Introduction: Accurate and ethical coding is challenging and directly impacts on Payment by Results (PbR). The aims & objectives of this study were to review the existing pattern of coding for spinal surgery and ascertain its appropriateness & accuracy for surgical procedures, medical co-morbidities and post-op complications. Methods: A retrospective review of 70 consecutive cervical and 100 consecutive lumbar spine patients who were operated from April 2006 onwards was conducted. The excel sheet provided by coding department, hospital notes – clinic letters, physicians’ entries, theatre notes and laboratory reports (biochemistry/microbiology/histology) – were reviewed. Of the 170 cases, 165 were available for analysis. Results: Coding data of 5 patients who underwent cervical spine surgeries were not available. Of the 165 cases, the accuracy of primary procedural codes was 93.9% (90.8% cervical & 96% lumbar). However this reduced to 77.6% (75.4% cervical & 79% lumbar) when the accuracy for entire description of performed surgery was considered. The procedural codes did not specifically reflect the surgery performed and lacked reproducibility. Surgical levels were coded incorrectly in 9% of the cases. Cervical surgeries were coded as lumbar in 4 and posterior surgery as anterior in 3 cases respectively. Harvest of iliac crest bone graft was not coded in 5 cases. Medical comorbidities were coded appropriately in 64.2% of the patients (55% cervical & 70% lumbar). The commonly missed comorbidities were drug allergies, hypercholesterolemia, smoking and alcoholism. Post-op adverse events were coded in 75% of the cases (16/20 cervical & 5/8 lumbar). The accuracy was better for lumbar as compared to cervical spinal surgeries. Conclusion: Coding is a universal language of communication amongst healthcare professionals. Its accuracy is important not just for PbR, but for data quality, audit and research purposes too. The financial implications regarding PbR governed by HRG codes (dictated by OPCS 4.4 & ICD–10 codes) are discussed. The awareness of clinical coding is low amongst junior doctors. Following this study, a clinical coding facilitation form has been introduced to improve data quality. Our plan is to close the audit loop and re-evaluate. Literature emphasises qualification of coders, legible documentation by physicians and interaction between coders and clinicians

Objectives: To surgery the UK Specialist Orthopaedic Registrars (SpRs) to assess their perceptions of and attitudes towards spinal surgery, and to identify factors discouraging interest in spinal surgery. Introduction: In order to improve the provision of spinal surgery in the UK, the existing 175 Orthopaedic Surgeons with an interest in Spinal Surgery needs to increase by 25%. There is a predicted shortfall in the number of orthopaedic trainees intending to practise spinal surgery. Methods: A postal questionnaire was sent to all 578 SpRs. Results: Three hundred and seventy-four replied (71%). Sixty-nine percent intend to avoid spinal surgery. Thirtyfive (9%) intend becoming either Specialist Spinal Surgeons or Surgeons with a Spinal interest. Their perceptions will be discussed; the intellectual challenge and opportunities for research are widely recognised but are outweighed by poor perceptions of outcomes of surgery, psychological complications, and of badly organised clinics. There is also inadequate exposure to spinal surgery during training. Conclusions: Training in spinal surgery could be improved by exposure to spinal surgery at an earlier stage of training, and the development of more specialised units with properly structured spinal clinics to include triage systems to assess referrals and close liaison between the specialities required to treat these patients

Aims. The escalating demand for medical resources to address spinal diseases as society ages is an issue that requires careful evaluation. However, few studies have examined trends in spinal surgery, especially unscheduled hospitalizations or surgeries performed after hours, through large databases. Our study aimed to determine national trends in the number of spine surgeries in Japan. We also aimed to identify trends in after-hours surgeries and unscheduled hospitalizations and their impact on complications and costs. Methods. We retrospectively investigated data extracted from the Diagnosis Procedure Combination database, a representative inpatient database in Japan. The data from April 2010 to March 2020 were used for this study. We included all patients who had undergone any combination of laminectomy, laminoplasty, discectomy, and/or spinal arthrodesis. Results. This investigation included 739,474 spinal surgeries and 739,215 hospitalizations in Japan. There was an average annual increase of 4.6% in the number of spinal surgeries. Scheduled hospitalizations increased by 3.7% per year while unscheduled hospitalizations increased by 11.8% per year. In-hours surgeries increased by 4.5% per year while after-hours surgeries increased by 9.9% per year. Complication rates and costs increased for both after-hours surgery and unscheduled hospitalizations, in comparison to their respective counterparts of in-hours surgery and scheduled hospitalizations. Conclusion. This study provides important insights for those interested in improving spine care in an ageing society. The swift surge in after-hours spinal surgeries and unscheduled hospitalizations highlights that the medical needs of an increasing number of patients due to an ageing society are outpacing the capacity of existing medical resources. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(8):662–670

Adverse events (AEs) are still a major problem in spinal surgery, despite advances in surgical techniques, innovative technologies available and the introduction of checklist and predictive score systems aimed at reducing surgical complications. We previously analysed the results of the introduction of the WHO Safety Surgical Checklist (SSC) in our Institution, comparing the incidence of complications between two periods: from January to December 2010 (without checklist) and from January 2011 and December 2012 (with checklist), in order to assess the checklist effectiveness. The sample size was 917 patients with an average of 30 months of follow-up. Complications were observed in 107 patients (11.6%) among 917 spinal surgery procedures performed, with 159 (17.3%) complications in total. The overall incidence of complications for trauma, infectious pathology, oncology, and degenerative disease was 22.2%, 19.2%, 18.4%, and 15.3%, respectively. We observed a reduction of the overall incidence of complications following the introduction of the WHO Surgical Checklist: in 2010 without checklist, the incidence of complications was 24.2%, while in 2011 and 2012, following the checklist introduction, the incidence of complications was 16.7% and 11.7%, respectively (mean 14.2%) (p<0.0005). Thus, the SSC appeared to be an effective tool to reduce complications in spinal surgery and we proposed to extend the use of checklist system also to the pre-operative and post-operative phases in order to further reduce the incidence of complications. We also believe that a correct capture and classification of complications is fundamental to generate a clinical decision support system aimed at improving patients’ safety in spinal surgery. In the period between January 2017 and January 2018 we prospectively recorded the adverse events and complications of patients undergoing spinal surgery in our department, without using any collection system. Then we retrospectively recorded the intraoperative and postoperative adverse events of surgically treated patients during the same one-year period, using the SAVES v2 system introduced by Rampersaud and collaborators (Rampersaud YR et al. J Neurosurg Spine 2016 Aug; 25 (2): 256-63) to classify them. In the one-year period from January 2017 to January 2018 a total of 336 patients underwent spinal surgery: 223 for degenerative conditions and 113 for spinal tumors. Comorbidities were collected (Charlson Comorbidity Index [CCI]). Overall, a higher number of adverse events (AEs) was recorded using SAVES compared to the prospective recording without the use of any capture system and the increased number was statistically significant for early postoperative AEs (138/336 vs 44/336, p<0.001). 210 adverse events were retrospectively recorded using the SAVES system (30 intraoperative adverse events, 138 early postoperative and 42 late postoperative adverse events). 99 patients (29.5%) on the cohort had at least one complication. Furthermore, the correlation between some risk factors and the onset of complications or the prolonged length of stay was statistically analyzed. The risk factors taken into account were: age, presence of comorbidities (CCI), ASA score, previous surgery at the same level, type of intervention, location of the disease, duration of the surgery. In particular, the duration of the surgery (more than 3 hours) and the presence of previous surgeries resulted to be risk factors for complications in multivariate analyses

Introduction: Following the publication of our original survey in 2000 (. Eur. Sp. J. 11. (6):. 515. –8 . 2002. ) we have sought to re-evaluate the perceptions and attitudes towards spinal surgery of the current UK orthopaedic Specialist Registrars (SpR’s), and to identify factors influencing an interest in spinal surgery. At that time 175 orthopaedic spinal surgeons in the UK needed to increase by 25% to satisfy parity with other European countries. Methods: A postal questionnaire was sent to all 950 SpR’s. The questionnaire sought to identify perceptions in spinal surgery, levels of current training and practice, and intentions to pursue a career in spinal surgery. Results: As before, a 70% response rate has confirmed that 74% of trainees intend to avoid spinal surgery (69% in 2000). However 10% are committed to become a Specialist Spinal Surgeon (9% in 2000). Their perceptions were wide ranging but most concluded that the intellectual challenge and opportunities for research are widely recognised. However enthusiasm is dampened by poor perceptions of outcomes from surgery, negative somatization and depression associations, complications and the fear of litigation. In some areas there is inadequate exposure to spinal surgery during the first 4 years of training. Conclusions: Spinal surgery remains a career choice for 10% of surgical trainees (up 1% since 2000). With a large SpR expansion (578 to 950 SpRs in the last 5 years) an average of 16 new spinal surgeons annually will be produced over the next six years. This has improved on the figure of 8.6 per year from 2000 and represents a 200% increase in numbers per year. These figures suggest that by 2011 and allowing for retirement, there should be enough spinal surgeons to meet the desired UK/Europe ratio

Background. Over 55,000 spinal operations are performed annually in the NHS. Effective postoperative analgesia facilitates early mobilisation and assists rehabilitation and hospital discharge, but is difficult to achieve with conventional, opioid-based, oral analgesia. The clinical and cost-effectiveness of two alternative techniques, namely intrathecal opioid and the more novel erector-spinae plane blockade, is unknown. The Pain Relief After Instrumented Spinal Surgery (PRAISE) trial aims to evaluate these techniques. Methods. PRAISE is a multicentre, prospective, parallel group, patient-blinded, randomised trial, seeking to recruit 456 adult participants undergoing elective, posterior lumbar-instrumented spinal surgery from up to 25 NHS hospitals. Participants will be randomised 1:1:1 to receive (1) Usual Care with local wound infiltration, (2) Intrathecal Opioid plus Usual Care with local wound infiltration or (3) Erector Spinae Plane blockade plus Usual Care with no local wound infiltration. The primary outcome is pain on movement on a 100mm visual analogue scale at 24 hours post-surgery. Secondary outcomes include pain at rest, leg pain, quality of recovery (QoR-15), postoperative opioid consumption, time to mobilisation, length of hospital stay, health utility (EQ-5D-5L), adverse events and resource use. Parallel economic evaluation will estimate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Results. Differences in the primary outcome at 24 hours will be estimated by mixed-effects linear regression modelling, with fixed effects for randomisation factors and other important prognostic variables, and random effects for centre, using the as-randomised population. Treatment effects with 95% confidence intervals will be presented. Conclusion. The study is due to open in May 2024 and complete in 2026. Conflicts of Interest. No conflicts of interest declared. Sources of Funding. NIHR Health Technology Award – grant number NIHR153170. Trial presentations so far. APOMP 2023 and 2024; RCOA conference, York, November 2023; Faculty of Pain Management training day, London, February 2024

Neurological complications in oncological and degenerative spine surgery represent one of the most feared risks of these procedures. Multimodal intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring (IONM) mainly uses methods to detect changes in the patient's neurological status in a timely manner, thus allowing actions that can reverse neurological deficits before they become irreversible. The utopian goal of spinal surgery is the absence of neurological complications while the realistic goal is to optimize the responses to changes in neuromonitoring such that permanent deficits occur less frequently as possible. In 2014, an algorithm was proposed in response to changes in neuromonitoring for deformity corrections in spinal surgery. There are several studies that confirm the positive impact that a checklist has on care. The proposed checklist has been specifically designed for interventions on stable columns which is significantly different from oncological and degenerative surgery. The goal of this project is to provide a checklist for oncological and degenerative spine surgery to improve the quality of care and minimize the risk of neurological deficit through the optimization of clinical decision-making during periods of intraoperative stress or uncertainty. After a literature review on risk factors and recommendations for responding to IONM changes, 3 surveys were administered to 8 surgeons with experience in oncological and degenerative spine surgery from 5 hospitals in Italy. In addition, anesthesiologists, intraoperative neuro-monitoring teams, operating room nurses participated. The members participated in the optimization and final drafting of the checklist. The authors reassessed and modified the checklist during 3 meetings over 9 months, including a clinical validation period using a modified Delphi process. A checklist containing 28 items to be considered in responding to the changes of the IONM was created. The checklist was submitted for inclusion in the new recommendations of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology (SINC) for intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring. The final checklist represents the consensus of a group of experienced spine surgeons. The checklist includes the most important and high-performance items to consider when responding to IONM changes in patients with an unstable spine. The implementation of this checklist has the potential to improve surgical outcomes and patient safety in the field of spinal surgery

Informed consent is a very important part of surgical treatment. In this paper, we report a number of legal judgements in spinal surgery where there was no criticism of the surgical procedure itself. The fault that was identified was a failure to inform the patient of alternatives to, and material risks of, surgery, or overemphasizing the benefits of surgery. In one case, there was a promise that a specific surgeon was to perform the operation, which did not ensue. All of the faults in these cases were faults purely of the consenting process. In many cases, the surgeon claimed to have explained certain risks to the patient but was unable to provide proof of doing so. We propose a checklist that, if followed, would ensure that the surgeon would take their patients through the relevant matters but also, crucially, would act as strong evidence in any future court proceedings that the appropriate discussions had taken place. Although this article focuses on spinal surgery, the principles and messages are applicable to the whole of orthopaedic surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:355–360

In recent years, machine learning (ML) and artificial neural networks (ANNs), a particular subset of ML, have been adopted by various areas of healthcare. A number of diagnostic and prognostic algorithms have been designed and implemented across a range of orthopaedic sub-specialties to date, with many positive results. However, the methodology of many of these studies is flawed, and few compare the use of ML with the current approach in clinical practice. Spinal surgery has advanced rapidly over the past three decades, particularly in the areas of implant technology, advanced surgical techniques, biologics, and enhanced recovery protocols. It is therefore regarded an innovative field. Inevitably, spinal surgeons will wish to incorporate ML into their practice should models prove effective in diagnostic or prognostic terms. The purpose of this article is to review published studies that describe the application of neural networks to spinal surgery and which actively compare ANN models to contemporary clinical standards allowing evaluation of their efficacy, accuracy, and relatability. It also explores some of the limitations of the technology, which act to constrain the widespread adoption of neural networks for diagnostic and prognostic use in spinal care. Finally, it describes the necessary considerations should institutions wish to incorporate ANNs into their practices. In doing so, the aim of this review is to provide a practical approach for spinal surgeons to understand the relevant aspects of neural networks. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(9):1442–1448

Aims. The current pandemic caused by COVID-19 is the biggest challenge for national health systems for a century. While most medical resources are allocated to treat COVID-19 patients, several non-COVID-19 medical emergencies still need to be treated, including vertebral fractures and spinal cord compression. The aim of this paper is to report the early experience and an organizational protocol for emergency spinal surgery currently being used in a large metropolitan area by an integrated team of orthopaedic surgeons and neurosurgeons. Methods. An organizational model is presented based on case centralization in hub hospitals and early management of surgical cases to reduce hospital stay. Data from all the patients admitted for emergency spinal surgery from the beginning of the outbreak were prospectively collected and compared to data from patients admitted for the same reason in the same time span in the previous year, and treated by the same integrated team. Results. A total of 19 patients (11 males and eight females, with a mean age of 49.9 years (14 to 83)) were admitted either for vertebral fracture or spinal cord compression in a 19-day period, compared to the ten admitted in the previous year. No COVID-19 patients were treated. The mean time between admission and surgery was 1.7 days, significantly lower than 6.8 days the previous year (p < 0.001). Conclusion. The structural organization and the management protocol we describe allowed us to reduce the time to surgery and ultimately hospital stay, thereby maximizing the already stretched medical resources available. We hope that our early experience can be of value to the medical communities that will soon be in the same emergency situation. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(6):671–676

Purpose of study and background. Spinal surgery is a high-risk surgical speciality, a patient's understanding of surgical interventions, alternative treatment options, and the benefits and risks must be ascertained to gain informed consent. This pilot study aims to evaluate if the provision of a digital recording of a patient's consultation enhances patient satisfaction, improves recall of clinical diagnosis, recall of treatment options and the risks and benefits of Spinal Surgery. Methodology and results. A coalition team was identified. A safe and secure process for recording and storage identified. Both qualitative and quantitative data was collected via questionnaires. 62 patients were invited to participate in the pilot, 12 declined. Data was collected immediately post consultation, and two weeks following the consultation via telephone. Comparison was made of the relative increase or decrease in patient recall of the clinical diagnosis, treatment options, and the benefits and the risks of spinal surgery. Patient satisfaction was measured pre- and post- consultation. 50 patients (81%) participated. 32 participants (52%) responded to follow up questionnaire at 2 weeks. Recall of risk for surgical intervention increased by 37%, and of benefit by 36%. Patient satisfaction was rated excellent or very satisfied in 93% at initial consultation and at 2 week follow up all participant's rated satisfaction as excellent or very satisfied. Conclusion. This pilot study was small. COVID delayed further recruitment. Initial outcomes demonstrated high levels of patient satisfaction and appear to demonstrate improved recall. Significant technological issues were identified. Further collaborative work needs to be undertaken. Conflicts of interest: No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: No funding obtained

With the identification of literature shortfalls on the techniques employed in intraoperative navigated (ION) spinal surgery, we outline a number of measures which have been synthesised into a coherent operative technique. These include positioning, dissection, management of the reference frame, the grip, the angle of attack, the drill, the template, the pedicle screw, the wire, and navigated intrathecal analgesia. Optimizing techniques to improve accuracy allow an overall reduction of the repetition of the surgical steps with its associated productivity benefits including time, cost, radiation, and safety. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(3):371–375

During the pandemic of COVID-19, some patients with COVID-19 may need emergency surgeries. As spine surgeons, it is our responsibility to ensure appropriate treatment to the patients with COVID-19 and spinal diseases. A protocol for spinal surgery and related management on patients with COVID-19 has been reviewed. Patient preparation for emergency surgeries, indications, and contraindications of emergency surgeries, operating room preparation, infection control precautions and personal protective equipments (PPE), anesthesia management, intraoperative procedures, postoperative management, medical waste disposal, and surveillance of healthcare workers were reviewed. It should be safe for surgeons with PPE of protection level 2 to perform spinal surgeries on patients with COVID-19. Standardized and careful surgical procedures should be necessary to reduce the exposure to COVID-19

The Spine Surgery Unit of IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli is dedicated to the diagnosis and the treatment of vertebral pathologies of oncologic, degenerative, and post-traumatic origin. To achieve increasingly challenging goals, research has represented a further strength for Spinal Surgery Unit for several years. Thanks to the close synergy with the Complex Structure Surgical Sciences and Technologies, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, extensive research was carried out. The addition of the research activities intensifies a complementary focus and provides a unique opportunity of innovation. The overall goal of spine research for the Spine Surgery Unit and for the Complex Structure Surgical Sciences and Technologies is and has been to:. - investigate the factors that influence normal spine function;. - engineer and validate new and advanced strategies for improving segmental spinal instrumentation, fusion augmentation and grafting;. - develop and characterize advanced and alternative preclinical models of vertebral bone metastasis to test drugs and innovative strategies, taking into account patient individual characteristics and specific tumour subtypes so predicting patient specific responses;. - evaluate the clinical characteristics, treatment modalities, and potential contributing and prognostic factors in patients with vertebral bone metastases;. - realize customized prosthesis to replace vertebral bodies affected by tumours or major traumatic events, specifically engineered to reduce infections, and increase patients’ surgical options. These efforts have made possible to obtain important results that favour the translation of basic research to application at the patient's bedside, and from here to routine clinical practice (without excluding the opposite pathway, in which the evidence generated by clinical practice helps to guide research). Although translational research can provide patients with valuable therapeutic resources, it is not risk-free. Thus, it is therefore necessary an always close collaboration between researchers and clinicians in order to guarantee the ethicality of translational research, by promoting the good of individuals and minimising the risks

There is an inherent risk of iatrogenic new neurological deficit (NND) arising at the spinal cord, cauda equina and nerve root during spinal surgery. Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring (IONM) can be employed to preserve spinal cord function during spinal surgery. IONM techniques include somatosensory and motor evoked potentials, amongst others. A Canadian survey of 95 spinal surgeons showed that 62.1% used IONM and a similar survey in France of 117 spinal surgeons showed that only 36% used IONM. Unavailability was a common reason for its disuse. Current literature by the British Society of Clinical Neurophysiology has outlined the importance of IONM in preventing NND and the need for the implementation of guidelines for IONM. The lack of an established guideline has resulted in a varied approach in the use of IONM in England. There has been no previous attempt to ascertain the current use of IONM in England. Our study is aimed at assessing the variability of the use of IONM in England as well as identifying the rationale amongst surgeons that dictate their use of IONM. We are in the process of investigating the indications of use of IONM for cervical and lumbar spine procedures in 252 spinal surgeons from 33 hospitals with spinal services. Our survey will illustrate the current use of IONM in spinal surgery in England. It will highlight some of the reasons for the variability of use of IONM and identify factors that can contribute to a more standardised use of IONM in spinal surgery

The COVID-19 pandemic creates unique challenges in the practice of spinal surgery. We aim to show how the use of a high-definition 3D digital exoscope can help streamline workflows, and protect both patients and healthcare staff

Introduction. To face the problem of surgical complications, which is generally relevant in surgical fields, an intraoperative checklist (Safety Surgical Checklist, SSC) was elaborated and released by the World Health Organization in 2008, and its use has been described in 2009. In our Institution, the WHO SSC was introduced in 2011. In spinal surgery, many preventive measures were investigated to reduce complications, but there is no report on the effectiveness of the WHO checklist in reducing complications. Aim. The aim of this study was to compare the incidence of complications between the two periods, from January to December 2010 (without checklist) and from January 2011 to December 2012 (with checklist), in order to assess the checklist effectiveness. Materials and Methods. A retrospective and single center study was carried out on patients who underwent spinal surgery during the three-year period from January 2010 to December 2012. Patients were classified according to the spine pathology and the different presentation of the complication. We registered the complications arising in patients treated from 2010 to 2012 during a 3 years follow up period for each patient, assessing the possible differences before and after the checklist's introduction. Results. The sample size was 917 patients, the mean age was 52.88 years. The majority of procedures were performed for oncological diseases (54.4%) and degenerative diseases (39.8%). 159 complications in total were detected (17.3%). The overall incidence of complications for trauma, infectious pathology, oncology, and degenerative disease was 22.2%, 19.2%, 18.4%, and 15.3%, respectively. No correlation was observed between the type of pathology and the complication incidence. We observed a reduction of the overall incidence of complications following the introduction of the SSC: in 2010 without checklist, the incidence of complications was 24.2%, while in 2011 and 2012, following the checklist introduction, the incidence of complications was 16.7% and 11.7%, respectively (mean 14.2%). Conclusion. Despite the limitations of the study, in particular the impossibility to carry out a randomized study, SSC seems to be an effective tool to reduce complications in spinal surgery. We propose to extend the use of checklist system also to the pre-operative and post-operative phases in order to further reduce the incidence of complications

Minimal clinically important differences (MCID) in the scores of patient-reported outcome measures allow clinicians to assess the outcome of intervention from the perspective of the patient. There has been significant variation in their absolute values in previous publications and a lack of consistency in their calculation. The purpose of this study was first, to establish whether these values, following spinal surgery, vary depending on the surgical intervention and their method of calculation and secondly, to assess whether there is any correlation between the two external anchors most frequently used to calculate the MCID. . We carried out a retrospective analysis of prospectively gathered data of adult patients who underwent elective spinal surgery between 1994 and 2009. A total of 244 patients were included. There were 125 men and 119 women with a mean age of 54 years (16 to 84); the mean follow-up was 62 months (6 to 199) The MCID was calculated using three previously published methods. Our results show that the value of the MCID varies considerably with the operation and its method of calculation. There was good correlation between the two external anchors. The global outcome tool correlated significantly better. We conclude that consensus needs to be reached on the best method of calculating the MCID. This then needs to be defined for each spinal procedure. Using a blanket value for the MCID for all spinal procedures should be avoided. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:366–71

Introduction A prospective cohort study was conducted to assess the incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in 300 patients undergoing elective spinal surgery. Although this subject has been extensively studied in patients undergoing joint replacement surgery, the true incidence of VTE related to spinal surgery remains unknown. We also sought to assess the efficacy of various forms of VTE prophylaxis, another area which has not been adequately studied. Methods Bilateral lower extremity venous duplex scans were performed pre-operatively, within one week postoperatively and at 4 to 6 weeks post-operatively. Information was collected regarding age, gender, body mass index, type and duration of surgical procedure, intra-operative blood loss and blood transfusion, pre- and post-operative mobility and other risk factors for VTE. All patients received vigorous mechanical prophylaxis with 56% of patients receiving pharmacological prophylaxis (unfractionated or low molecular weight heparin) according to surgeon preference. Results The overall incidence of post-operative deep vein thrombosis (DVT) was 3.4%. The incidence in those receiving pharmacological prophylaxis was 1.2% versus 6.3% in those who received mechanical prophylaxis alone (p< 0.05). Just under half of the post-operative DVTs (1.4%) occurred after hospital discharge with none of these patients receiving heparin. There were two cases of pulmonary embolism (0.7%), both occurring during hospitalization, and there were no deaths. There was no difference in blood loss or transfusion rates between patients receiving or not receiving pharmacological prophylaxis and there were no serious complications related to blood loss. There was a surprisingly high incidence of abnormalities detected on pre-operative scanning, with DVT occurring in 3.0% and superficial thrombophlebitis in 24.8%. Discussion The incidence of DVT in patients after spinal surgery was 3.4% and was significantly lower (1.2 %) in patients who received pharmacological prophylaxis. Given that the rates of bleeding-related complications were not different between the two groups, we conclude that it is both efficacious and safe to use pharmacological prophylaxis in combination with mechanical prophylaxis routinely in patients undergoing spinal surgery. A 27.8% incidence of pre-operative venous abnormalities may reflect pre-operative immobility due to pain in this group of patients, and justifies the use of ultrasound scanning as an important pre-operative screening tool. In addition, the high incidence of late-onset DVT justifies the need for follow-up scanning several weeks after discharge. This study is the amongst the largest of its type to date, however a larger, randomized and controlled trial is now necessary to confirm these results and allow the formulation of unambiguous guidelines for spinal surgery and VTE prophylaxis

Introduction. Guidelines from the North American Spine Society (2009 and 2013) are the best evidence-based instructions on venous thromboembolism (VTE) and antibiotic prophylaxis in spinal surgery. NICE guidelines exist for VTE prophylaxis but do not specifically address spinal surgery. In addition, the ruling of the UK Supreme Court in 2015 resulted in new guidance on consent being published by the Royal College of Surgeons of England (RCSEng). This study assesses our compliance in antibiotic, VTE prophylaxis and consent in spinal surgery against both US and UK standards. Methods. Retrospective review of spinal operations performed between August and December 2016. Case notes, consent forms and operation notes were analysed for consent, peri-operative antibiotic prescribing and post-operative VTE instructions. Results. Four Spinal surgeons performed 45 operations during this period. 31 patients (69%) received a copy of the signed consent with this process being formally documented in 22 (71%) of those cases. All patients were consented by a competent surgeon. 82% of cases consented prior to the date of procedure were countersigned on the day of operation. There was a mean time of 25.3 days between initial consent and operation (Range: 0–170). 37 (82%) cases had clear instructions for VTE and antibiotic prophylaxis. All prescribed post-operative antibiotics were administered. Discussion. The North American Guidelines state that prophylactic antibiotic is appropriate in all spinal surgery with prolonged cases requiring intraoperative re-dosing and only complex cases needing a postoperative regimen. Eight patients underwent a complex procedure and 7 appropriately received postoperative antibiotics. Of the 29 patients that underwent a simple procedure, 12 did not receive post-operative regimen, in line with the guidelines. However, the remainder 17 were over treated. The US Guidelines recommend mechanical VTE prophylaxis only in elective spinal surgery except in high risk patients. All our patients received VTE mechanical prophylaxis. RCSEng guidelines require consent being taken prior to procedure by a competent surgeon and confirmed on day of procedure. All patients in our cohort were consented prior to the date of operation allowing time for considering options and independent research. 82% of patients had consent confirmed on day of operation. Conclusion. This study demonstrates that we met guideline advice for all patients with regards VTE prophylaxis. We have a tendency to over treat with post-operative antibiotics and not all patients had their consent confirmed on day of procedure but was consented well before day of operation. North America still lead the way with guidelines on spinal surgery to which we should adhere, with NICE guidelines providing limited instructions. New consenting guidelines from RCSEng may not be currently widely known and thus should be a source of education for all surgeons