Aims. With resumption of elective spine surgery services in the UK following the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, we conducted a multicentre British Association of Spine Surgeons (BASS) collaborative study to examine the complications and deaths due to COVID-19 at the recovery phase of the pandemic. The aim was to analyze the safety of elective spinal surgery during the pandemic. Methods. A prospective observational study was conducted from eight spinal centres for the first month of operating following restoration of elective spine surgery in each individual unit. Primary outcome measure was the 30-day postoperative COVID-19 infection rate. Secondary outcomes analyzed were the 30-day mortality rate, surgical adverse events, medical complications, and length of inpatient stay. Results. In all, 257 patients (128 males) with a median age of 54 years (2 to 88) formed the study cohort. The mean number of procedures performed from each unit was 32 (16 to 101), with 118 procedures (46%) done as category three prioritization level. The majority of patients (87%) were low-medium “risk stratification” category and the mean length of hospital stay was 5.2 days. None of the patients were diagnosed with COVID-19 infection, nor was there any mortality related to COVID-19 during the 30-day follow-up period, with 25 patients (10%) having been tested for symptoms. Overall, 32 patients (12%) developed a total of 34 complications, with the majority (19/34) being grade 1 to 2 Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications. No patient required postoperative care in an intensive care setting for any unexpected complication. Conclusion. This study shows that safe and effective planned spinal surgical services can be restored avoiding viral transmission, with diligent adherence to national guidelines and COVID-19-secure pathways tailored according to the resources of the individual spinal units. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(12):1096–1101

Purpose of the study and background. An integrated rehabilitation programme was developed and found feasible taking into account the existing evidence base, appropriate theories, and patient and public involvement. The integrated programme encompasses inpatient activities supported by a multidisciplinary team, and integration of knowledge, skills and behaviours in the patient's everyday life. The aim of this trial was to compare the effectiveness of an integrated rehabilitation programme with an existing rehabilitation programme in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). Methods and Results. Comparison of two parallel rehabilitation programmes in a randomised controlled trial including 165 patients with CLBP. The integrated rehabilitation programme comprised an alternation of in total three weeks of inpatient stay and in total 11 weeks of home-based activities. The existing rehabilitation programme comprised a four-week inpatient stay. Primary outcome was changes in disability (Oswestry Disability Index). Secondary outcomes were changes in pain, pain self-efficacy, health related quality of life and depression. Outcomes were collected at baseline and 26-week follow-up. Disability decreased −5.76 (95%CI; −8.31, −3.20) for the integrated programme and −5.64 (95%CI; −8.45, −2.83) for the existing programme. The adjusted difference between the two programmes was −0.28 (95%CI; −4.02, 3.45). No statistically significant difference was found in any of the secondary outcomes. Conclusion. The results of the trial were consistent, showing no significant differences in patients' outcomes when comparing an integrated rehabilitation programme with an existing programme. Conflicts of interest: None. Sources of funding: Aarhus University, The Danish Rheumatism Association and Familien Hede Nielsens Fond

The aim of this study was to prospectively assess the outcome of patients with metastatic spinal disease who underwent minimally invasive fixation of the spine for intractable pain or spinal instability. This is a prospective audit of patients with metastatic spinal cord disease who have undergone minimally invasive fixation of the spine from August 2009 until the present date. This was assessed by pre and post-operative Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), EQ5D and Tokuhashi scores. Intra- and post-operative complications, time to theatre, length of inpatient stay, analgesia requirements, mobility, chest drain requirement and post-operative HDU and ITU stays were also recorded. So far, 10 patients have met the criteria. There were no intra-operative complications. Post-operatively, there were no complications, chest drains, increase in analgesia or stay on the HDU or ITU. All patients showed an improvement in mobility. The mean post-operative day of mobilisation was 2 days, post-operative days until discharge 5.3 days and length of inpatient stay was shorter than traditional surgery. Blood loss was minimum except one patient with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who needed transfusion intraoperatively. ODI, VAS and EQ-5D scores were calculated and were significantly improved compared to preoperatively. This novel approach to management of metastatic spinal disease has resulted in improved mobility, short inpatient stays without the need for chest drains, HDU or ITU and an improved the quality of life in pallliative patients. This is a completely new strategy to treat the pain in these patients without the usual associated risks of surgery and has major advantages over traditional surgical techniques which may preclude this group of patients having any surgical stabilisation procedure at all

Background. Advances in surgical and anesthetic technique have resulted in a reducing length of stay for lumbar decompression, with the first day case procedure published in the literature in 1980. Current evidence suggests day case surgery is associated with improved patient satisfaction, faster recovery, reduced infection rates and financial savings. Following the introduction of a locally agreed day case protocol for lumbar microdiscectomy, we reviewed our 30-day postoperative complication rates. Aims. To review postoperative complication rates for patients who underwent day case primary lumbar microdiscectomy. Methods. We studied all patients that met a locally agreed day case protocol for lumbar microdiscectomy and were operated upon between 1. st. March 2013 and 31. st. December 2015. Results. 134 patients underwent primary day case microdiscectomy (70 males, 64 females). The cohort had a mean age of 41 years (16–82). 96% (n=129) were single level procedures, 93% were unilateral (n=125). 81% (n=109) took place at either L4/L5 or L5/S1. All patients were discharged on the same day as admission and operation. 3% (n=4) of patients re-presented to hospital within 30 days of which 75% (n=3) were reviewed and discharged from the emergency department within 4 hours, following a satisfactory clinical review. One patient required an inpatient stay for a washout of a superficial postoperative infection. Conclusion. This study demonstrates that with adherence to robust listing and discharge protocols, day case lumbar microdiscectomy can be safely performed. Our 30-day postoperative complication rate of under 1% is comparable to that of traditional inpatient primary lumbar microdiscectomy. No conflicts of interest. No funding obtained

Aims

Psychoeducative prehabilitation to optimize surgical outcomes is relatively novel in spinal fusion surgery and, like most rehabilitation treatments, they are rarely well specified. Spinal fusion patients experience anxieties perioperatively about pain and immobility, which might prolong hospital length of stay (LOS). The aim of this prospective cohort study was to determine if a Preoperative Spinal Education (POSE) programme, specified using the Rehabilitation Treatment Specification System (RTSS) and designed to normalize expectations and reduce anxieties, was safe and reduced LOS.

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.