We present a large single surgeon case series evaluation of a new growth guidance technique for the treatment of progressive early onset scoliosis (EOS). A traditional Luque trolley construct uses wires to hold growth guidance rods together. We describe a new technique that uses domino end to side connectors in place of the wires with the aim of providing a stronger construct to better limit curve progression, while allowing longitudinal growth. We did a thorough retrospective review of patient records and radiological imaging. Sequential measurements of Cobb angle and length of rods were recorded, as well as any further surgical procedures and associated complications. This enabled us to quantify the ability of a technique to limit curve progression and simultaneously allow growth of the construct. In total, 28 patients with EOS (20 idiopathic, four syndromic, and four neuromuscular) have been treated with this technique, 25 of whom have a minimum follow-up of 2 years and 13 have a minimum follow-up of 5 years. The average correction of the preoperative Cobb angle was 48.9%. At the 2-year follow up, the average loss of this initial correction was 15 degrees, rising to only 20 degrees at a minimum of 5 years (including four patients with a follow-up of 8 years or more). The growth of the constructs was limited. The average growth at 2 years was 3.7 mm, rising to 19 mm at the 5-year follow-up. Patients who underwent surgery with this technique before the age of 8 years seemed to do better. This group had a revision rate of only 18% at an average time of 7 years after the index procedure, and the average growth was 22 mm. However, the group that had index surgery after the age of 8 years had a 64% revision rate at an average of 3.2 years after surgery and an average growth of only 11.6 mm. Overall, in the cases series, there were four hardware failures (14%) and one deep infection (3.5%), and only ten patients (36%) had one extra surgery after the index procedure. Only two of the 13 patients who are at a follow-up of 5 years or more have had revision. This modified Luque trolley technique has a good capacity for initial curve correction and for limiting further curve progression, with limited longitudinal growth before 2 years and improved growth thereafter. This technique might not be so useful after the age of 8 years because of poor growth and a higher early revision rate. We have also demonstrated a low cost technique with a low hardware failure rate that saves many future surgeries for the patient compared with other techniques used in the treatment of EOS

Background. It has become increasingly important to conduct studies assessing clinical outcomes, reoperation rates, and revision rates to better define the indications and efficacy of lumbar spinal procedures and its association with symptomatic adjacent segment degeneration (sASD). Adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) is defined as the radiographic change in the intervertebral discs adjacent to the surgically treated spinal level. SASD represents adjacent segment degeneration which causes pain or numbness due to post-operative spinal instability or nerve compression at the same level. The most common reason for early reoperation and late operation is sASD, therefore is in our best interest to understand the causes of ASD and make steps to limit the occurrence. Method. A comprehensive literature search was performed selecting Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective or prospective studies published up to December 2023. Meta-analysis was performed on 38 studies that met the inclusion criteria and included data of clinical outcomes of patients who had degenerative disc disease, disc herniation, radiculopathy, and spondylolisthesis and underwent lumbar fusion or motion-preservation device surgery; and reported on the prevalence of ASD, sASD, reoperation rate, visual analogue score (VAS), and Oswestry disability index (ODI) improvement. Results. When compared to fusion surgery, a significant reduction of ASD, sASD and reoperation was observed in the cohort of patients that underwent motion-preserving surgery. Conclusion. Dynamic fusion constructs are treatment options that may help to prevent sASD. Conflicts of interest. This research was funded by Paradigm Spine. Sources of funding. Paradigm Spine

Aims

Symptomatic spinal stenosis is a very common problem, and decompression surgery has been shown to be superior to nonoperative treatment in selected patient groups. However, performing an instrumented fusion in addition to decompression may avoid revision and improve outcomes. The aim of the SpInOuT feasibility study was to establish whether a definitive randomized controlled trial (RCT) that accounted for the spectrum of pathology contributing to spinal stenosis, including pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis (PI-LL) mismatch and mobile spondylolisthesis, could be conducted.

Aims

Vertebral body tethering (VBT) is a non-fusion technique to correct scoliosis. It allows correction of scoliosis through growth modulation (GM) by tethering the convex side to allow concave unrestricted growth similar to the hemiepiphysiodesis concept. The other modality is anterior scoliosis correction (ASC) where the tether is able to perform most of the correction immediately where limited growth is expected.

Purpose of Study. To review the medium-term results of the Dynesys stabilisation system used in 113 consecutive patients with discogenic back pain. Methods and Results. 113 consecutive patients with discogenic back pain were treated with Dynesys as the sole intervention. Inclusion criteria included mri proven disc degeneration and an improvement in symptoms following an injection into the disc with local anaesthetic and steroid (spinal disc probing). Patients were followed up for a minimum of 5 years, with outcome measures including SF-36, Oswestry disability index (ODI) and visual pain analogue scores (VPAS). Additional factors reviewed included previous spinal operations, complications, loosening and revision rates with subsequent outcomes. Mean pre-operative ODI was 49.5, SF-36 was 37.6 and VPAS back pain was 60.9. At one year post operatively, these scores were 36.9, 49.4 and 39.8, at five years follow up, the scores were 33.3, 51.8 and 40.1 respectively. We note wide variations in our results. Several significant factors appear to contribute to the outcome of surgery. These include undergoing surgery before the age of 43, no more than 2-level disc degeneration, leg pain less than VPAS 4, and no previous spinal surgery. 19 patients had screw loosening evident on plain film x-rays (4 requiring removal), and 2 patients had screw breakages. 19 patients had implant removal for failure and 2 patients went on to have a fusion procedure. Discussion. Dynesys has a role in the treatment of discogenic back pain. Patient selection is important to outcome and we have identified several pre-operative factors that increase the likelihood of success. The effects are present at 1 year postoperatively and are maintained for at least 5 years. There is a significant screw loosening rate and our series had a 17% revision rate

Aims

To report the mid-term results of a modified self-growing rod (SGR) technique for the treatment of idiopathic and neuromuscular early-onset scoliosis (EOS).

Aims

Magnetically controlled growing rods (MCGR) have been gaining popularity in the management of early-onset scoliosis (EOS) over the past decade. We present our experience with the first 44 MCGR consecutive cases treated at our institution.

To assess whether Patients who are clinically Obese are more likely to require further or revision Surgery following One-Level simple Microdiscectomy compared to Non-obese Patients. Retrospective, single centre and single Surgeon review of Patients' Clinical notes of consecutive Patients who underwent primary One-Level Microdiscectomy between December 2007 and July 2009. Background: Obesity in Surgery has become a topical subject given the increasing proportion of Surgical Patients being Obese. This study provides the largest single centre and single Surgeon comparative cohort. All Patients had undergone One-level simple Primary Microdiscectomy Surgery. Data from the Clinical notes included Patient Demographics, level and side of operation, Length of stay and Re-Operation details. A total number of 71 Patients were eligible for inclusion of which 38 were Female and 33 Male with an average age of 41 years. 25 Patients were Clinically Obese (35%). Average LOS was 1.1 days. 8% of the clinically Obese Patients required further Surgery compared to 8.7% in the Non-obese group. Revision surgery for recurrent discs and Surgery for dural tear repair were the main reasons for return to theatre. Revision rates were comparable between the two Patient groups. LOS was no different for Obese Patients. This study concludes that Obese Patients undergoing One-Level simple Microdiscectomy do not face a significantly higher risk of requiring Revision Surgery in the future

We present a review of 553 patients who underwent surgery for intractable sciatica ascribed to prolapsed lumbar intervertebral disc. One surgeon in one institution undertook or supervised all the operations over a period of 16 years. The total number of primary discectomies included in the study was 531, of which 42 subsequently required a second operation for recurrent sciatica, giving a revision rate of 7.9%. Factors associated with reoperation were analysed. A contained disc protrusion was almost three times more likely to need revision surgery, compared with extruded or sequestrated discs. Patients with primary protrusions had a significantly greater straight-leg raise and reduced incidence of positive neurological findings compared with those with extruded or sequestrated discs. These patients should therefore be selected out clinically and treated by a more enthusiastic conservative programme, since they are three times more likely to require revision surgery

Objectives

Cement augmentation of pedicle screws could be used to improve screw stability, especially in osteoporotic vertebrae. However, little is known concerning the influence of different screw types and amount of cement applied. Therefore, the aim of this biomechanical in vitro study was to evaluate the effect of cement augmentation on the screw pull-out force in osteoporotic vertebrae, comparing different pedicle screws (solid and fenestrated) and cement volumes (0 mL, 1 mL or 3 mL).

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.

The outcome of surgery for recurrent lumbar disc herniation is debatable. Some studies show results that are comparable with those of primary discectomy, whereas others report worse outcomes. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcome of revision lumbar discectomy with that of primary discectomy in the same cohort of patients who had both the primary and the recurrent herniation at the same level and side.

A retrospective analysis of prospectively gathered data was undertaken in 30 patients who had undergone both primary and revision surgery for late recurrent lumbar disc herniation. The outcome measures used were visual analogue scales for lower limb (VAL) and back (VAB) pain and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI).

There was a significant improvement in the mean VAL and ODI scores (both p < 0.001) after primary discectomy. Revision surgery also resulted in improvements in the mean VAL (p < 0.001), VAB (p = 0.030) and ODI scores (p < 0.001). The changes were similar in the two groups (all p > 0.05).

Revision discectomy can give results that are as good as those seen after primary surgery.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:90–4.

Between January 1990 and December 2000 we carried out 226 SB Charité III disc replacements for lumbar disc degeneration in 160 patients. They were reviewed at a mean follow-up of 79 months (31 to 161) to determine the clinical and radiological outcome. The clinical results were collected by an independent observer, who was not involved in patient selection, treatment or follow-up, using a combination of outcome measures, including the Oswestry Disability Index. Pain was recorded using a visual analogue score, and the most recent radiographs were reviewed.

Survival of the device was analysed by the Kaplan-Meier method and showed a cumulative survival of 35% at 156 months when radiological failure was taken as the endpoint. The mean improvement in the Oswestry disability index scores after disc replacement was 14% (6% to 21%) and the mean improvement in the pain score was 1.6 (0.46 to 2.73), both falling below the clinically significant threshold. Removal of the implant was required in 12 patients, four because of implant failure.

These poor results indicate that further use of this implant is not justified.