Background. FORECAST is a prospective longitudinal cohort study exploring mechanism-based prognostic factors for pain persistence in sciatica. Here, we share an update on this largest deeply-phenotyped primary care sciatica cohort. Methods/results. Our cohort includes 180 people with sciatica (score >4 on Stynes’ Sum Score), aged 18–85, within 3 months of symptom onset. Psychosocial factors, self-reported sensory profiling, clinical examination, quantitative sensory testing (QST), biological samples (blood and skin samples), and Magnetic Resonance Neurography of lumbar nerve roots were collected at baseline. Pain persistence was determined at three and twelve months with the Sciatica Bothersomeness Index (SBI) and a numeric pain rating scale (NRS) as primary outcomes. Recruitment nears completion, with 160 participants enrolled to date. 127 and 96 participants have completed 3 and 12 months follow-up respectively. Overall, 56% of our cohort are female, with a mean age (SD) of 54.14yrs (16.57). Ethnicity data approximates local populations. SBI at baseline was (median [IQR]) 13[10-17], and interim longitudinal data shows stepwise improvement at 3 and 12 months. Baseline ‘average’ pain intensity was 5.56 (2.15) for leg pain, and 4.14(2.82) for low back pain (LBP). Overall, pain scores decreased at 3 and 12 months, with greater reductions in leg pain than LBP at 12 months. However, around 55–80% and 40–65% of people reported persistent pain at 3 and 12 months respectively. Conclusion. Leg pain severity was moderate and higher than LBP at baseline. All primary outcome measures demonstrate improvement over time, however 40–65% of patients report persistent pain at 12 months. Conflicts of interest. LR: Paid facilitation of post-graduate courses internationally. SK, MT, FP, KM, WS, CP, CR, SC: No conflicts of interest. GC: Editor in Chief of Health Psychology Review. Director of board of directors, MentalCHealth Care setting NoordWestVlaanderen. JF: Copyright holder of ODI (Oswestry Disability Index). Served on a data monitoring committee for a clinical trial of 2 different surgical approaches to cervical disc herniation (FORVAD). Member of HTA Prioritisation Committee B: Inside hospital Care from 2015-February 2019. Member of HTA Interventional Procedures Panel from 2010–2015. Trustee and board member of 3 spine related charities – Back to Back; British Scoliosis Research Foundation and BackCare. Expert instructed by both claimant and defendant solicitors in negligence and person injury cases. GB: Paid consultancy (RNA-seq) with Ivy Farm and Coding.bio. ABS: Paid post-graduate lecturing internationally. Co-chair NeupSig sciatica working group (unpaid). Sources of funding. This project is funded by UKRI and Versus Arthritis as part of the UKRI Strategic Priorities Fund (SPF) Advanced Pain Discovery Platform (APDP), a co-funded initiative by UKRI (MRC, BBSRC, ESRC), Versus Arthritis, the Medical Research Foundation and Eli Lilly and Company Ltd (Grant MR/W027003/1). Additional funding has been received from the back to back charity to expand longitudinal components of the study. LR has received support with PhD fees from the CSP charitable trust. ABS is supported by a Wellcome Trust Clinical Career Development Fellowship. (222101/Z/20/Z). WS is partly funded through the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and King's College London. FP is funded by a Dorothy Hodgkin Career Development Fellowship in Chemistry in association with Somerville College. GB is supported by the Wellcome Trust (223149/Z/21/Z) and Diabetes UK (19/0005984). GC and KRM are partly funded by UKRI and Versus Arthritis as part of the Advanced Pain Discovery Platform (APDP) PAINSTORM (MR/W002388/1). The UKRI and Versus Arhthritis (APDP) are the major funders of FORECAST. All other funders provided either some people support, or funded projects with legacy data that we reuse

The aim of this study was to review the data held with the NHSLA database over the last 10 years for negligence in spine surgery with particular focus on why patients ‘claim’ and what is the likely outcome. Anonymous retrospective review. We contacted the NHSLA and asked them to provide all data held on their database under the search terms ‘spine surgery or spine surgeon.’. An excel sheet was provided, and this was then studied for reason of ‘claim’, whether the claim was open/closed and outcome. A total of 67 claims of negligence were made against spinal surgeries during this time (2000-09). The number of claims had increased over the last few years: 2000-03, n= 8, 2004-06, n= 46. The lumbar spine remains the most common area (Lumbar: 55/67, Thoracic : 6/67, Cervical 6/67). Documented reasons for claims were post-operative complications (n= 28; 42%), delayed/failure to diagnose (n=24; 36%), discontent with preoperative assessment including consent (n=2; 3%), intra-operative complications (n= 10; 15%) and anaesthesia complication (n=3; 4%). Twenty were closed and 47 remained open. The number of successful claims was 8/20 (40%). The mean compensation paid out was £33,409 (range was £820.5 to £60,693). The number of claims brought against spinal surgeries is on the increase, with the most common area being the lumbar spine which perhaps is not surprising as this is the most common area of spinal surgery. Common reasons are post-operative complications and delay/failure to diagnose. The ‘success’ of these claims over the last 10 years was 8/20 (40%) with mean compensation paid out was £33,409. Ethics approval: None;. Interest Statement: The lead author is the CEO and founder of a Personal Injury/Medico-Legal company

We assessed the frequency and causes of neurological deterioration in 59 patients with spinal cord injury on whom reports were prepared for clinical negligence litigation. In those who deteriorated neurologically we assessed the causes of the change in neurology and whether that neurological deterioration was potentially preventable. In all 27 patients (46%) changed neurologically, 20 patients (74% of those who deteriorated) had no primary neurological deficit. Of those who deteriorated, 13 (48%) became Frankel A. Neurological deterioration occurred in 23 of 38 patients (61%) with unstable fractures and/or dislocations; all 23 patients probably deteriorated either because of failures to immobilise the spine or because of inappropriate removal of spinal immobilisation. Of the 27 patients who altered neurologically, neurological deterioration was, probably, avoidable in 25 (excess movement in 23 patients with unstable injuries, failure to evacuate an epidural haematoma in one patient and over-distraction following manipulation of the cervical spine in one patient). If existing guidelines and standards for the management of actual or potential spinal cord injury had been followed, neurological deterioration would have been prevented in 25 of the 27 patients (93%) who experienced a deterioration in their neurological status. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:527–31

To establish the incidence of litigation in Cauda Equina Syndrome (CES) and the causes of litigation. Review of 10 years of abbreviated records of the National Health Service litigation authority (NHSLA) (1997-2007) and eight years of medical negligence cases (MNC) reported on by the two senior authors (2000-2008). Patients who experienced CES and litigated. There were 117 patients in the NHSLA records and 23 patients in the MNC group. Review of timing of onset, delay in diagnosis, responsible specialist, place, and resulting symptoms. NHSLA cases. 62/117 cases were closed. The responsible specialists were as follows. Orthopaedic. 60. Accident and Emergency. 32. Other. 25. The commonest failure was delay in diagnosis, and the commonest complications were “neurological”, bladder and bowel. MNC cases. F:M;17/6. L4/5 13 cases, L5/S1 9 cases. The responsible specialist was orthopaedic (7), other (7) and in 8 cases the opinion was that there was no case to answer. Delay to treatment averaged 6.14 days. 18/23 patients described bowel and bladder symptoms, the information was not available in the remainder. Litigation is major problem in CES. In most cases orthopaedic surgeons are litigated against, and bowel and bladder symptoms remain the most disturbing cause of litigation. These surgeons are mostly not spinal specialists. In most successful cases of litigation there is considerable delay in diagnosis and management. Where there is incomplete Cauda Equina Syndrome urgent or emergency investigation and treatment is mandatory

Aims

Cauda equina syndrome (CES) can be associated with chronic severe lower back pain and long-term autonomic dysfunction. This study assesses the recently defined core outcome set for CES in a cohort of patients using validated questionnaires.