Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 2 of 2
Results per page:
Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 104-B, Issue SUPP_14 | Pages 28 - 28
1 Dec 2022
Brodano GB
Full Access

Adverse events (AEs) are still a major problem in spinal surgery, despite advances in surgical techniques, innovative technologies available and the introduction of checklist and predictive score systems aimed at reducing surgical complications. We previously analysed the results of the introduction of the WHO Safety Surgical Checklist (SSC) in our Institution, comparing the incidence of complications between two periods: from January to December 2010 (without checklist) and from January 2011 and December 2012 (with checklist), in order to assess the checklist effectiveness. The sample size was 917 patients with an average of 30 months of follow-up. Complications were observed in 107 patients (11.6%) among 917 spinal surgery procedures performed, with 159 (17.3%) complications in total. The overall incidence of complications for trauma, infectious pathology, oncology, and degenerative disease was 22.2%, 19.2%, 18.4%, and 15.3%, respectively. We observed a reduction of the overall incidence of complications following the introduction of the WHO Surgical Checklist: in 2010 without checklist, the incidence of complications was 24.2%, while in 2011 and 2012, following the checklist introduction, the incidence of complications was 16.7% and 11.7%, respectively (mean 14.2%) (p<0.0005). Thus, the SSC appeared to be an effective tool to reduce complications in spinal surgery and we proposed to extend the use of checklist system also to the pre-operative and post-operative phases in order to further reduce the incidence of complications. We also believe that a correct capture and classification of complications is fundamental to generate a clinical decision support system aimed at improving patients’ safety in spinal surgery. In the period between January 2017 and January 2018 we prospectively recorded the adverse events and complications of patients undergoing spinal surgery in our department, without using any collection system. Then we retrospectively recorded the intraoperative and postoperative adverse events of surgically treated patients during the same one-year period, using the SAVES v2 system introduced by Rampersaud and collaborators (Rampersaud YR et al. J Neurosurg Spine 2016 Aug; 25 (2): 256-63) to classify them. In the one-year period from January 2017 to January 2018 a total of 336 patients underwent spinal surgery: 223 for degenerative conditions and 113 for spinal tumors. Comorbidities were collected (Charlson Comorbidity Index [CCI]). Overall, a higher number of adverse events (AEs) was recorded using SAVES compared to the prospective recording without the use of any capture system and the increased number was statistically significant for early postoperative AEs (138/336 vs 44/336, p<0.001). 210 adverse events were retrospectively recorded using the SAVES system (30 intraoperative adverse events, 138 early postoperative and 42 late postoperative adverse events). 99 patients (29.5%) on the cohort had at least one complication. Furthermore, the correlation between some risk factors and the onset of complications or the prolonged length of stay was statistically analyzed. The risk factors taken into account were: age, presence of comorbidities (CCI), ASA score, previous surgery at the same level, type of intervention, location of the disease, duration of the surgery. In particular, the duration of the surgery (more than 3 hours) and the presence of previous surgeries resulted to be risk factors for complications in multivariate analyses


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 100-B, Issue SUPP_15 | Pages 107 - 107
1 Nov 2018
Sheridan G Kelly R McDonnell S Kenny P
Full Access

This was a retrospective study of registry data from a National Orthopaedic Hospital for all THRs with 10-year follow-up data. Inclusion criteria were all THRs with a minimum of 10-year follow-up data. All metal-on-metal (MoM) THRs and MoM resurfacings were excluded from the analysis due to the high rate of revision associated with these bearings. Univariate and multivariate analyses controlling for confounding variables were performed to compare outcomes. A total of 1,697 THRs were performed in 1,553 patients. The four significant predictors for revision were fixation type (p<0.01), surface bearing type (p<0.01), age (P<0.05) and head size (p<0.05). Gender, BMI and approach had no effect on revision rates. The lowest 10-year all-cause revision rates were seen in cemented THRs at 1.7%. Ceramic-on-poly bearings had the lowest revision rate at only 1.2%. Metal-on-poly bearings had a 1.7% revision rate. Ceramic on ceramic bearings had a 7.1% revision rate with 1 revision for squeak and 1 revision for ceramic head fracture. The causes for revision in order of decreasing frequency were as follows: Infection (n=13, 0.7%), dislocation (n=7, 0.4%), periprosthetic fracture (n=3, 0.2%) and aseptic loosening (n=2, 0.1%). There were 2 re-revisions at 10 years in total. The smaller 22.225mm head sizes had a significantly lower revision rate than other head sizes (p<0.05). Ceramic-on-poly bearings, cemented fixation and smaller head sizes perform better in the experience of this registry. However, with multivariate analysis, these differences were shown to be insignificant