Aim. NICE
Introduction. Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) is the most common paediatric spinal deformity, affecting about 3% of school-aged children worldwide. This disorder occurs in otherwise healthy children who bear no obvious deficiencies in the components of the spinal column itself. The cause of AIS is poorly understood, as is implied by the name. Lesions of the bony composition of the vertebrae, the vertebral endplates, the paraspinous muscles, or the neurological system each have been proposed to explain disease pathogenesis. Progress has been hampered by the absence of an obvious AIS animal model. Consequently we have used genetic studies in human populations to identify factors underlying AIS susceptibility. The complex inheritance and population frequency of AIS suggest that many genetic factors are involved in this disease. To search comprehensively for such factors we previously undertook the first genome-wide association study (GWAS) of AIS susceptibility in a cohort of 419 families in Texas, USA. We found that chromosome 3 SNPs in the proximity of the CHL1 gene yielded strongest results, which we replicated in additional cohorts (rs10510181 OR 1·49, 95% CI 1·29–173, p=2·58×10–8). CHL1 is of interest because it encodes an axon
Computer-assisted frameless stereotactic image
Background and study purpose. Low back pain with no identified underlying cause is categorised as primary musculoskeletal pain by the International Association for the Study of Pain. In April 2021, the National Institute for Care and Excellence (NICE) published updated
Background. Chronic pain is a significant burden and represents a major issue for world healthcare systems. Interventions include medication, surgery, pain management programmes, and social support through peer support groups. These groups are often informal, providing informational, emotional, and social support to members. The aim of this project is to co-produce
Background. 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. Objectives. To establish a quality standard in the field, core recommendations are presented alongside additional considerations and a reporting checklist for control interventions. Methods. Three Delphi rounds with 64 experts in placebo research and/or non-pharmacological clinical trials were conducted. The panel was presented with a systematic review and meta-analysis of control and blinding methods. A draft
Purpose and background. Low back pain burdens individuals, society and services, including Emergency Departments (ED), straining services and prolonging wait times. Despite reported personal influences on deciding to attend ED, the role of third-party advice remains underexplored. Sparse
We present a large single surgeon case series evaluation of a new growth
Purpose. The purpose of this study was to discover if student led clinics (SLC) are feasible delivery mechanisms for Low back pain (LBP) self-management support and to develop a service model. Background. LBP is the most commonly reported musculoskeletal disorder worldwide. The increasing service and workforce demands of LBP are challenging for providers and policy makers. self-management is appropriate for many people living with LBP yet
Background. Advice and education are considered vital components of back pain care within national guidelines. However, a recent systematic review only found low grade evidence for a small average effect. They also reported wide heterogeneity in intervention design and delivery. This review aimed to understand why intervention design varied and what limited effectiveness by examining the underlying theoretical foundations of the studies from that review. Method. Population, context, selection criteria, intervention(s), control, outcome measures, how the intervention was hypothesised to produce outcomes and author recommendations based on results of the study were extracted from text records. The extent to which the advice included matched a published international consensus statement on evidence-based advice for back pain was recorded. Whether interventions or settings were complex was determined using the Medical Research Council complex intervention development and evaluation
Purpose and background. Although clinical guidelines recommend that low back pain (LBP) is best managed in primary or community care, in the UK and globally, LBP accounts for around 4% of emergency department (ED) attendances. Organising and delivering healthcare to be safe, effective, and acceptable requires hearing patients’ perspectives; this study therefore aimed to explore patients’ experiences of attending the ED for LBP. Methods and results. This was a multisite qualitative interview study with 47 adults (aged 23–79 years) who, in the past six weeks, had attended one of four UK NHS emergency departments for LBP (all types and durations). Purposive sampling was used to gain variation in the recruiting site, and LBP and demographic characteristics. Data were collected using individual, semi-structured, telephone interviews (median 45mins). Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed thematically. We identified significant variation in patients’ experiences of ED care for LBP, which we argue reflects contrasting cultures of ED care. We present three cultures, emergency screening only, ‘cynicism and neglect’, and ‘kindness’; these cultures differ in how they navigate the tension between the ED remit and patients’ perceived needs of care. We draw on Bourdieu's notions of field and habitus and professional identity theory to help explain these findings. Conclusion. Our findings suggest unwarranted variation in ED care for LBP. Implications include the need for urgent access to primary and community care and clarity about best practice managing LBP in the ED; best practice
Purpose and background of the study. Self-management and behaviour change is at the core of back pain management. Despite the high-rate of recurrence and healthcare utilisation, clinical guidelines do not include
Purpose and Background. Work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WRMSD) can affect 56–80% of physiotherapists. Patient handling is reported as a significant risk factor for developing WRMSD with the back most frequently injured. Physiotherapists perform therapeutic handling to manually assist and facilitate patients’ movement to aid rehabilitation, which can increase physiotherapists risk of experiencing high forces during patient handling. Methods and Results. A descriptive cross-sectional study was completed to explore and quantitatively measure the movement of ten physiotherapists during patient handling, over one working day, in a neurological setting. A wearable 3-dimensional motion analysis system, Xsens (Movella, Henderson, NV), was used to measure physiotherapist movement and postures in the ward setting during patient treatment sessions. The resulting joint angles were reported descriptively and compared against a frequently used ergonomic assessment tool, the Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA). Physiotherapists adopted four main positions during patient handling tasks: 1) kneeling; 2) half-kneeling; 3) standing; and 4) sitting. Eight patient handling tasks were identified and described: 1) Lie-to-sit; 2) sit-to-lie; 3) sit-to-stand; facilitation of 4) upper limb; 5) lower limb; 6) trunk; and 7) standing treatments; and 8) walking facilitation. Kneeling and sitting positions demonstrated greater neck extension and greater lumbosacral flexion during treatments which scores highly with the RULA. Conclusion. This research identified that patient treatment tasks were more often performed in kneeling or sitting positions than standing. Current moving and handling
Thoracolumbar injury classification systems are not used or researched extensively in paediatric population yet. This systematic review aims to explore the validity and reliability of the two main thoracolumbar injury classification systems in the paediatric population (age ≤ 18). It also aims to explore the transferability of adult classification systems to paediatrics. The Thoracolumbar Injury Classification System (TLICS) published in 2005 and the AO Spine published in 2013 were assessed in this paper because they both provide
Background and purpose of the study. Axial Spondyloarthritis (axSpA) is commonly mistaken as chronic mechanical back pain. Delayed diagnosis averages 5- 8 years with impacts on effective and timely management, outcomes and quality of life. NICE
Introduction. The placement of a large interbody implant allows for a larger surface area for fusion, vis a vis, via retroperitoneal direct anterior, antero-lateral and lateral approaches. At the same time, spinal navigation facilitates a minimally invasive fixation for inserting posterior pedicle screws. We report on the first procedures in the United Kingdom performed by a single-surgeon at a single- centre using navigated robot-assisted spine surgery without the need for guide-wires. Materials and Methods. Whilst positioned in the supine or lateral position, a routine supine anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), and/or antero-lateral ALIF (AL-ALIF) and/or lateral lateral interbody fusion (LLIF) is performed. The patient is then turned prone or kept in the single lateral position (SPL) for insertion of the posterior screws performed under robotic
Background. The advent of EOS imaging has offered clinicians the opportunity to image the whole skeleton in the anatomical standing position with a smaller radiation dose than standard spine roentgenograms. It is known as the fifth modality of imaging. Current NICE guidelines do not recommend EOS scans over x-rays citing: “The evidence indicated insufficient patient benefit in terms of radiation dose reduction and increased throughput to justify its cost”. Methods. We retrospectively reviewed 103 adult and 103 paediatric EOS scans of standing whole spines including shoulders and pelvis for those undergoing investigation for spinal deformity in a tertiary spinal centre in the UK. We matched this against a retrospective control group of 103 adults and 103 children who underwent traditional roentgenograms whole spine imaging at the same centre during the same timeframe. We aimed to compare the average radiation dose of AP and lateral images between the two modalities. We utilised a validated lifetime risk of cancer calculator (. www.xrayrisk.com. ) to estimate the additional mean risk per study. Results. In the Adult EOS Group (AEG) the mean estimated effective dose of AP was 0.08 mSv (0.04–0.15) and Lateral 0.06 mSv (0.03–0.14). Conversely in the Adult Roentgenograms Group (ARG) the mean AP was 0.49 mSv (0.15–1.88) and Lateral was 0.29 mSv (0.07–1.20). In the Paediatric EOS Group (PEG): the mean dose of AP was 0.07 mSv (0.02–0.21) and Lateral 0.04 mSv (0.02–0.11). Conversely Paediatric Roentgenograms Group (PRG) had a mean dose in AP of 0.37 mSv (0.03–5.92) and in lateral of 0.17 mSv (0.03–0.44). The percentage differences were: ARG:AES AP 613%, ARG:AES Lat 483%, PPG:PEG AP 529%, PRG:PEG Lat 425%. Mean difference 513%. The additional lifetime cancer risk for AEG was 1 in 176056 for males and 1 in 138696 for females, compared to ARG 1 in 31596 for males and 1 in 24894 for females. In PEG that was 1 in 58207 for boys and 1 in 33367 for girls, compared to PRG 1 in 11860 for boys and 1 in 6797 in girls. Differences in additional lifetime risk of cancer per scan: ARG:AES Male 557%, Female 557%, PRG:PEG Male 491%, Females 491%. Conclusion. Standard plain film imaging of the whole spine requires approximately five-times higher doses of radiation compared to dual planar EOS scans. This carries a significant impact when considering the need for repeat imaging on additional lifetime malignancy risk in both children and adults. There is approximately 5-fold increase in risk of cancer for all groups with roentgenograms over EOS. We directly challenge the NICE
Background. Work disability due to low back pain (LBP) is a global concern, resulting in significant healthcare costs and welfare payments. In recognition of this, recent UK policy calls for healthcare to become more ‘work-focused’. However, an ‘evidence-policy’ gap has been identified, resulting in uncertainty about how this is to be achieved. Clear, evidence-based recommendations relevant to both policy-makers and healthcare practitioners are required. Methods. A policy theory approach combining scientific evidence with governance principles in a pragmatic manner was undertaken. This entailed extracting evidence from a recent review of the system influences on work disability due to LBP* (focused specifically on the healthcare system) and appraising it alongside the most recent review evidence on the implementation of clinical
Purpose. To establish if the subjective features of both bilateral leg pain and sexual dysfunction are presenting features in cauda equina syndrome (CES). Background. There appears to be conflicting expert opinion ‘red flag’ symptoms in the context of CES with many experts basing clinical decisions on the objective clinical findings only. Bilateral radiculopathy has been suggested as a possible sign of suspected CES, although a consensus statement by BASS and SBNS makes no reference to either this or sexual dysfunction. However, bilateral leg pain is included in the NICE clinical knowledge summary and sexual dysfunction is highlighted within CES
Background. NICE