which the staff finds and analyses the data to support the specific initial questions. The final document is 300-350 pages. There is a period of peer review by relevant societies as well as a period of public commentary followed by the formal committee and Board approval. The final guideline is disseminated widely via press releases, subspecialty societies, AAOS meetings, webinars, JBJS, JAAOS, and related questions on resident and member national examinations. These guidelines now form the basis for future AAOS quality initiatives

The Australia and New Zealand Sarcoma Association established the Sarcoma Guidelines Working Party to develop national guidelines for the management of Sarcoma. We asked whether surgery at a specialised centre improves outcomes. A systematic review was performed of all available evidence pertaining to paediatric or adult patients treated for bone or soft tissue sarcoma at a specialised centre compared with non-specialised centres. Outcomes assessed included local control, limb salvage rate, 30-day and 90-day surgical mortality, and overall survival.

Definitive surgical management at a specialised sarcoma centre improves local control as defined by margin negative surgery, local or locoregional recurrence, and local recurrence free survival. Limb conservation rates are higher at specialised centres, due in part to the depth of surgical experience and immediate availability of multidisciplinary and multimodal therapy. A statistically significant correlation did not exist for 30-day and 90-day mortality between specialised centres and non-specialised centres. The literature is consistent with improved survival when definitive surgical treatment is performed at a specialised sarcoma centre.

Evidence-based recommendation: Patients with suspected sarcoma to be referred to a specialised sarcoma centre for surgical management to reduce the risk of local recurrence, surgical complication, and to improve limb conservation and survival.

Practice point: Patients with suspected sarcoma should be referred to a specialised sarcoma centre early for management including planned biopsy.

Aims

Antibiotic prophylaxis involving timely administration of appropriately dosed antibiotic is considered effective to reduce the risk of surgical site infection (SSI) after total hip and total knee arthroplasty (THA/TKA). Cephalosporins provide effective prophylaxis, although evidence regarding the optimal timing and dosage of prophylactic antibiotics is inconclusive. The aim of this study is to examine the association between cephalosporin prophylaxis dose, timing, and duration, and the risk of SSI after THA/TKA.

Introduction. Analgesic drugs are often prescribed to patients with low back pain (LBP). Recommendations for non-invasive pharmacological management of LBP from recent clinical practice guidelines were compared with each other and with the best available evidence on drug efficacy. Methods. Guideline recommendations concerning opioids, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), paracetamol, antidepressants, anticonvulsants and muscle relaxants from national primary care guidelines published within the last 3 years were included in this review. For each pharmacotherapy, the most recent systematic review was included as the best available evidence on drug efficacy and common adverse effects were summarized. Results. Eight recent national clinical practice guidelines were included in this review (from Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, The Netherlands, UK and US). Guidelines are universally moving away from pharmacotherapy due to the limited efficacy and the risk of adverse effects. NSAIDs have replaced paracetamol as the first choice analgesics for LBP in many guidelines. Opioids are considered to be a last resort in all guidelines, but prescriptions of these medications have been increasing over recent years. Only limited evidence exists for the efficacy of antidepressants and anticonvulsants in chronic LBP. Muscle relaxants are one of the analgesics of first choice in the US, but aren't widely available and thus not widely recommended in most other countries. Conclusions. Upcoming guideline updates should shift their focus from pain to function and from pharmacotherapy to non-pharmacologic treatment options. No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: This review has been supported by a program grant of the Dutch Arthritis Foundation

Purpose and Background. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) recommend self-management for low back pain (LBP). Our recent narrative review on self-management needs revealed a consensus with respect to the critical components of self-management interventions. With mobile health advancements, apps offer innovative support for LBP management. This study aims to identify current apps for the self-management of LBP, assessing them for their quality, intervention content, theoretical approaches, and risk management approaches. Methods and Results. We identified 69 apps for LBP self-management from a systematic search in the UK iTunes and Google Play stores. The most recommended interventions are muscle stretching (n=51, 73.9%), muscle strengthening (n=42, 60.9%), and core stability exercises (n=32, 46.4%). The average MARS (SD) overall score for the included apps was 2.4 (0.44) out of a possible 5 points, with the engagement and information dimension scoring the lowest at 2.1. In terms of theoretical and risk management approaches, no apps offered a theoretical care model and all failed to specify the age group targeted; only one (1.4%) provided a tailored care approach; 18 (26.1%) included intervention progression; and 11 (15.9%) reported management safety checks. Conclusion. This study shows that app developers generally select interventions endorsed by CPGs. However, the application of a biopsychosocial care model is not being considered. Most of them are of low quality, lacking theoretical approaches to care and consideration of associated risks. It is essential to involve clinicians and patients in developing LBP self-management apps to improve the quality and related approach. Conflicts of interest. None. Sources of funding. No funding obtained. This study has been published in JMIR mHealth and uHealth

Background. Routine imaging (radiography, CT, MRI) provides no health benefits for low back pain (LBP) patients and is not recommended in clinical practice guidelines. Whether imaging leads to increased costs, healthcare utilization or absence from work is unclear. Purpose. To systematically review if imaging in patients with LBP increases costs, leads to higher health care utilization or increases absence from work. METHODS. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies (OSs), comparing imaging versus no imaging on targeted outcomes were extracted from medical databases until October 2017. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment was performed independently by two reviewers. The quality of the body of evidence was determined using GRADE methodology. Results. Moderate quality evidence (1 RCT; n=421) supports that direct costs increase for patients undergoing radiography. Low quality evidence (3 OSs; n=9535) supports that early MRI leads to a large increase in costs. Moderate quality evidence (2 RCTs, 6 OSs; n=19392) supports that performing MRI, radiography or CT is associated with increased healthcare utilization. Two RCTs (n=667) showed no significant differences between radiography or MRI groups compared with no imaging groups on absence from work. However, the results of two observational studies (n=7765) did show significantly greater absence from work in the imaging groups compared to the no imaging-groups. Conclusions. Imaging in LBP is associated with higher medical costs and increased healthcare utilisation. There are indications that it also leads to higher absence from work. No conflicts of interest. No funding obtained

Fragility fractures associated with osteoporosis (OP) reduce quality of life, increase risk for subsequent fractures, and are a major economic burden. In 2010, Osteoporosis Canada produced clinical practice guidelines on the management of OP patients at risk for fractures (Papaioannou et al. CMAJ 2010). We describe the real-world incidence of primary and subsequent fragility fractures in elderly Canadians in Ontario, Canada in a timespan (2011–2017) following guideline introduction. This retrospective observational study used de-identified health services administrative data generated from the publicly funded healthcare system in Ontario, Canada from the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences. The study population included individuals ≥66 years of age who were hospitalized with a primary (i.e. index) fragility fracture (identified using ICD-10 codes from hospital admissions, emergency and ambulatory care) occurring between January 1, 2011 and March 31, 2015. All relevant anatomical sites for fragility fractures were examined, including (but not limited to): hip, vertebral, humerus, wrist, radius and ulna, pelvis, and femur. OP treatment in the year prior to fracture and subsequent fracture information were collected until March 31, 2017. Patients with previous fragility fractures over five years prior to the index fracture, and those fractures associated with trauma codes, were excluded. 115,776 patients with an index fracture were included in the analysis. Mean (standard deviation) age at index fracture was 80.4 (8.3) years. In the year prior to index fracture, 32,772 (28.3%) patients received OP treatment. The incidence of index fractures per 1,000 persons (95% confidence interval) from 2011–2015 ranged from 15.16 (14.98–15.35) to 16.32 (16.14–16.51). Of all examined index fracture types, hip fractures occurred in the greatest proportion (27.3%) of patients (Table). The proportion of patients incurring a second fracture of any type ranged from 13.4% (tibia, fibula, knee, or foot index fracture) to 23% (vertebral index fracture). Hip fractures were the most common subsequent fracture type and the proportion of subsequent hip fractures was highest in patients with an index hip fracture (Table). The median (interquartile range [IQR]) time to second fracture ranged from 436 (69–939) days (radius and ulna index fracture) to 640 (297–1,023) days (tibia, fibula, knee, or foot index fracture). The median (IQR) time from second to third fracture ranged from 237 (75–535) days (pelvis index fracture) to 384 (113–608) days (femur index fracture). This real-world study found that elderly patients in Ontario, Canada incurring a primary fragility fracture from 2011–2015 were at risk for future fractures occurring over shorter periods of time with each subsequent fracture. These observations are consistent with previous reports of imminent fracture risk and the fragility fracture cascade in OP patients (Balasubramanian et al. ASBMR 2016, Toth et al. WCO-IOF-ESCEO 2018). Overall, these data suggest that in elderly patients with an index fragility fracture at any site (with the exception of the radius or ulna), the most likely subsequent fracture will occur at the hip in less than 2 years

Patients with a painful or failed total joint arthroplasties should be evaluated for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). The purpose of this study was to determine if patients referred to a tertiary care centre had been evaluated for PJI according to the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) clinical practice guidelines. 113 Patients with painful hip (43) or knee (70) arthroplasties were referred to a single provider by orthopaedic surgeons outside our practice between 2012 and 2014. We retrospectively evaluated the workup by referring physicians, including measurement of serum erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and C-reactive protein (CRP), performance of a joint aspiration if these values were abnormal, and obtainment of synovial fluid white blood cell (WBC) count, differential, and cultures. Sixty-two of the 113 patients (55%) did not have a workup that followed AAOS guidelines. Serum ESR and CRP were ordered for 64 of the 113 patients (57%). Of 25 patients with elevated inflammatory markers warranting aspiration, 15 (60%) had an aspiration attempted, with synovial fluid WBC, differential, and cultures obtained in 9 of 12 (75%) aspirations that yielded fluid. Of the 62 patients with an incomplete infection workup, 11 (18%) had a bone scan, 6 (10%) a CT scan, and 3 (5%) an MRI. Twelve of the 113 patients (11%) were ultimately diagnosed with PJI, with 5 undiagnosed prior to referral. The AAOS guidelines to evaluate for PJI are frequently not being followed. Improving awareness of these guidelines may avoid unnecessary and costly evaluations and delay in the diagnosis of PJI

Introduction. Venous thromboembolism (VTE), including pulmonary embolism (PE) resulting from deep vein thrombosis (DVT), remains a well-known serious complication after femoral fractures. The low molecular heparin is widely used to prevent VTE. This study compared the effectiveness of VTE prevention between dalteparin and enoxaparin. Materials and Methods. From 2013 to 2014, we retrospectively recruited 712 patients who had femoral fractures with operative treatment. All patients receiving VTE chemoprophylaxis with perioperative period using dalateparin in Group 1(N=395) and enoxaparin in Group 2(N=317). The prophylactic dosing was determined using individual product labeling and identified as enoxaparin 40 mg every 12 hours and dalteparin 2500 international unit (IU) once daily, based on clinical practice guidelines. The prophylaxis was started at admission, and maintained during average 8.43.5 days after operation. The outcome including the incidence of clinically significant deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, perioperative bleeding and cost of drugs were evaluated between two groups. Results. The two study groups did not differ significantly in fracture type, age, gender, ASA score. The overall incidence of VTE is similar between two groups. However, the incidence of fatal PE is significantly lower in patients with dalteparin (Group 1: 4/395(1.00%), Group 2: 10/317(3.15%), p<0.001). And the overall cost of each group is significantly different between two groups (Group 1: average KRW 89,426, Group 2: average KRW 32,188, p<0.001). Conclusion. Both dalteparin and enoxaparin could be safely used without notable complications in VTE prophylaxis. However, dalteparin had more advantages for prevention of fatal PE, compared to enoxaparin in patients with femoral fractures with significant cost effectiveness

Introduction. The current recommendation by the AAOS in the 2010 clinical practice guidelines for the use of MRI to diagnose a periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is “inconclusive” given the lack of evidence to support its use. The purpose of this study was to determine the utility of MRI with metal reduction artifact sequencing in diagnosing a periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after total hip arthroplasty (THA). Methods. 176 patients who underwent MRI with multi-acquisition variable resonance image combination (MAVRIC) to reduce metal artifact for a painful THA between the years of 2009–2013 were retrospectively evaluated. All MRIs were read by one of four radiologists with extensive experience in interpreting MRIs after THA. All MRIs were performed using a 1.5 Tesla magnet. Of the 176 patients examined, 16 patients were found to have a deep periprosthetic joint infection using Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria after the MRI was performed. MRI reads were classified as either positive (read as “evidence of active infection” or “suspicious for infection”) or negative (read as no evidence of infection). Only one patient who had a positive MRI read was excluded because of loss to followup after the MRI was performed. Results. Of the 160 aseptic patients, only one patient was read as suspicious for infection (false positive rate = 0.6%, specificity=99.4%, negative predictive value (NPV)=98.8%). Of the 16 patients with an infected THA, 14 patients were read as positive for infection (false negative rate=12.5%, sensitivity = 87.5%, positive predictive value (PPV)=93%). Conclusion. MRI with metal reduction artifact sequence is a highly specific test to diagnose or rule out a PJI with a low false positive rate and excellent PPV and NPV however, given its lower sensitivity than published for the serum C-reactive protein, is not recommended as a general “screening” test for all patients with pain after THA to rule out infection

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) remains an immediate threat to patients following total hip and knee replacement. While there is a strong consensus that steps should be taken to minimise the risk to patients by utilising some forms of prophylaxis for the vast majority of patients, the methods utilised have been extremely variable. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have been published by various professional organisations for over 25 years to provide recommendations to standardise VTE prophylaxis. Historically, these recommendations have varied widely depending in underlying assumptions, goals, and methodology of the various groups. This effort has previously been exemplified by the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) and the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS). The former group of medical specialists targeted minimising venographically proven deep vein thrombosis (DVT) (the vast majority of which are asymptomatic) as their primary goal prior to 2012. The latter group of surgeons targeted minimising symptomatic VTE. As a result prior to 2012, the recommendations of the two groups were widely divergent. In the past year, both groups have reassessed the current literature with the principal goals of minimising symptomatic VTE events and bleeding complications. As a result, for the first time the CPGs of these two major subspecialty organisations are in close agreement

Introduction. The current recommendation by the AAOS in the 2010 clinical practice guidelines for the use of MRI to diagnose a periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is “inconclusive” given the lack of evidence to support its use. The purpose of this study was to determine the utility of MRI with metal reduction artifact sequencing in diagnosing a periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after total hip arthroplasty (THA). Methods. 176 patients who underwent MRI with multi-acquisition variable resonance image combination (MAVRIC) to reduce metal artifact for a painful THA between the years of 2009–2013 were retrospectively evaluated. All MRIs were read by one of four radiologists with extensive experience in interpreting MRIs after THA. All MRIs were performed using a 1.5 Tesla magnet. Of the 176 patients examined, 16 patients were found to have a deep periprosthetic joint infection using Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria after the MRI was performed. MRI reads were classified as either positive (read as “evidence of active infection” or “suspicious for infection”) or negative (read as no evidence of infection). Only one patient who had a positive MRI read was excluded because of loss to followup after the MRI was performed. Results. Of the 160 aseptic patients, only one patient was read as suspicious for infection (false positive rate = 0.6%, specificity=99.4%, negative predictive value (NPV)=98.8%). Of the 16 patients with an infected THA, 14 patients were read as positive for infection (false negative rate=12.5%, sensitivity = 87.5%, positive predictive value (PPV)=93%). Conclusion. MRI with metal reduction artifact sequence is a highly specific test to diagnose or rule out a PJI with a low false positive rate and excellent PPV and NPV however, given its lower sensitivity than published for the serum C-reactive protein, is not recommended as a general “screening” test for all patients with pain after THA to rule out infection

Purpose and Background. Traditional physiotherapy methods utilised in the management of NSCLBP have small effects on pain and disability and this is reflected by data previously collected by the host physiotherapy service. O'Sullivan has validated a novel classification system and matching treatment strategy known as Classification Based–Cognitive Functional Therapy (CB-CFT) for people with NSCLBP. Briefly, CB-CFT is a behavioural and functional management approach to NSCLBP. A recent RCT employing CB-CFT has demonstrated superior outcomes in comparison to traditional physiotherapy methods advocated by clinical practice guidelines. It was unknown if CB-CFT improved outcomes for people with NSCLBP attending an NHS physiotherapy service, therefore an evaluation of practice was proposed. Methods and Results. People referred to physiotherapy with NSCLBP were assessed and treated by a physiotherapist trained in the delivery of CB-CFT. Primary outcomes of interest included the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS). A retrospective evaluation was performed for sixty-one people referred to physiotherapy with NSCLBP. Statistically significant improvements in disability (ODI p<0.001) and pain (NPRS p<0.001) were demonstrated. 88% of people achieved minimum clinically important change, defined as >10 points for the ODI and 75% of people achieved minimum clinically important change, defined as >2 on NPRS. Mean improvement of 24.7 points for the ODI and 3.0 for NPRS was observed immediately following CB-CFT, demonstrating large effect sizes of 1.56 and 1.21 respectively. Conclusion. CB-CFT can be successfully implemented into a NHS Physiotherapy Service producing outcomes that are superior to those previously reported for NSCLBP

Background. Recommendations in clinical practice guidelines for non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) are not necessarily translated into practice. Multiple research studies have investigated different strategies to implement best evidence into practice yet no synthesis of these studies is available. Objectives. To systematically review available studies to determine whether implementation efforts in this field have been successful; to identify which strategies have been most successful in changing healthcare practitioner behaviours and patient outcomes. Methods. A systematic review was undertaken, searching electronic databases, hand searching, writing to key authors and using prior knowledge of the field to identify papers. Included papers evaluated a strategy to implement best evidence about management of NSLBP into practice; measured key outcomes regarding change in practitioner behaviour/patient outcomes and subjected their data to statistical analysis. The Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) recommendations about data extraction and synthesis were followed. Study inclusion, data extraction and study risk of bias assessments were conducted independently. Results. Of 7654 potentially eligible citations, 17 papers reporting on 14 studies were included. Single/one-off implementation efforts were consistently unsuccessful. Increasing the frequency and duration of strategies led to greater success with those continuously ongoing over time the most successful. Risk of bias was highly variable with 7 of 17 papers rated at high risk. Conclusions. One-off implementation strategies may seem attractive but are largely unsuccessful in effecting meaningful change in practice. Increasing frequency and duration of strategies results in greater success and the most successful implementation strategies use consistently sustained interventions

Current orthopedic practice requires consideration of apparently contradictory recommendations regarding VTE prevention among THR/TKR patients. American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) 8th Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism recommend against aspirin for VTE prophylaxis in any patient. 1. The American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons (AAOS) Guideline recommends pulmonary embolism risk stratification, then implementation of one of many possible courses including the use of aspirin. 2. . We conducted a prospective observational study among consecutive patients presenting for total hip or knee arthroplasty. Pre-operative PE risk stratification was performed at the discretion of the surgeon. Patients identified as usual risk for PE received aspirin. Patients considered being at elevated risk for PE received warfarin. This observational study protocol called for one year of data collection. At approximately 8 months 656 patients were enrolled, and the surgeon principally implementing PE risk stratification and administration of aspirin chose to stop enrolling patients due to a high incidence of pulmonary emboli. One hundred fifty five patients received thromboprophylaxis with aspirin 600 mg PR in the PACU, then 325 mg BID for one month (reduced to 81 mg daily if GI symptoms were present). The remaining 501 patients received an ACCP-based warfarin protocol managed by a pharmacist anticoagulation management service. Our hypothesis is the null hypothesis; that an AAOS-based approach to hromboembolism prevention is not inferior to an ACCP-based approach. The a priori primary endpoints of the AVP Study are clinically overt VTE, DVT, PE, major bleeding, and death. All patients will receive a 90 day follow-up questionnaire in person or by telephone. Additionally, the electronic medical record of Intermountain Healthcare will be interrogated for ICD-9 codes germane to the outcomes of interest. Ninety day follow-up has been completed for approximately 140 patients. The dataset will be locked upon completion of the 90 day follow-up among those patients who last received PE risk stratification and aspirin therapy (data lock early June, 2009). We anticipate preliminary data available for report by July, 2009

Acute Kidney Injury (AKI) formerly known as “acute renal failure” results in rapid reduction in kidney function associated with a failure to maintain fluid, electrolyte and acid-base homeostasis. The UK NCEPOD published a report in 2010 on AKI that revealed many deficiencies in the care of patients with AKI. The UK Renal Association has published the final draft of Clinical Practice Guidelines for Acute Kidney Injury on the 08/01/2011. In our study we determined retrospectively the occurrence of this problem in a District General Hospital and its impact on recovery after lower limb arthroplasty. Data was collected retrospective study over 3 months between Oct to Dec 2010 from theatre registers and the hospital database system. 359 patients were identified. Preoperative (baseline) and postoperative blood investigations included Creatinine, Urea, K+, Na+, GFR, Haemoglobin were analysed. Data collection also included type of anaesthesia, timing of operation, duration of procedure and estimated blood loss. From the hospital database system and clinic letters we collected length of stay and time required for blood results to come back to baseline. A diagnosis of Acute Kidney Injury was based on the International Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) staging classification as recently recommended by UK Renal Association. Stage I Creatinine increase by ≥ 26 μmol/L from baseline, Stage II Creatinine increase by 200-300% and Stage III Creatinine increase ≥ 300%. In our study 11.97% (43/359) of patients developed acute kidney injury following lower limb Arthroplasty. 18 patients (42%) developed Stage I (Cre increase ≥ 26 μmol/L), 17(39%) developed Stage II (Cre increase 200-300%) and 8 patients (19%) developed Stage III (Cre increase ≥ 300%) AKI. Most of these patients were operated during the afternoon session. Patients with acute kidney injury stayed longer in hospital (11.7days) compared to similar age group of patients (6.35days) admitted during the same period. 25% of patients took more than a month for renal parameters to come down to normal. AKI is a new definition and the incidence in our hospital is higher than the 1% expected nationally. Patients with AKI are often complex to treat and specialist timely referral and transfer to renal services if appropriate should be considered. The etiology of Acute Renal Injury is very complex and includes gentamicin antibiotic prophylactic, rapid blood loss in elderly frail patients, non-steroidal pain killers and preexisting cardiac and renal pathology. The need for careful postoperative observation cannot be overemphasised together with judicious blood replacement as required. Acute Kidney Injury following lower limb arthroplasty is a sensitive marker of postoperative care. A successful surgical outcome may not mean a successful renal outcome. Patients with AKI are often complex to treat the new AKI definition and staging system allows an earlier detection and management of this condition. Further prospective audit with large number of patients are required

Aims

Systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the highest level of evidence used to inform patient care. However, it has been suggested that the quality of randomization in RCTs in orthopaedic surgery may be low. This study aims to describe the quality of randomization in trials included in systematic reviews in orthopaedic surgery.

Aims

The aim of this study was to determine whether early surgical treatment results in better neurological recovery 12 months after injury than late surgical treatment in patients with acute traumatic spinal cord injury (tSCI).

Initial treatment of traumatic spinal cord injury remains as controversial in 2023 as it was in the early 19th century, when Sir Astley Cooper and Sir Charles Bell debated the merits or otherwise of surgery to relieve cord compression. There has been a lack of high-class evidence for early surgery, despite which expeditious intervention has become the surgical norm. This evidence deficit has been progressively addressed in the last decade and more modern statistical methods have been used to clarify some of the issues, which is demonstrated by the results of the SCI-POEM trial. However, there has never been a properly conducted trial of surgery versus active conservative care. As a result, it is still not known whether early surgery or active physiological management of the unstable injured spinal cord offers the better chance for recovery. Surgeons who care for patients with traumatic spinal cord injuries in the acute setting should be aware of the arguments on all sides of the debate, a summary of which this annotation presents.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(4):347–355.