Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 20 of 930
Results per page:
Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 106-B, Issue SUPP_15 | Pages 3 - 3
7 Aug 2024
Stynes S Daud N Cherrington A Snell K Konstantinou K O'Dowd J Ostelo R Dunn K Foster N
Full Access

Background. Clinical guidelines recommend epidural steroid injection (ESI) for severe sciatica but there is uncertainty of effectiveness. The POiSE study aims to identify factors, routinely collected in clinical practice that predict outcome in patients who have ESI. This presentation describes characteristics and early clinical outcomes of POiSE participants. Methods. Prospective cohort study in 19 NHS spinal services in England, inviting patients with sciatica listed for an ESI. Participant baseline characteristics and 6-week follow-up outcomes are presented. Outcomes include pain intensity (0–10 NRS), disability (Oswestry Disability Index 0–100) and global change in symptoms. Results. Over 24 months, 693 patients were invited to participate and 353 (51%) completed baseline questionnaires. Mean (SD) age 49.0 years (14.4), 60% female, and 46% (n=101) of those in work had certified time-off for sciatica. Mean pain intensity was 7.2 (2.0) and 6.2 (2.7) for leg and back pain respectively and mean disability (ODI) was 46.5 (18). 60% (n=210) had leg pain for >6 months. Average confidence at baseline (0 to 10) that the ESI would help symptoms was 5.7 (2.4). Of 217 patients reaching 6-week follow-up, mean leg and back pain intensity is 5.0 (2.8) and 4.9 (2.9) respectively and ODI 36.6 (20.4), with 57% reporting improvement (completely recovered/much better/better). Follow-up data collection at 6, 12 and 24-weeks post-ESI is ongoing. Conclusion. Interim analysis shows only just over half of patients are reporting improvement at 6 weeks post ESI. The POiSE cohort study will help better identify the patients with sciatica who are most likely to benefit from this treatment. Conflicts of interest. None. Sources of funding. This study is supported by Health Education England and the National Institute for Health and Care Research (HEE/ NIHR ICA Programme Clinical Lectureship, Dr Siobhan Stynes, NIHR300441). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the National Institute for Health Research or the Department of Health and Social Care


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 104-B, Issue SUPP_9 | Pages 7 - 7
1 Oct 2022
Evans D Rushton A Bishop J Middlebrook N Barbero M Patel J Falla D
Full Access

Background. Serious traumatic injury is a leading cause of death and disability globally, with the majority of survivors developing chronic pain. Methods. The aims of this study were to describe early predictors of poor long-term outcome for post-trauma pain. We conducted a prospective observational study, recruiting patients admitted to a Major Trauma Centre hospital in England within 14 days of their injuries, and followed them for 12 months. We defined a poor outcome as Chronic Pain Grade ≥ II and measured this at both 6-months and 12-months. A broad range of candidate predictors were used, including surrogates for pain mechanisms, quantitative sensory testing, and psychosocial factors. Univariate models were used to identify the strongest predictors of poor outcome, which were entered into multivariate models. Results. 124 eligible participants were recruited. At 6-months, 19 (23.2%) of 82 respondents reported a good outcome, whereas at 12-months 27 (61.4%) of 44 respondents reported a good outcome. The multivariate model for 6-months produced odds ratios for a unit increase in: number of fractures, 3.179 (0.52 to 19.61); average pain intensity, 1.611 (0.96 to 2.7); pain extent, 1.138 (0.92 to 1.41) and post-traumatic stress symptoms, 1.044 (0.10 to 1.10). At 12-months, equivalent values were: number of fractures, 1.653 (0.77 to 3.55); average pain intensity, 0.967 (0.67 to 1.40); pain extent, 1.062 (0.92 to 1.23) and post-traumatic stress symptoms, 1.025 (0.99 to 1.07). Conclusion. A poor long-term pain outcome from musculoskeletal traumatic injuries can be predicted by measures recorded within days of injury. Conflicts of interest: No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: This study was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Surgical Reconstruction and Microbiology Research Centre (SRMRC)


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 106-B, Issue SUPP_15 | Pages 34 - 34
7 Aug 2024
Alghamdi MN Sparkes V Khot S Davies J
Full Access

Background. Embodiment- and distraction-based approaches to immersive virtual reality (IVR) show promise in treating persistent low back pain (PLBP). However, which approach is more effective is unclear. This study aims to evaluate the impact of distraction- and embodiment-based IVR on pain processing and patient-reported outcome measures in PLBP. Method. Individuals with PLBP were randomised to receive eight sessions of either distraction- or embodiment-based IVR over two weeks. Outcome measures were evaluated at baseline and after the eighth session. Pain processing was evaluated using conditioned pain modulation (CPM) and temporal summation (TS). Results. Three participants (n=2 embodiment, n=1 distraction) have completed all eight IVR sessions. Preliminary results indicate a decrease from pre to post-intervention in Numerical Pain Rating Scale score (pre: 5/10, 6/10, 5/10; post: 2/10, 5/10, 2/10) and Pain Catastrophising Scale score (pre: 34/52, 11/52, 38/52; post: 11/52, 8/52, 12/52), with no clear trend in other self-reported measures (Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale, Oswestry low back disability questionnaire, fear-avoidance beliefs questionnaire, Tampa scale of kinesiophobia). Preliminary results suggest a potential increase in NPRS absolute values from pre- to post-intervention in CPM (pre: -2.7, -2.3, -2.0; post: -3.3, -2.0, -4.3) and TS (pre-1.2, 2.5, 2.4; post: 1.4, 2.5, 3.1). Conclusion. Eight sessions of IVR may reduce pain severity and pain catastrophising in people with PLBP and may increase the efficacy of endogenous pain modulatory systems. Data collection is ongoing to compare the effect of distraction- and embodiment-based IVR. Conflicts of Interest. There are no conflicts of interest. Sources of Funding. This project is funded by the Saudi Arabia Cultural Bureau


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 103-B, Issue SUPP_11 | Pages 27 - 27
1 Sep 2021
Hess GM Golan J Mozsko S Duarte J Jarzem P Martens F
Full Access

Lumbar fusion remains the gold standard for the treatment of discogenic back pain. Total disc replacement has fallen out of favor in many institutions. Other motion preservation alternatives, such as nucleus replacement, have had limited success and none are commercially available at this time.

Two prospective, nonrandomized multicenter studies of lumbar disc nucleus replacement using the PerQdisc 2.0 nucleus replacement device in patients with lumbar discogenic back pain. Early clinical results are presented. A total of 16 patients from 4 international sites (Germany, Paraguay, Canada and Belgium) were enrolled in the trial between May 2019 and February 2021. Data collection points include baseline and postoperatively at 1, 2, 6, and 12 months. Clinical outcome measures were obtained from the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), SF-12V2, Analgesic Score (AS), and radiographic assessments. Prospectively gathered data on patient reported outcomes, neurological outcome, surgical results, radiological analysis, and any adverse events.

16 patients had successful implantation of the device. There have been no expulsions of the device. Early postoperative results are available in 13/16 patients at 6 months and 11/16 patients at 12 months. There have been 4 (25%) revision surgeries 3–12 months post implantation between the two trials. 12 of 13 (92%) patients had Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) in ODI at 6 months and 10 of 11 (91%) at 12 months. Mean decrease in ODI from baseline to 12 months was 44.8. At 12 months 8 (73%) patients are not taking pain medication, 1 (9%) patient is taking a narcotic for pain management. 73% of patients are working without restrictions at 12 months post implant.

Early clinical and technical results are encouraging. Long term follow up is essential and is forthcoming. Additional patient recruitment and data points are ongoing.

FDA/Drug Status Investigational/Not approved


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 101-B, Issue SUPP_9 | Pages 59 - 59
1 Sep 2019
Speijer L Soer R Reneman M Stegeman P Dutmer A
Full Access

Background. The aim of the Groningen Spine Center (GSC) is to provide personalized and effective interventions to patients with spine-related disorders. The GSC comprises a multidisciplinary team to triage and treat patients most optimally. Aim. To investigate the patient reported clinical results of the treatments of the GSC during seven years of its existence. Patients and methods. The basis of this study is a natural cohort of all patients admitted to the GSC. Treatments existed of rehabilitation, surgery, anesthesiology, medication, referral to else, advice and self-management, or any combination of the above. Baseline characteristics, pain (Numeric Rating Scale; NRS), disability (Pain Disability Index; PDI) and quality of life (Euroqol 5-D;EQ5D) were obtained at baseline and discharge. Per calendar year, effects will be presented. Descriptive statistics, effect sizes and t-tests were calculated. Results are compared to the minimal clinically important change (MCIC) of the corresponding scales. Results. In total, 9.897 patients (43% male, mean age 49.2±16.1 yrs) were analyzed on T0, of whom 1.373 filled in a discharge questionnaire. All measures showed statistically significant changes (p<0.01), but for pain and disability mean changes were not always higher than the clinical important change. Effect sizes (d) for pain ranged between 0.44 and 1.01, for disability between 0.40 and 0.80, and for quality of life between 0.41 and 0.76. Conclusion. The Groningen Spine Center provides positive patient reported results over the past 7 years Effect sizes are moderate to high. The results are considered to be clinically important to patients. Non-response and regression to the mean may be sources for bias and should be topic for further research. No conflicts of interest. No funding obtained


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 101-B, Issue SUPP_9 | Pages 15 - 15
1 Sep 2019
de Zoete A Rubinstein S de Boer M van Tulder M Underwood M Hayden J Buffart L Ostelo R
Full Access

Purpose of the study and background. A 2011 Cochrane review concluded that spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is no better than other interventions for reducing pain and improving function in chronic low back pain (CLBP). Using individual participant data (IPD) from trials has advantages, among others: a more precise estimate of the effect and the potential to identify moderators. Our objective was to assess the effect of SMT in adults with CLBP and to identify relevant moderators. Methods. All trials from the 2011 Cochrane review were included in this IPD. We updated the search (April 2016) IPD from eligible studies was requested. Primary outcomes were pain intensity (VAS/NRS) and back-specific function (RMDQ). Risk of bias was assessed. For the treatment effect, an one-stage approach (mixed model technique, intention-to-treat principle) was used; a second-stage approach was conducted as confirmation. For the moderator analyses, one-stage approach was conducted for 19 variables. Results. We obtained IPD from 21 RCTs (n= 4638). Most studies were pragmatic comparing the SMT effect to recommended therapies (e.g. exercise). Effects for SMT were slightly, but not clinically better compared to other therapies for primary outcomes. For the moderator analysis, 8 moderators showed a statistical significant effect at a specific time point (e.g. for SMT vs recommended therapy: age, both pain and function at 26 weeks). But for none of the moderators a consistent effect was identified across time points. Conclusion. Findings of the Cochrane review were confirmed. No clinically-relevant moderators were identified for SMT compared to other therapies for pain and function at any follow-up measure. No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: European Chiropractic Research fund


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 101-B, Issue SUPP_10 | Pages 48 - 48
1 Oct 2019
Walsh J Jones S Benedetto V Stockley R
Full Access

A statement of the purposes of the study and background

Lower back pain (LBP) is one of the ten leading causes of disease burden globally, producing significant detrimental effects on physical and emotional wellbeing whilst having a substantial economic burden for society. There is an inverse relationship between socio-economic status and pain prevalence. The effectiveness of a locally run ‘Back to Fitness Programme’ (6-week education and exercise programme) in the most deprived local authority area in England was evaluated.

A summary of the methods used and the results

Patients at Blackpool Hospitals NHS Trust over a 6-month timeframe were included. Initial data were collected from 49 patients (mean age 53.4 years, 67% female). The amount of final data collected varied per outcome measure due to a range of factors. Participants reported the programme had helped with their understanding of pain (n=16, 100%), ability to move around and function (n=15, 94%), and level of pain (n=14, 88%).

Looking at Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire scores (n=17), 88% (n=15) of patients indicated a reduction (n=12, 71%) or no change (n=3, 18%) in perceived disability. The Pain Self Efficacy Questionnaire (n=18) showed that 78% (n=14) of participants perceived an increase in their average level of confidence to move despite pain.

There was an overall improvement in understanding of pain reflected by Revised Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire scores (n=44): 89% (n=39) improved (n=36, 82%) or did not change (n=3, 7%). Regarding lumbar flexion post-programme (n=17), 77% (n=13) of participants demonstrated an improvement (n=9, 53%) or no change (n=4, 24%).


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 101-B, Issue SUPP_10 | Pages 33 - 33
1 Oct 2019
Wood L Foster N Lewis M Bronfort G Groessl E Hewitt C Miyamoto G Reme S Bishop A
Full Access

Background. Complex interventions, such as exercise for LBP, often have many treatment targets. Matching a primary outcome to the target(s) of exercise interventions may provide greater standardized mean differences (SMDs) than using an unmatched primary outcome. We aimed to explore whether the conclusions of exercise trials for LBP might differ with i) improved matching of outcomes to treatment targets and ii) the use of composite outcome measures. Methods and Results. We investigated i) matching in five trials (n=1033) that used an unmatched primary outcome but included some of their matched outcomes as secondary outcomes; ii) composite outcomes in four trials (n=864). The composite consisted of standardised averaged matched outcomes. All analyses replicated the primary outcome analysis, applied to the matched or composite outcome in each dataset. When not possible, SMDs were calculated for the primary and matched outcomes. i) Of five trials, three had greater SMDs and increased statistical significance with matched outcomes (pooled effect SMD 0.35 (95% CI 0.16, 0.54), p=0.0003) compared to an unmatched primary outcome (pooled effect SMD 0.13 (95% CI 0.04, 0.23) p=0.007). ii) Of four composite outcomes: two matched trials had greater SMDs and improved statistical precision in the primary outcome than the composite outcome; two unmatched trials had greater SMDs and improved statistical precision in the composite compared to the primary outcome. Conclusion. Using an outcome that matches exercise targets in LBP trials appears to produce greater SMDs than an unmatched primary outcome. Future trials should consider primary outcome selection aligned with exercise treatment targets. Sources of Funding: L Wood's PhD is funded by the Research Institute for Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University. Prof NE Foster is a UK National Institute for Health Research Senior Investigator, and was supported by a UK National Institute for Health Research Professorship (NIHR-RP-011-015). The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health. Conflicts of interest: No conflicts of interest


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 98-B, Issue SUPP_6 | Pages 14 - 14
1 Feb 2016
Draper-Rodi J Vogel S Bishop A
Full Access

Background:. Low back pain (LBP) is the most common symptom encountered by osteopaths in the UK and affects a third of the UK population each year. Guidelines recommend using the biopsychosocial (BPS) model for non-specific LBP but it remains unclear what the BPS model actually is and how it applies in osteopathy. The aim of this study was to define the factors included in a BPS approach for non-specific LBP in a manual therapy using a systematic search and scoping review. Methods:. An online search was performed on seven electronic databases. Guidelines and systematic reviews published after 2004 were included. 10% of the articles randomly selected were analysed by second reviewer to assess consistency of information extraction. Disagreements were discussed between the two reviewers. Mediation from the third author was not required. Results:. A total of 539 articles were identified. 37 articles were included: 13 guidelines and 24 systematic reviews. 70 BPS factors were reported, 15 were excluded, resulting in 55 BPS factors identified. The BPS model is helping clinicians to be more aware of the importance of the patients' context in their pain experience and the risk of them developing chronic pain. Psychosocial factors were identified as better predictors of poor recovery than examination findings. Out of the 55 factors drawn from the literature that are predictors of poor recovery, 13 were biological factors. While it is of upmost importance to assess and manage psychosocial issues, it may be time to include biological factors more explicitly as possible obstacles to recovery


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 94-B, Issue SUPP_XXVI | Pages 7 - 7
1 Jun 2012
Patel MS Braybrooke J Newey M Sell P
Full Access

Aim. To compare outcomes of revision lumbar discectomy to primary surgery in the same patient cohort. Methods. Prospective outcome data in 36 patients who underwent primary and subsequent revision surgery for lumbar disc herniation between 1995 and 2009. Outcome measures used were Visual Analogue Scores for back (VAB) and leg pain (VAL), the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Low Back Outcome Score (LBO). 5 early recurrences within 3 months were excluded. Results. Complete data was available in 31 patients 13F;18M. The average age was 39 years at index and 45 years at revision. Average interval between surgery of 39 months (range 6-122). Mean Pre op ODI 54 and VAL 73 primary procedure, final follow up of primary procedure ODI 33, VAL 43; prior to revision ODI 57, VAL 75; at last FU ODI 32 and VAL 40. There was no statistical difference between outcomes. In the primary discectomy group there was a statistically significant improvement in the VAL, ODI and LBO scores (P<0.05), with no significant improvement in the VAB (P=0.67). In the revision group there was a statistical significant improvement in all the outcomes (P<0.05). Overall, 45% of patients felt their outcome from revision discectomy was better/much better with 54% of patients rating their treatment as either good/excellent. Conclusion. Primary discectomy produced significant improvement in leg pain, ODI and LBO. Revision discectomy did the same, but also a significant improvement in VAB scores. There was no statistically significant difference in comparing the preoperative and postoperative scores for both procedures. Revision discectomy is a procedure which yields clinically significant and patient perceived improvements in spinal outcome measures with an unexplained improvement in VAB scores as compared to the primary procedure. This may challenge the belief of some surgeons in the need for fusion at the time of revision


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 94-B, Issue SUPP_XXVI | Pages 39 - 39
1 Jun 2012
König MA Ebrahimi FV Balamurali G Boszczyk BM
Full Access

Introduction. Iatrogenic spondylolisthesis occurs infrequently after posterior decompression. Posterior surgery is challenging due to altered anatomy and scarring. Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) allows indirect decompression, restoration of lordosis and fusion. Material and Methods. Retrospective review of 6 patients (5 female, 1 male, mean age 64±5.8 years) with iatrogenic spondylolisthesis (5 L4/L5; 1 L4/L5) treated with stand-alone ALIF (Synfix, BMP2). Assessment of pelvic incidence, listhesis, pre- and post-operative ODI, VAS, global lumbar lordosis and segmental lordosis as outcome measurements. Results. The slippage was grade II at L4/L5 in 3 patients and grade I in 2 patients at L4/L5 and 1 patient at L5/S1. Average ODI dropped from 49±11% pre-operatively to 30±9% at 6 and to 25±6% at 12 months follow-up. VAS average dropped from 7±1 to 3±1 at 6 and 12 months follow-up. Average pelvic incidence was 54.6±8.0°. Global lordosis of 44.6±5.2° increased to 49.0±8.6°; Segmental lordosis in L4/5 was increased from 12.1±8.2° to 22.4±3.7° at 6 and 20.5±7.9° at 12 months. Cage migration due to severe osteoporosis occurred in 1 case after 5 months. Conclusion. Anterior interbody fusion offers good stabilization and restoration of lordosis in iatrogenic spondylolisthesis. In our group, ODI and VAS scores were improved. These early results encourage further investigations regarding long-term follow-ups and prospective studies in larger patient groups


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 94-B, Issue SUPP_X | Pages 85 - 85
1 Apr 2012
Molyneux S Spens H Gibson J
Full Access

To compare outcomes and costs of transforaminal endoscopic surgical discectomy (TES) with those of microdiscectomy (Micro). 48 patients with a primary lumbar disc prolapse were randomly allocated by computer to surgery. Assessments were made of leg and back pain (VAS), Oswestry Disability index (ODI), and SF-36 as primary outcomes. Cost data was collated. 25 TES and 23 Micro patients are reported with similar age, sex, smoking status and affected disc levels (14 v.17 L5/S1). Three months following surgery leg pain scores had decreased by 55 and 65% in the two groups. Patient satisfaction ratings were equal. ODI had decreased 15 points in both groups by 1yr and this improvement was maintained to 2 years (final scores: 7±3 TES v.14±13 Micro - means ±SD; p<0.05). Similar changes were noted in SF36-P. Mean bed stay was lower in the TES group (16 v. 40 hours). Other post-operative costs were similar. There were no immediate complications. One revision was required at 12 months (TES) and one at 18 months (Micro). Two patients presented with a disc prolapse at a different level and side (both TES). Results at up to two years follow-up are similar following the two interventions. Recovery was more rapid in those patients undergoing endoscopic surgery


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 97-B, Issue SUPP_2 | Pages 18 - 18
1 Feb 2015
Kelsall C Khatri M
Full Access

Introduction. Orthopaedic Spinal Rapid Access Service (OSRAS) was developed in our institute to provide a structured pathway for management of urgent spinal pathologies during working hours of Monday to Friday. It was delivered through a published rota by a multi displinary team of Extended Scope Practitioner carrying a bleep and a Spinal Surgeon. Aim. To evaluate the efficacy of OSRAS through a prospective audit. Results. From Nov 2013 till April 2014, 177 patients (48 Male: 119 Females) with an average age of 50 (17–95) years were referred to OSRAS. Wednesday was the busiest day with 26% referral in AM and 74% in PM. Main source of referrals were: Regional MSK services (50), Triage (34), ED (27) and GPs (20). The reasons were: suspected CESI (n=100), Acute LBP (n=30), pathological fractures (n=23), progressive neurology (n=16), discitis (n=5) and spinal stenosis (n=2). Depending on clinical need 29 patients were seen on same day, 33 next day, 53 with in 2–5 days and 31 more than 5 days. Eighty patients were discharged, 36 listed for surgery, 27 required further follow up and 31 were given telephone advise only. High user satisfaction rating was obtained. Conclusion. We propose an OSRAS model as an alternate to often un satisfactory current emergency department model, that can provide a structured pathway for timely expert management of serious spinal pathologies therefore prevent potential consequences whilst avoid unnecessary admissions. Conflicts of interest: No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: No funding obtained


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 94-B, Issue SUPP_X | Pages 59 - 59
1 Apr 2012
Ross E Rischke B Joellenbeck B
Full Access

Surgical management of symptomatic lumbar degenerative disc disease (DDD) currently consists of fusion or implantation of a first generation total disc replacement (TDR). This study is the first to evaluate an elastomeric one-piece TDR in a 50-patient European study.

Fifty patients with single-level, symptomatic lumbar DDD at L4-S1 who were unresponsive to at least 6-months of non-operative therapy were enrolled in a clinical trial of a viscoelastic TDR (VTDR) at three European sites. Patients were assessed clinically and radiographically at 6 weeks, 3 and 6 months, and 1 and 2 years. Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) were used to assess clinical outcomes.

Twenty-eight males and twenty-two females were enrolled in the study. The average age of patients was 39.7 (23 to 61). The operative level was L4/L5 in 13 patients and L5/S1 in 37 patients. There were no intra-operative complications. Quantitative radiographic assessment indicates that the VTDR restores and maintains a physiologically appropriate disc height and angle, while providing range of motion and translation similar to those provided by the natural disc. Mean ODI scores decreased from 48% pre-operatively to 25% at two years follow up. Mean VAS low back pain scores decreased from 7.1 cm pre-op to 3 cm at two years. Median scores indicate that half of the patient population has ODI scores below 13% and VAS back pain scores below 0.5 cm. Clinically and radiologically, this elastomeric disc is performing satisfactorily, and the causes of clinical failures can be more readily identified.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 96-B, Issue SUPP_4 | Pages 22 - 22
1 Feb 2014
Patel S Hee S Yang Y Ngunjiri A Brown S Friede T Griffiths F Lord J Sandhu H Thistlethwaite J Tysall C Woolvine M Underwood M
Full Access

Background. The available treatments for NSLBP (Non-Specific Low Back Pain) provide, typically, small to moderate average benefits to patients. The aim of this pilot cluster RCT was to test the hypothesis that the use of a patient decision aid together with an informed shared decision making consultation would produce better outcomes in satisfaction with treatment at four month follow-up. Methods. We developed a DSP (Decision Support Package). We randomised the physiotherapists and trained those in the intervention arm in informed shared decision making and communication. Participants were recruited from a local physiotherapy department and those allocated to an appointment with an intervention therapist were sent a copy of the DSP in the post. Participants then attended their appointment as usual. Results. We recruited 148 participants, 85 (57%) participants were assigned to the DSP arm. There was an 80% response rate for the primary outcome, satisfaction with treatment. The adjusted odds ratio of satisfaction with treatments from participants in the DSP arm against those in the control arm was 0.54 (95% CI: 0.19, 1.53). The difference between the treatment arms for the RMDQ (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire) at four month follow-up was −2.27 (95% CI: −4.47, −0.08). Conclusions. There were no differences in our primary outcome measure between the groups. There was a statistically significant and clinically important difference in the RMDQ. These data have informed our decision about progression to a full trial application


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 94-B, Issue SUPP_XXVI | Pages 26 - 26
1 Jun 2012
Bhutta MA Wilkinson J Cross C Tandon V Kapoor V Todd BD
Full Access

Introduction. Lumbar spinal pain can be a consequence of discogenic pain. After failure of conservative management, lumbar fusions are popular and considered the gold standard. However, these techniques are associated with significant morbidity. A percutaneous trans-sacral technique may address these for L4/L5 and/or L5/S1 alone spinal fusions. Our unit has adopted this technique and presents our initial experience of 51 patients and preliminary results. Method. Patients with a confirmed clinical and radiological evidence of degenerate intervertebral disc with or without prior surgical intervention were selected. Patients with a history of pelvic surgery/radiotherapy were excluded. Data was collected prospectively using the Global Patient Outcome Scoring System and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores at clinical follow-up. Results. 51 patients received the procedure and 30 achieving a minimum of 6 months follow-up. Patients had a median age of 46(range 20-78) and included 19 male and 32 females with on average 40 months of pain. The mean ODI score improved after surgery from pre-operative levels 52.9(SEM 3.0) to 6 month scores of 38.4(SEM 3.9), t(29)=4.2, p<0.0002 . This difference remained statistically significant at 12 month follow-up with a mean ODI scores 34.3 (SEM 5.2), t(18)=4.37, P<0.0004 (Mean difference of 21.1 SEM 4.8). A sub-analysis of confounding factors identified patients with previous surgery, claiming state benefits, pursuing litigation, mainly leg pain and requiring pedicular fusion failed to achieve statistical significance. Patients receiving a 360 degree fusion with facet screws alone improved sooner and achieving a mean difference in ODI score of 27.6(SEM 8.2). Conclusion. Our initial results confirm this to be an effective alternative treatment modality for lumbar spine fusion in the management of primary discogenic back pain. Patients receiving 360 degree fusion and not claiming state benefits or pursuing litigation appear to have a better outcome


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 96-B, Issue SUPP_4 | Pages 40 - 40
1 Feb 2014
Harland N Ryan C
Full Access

Background. Phone based Physiotherapy is a topical area of investigation. Salisbury, (2013) states it may be as effective as usual care. It is also suggested that satisfaction is similar, but more specific attitudes have not been investigated. This study aims to retrospectively investigate the attitudes of PD vs usual care patients and to identify any differences in the attitudes of spine pain vs peripheral pain patients. Methods and Results. Questionnaires including 6 attitude questions (3 negatively, 3 positively worded) scored between 0–10 were completed by 197 physiotherapy patients discharged between 6 and 12 months previously. n=99 had received usual care, n=19 only PD care and n=79 both PD and usual care. N=61 had been treated for back or neck pain and n=136 had peripheral pain. Overall patients who had received some PD care were more likely to strongly agree (score 8–10) with the positive statements and strongly disagree (score 0–2) with the negative ones than patients who had not had some PD care. Spine patients who had never had PD were more likely to strongly agree with the negative statements than non-spines, but this was only the case with 1-in-3 negative statements in spine patients who had received PD. Compared to spine pain patients who had never had PD care, spine patients who had received PD were far more likely to strongly disagree with negative statements about PD than non-spine patients. Multiple other interesting trends exist. Conclusion. Spine pain patients' attitudes to PD care may differ from non-spine pain patients


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 94-B, Issue SUPP_I | Pages 8 - 8
1 Jan 2012
Hurley D Eadie J Tully M van Mechelen W Boreham C McDonough S Lonsdale C Daly L
Full Access

Background and purpose. Sleep disturbance is a prevalent symptom in people with chronic low back pain (CLBP >12 weeks), but there is currently no knowledge of the effectiveness of physiotherapy for this problem. This study evaluated the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) exploring the effects of physiotherapy on sleep disturbance in CLBP [Current controlled trial ISRCTN 54009836]. Methods. A sample of 60 consenting patients with CLBP [23 M, 37 F; mean (SD) age = 44.93 (13.41) years] were recruited in Beaumont Hospital, Dublin and randomly allocated to one of three groups [supervised exercise class (SEC), walking programme (WP) and usual physiotherapy (UP)] in a concealed manner. The main outcomes were sleep quality, functional disability, pain, and quality of life at baseline, 3 and 6 months. Results. The majority of participants reported sleep disturbance (95%, n=57) and related it to their LBP (81%, n=46). At 3 months compared with the WP and SEC, participants in the UP group displayed greater reductions in average low back pain VAS (WP d=.97, SEC d=.86) and greater improvements in sleep disturbance (Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index WP d=.59, SEC d=.29; Insomnia Severity Index WP d= .56, SEC d= .24). However, compared to UP there were greater improvements in functional disability (SF-36 PCS) in the WP (d= .32) and the SEC (d= .21). Conclusions. The results provide preliminary evidence of the effects of physiotherapy on sleep disturbance in CLBP, demonstrate the feasibility of undertaking a RCT in this field and inform refinement of the study protocol for a fully powered trial


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 94-B, Issue SUPP_XXVI | Pages 42 - 42
1 Jun 2012
Hourigan P Clarke A Powell J Hutton MJ
Full Access

Purpose of the study. To take a snapshot opinion of General Practitioner understanding of the prevalence, diagnosis and management of coccydynia. Methodology. We designed a simple 5 question survey to administer to our local GPs. The survey was sent to 107 GP practices in Devon whose details were provided by The Devon Access Referral Team. We received 128 electronic replies. We also submitted the survey to 50 GPs who attended a study day at our institution – and ensured they had not already completed the electronic format of the same work. Thus we received 178 replies which we believe to be a highly representative sample of our local GPs opinion. Results. 53% correctly identified the prevalence of the condition. 42% believed the condition to be associated with an underlying psychological disorder. 58% believed there was no proven treatment for the condition. Less than 18% would consider referring the patient to any secondary care service that dealt with chronic spinal pain (Pain clinic, rheumatology or spinal surgery) even if the symptoms persisted beyond 3 months duration. 73% believed surgery was madness or had a less than 20% chance of relieving symptoms. Conclusion. Coccydynia is a painful condition, causing significant distress for those suffering with the condition. Primary care physicians seem reluctant to recognise the problem as significant and reluctant to refer patients for treatment that may offer significant symptomatic relief. Education about the condition is required


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 94-B, Issue SUPP_XXXI | Pages 14 - 14
1 Jul 2012
Dannawi Z El-Sebaie HB Akbarnia BA Noordeen H
Full Access

Purpose. The aim of this study is to assess the safety and efficacy of a remote-operated magnetic growth rod in the treatment of 11 patients with progressive early onset scoliosis (EOS). Introduction. The Growth rod technique (GR) has been a viable treatment option for progressive early onset scoliosis (EOS). However, an increased complication rate has been associated with conventional GR due to frequent surgeries required for lengthening. The safety and efficacy of a remote-operated magnetic growth rod (RO-MGR) has been previously reported in a porcine model. We are reporting the preliminary clinical results of this device which obviates the need for repeated surgeries. Methods. Prospective analysis of early clinical and radiographic data of 11 patients, with EOS, undergoing index RO-MGR treatment and at least 3 distractions. The mean age was 8 years (Range 5-12 years). Four patients had single rod (SR) instrumentation and the remaining 7 had a dual rod (DR) construct. Diagnosis was idiopathic 3, neuromuscular 3, congenital 3, syndromic 1 and neurofibromatosis one. In total, 57 rod distractions were performed. Distractions were performed in the clinic without anesthesia or analgesics. The mean preoperative Cobb angle was 68° (range 46°-108°). The mean preoperative T1-S1 length was 304mm (range 243-361mm). Results. Average distraction was 3.2 per patient. The mean lag before the first distraction was 66 days (28-112) and between distractions was 43 days (42-98). Superficial infection occurred in 1 (SR), prominent rod in 1 (DR), hook pull-out in 1(DR), iatrogenic shortening 1(DR) and loss of length in 2 patients (6/57 rod distraction, 11%, all SR), this loss was regained in subsequent distractions. Apart from a case of proximal rod trimming, no further surgery was required in our group of patients. Mean follow-up was 8 months (6-13). Conclusion. Preliminary results indicate that RO-GR appears to be safe and provided a comparable distraction to the standard GR procedure without the need for repeated open surgeries. No major complications were observed in the short follow up period