Background. Disability is an important multifaceted construct. Identifying sources of disability could help optimise patient care. The aim of this study was to test an approach that not only estimates severity of disability, but also identifies the source(s) of this disability. Methods. An online survey was used to collect data from a convenience sample, recruited via email and social media invitations. Two generic measures of disability, the 8-item Universal Disability Index (UDI8) and Groningen Activity Restriction Scale (GARS) were used to estimate the prevalence and severity of disability in this sample. Non-zero UDI8 item responses generated conditional sub-questions, in which participants could attribute their activity limitations to one or more sources (pain, fatigue, worry, mood, and other). This allowed for a decomposition of UDI8 scores into source components. Results. 403 participants enrolled; 334 completed all UDI8 and GARS items. Of these, 85.3% (285/334) reported at least one restricted activity via the UDI8, while 43.4% (145/334) reported some reduced independence via the GARS. Disability severity increased with age until approximately 40 years, after which it decreased gradually. Pain component scores were high in all individuals with higher and lower disability severity, whereas fatigue component scores were highest in individuals reporting higher disability severity. Worry, mood, and other component scores were not high at any level of disability severity. Conclusions. This approach should be used to identify the prevalence, severity and sources of disability in the general population and in specific patient groups. Conflicts of interest. No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding. No funding obtained

Background. Specifically designed control interventions can account for expectation effects in clinical trials. For the interpretation of efficacy trials of physical, psychological, and self-management interventions for people living with pain, the design, conduct, and reporting of control interventions is crucial. Objectives. To establish a quality standard in the field, core recommendations are presented alongside additional considerations and a reporting checklist for control interventions. Methods. Three Delphi rounds with 64 experts in placebo research and/or non-pharmacological clinical trials were conducted. The panel was presented with a systematic review and meta-analysis of control and blinding methods. A draft guidance document included 63 consensus items (≥80% agreement) and was discussed with patient partners. Finally, the draft guidance and results from stakeholder interviews were discussed at consensus meetings with Delphi participants and patient representatives. Results. Forty-four experts completed the process. When treatment efficacy or mechanisms are to be studied, the advocated principle is to design control interventions as similar as possible to the tested intervention, apart from the components that the study examines. Structured reasoning in the planning phase, early engagement with stakeholders, feasibility work, and piloting will enhance the quality and acceptability of control interventions. With participant blinding being a primary objective, blinding effectiveness should be routinely assessed and reported. Transparent and detailed reporting will improve interpretability and repeatability of clinical trials. Conclusion. This guideline provides the much-needed standards to enhance the quality of efficacy clinical trials in physical, psychological, and self-management intervention research, ultimately improving patient care. Study registration: . https://osf.io/jmyhq/. Conflict of interest: The authors declare no competing interests. Sources of Funding: Alain and Sheila Diamond Charitable Trust PhD Studentship

Background. Involving research users in setting priorities for research is essential to ensure research outcomes are patient-centred and to maximise research value and impact. The Musculoskeletal (MSK) Disorders Research Advisory Group Versus Arthritis led a research priority setting exercise across MSK disorders. Methods. The Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHRNI) method of setting research priorities with a range of stakeholders were utilised. The MSKD RAG identified, through consensus, four research Domains: Mechanisms of Disease; Diagnosis and Impact; Living Well with MSK disorders and Successful Translation. Following ethical approval, the research priority exercise involved four stages and two surveys, to: 1) gather research uncertainties; 2) consolidate these; 3) score uncertainties using agreed criteria of importance and impact on a score of 1–10; and 4) analyse scoring, for prioritisation. Results. The first survey had 209 respondents, who described 1290 research uncertainties, which were refined into 68 research questions. 285 people responded to the second survey. The largest group of respondents represented patients and carers, followed by researchers and healthcare professionals. A ranked list was produced, with scores ranging between 12 and 18. Key priorities included developing and testing new treatments, better targeting of treatments, early diagnosis, prevention and better understanding and management of pain, with an emphasis on understanding underpinning mechanisms. Conclusions. For the first time, we have summarised priorities for research across MSKD, from discovery science to applied clinical and health research, including translation. We present a call to action to researchers and funders to target these priorities. Conflict of Interest: None. Sources of funding: We thank the funder, Versus Arthritis for their support of the research advisory groups and this activity

Aims

Patients with cauda equina syndrome (CES) require emergency imaging and surgical decompression. The severity and type of symptoms may influence the timing of imaging and surgery, and help predict the patient’s prognosis. Categories of CES attempt to group patients for management and prognostication purposes. We aimed in this study to assess the inter-rater reliability of dividing patients with CES into categories to assess whether they can be reliably applied in clinical practice and in research.

Aims

This study aimed, through bioinformatics analysis and in vitro experiment validation, to identify the key extracellular proteins of intervertebral disc degeneration (IDD).

Aims

Historically, patients undergoing surgery for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) have been nursed postoperatively in a critical care (CC) setting because of the challenges posed by prone positioning, extensive exposures, prolonged operating times, significant blood loss, major intraoperative fluid shifts, cardiopulmonary complications, and difficulty in postoperative pain management. The primary aim of this paper was to determine whether a scoring system, which uses Cobb angle, forced vital capacity (FVC), forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), and number of levels to be fused, is a valid method of predicting the need for postoperative critical care in AIS patients who are to undergo scoliosis correction with posterior spinal fusion (PSF).

Purpose. A Virtual Spinal Clinic (VSC) was set-up at a regional spinal referral centre to see if patient care could be improved through early advice to provide timely management, early onward referral, improve patient satisfaction and minimise chronicity. The clinic was based on the successful virtual model used throughout the country within orthopaedic fracture clinics. VSC is a Consultant led multi-disciplinary (MDT) clinic run by Advanced Practitioners (AP). Methods. A 3-month trial of the VSC was completed bi-weekly. Patients diagnosed with conservatively managed spinal fractures were referred from the on-call service. A management plan was devised by a Consultant Spinal Surgeon and communicated to patients by the AP via a telephone-call consultation where clinical advice and management could be discussed. Results. 23 clinics completed. 271 patient contacts. 216 reviewed virtually. Completed outcomes of VSC. 34.65% Discharged. 51.18% Routine appointment. 14.17% Urgent appointment. Conclusion. VSC successfully completed safe and timely assessments, management plans, telephone consultations and onward referrals for Greater Manchester patients with acute spinal fractures. Patients had earlier access to health professionals to provide advice, reassurance, complete onward referrals and safety-netting. Patient satisfaction improved, with patient reporting the telephone consultation was reassuring and allowed early return to previous function. VSC reduced patients waiting time for a follow-up appointment and reduced patients travel time across Greater Manchester. In the future, it is hoped that the 6-week follow-up telephone call service will be utilised more as VSC develops. No conflicts of interest. No funding obtained

This review provides a concise outline of the advances made in the care of patients and to the quality of life after a traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI) over the last century. Despite these improvements reversal of the neurological injury is not yet possible. Instead, current treatment is limited to providing symptomatic relief, avoiding secondary insults and preventing additional sequelae. However, with an ever-advancing technology and deeper understanding of the damaged spinal cord, this appears increasingly conceivable. A brief synopsis of the most prominent challenges facing both clinicians and research scientists in developing functional treatments for a progressively complex injury are presented. Moreover, the multiple mechanisms by which damage propagates many months after the original injury requires a multifaceted approach to ameliorate the human spinal cord. We discuss potential methods to protect the spinal cord from damage, and to manipulate the inherent inhibition of the spinal cord to regeneration and repair. Although acute and chronic SCI share common final pathways resulting in cell death and neurological deficits, the underlying putative mechanisms of chronic SCI and the treatments are not covered in this review

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.

Background. There is growing evidence for an important role of central sensitization (CS) in the development and maintenance of chronic pain. This accounts for patients with chronic low back pain radiating to the leg (CLBPr) as well. Care as Usual (CaU) in these patients consists of diagnostic segmental nerve root blocks (dSNRB) followed by therapeutic interventions, i.e. a therapeutic segmental nerve root block (tSNRB) or pulsed radiofrequency (pRF). However, it is unknown if these procedures affect the amount of CS in these patients. Aim. The aim of the present study is to determine the alterations in the presentation of CS in CLBPr patients during care as usual. Hypothesis. A decrease in pain measured by NRS correlates with a decrease in CS (signs) in CLBPr patients undergoing SNRBs. Method/design. Case control study in 50 patients with CLBPr, for whom the physician is considering dSNRB and tSNRB or pRF, and 50 sex- and age-matched healthy controls. Following care as usual protocol, patients will receive dSNRB and tSNRB or pRF. Healthy control subjects will not undergo any procedure. The study has three to five visits, depending on the number of dSNRBs performed (max. 3). Evaluation. The bedside examination and questionnaires that are part of CaU will be extended with QST and CSI, NRS, PCS and PVAQ. The measurements will take place just before the dSNRBs, the tSNRBs or pRF and a follow-up four weeks after the intervention. Data collection will take 1 year. No conflict of interest. No funding obtained

Purpose & Background. The STarT Back risk-stratification approach uses the STarT Back Tool to categorise patients with low back pain (LBP) at low, medium or high-risk of persistent disabling pain, in order to match treatments. The MATCH trial (NCT02286141) evaluated the effect of implementing an adaptation of this approach in a United States healthcare setting. Methods. This was a pragmatic cluster randomised trial with a pre-intervention baseline period. Six primary care clinics were pair-randomised, three to an intensive stratified care quality improvement intervention and three as controls. LBP patients were invited to provide outcomes two weeks after their primary care visit, and two and six months later. Primary outcomes were physical function (RMDQ) and pain (0–10 NRS), and secondary outcomes including healthcare use and treatments provided received. Analysis was intention-to-treat. Results. Patient outcomes were obtained from intervention (n=690) and control (n=864) clinics. At six months between-group differences in adjusted mean change scores did not significantly favour stratified care for RMDQ; 0.50 (95%CI −0.55, 1.55) or pain NRS 0.13 (95%CI −0.37, 0.63). There were no significant between group differences in any secondary patient outcome. Process data showed that the STarT Back tool was used with 47% of LBP patients in the intervention clinics but there was no differences in the treatments provided. Conclusions. Implementation of a LBP stratified care approach in this United States healthcare setting showed moderate use of the STarT Back tool, but no change in treatments received by patients, and no benefits on patient outcomes. Conflicts of interest: None. Sources of funding: Funding for this trial was provided by the Patient Centered Care Research Institute (“Evaluation of a Patient-Centered Risk Stratification Method for Improving Primary Care for Back Pain”: Contract #398) and by the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health/NIH (“Implementing Evidence-Based Treatments for Persistent Back Pain into Primary Care”: Grant #R21AT0007326). Martin Levine, Diane Piekara, and Pam Rock received support to participate in the quality improvement activities from Group Health. Nadine Foster and Jonathan Hill were supported through an NIHR Research Professorship (NIHR-RP-011-015) to Nadine Foster. Nadine Foster is an NIHR Senior Investigator. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Patient Centered Care Research Institute, NIH, NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health

Aims

To report the outcome of spinal deformity correction through anterior spinal fusion in wheelchair-bound patients with myelomeningocele.

Aims

The aim of this study was to determine the influence of developmental spinal stenosis (DSS) on the risk of re-operation at an adjacent level.

Aims

We present the results of correcting a double or triple curve adolescent idiopathic scoliosis using a convex segmental pedicle screw technique.

Aims

Patients seeking cervical spine surgery are thought to be increasing in age, comorbidities and functional debilitation. The changing demographics of this population may significantly impact the outcomes of their care, specifically with regards to complications. In this study, our goals were to determine the rates of functionally dependent patients undergoing elective cervical spine procedures and to assess the effect of functional dependence on 30-day morbidity and mortality using a large, validated national cohort.

Using the United States Nationwide Inpatient Sample, we identified national trends in revision spinal fusion along with a comprehensive comparison of comorbidities, inpatient complications and surgical factors of revision spinal fusion compared to primary spinal fusion.

In 2009, there were 410 158 primary spinal fusion discharges and 22 128 revision spinal fusion discharges. Between 2002 and 2009, primary fusion increased at a higher rate compared with revision fusion (56.4% vs 51.0%; p < 0.001). In 2009, the mean length of stay and hospital charges were higher for revision fusion discharges than for primary fusion discharges (4.2 days vs 3.8 days, p < 0.001; USD $91 909 vs. $87 161, p < 0.001). In 2009, recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) was used more in revision fusion than in primary fusion (39.6% vs 27.6%, p < 0.001), whereas interbody devices were used less in revision fusion (41.8% vs 56.6%, p < 0.001).

In the multivariable logistic regression model for all spinal fusions, depression (odds ratio (OR) 1.53, p < 0.001), psychotic disorders (OR 1.49, p < 0.001), deficiency anaemias (OR 1.35, p < 0.001) and smoking (OR 1.10, p = 0.006) had a greater chance of occurrence in revision spinal fusion discharges than in primary fusion discharges, adjusting for other variables. In terms of complications, after adjusting for all significant comorbidities, this study found that dural tears (OR 1.41; p < 0.001) and surgical site infections (OR 3.40; p < 0.001) had a greater chance of occurrence in revision spinal fusion discharges than in primary fusion discharges (p < 0.001). A p-value < 0.01 was considered significant in all final analyses.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:807–16.