Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 2 of 2
Results per page:
Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 97-B, Issue SUPP_2 | Pages 26 - 26
1 Feb 2015
Murphy S Blake C Power C Fullen B
Full Access

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


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 100-B, Issue 8 | Pages 1080 - 1086
1 Aug 2018
Charalampidis A Möller A Wretling M Brismar T Gerdhem P

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.

Patients and Methods

A total of 328 patients with idiopathic scoliosis, aged between ten and 20 years at the time of surgery, were identified in the Swedish spine register (Swespine) and had patient reported outcomes including the Scoliosis Research Society 22r instrument (SRS-22r) score, EuroQol 5 dimensions quality of life, 3 level (EQ-5D-3L) score and a Viual Analogue Score (VAS) for back pain, at a mean follow-up of 3.1 years and reoperation data at a mean follow-up of 5.5 years. Implant data and the correction of the curve were assessed from radiographs, preoperatively and a mean of 1.9 years postoperatively. The patients were divided into tertiles based on implant density. Data were analyzed with analysis of variance, logistic regression or log-rank test. Some analyses were adjusted for gender, age at the time of surgery, the flexibility of the major curve and follow-up.