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 guidance and the extent to which they met complexity reporting criteria was recorded. Results. The review included 26 trials conducted over 25 years. Differences In causal pathways could explain diversity in intervention design but these were not clearly described or evaluated. All studies were complex in terms of intervention and setting. This was rarely considered in intervention and trial design or when discussing the results. Although interventions were frequently described in detail only a few explained the process and justification of the design. Theories of education or behaviour change were rarely applied. Conclusion. These studies have not deepened our understanding of how education improves outcomes. Future RCTs should engage more with theory and other theory-based research methods should to be considered. Conflict of interest: No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: No funding

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

Background and purpose. Adherence to clinical guidelines produces greater improvement in disability in patients with low back pain (LBP), but a wide variation in physiotherapists' adherence has been documented repeatedly. The aim of the study was to investigate the adherence to National Clinical Guidelines for LBP among Danish physiotherapists with regard to three key guideline domains: 1) activity, 2) work, and 3) psychosocial risk factors. Additionally to investigate whether adherence differed between physiotherapists working in private clinics and physiotherapists working at public healthcare centres. Methods. A cross-sectional online survey was conducted with 817 Danish physiotherapists. Adherence to the three guideline domains was assessed using two vignettes. The difference in adherence between the groups was assessed using the chi-squared test. Results. Response rate was 29%. The proportions of physiotherapists giving advice that was strictly in line with the guideline domains were 32% (activity), 16% (work) and 82% (psychosocial risk factors) for Vignette 1 and 6% (activity), 53% (work) and 60% (psychosocial risk factors) for Vignette 2. Physiotherapists working at public healthcare centres were more likely to manage patients strictly in line with National Clinical Guidelines for assessing the psychosocial risk factors. Regarding the two other domains, there was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of adherence. Conclusion. Overall, the participating Danish physiotherapists strictly adhered to only one out of three key domains. This confirms the importance of identifying barriers to implementation of the National Clinical Guidelines in physiotherapy care for patients with LBP, including implementation of the inherent bio-psychosocial model. Conflicts of interest: None. Sources of funding: None

Background and Purpose. Non-specific chronic low back pain (NSCLBP) poses a significant disability and economic burden worldwide. Fear avoidance is suggested to contribute to its chronicity and reduced treatment effect. National guidelines recommend exercise as a component of multidisciplinary rehabilitation but its interaction with fear avoidance is ambiguous. This systematic review examined the effect of exercise-based interventions (EBIs) on fear avoidance NSCLBP. Methods and Results. RCTs comparing EBIs to usual care in adults with NSCLBP were included. A systematic search of CINAHL, Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus and Cochrane Library (up to January 2019) revealed 10 eligible trials. Following risk of bias assessment, 6 studies were included for data extraction and narrative synthesis. EBIs were not found superior to usual care in reducing fear avoidance at any follow-up. There was evidence that reducing fear avoidance is probably not the mechanism through which EBIs affect pain and disability. In adherent patients, EBIs did not result in greater clinically relevant improvements in pain or disability than usual care, in the short- or intermediate-term. Conclusion. Addition of EBIs as part of multidisciplinary rehabilitation is not more beneficial than that of usual care in reducing fear avoidance in NSCLBP patients. However, the findings of this review are based on heterogenous studies presenting with methodological limitations. Further high-quality research is required to examine the review's findings and investigate current physiotherapy management of fear avoidance in NSCLBP. No conflicts of interest. No funding obtained

Aim:. Recent guidelines have been published by the Association of Neurophysiological Scientists / British Society for Clinical Neurophysiology (ANS/BSCN) regarding the use of intra-operative neurophysiological monitoring (IOM) during spinal deformity procedures. We present our unit's experience with IOM and the compliance with national guidelines. Method:. All patients undergoing intra-operative spinal cord monitoring during adult and paediatric spinal deformity surgery between Jan 2009 and Dec 2012 were prospectively followed. The use of somatosensory-evoked potentials (SSEPs) and motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) was recorded and monitoring outcomes were compared to post-operative clinical neurological outcomes. Compliance with the national ANS/BSCN guidelines was assessed. Results:. 333 patients were included in this study. IOM was successful in 312 patients (94%), with both MEPs and SSEPs obtained in 282 patients (85%). SEPs were achieved in 91% and MEPs in 87%. Aetiology was idiopathic in 199 cases, 53 neuromuscular, 28 degenerative, 16 congenital, 16 other. Nine patients had changes in IOM related to surgical activity; six had MEP changes only, three had MEPs and SSEPs changes. All but one of these changes returned to baseline following surgical action; the one remaining patient had a temporary postoperative neurological deficit. One patient had a post-operative single radiculopathy requiring surgical exploration, without change in initial IOM. Final IOM findings demonstrated a positive predictive value (PPV) of 1 and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 0.996. Discussion:. IOM is essential during spinal deformity surgery and, using MEPs, has a high PPV and NPV. Our unit meets guidelines for MEP use and frequently meets guidelines for SSEP use. Conflict Of Interest Statement: No conflict of interest

To audit patient satisfaction throughout the perioperative period amongst emergency and elective admissions in the spinal team. 92 patients were identified whom underwent operations within a 3 month period using the operating database. A self administered postal questionnaire was sent to assess preoperative waiting time, quality of preoperative assessment and information given, assessment of their admission, their experience throughout hospital stay and the quality of their post operative assessment and discharge. Patient reported outcomes (PROMS). Response rate 35% (32/92) of which 24 (14F 10M) were elective admissions and 8 emergency admissions (2F 6M). Average wait for elective procedure was 5.7 weeks (median 2). 63% of elective patients were seen in prescreening clinic and 79% of these received an information booklet prior to operation. 22% of patients had delayed discharge due to non clinical causes including awaiting transport, awaiting medications and physiotherapy clearance. 88% of patients reported they were given adequate information regarding post-operative daily activities. 79% of elective patients reported seeing a doctor on the day of their discharge however only 38% reported seeing a physiotherapist postoperatively. This fell to 0% for patients operated on a Friday. Although 94% of patients reported that they were satisfied with the overall care they were given, they reported certain aspects of their clinical care being less than optimal. Trust wide assessment of patient reported outcomes to assess and improve the quality of care against national guidelines. Ethics Approval: Self questionnaire approved by ethics committee

Background. Patient preferences have been shown to be associated with treatment effects (. 1. ) and recent national guidelines suggest using patient preferences to help inform clinical interventions (. 2. ). Aim. To determine the treatment preferences of LBP patients and whether these affect clinical outcome. Methods. Prospective cohort study of UK primary care LBP consulters (n=1591). Questionnaires were completed at baseline and 6 months including data on back pain and disability (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire; RMDQ). Patients were asked “What treatment would you prefer to have for your back problem?” (response in free text, asked to indicate “none” if no preference). Results. One third of patients (612/1591, 38%) expressed no treatment preference. Those who expressed preferences (696/1591, 44%) did so most often for physiotherapy or exercise (192/1591 12%), chiropractic (91/1591, 6%) or osteopathy (85/1591, 5%). Patients expressing treatment preferences were likely to be younger (median age 44 years vs. 46 years, p=0.0008) and employed (55% vs. 44%, p=0.036) than those with no preferences. No gender differences were observed. Expressing treatment preferences did not appear to affect the treatment that patients received, 58% received GP advice or medication, 18% physiotherapy, 5% chiropractic and 4% osteopathy. Treatment preferences were not associated with clinical outcome (RMDQ) at any follow-up. Conclusions. A significant proportion of LBP patients do not express treatment preferences. Even those expressing preferences for exercise or manipulation were more likely to receive GP advice or medication. Therefore, using patient preferences to inform treatment may be difficult to implement in practice

Introduction. Medical Exposure Directive of the European Commission, 97/43/Euratom recommended setting-up local national diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) for the most common radiological examinations in order to comply with the law and to maintain safe clinical practice. There are no guidelines for spinal diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. The aims of this study were to evaluate local radiation doses & screening times for diagnostic spinal blocks, to look at PACS image intensifier films for diagnostic representation and to assess the accuracy of data in IR(ME) document. Materials and Methods. Between 1/01/2009 and 15/07/2010, all spinal blocks done under care of three spinal surgeons (LB/NC/AAC) were reviewed. Images revisited on PACS for confirmation. We reviewed 229 patients (included single & two levels nerve root blocks, facet joint and lysis blocks). Data were collected with regard to radiation dose, screening times, third-quartile values used to establish DRLs, IR(ME) documentation and PACS fluoroscopic image documentation. Results. Third quartile single level NRB DAP (Dose area product) was 111.5 cGyCm2. Single level NRB screening time was mean-0.13, third quartile-0.2 min. Nerve specific dosimetry included L5 nerve (0.2 min; 119cGyCm2) and S1 nerve (0.2 min; 118.7cGyCm2). Mean ‘Click: Block ratio’ (last click for PACS/Block) was 22.4 (SD=7.05, range 10 to 48). Local fluoroscopic documentation was 87.2%. Conclusions. There are no national standards in radiation dosimetry for diagnostic spinal blocks. We recommend that all spinal units in the UK should evaluate their own DRLs to help establish national guidelines for fluoroscopy-guided spinal procedures. Representative fluoroscopic image documentation on PACS was 87% locally. It is a joint responsibility of radiographer & operating surgeon to make it 100% to reduce medicolegal risks

Following the implementation of the Ionising Radiations (Medical Exposure) Regulations Act 2000 and recommendation from International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), the establishment of diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) for all radiological examinations became mandatory. There are no recommended or published standards or national dosage guidelines in the UK of diagnostic reference levels available for fluoroscopy-guided diagnostic and therapeutic spinal procedures. The aim of this study is to establish reference dose area product (DAP) levels for the diagnostic spinal procedures requiring fluoroscopy as a basis for setting DRLs. All patient data consisted of diagnostic spinal procedures done in 2009 at Newcastle General Hospital under care of 4 spinal surgeons. Radiation data were collected on specific type of the procedure, DAP and screening time. Nerve root blocks, facet joint blocks and facet joint rhizolysis were included for data collection and analysis for this study. The third-quartile values were used to establish the DRLs. There were 387 nerve root blocks with a mean exposure per injection 171.3 cGycm. 2. (range, 3.0 to 2029.1; third quartile 209.4). Facet joint injections were 669 at a mean radiation dose 41.3 cGycm. 2. (range, 1.9 to 541.0; third quartile 48.9). In a total 430 facet joint rhizolysis, the mean exposure was 44.4 cGycm. 2. (range, 7.7 to 154.5; third quartile 58.4). The mean screening times were 36.7s (range, 0.4-281s; third quartile 41s) for nerve root blocks, mean 11.2s (range, 1.8-37s, third quartile 13.3s) for single facet joint block and mean 14.6s (range, 0.1-162s, third quartile 15.1s) for single facet rhizolysis. We found the third-quartile values for setting DRLs for single level nerve root block, single facet joint block and single facet joint rhizolysis to be 209.4, 48.9 and 58.4 cGycm. 2 . respectively. We recommend that all spinal units in the UK should establish their own local DRLs to help in establishing national dosage guidelines for fluoroscopy-guided diagnostic and also therapeutic spinal procedures

Aims

The surgical treatment of tuberculosis (TB) of the spine consists of debridement and reconstruction of the anterior column. Loss of correction is the most significant challenge. Our aim was to report the outcome of single-stage posterior surgery using bone allografts in the management of this condition.

Fractures of the odontoid peg are common spinal injuries in the elderly. This study compares the survivorship of a cohort of elderly patients with an isolated fracture of the odontoid peg versus that of patients who have sustained a fracture of the hip or wrist. A six-year retrospective analysis was performed on all patients aged > 65 years who were admitted to our spinal unit with an isolated fracture of the odontoid peg. A Kaplan–Meier table was used to analyse survivorship from the date of fracture, which was compared with the survivorship of similar age-matched cohorts of 702 consecutive patients with a fracture of the hip and 221 consecutive patients with a fracture of the wrist.

A total of 32 patients with an isolated odontoid fracture were identified. The rate of mortality was 37.5% (n = 12) at one year. The period of greatest mortality was within the first 12 weeks. Time made a lesser contribution from then to one year, and there was no impact of time on the rate of mortality thereafter. The rate of mortality at one year was 41.2% for male patients (7 of 17) compared with 33.3% for females (5 of 15).

The rate of mortality at one year was 32% (225 of 702) for patients with a fracture of the hip and 4% (9 of 221) for those with a fracture of the wrist. There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of mortality following a hip fracture and an odontoid peg fracture (p = 0.95). However, the survivorship of the wrist fracture group was much better than that of the odontoid peg fracture group (p < 0.001). Thus, a fracture of the odontoid peg in the elderly is not a benign injury and is associated with a high rate of mortality, especially in the first three months after the injury.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:88–93.