Purpose of Study. To investigate current practice of thromboprophylaxis in major UK spinal centres for both trauma and elective surgery, and to asses compliance with NICE guidelines. Methods. A telephonic survey was carried out which comprised of questions relating to current practice of thromboprophylaxis in major spinal units across the UK. Questions probed practice with regard to trauma versus elective surgery, agents used, timing of prophylaxis, length of treatment and whether practice has changed since the introduction of NICE guidelines. Results. Thirty specialised centres were contacted. Twenty eight centres followed NICE recommendations, with 2 centres using their own protocol. Four centres made changes to their existing protocols after the emergence of NICE guidelines. GCS (Graduated compression stockings) were uniformly used by all, with most centres using flowtron boots and/or foot in addition. The practices are differing within centres for elective versus trauma surgery. Of note, in patients with an acute cord injury, 20 centres used combined pre operative prophylaxis whereas 10 centres used only mechanical prophylaxis. Three units (10 %) describe a noticeable rise in complications related to chemoprophylaxis, whilst only one unit has reported a PE death within the last year. Discussion. Our survey assesses compliance to the NICE guidelines by the UK's spinal units. Mechanical prophylaxis appears to be the most common mode of prophylaxis understandably due to predictable safety profile. Use of chemo-prophylaxis varies amongst different surgeons and centres. Rather than a result of evidence based practice, the decision appears to be related to the previous experiences of that unit. Although the NICE guidelines provide a reasonable platform to the practice of thromboprophylaxis, more studies are required to evaluate the risks of thrombosis and bleeding events in spinal surgery

Peninsula Spinal Unit, Princess Elizabeth Orthopaedic Centre, Royal Devon and Exeter Foundation NHS Trust, Exeter, UK. A retrospective audit in 2000 of cases presenting with metastatic cord compression (MSCC) was conducted. In June 2009 we introduced the role of MSCC coordinator. We present the preliminary results from a 6 month comparative audit and discuss whether implementation of the NICE Guidelines have improved the care pathway. Prospective cohort study with retrospective controlled group. Adults with suspected MSCC. Length of time to MR imaging. % referred for surgical opinion. Length of time on bed rest. % undergoing surgery. Retrospective audit 2000. 38 cases confirmed MSCC. 11 did not have MRI and were treated on the basis of clinical symptoms. Average time from admission to MRI 42 hours. 8 patients (21%) referred for surgical opinion. None had surgery. 38 had radiotherapy. Spinal stability documented on 1 patient. 5.5 days average bed rest. Prospective audit 2009. 54 patients referred to co-ordinator as suspected MSCC. 52 had MRI and 2 had CT. Average time from referral to MRI 41 hours. Average time for patients with neurological deficit 7.6 hours. 54 patients (100%) referred for surgical opinion. 12 patients had surgery (22%). 100% patients had spinal stability documented. Average length of time on bed rest 2 days. It is uncertain whether these results are attributed to the introduction of the NICE guidelines or improved awareness of condition. However we feel that NICE guidelines have improved the care pathway of patients with MSCC. Statement of ethics and interests: Study was approved and registered with audit department

Aim. To assess whether oncologists are adhering to the NICE guidelines on MSCC. Methods and Results. All patients who received radiotherapy for metastatic spinal cord compression from 1. st. June 2009 – 1. st. June 2010 were identified. This information was then compared to the data collected via the MSCC Coordinator. The notes and radiological investigations were reviewed by the spinal consultant. 34 patients received radiotherapy for MSCC, 15 patients were not referred to the spinal team prior to radiotherapy. On reviewing each individual case 2 patients may have potentially benefited from surgical intervention. Conclusion. Many patients are still not referred for spinal opinion. The vast majority of these patients would not have been suitable for surgery, however, a small number may have potentially benefited

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has issued guidelines that state fusion for non-specific low back pain should only be performed as part of a randomised controlled trial, and that lumbar disc replacement should not be performed. Thus, spinal fusion and disc replacement will no longer be routine forms of treatment for patients with low back pain. This annotation considers the evidence upon which these guidelines are based.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:1003–1005.

Aims. To investigate whether the duration of pain has an influence on the clinical outcomes of patients with low back pain (LBP) managed through the North East of England Regional Back Pain and Radicular Pain Pathway (NERBPP). Patients and Methods. The NERBPP is a clinical pathway based upon NICE guidelines (2009) for LBP. Patients with LBP referred onto the NERBPP by their General Practitioner (GP) between May 2015 and January 2017 were included in this evaluation. Data from 635 patients, who provided pre and post data for pain (Numerical rating scale [NRS]), function (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI]) and quality-of-life (EuroQol [EQ5D]), were analysed using a series of covariate adjusted models in SPSS. Patients were categorised into four groups based upon pain duration: <3months, ≥3 to <6months, ≥6months to <12months, ≥12months. Results. Each group showed improved outcomes greater than MCID for each measure as defined in NICE guidelines (2016). Preliminary analysis raises the possibility of a trend towards better outcomes for those with shorter pain durations. Conclusion. Patients with all durations of back pain showed benefit on the NERBPP. Clinical relevance. Recent changes to NICE guidelines (2016), advocate the same management of all LBP patients regardless of pain duration. These findings explore the appropriateness of those changes. Conflicts of interest: None. The study was supported by funding from the Health Foundation and the North East Academic Health Science Network. For table, please contact authors directly by clicking on ‘Info & Metrics’ at the top of the abstract for their contact details

Introduction. Most common osteoporotic fracture. 20-30% of patients with OVFs are presented to hospital while 2.2 million remain undiagnosed, as diagnosis is usually opportunistic. 66,000 OVFs occur annually in the UK with increase by 18,000 cases a year until 2025. 20% chance of another OVF in next 12 months and 3 times risk of hip fracture. Acute painful OVFs poorly tolerated by infirm elderly patients, leading to significant morbidity and 8 times increase in age-adjusted mortality. Materials and Methods. Classify fracture severity and patents with ovfs in 12-month period. To assess follow-up status and if kyphoplasty was offered within 6 weeks as per NICE guidelines. To introduce Royal Osteoporosis Society and GIRFT guidelines on management of symptomatic osteoporotic vertebral fractures. Results. Total no. of patients- 62. Initial pain assessment=40. Pain assessed at ≤6 weeks- 21. Duration from decision to operate to kyphoplasty 8.7 weeks. 11% had kyphoplasty of which 50% noted improvement in pain. 11 deaths. Nearly similar findings to NoSH study. Conclusion. To improve pain assessment on admission of patients with acute osteoporotic vertebral fractures. To follow GIRFT guidelines for early assessment and intervention in patients with acute osteoporotic vertebral fractures to improve pain, mobility and early discharge from hospital. Conflicts of interest. None. Sources of funding. None

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 guidance and recommend EOS dual planar imaging in favour of plane roentgenograms for investigation of spinal deformity

Background. The BACK To Health programme is part of the wider North of England back pain and radicular pain pathway. The purpose of this programme is to provide a CPPP approach based on the NICE guidelines CG88 for those with back pain that has not responded to early management and simpler therapies. The purpose of this study is to present preliminary results of this programme. Method. Referral onto the programme occurred through triage and treat practitioners or consultant clinics. A total of 44 patients were referred, with 31 attending the programme. The programme was delivered as a 3 week residential programme, with patients present 9am-5pm Monday to Thursday. A MDT provided an intense programme consisting of education, physical exercise, practical coping strategies and group discussion. The work has received ethical approval from the School of Health and Social Care Research Ethics and Governance committee at Teesside University. Results. Significant improvements (p<0.05) were seen in the, EQ-5D-5L, GAD-7, PHQ9, pain VAS scores (respective mean improvement 0.170, 5.2, 5.5 and 1.25). Significant improvement (p<0.05) was seen in ODI scores but with a mean improvement of 7% clinical significance was not achieved. Self-management confidence by the end averaged 6/10. Conclusion. The majority of patients showed good response to the BACK To Health Programme. After undergoing 3 weeks of education and exercise using cognitive behavioural principles early improvements were seen in GAD-7, PHQ9, Pain VAS and EQ/5D/5L. At 6 months and 1 year we will follow these patients up to continually assess progress. No conflicts of interest. No funding obtained

A statement of the purposes of the study and background:. Merely publishing clinical guidelines is insufficient to ensure their implementation in clinical practice. We aimed to clarify the decision-making processes that result in the delivery of particular treatments to patients with low back pain (LBP) in primary care and to examine clinicians' perspectives on the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) clinical guidelines for managing LBP in primary care. A summary of the methods used and the results:. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 53 purposively-sampled clinicians from south-west England. Participants were: 16 General Practitioners (GPs), 10 chiropractors, 8 acupuncturists, 8 physiotherapists, 7 osteopaths, and 4 nurses. Thematic analysis showed that official guidelines comprised just one of many inputs to clinical decision-making. Clinicians drew on personal experience and inter-professional networks and were constrained by organisational factors when deciding which treatment to prescribe, refer for, or deliver to an individual patient with LBP. Some found the guideline terminology - “non-specific LBP” - unfamiliar and of limited relevance to practice. They were frustrated by disparities between recommendations in the guidelines and the real-world situation of short consultation times, difficult-to-access specialist services and sparse commissioning of guideline-recommended treatments. A conclusion:. The NICE guidelines for managing LBP in primary care are one, relatively peripheral, influence on clinical decision-making among GPs, chiropractors, acupuncturists, physiotherapists, osteopaths, and nurses. When revised, these guidelines could be made more clinically relevant by: ensuring guideline terminology reflects clinical practice terminology; dispelling the image of guidelines as rigid and prohibiting patient-centred care; providing opportunities for clinicians to engage in experiential learning about guideline-recommended therapies; and commissioning guideline-recommended treatments for NHS patients

Aims

People with severe, persistent low back pain (LBP) may be offered lumbar spine fusion surgery if they have had insufficient benefit from recommended non-surgical treatments. However, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) 2016 guidelines recommended not offering spinal fusion surgery for adults with LBP, except as part of a randomized clinical trial. This survey aims to describe UK clinicians’ views about the suitability of patients for such a future trial, along with their views regarding equipoise for randomizing patients in a future clinical trial comparing lumbar spine fusion surgery to best conservative care (BCC; the FORENSIC-UK trial).

Aims

To evaluate the incidence of primary venous thromboembolism (VTE), epidural haematoma, surgical site infection (SSI), and 90-day mortality after elective spinal surgery, and the effect of two protocols for prophylaxis.

Aims

The aim of this study was to determine whether the sequential application of povidone iodine-alcohol (PVI) followed by chlorhexidine gluconate-alcohol (CHG) would reduce surgical wound contamination to a greater extent than PVI applied twice in patients undergoing spinal surgery.