Purposes of the study and background

Pain of lumbar facet-joint origin is a common cause of low back pain in adults, and may lead to chronic pain and disability. At present, there is no definitive research to support the use of targeted lumbar facet-joint injections to manage this pain.

The study's objective was to assess the feasibility of carrying out a definitive study to evaluate the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of lumbar facet-joint injections compared to a sham procedure.

Purposes of the study and background. Cognitive Functional Therapy (CFT) is a psychologically informed, physiotherapist-led intervention that targets the biopsychosocial complexity of persistent low back pain (LBP). CFT has demonstrated positive outcomes in two randomised controlled trials (RCT) but has not previously been evaluated in the United Kingdom National Health Service (NHS). This study aimed to determine the feasibility of completing a definitive RCT, that will evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of CFT in comparison to usual physiotherapy care (UPC) for people with persistent LBP in the NHS. Methods and results. A two-arm parallel feasibility RCT compared CFT with UPC in participants with persistent LBP. Data concerning study processes, resources, management and patient reported outcome measures (disability, pain intensity, quality of life and psychosocial function) were collected at baseline, three and six-month follow-up, analysed and evaluated in order to establish feasibility. Sixty participants (n=30 CFT and n=30 UPC) were recruited with 71.6% (n=43) retained at six-month follow-up. CFT was delivered to fidelity, relevant and clinically important outcome data were rigorously collected and CFT was tolerated by participants with no safety concerns. The Roland-Morris disability questionnaire was the most suitable primary outcome measure and sample size calculations were completed for a definitive RCT. Intention to treat analysis indicated a signal of effect in favour of CFT with moderate and large between group effect sizes observed across outcome measures at six-month follow-up. Conclusion. It is feasible to conduct a randomised study of CFT in comparison to UPC for NHS patients. A future fully powered clinical and cost effectiveness RCT could be completed. Conflicts of interest: No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: Chartered Society of Physiotherapy, Physiotherapy Research Foundation

Background. Stratifying patients with Low Back Pain (LBP) using the STarT Back Tool and delivering targeted treatment has demonstrated efficacy in individual physiotherapy settings. Physiotherapy interventions for LBP patients are often delivered in groups. This study aimed to explore the sustainability and cost effectiveness of a group stratified intervention in primary care. Methods. This non-randomised controlled trial compared a novel group stratified intervention to a historical non-stratified group control. Patients from 30 GP practices in Waterford Primary Care were stratified and offered a matched targeted group intervention. The historical control received a generic group intervention. The primary outcome measure was disability (RMDQ) at 12 weeks. A cost effectiveness analysis was also undertaken. Analysis was by intention to treat. Ethical approval was obtained. Results. 251 patients in the new stratified intervention and 332 in the historical control were included. Overall adjusted mean changes in the RMDQ scores were higher in the stratified intervention than in the control arm [p=0.028]. Exploring the risk groups individually the high-risk (HR) stratified group demonstrated better outcome over the controls (p=0.031)]. The medium risk (MR) stratified intervention demonstrated equally good outcomes (p=0.125), and low risk (LR) stratified patients, despite less intervention did as well as the historical controls [p=0.993]. With respect to cost effectiveness, the high risk intervention delivered a larger reduction in disability per unit time and proved equally cost effective as the medium risk intervention (HR €44.50 v MR €45.43). Conclusion. Group stratified care provides both a clinically effective and cost effective model of care for LBP patients. Conflicts of interest: No conflicts of interest. Source of Funding: Funded by an unrestricted educational grant from Pfizer Healthcare Ireland

Introduction. Pain is an expected and appropriate experience following traumatic musculoskeletal injury. By contrast, chronic pain and disability are unhelpful yet common sequelae of trauma-related injuries. Presently, the mechanisms that underlie the transition from acute to chronic disabling post-traumatic pain are not fully understood. The aim of this study is to identify prognostic factors for risk of developing chronic pain and disability following acute musculoskeletal trauma. Methods. A prospective observational study will recruit two temporally staggered cohorts (n=250 each cohort; 10 cases per candidate predictor) of consecutive acute musculoskeletal trauma patients aged ≥16 years, who are emergency admissions into a Major Trauma Centre in the United Kingdom, with an episode inception defined as the traumatic event. The first cohort will identify prognostic factors to develop a screening tool to predict development of chronic and disabling pain, and the second will allow evaluation of the predictive performance of the tool (validation). The outcome being predicted is an individual's absolute risk of poor outcome measured at 6-months follow-up using the Chronic Pain Grade Scale (poor outcome ≥Grade II). Candidate predictors encompass the four primary mechanisms of pain: nociceptive (e.g. injury characteristics), neuropathic (e.g. painDETECT), inflammatory (biomarkers), and central hypersensitivity (e.g. quantitative sensory testing). Concurrently, patient-reported outcome measures will assess general health and psychosocial factors. Risk of poor outcome will be calculated using multiple variable regression analysis. Conclusion. A prognostic screening tool for post-trauma pain will inform precision rehabilitation, targeting interventions to individual patients to improve clinical and cost effectiveness. Conflicts of interest: None. Sources of funding: NIHR Surgical Reconstruction and Microbiology Research Centre

Introduction. Spinal conditions commonly cause pain and disability. Various non-operative treatments including acupuncture are practiced for these conditions. Aim. To evaluate the effectiveness of acupuncture in management of common spinal conditions. Methodology. Between Jan 2011 and Feb 2013, 151 patients who received manual acupuncture in a hospital environment were assessed for pain improvement on Numerical-rating- scale (NRS) of 0–10, overall improvement with Core Outcome Measure Index (COMI) and for satisfaction with the care. Results. 110 had low back pain with and or radicular symptoms, 33 had neck pain and or radicular symptoms, 05 had thoracic and 04 multilevel symptoms. Average number of session given were 3.98 (range 2 to 8). Minimum and maximum reported pain improved statistically from 4.17 to 2.94 (Df 1.2, p = 0.00) and 8.00 to 6.03 (Df 1.9, p = 0.00) respectively but were below Minimum Clinically Important Difference (MCID) of 2. COMI improved statistically from 6.39(SD1.6) to 5.37 (SD 1.9) (Df 1.02, p = 0.00) that was below group MCID of COMI of 2.6. Seventy-five required further treatment, 49 were discharged and 11 patient did not complete the treatment. Discussion. Acupuncture is an NICE recommended established adjuvant treatment for treating common spinal conditions. This study demonstrates it to a be a safe technique with high patient satisfaction with statistically significant improvement in outcome measures that are below MCID of improvement raising questions on its cost effectiveness in routine clinical practice

Purpose. To evaluate the competencies of spinal extended scope physiotherapists (ESP) following the introduction of requesting rights for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) one year later. Methods. From September 2009 to August 2010 each MRI scan requested by the 2 spinal ESPs within the orthopaedic clinic was recorded along with their clinical diagnosis to ascertain why the scan was requested. This was indicated on a four point scale of likelihood of pathology which had been introduced to give evidence for MRI requesting rights. This was then audited to determine the total number of scans requested along with the accuracy or justification of the request. Results. 589 patients in total were seen in the time period by 2 spinal ESPs and of these 193 (33%) were referred for MRI scans. The breakdown of figures for the diagnosis showed that 18% of scans were for possible serious spinal pathology (SSP). 66% for lumbar spine/radiculopathy, 11% for cervical spine/radiculopathy, 2% thoracic and 3% were consideration for surgery eg. possible fusion. The accuracy of diagnosis, as measured by the clinical impression within a 4 point scoring system and its concordance with the MRI result indicated that for the lumbar spine accuracy rate was 71%, for the cervical spine 62.5%, Myelopathy 50%, SSP 16%. Conclusion. It is important that the requesting of MRIs by members of the orthopaedic team other than spinal consultants can be audited to demonstrate competency of clinical assessment and examination within the team. This results in cost effectiveness in requesting imaging appropriately according to patient needs rather than blanket referrals for scans which can be unnecessary. Data will continue to be collected and a report produced on an annual basis to ensure continuing competency

Background. In the USA more than half the states have legislated scoliosis school screening with the remaining states having either voluntary screening or no recommendations. The four primary care providers for adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis in the USA (AAOS, SRS, POSNA, AAP) do not support any recommendation against scoliosis screening, given the available literature. In Australia a national self detection program is implemented but in the UK school screening has been abolished since the 1980's. Opponents to scoliosis screening have focused on concerns about a low predictive value of screening, the cost effectiveness of referral, the possibility of unnecessary brace treatment and the effect of exposure to radiation when radiographs are obtained. Objectives. The purpose of this review was to evaluate the evidence for and against scoliosis screening. Methods. The following databases were searched: Cochrane Library, ARIF, TRIP, MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL. Reference lists of articles were searched for relevant systematic reviews and research articles. Results. One systematic review (2008). 1. suggests that there is evidence (level 1B) that intensive scoliosis specific exercise methods can reduce the progression of mild scoliosis (<30 degrees Cobb). Further a Cochrane review (2010). 2. suggests that there is low quality evidence for the effectiveness of bracing. Conclusions. Based on the evidence of this review, a 4 tier model for school screening is proposed that includes the distribution of information leaflets, screening by a school nurse, topographical assessment, referral to the primary care doctor and finally if the patient is still screening positive, referral to a scoliosis surgeon. Category: Deformity/screening. Ethics approval: none needed for a review. Interest statement: none

Scoliosis school screening is either mandatory or recommended in 32 states in the USA. The remaining states having either got voluntary screening or no recommendations. The four primary care providers for adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis in the USA do not support any recommendation against scoliosis screening, given the available literature. In Australia a national self detection program is implemented but in the UK school screening has been abolished since the 1980's. Opponents to scoliosis screening have focused on concerns about a low predictive value of screening, the cost effectiveness of referral, the possibility of unnecessary brace treatment and the effect of exposure to radiation when radiographs are obtained. The purpose of this review was to evaluate the evidence for and against scoliosis screening. The following databases were searched: Cochrane Library, ARIF, TRIP, MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL. Reference lists of articles were searched for relevant systematic reviews and research articles. One systematic review (2008). 1. suggests that there is evidence (level 1B) that intensive scoliosis specific exercise methods can reduce the progression of mild scoliosis (<30 degrees Cobb). Further a Cochrane review (2010) suggests that there is low quality evidence for the effectiveness of bracing. Based on the evidence of this review, a 4 tier model for school screening is proposed that addresses the “opponents” concerns. The model includes the distribution of information leaflets, screening by a school nurse, topographical assessment, referral to the primary care doctor and finally if the patient is still screening positive, referral to a scoliosis surgeon. Exercises reduce the progression rate of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis:

To determine the cost-effectiveness of Lumbar Total Disc Replacement (LTDR) with circumferential spinal fusion surgery. Cost utility analysis. We prospectively reviewed a cohort of 32 consecutive patients who underwent LTDR between 2004 and 2008 with a mean follow-up for 3.75 years. Identical data was compared to a similar group of patients (n=37) who underwent fusion in our institution. Oswestry Disability Index, visual analogue scale, quality of life (SF-36) and NHS resource use. Cost-effectiveness was measured by the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. QALY gains were estimated from SF-36 data using standard algorithms. There was no significant intergroup difference in the ODI, VAS and SF-36 pre and post-op. Both treatments produced statistically significant and equivalent improvements in mean health state utility at the 24-month follow-up (0.078 for LTDR, 0.087 for fusion). Costs were significantly lower with LTDR than with fusion due to a shorter mean procedure time (193.6 vs 377.4 minutes) and shorter length of stay (5.8 vs 7 days). The mean cost difference was £2,878 per patient. At 2 years, the cost per QALY gain of the lower-cost option (LTDR) was £48,892 although the cost effectiveness ratio would fall to below £30,000 if it is assumed that the patient benefits of LTDR last for at least 4 years. Both treatments led to significant improvements in patient outcomes which were sustained for at least 24 months. Costs were lower with LTDR which is effective and a more cost-effective alternative

Aims

There is little information about the optimum number of implants to be used in the surgical treatment of idiopathic scoliosis. Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from the Swedish spine register was undertaken to discover whether more implants per operated vertebra (implant density) leads to a better outcome in the treatment of idiopathic scoliosis. The hypothesis was that implant density is not associated with patient-reported outcomes, the correction of the curve or the rate of reoperation.

Aims

We present the results of correcting a double or triple curve adolescent idiopathic scoliosis using a convex segmental pedicle screw technique.

Objectives

We performed a systematic review of the literature to determine the safety and efficacy of bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) compared with bone graft when used specifically for revision spinal fusion surgery secondary to pseudarthrosis.

The demand for spinal surgery and its costs have both risen over the past decade. In 2008 the aggregate hospital bill for surgical care of all spinal procedures was reported to be $33.9 billion. One key driver of rising costs is spinal implants. In 2011 our institution implemented a cost containment programme for spinal implants which was designed to reduce the prices of individual spinal implants and to reduce the inter-surgeon variation in implant costs. Between February 2012 and January 2013, our spinal surgeons performed 1493 spinal procedures using implants from eight different vendors. By applying market analysis and implant cost data from the previous year, we established references prices for each individual type of spinal implant, regardless of vendor, who were required to meet these unit prices. We found that despite the complexity of spinal surgery and the initial reluctance of vendors to reduce prices, significant savings were made to the medical centre.

Cite this article: 2015; 97-B:1102–5.