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. Methods. A prospective observational study was conducted from eight spinal centres for the first month of operating following restoration of elective spine surgery in each individual unit. Primary outcome measure was the 30-day postoperative COVID-19 infection rate. Secondary outcomes analyzed were the 30-day mortality rate, surgical adverse events, medical complications, and length of inpatient stay. Results. In all, 257 patients (128 males) with a median age of 54 years (2 to 88) formed the study cohort. The mean number of procedures performed from each unit was 32 (16 to 101), with 118 procedures (46%) done as category three prioritization level. The majority of patients (87%) were low-medium “risk stratification” category and the mean length of hospital stay was 5.2 days. None of the patients were diagnosed with COVID-19 infection, nor was there any mortality related to COVID-19 during the 30-day follow-up period, with 25 patients (10%) having been tested for symptoms. Overall, 32 patients (12%) developed a total of 34 complications, with the majority (19/34) being grade 1 to 2 Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications. No patient required postoperative care in an intensive care setting for any unexpected complication. Conclusion. This study shows that safe and effective planned spinal surgical services can be restored avoiding viral transmission, with diligent adherence to national guidelines and COVID-19-secure pathways tailored according to the resources of the individual spinal units. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(12):1096–1101

Background and Purpose. The UK's NIHR and Australia's NHMRC have funded two randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to determine if lumbar fusion surgery (LFS) is more effective than best conservative care (BCC) for adults with persistent, severe low back pain (LBP) attributable to lumbar spine degeneration. We aimed to describe clinicians’ decision-making regarding suitability of patient cases for LFS or BCC and level of equipoise to randomise participants in the RCTs. Methods. Two online cross-sectional surveys distributed via UK and Australian professional networks to clinicians involved in LBP care, collected data on clinical discipline, practice setting and preferred care of five patient cases (ranging in age, pain duration, BMI, imaging findings, neurological signs/symptoms). Clinicians were also asked about willingness to randomise each patient case. Results. Of 174 responses (73 UK, 101 Australia), 70 were orthopaedic surgeons, 34 neurosurgeons, 65 allied health professionals (AHPs), 5 others. Most worked in public health services only (92% UK, 45% Australia), or a mix of public/private (36% Australia). Most respondents chose BCC as their first-choice management option for all five cases (81–93% UK, 83–91% Australia). For LFS, UK surgeons preferred TLIF (36.4%), whereas Australian surgeons preferred ALIF (54%). Willingness to randomise cases ranged from 37–60% (UK mean 50.7%), and 47–55% (Australian mean 51.9%); orthopaedic and neuro-surgeons were more willing than AHPs. Conclusion. Whilst BCC was preferred for all five patient cases, just over half of survey respondents in both the UK and Australia were willing to randomise cases to either LFS or BCC, indicating clinical equipoise (collective uncertainty) needed for RCT recruitment. Conflicts of interest. None. Sources of funding. No specific funding obtained for the surveys. DB, SA, AG and NEF have funding from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) UK (FORENSIC-UK NIHR134859); NEF, DB and SA have funding from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC FORENSIC-Australia GA268233). AG has funding from Orthopaedic Research UK (combined with British Association of Spine Surgeons and British Scoliosis Society) and Innovate UK. NEF is funded through an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Investigator Grant (ID: 2018182)

Introduction. The British Spinal Registry (BSR) is a web-based database commissioned by the British Association of Spine Surgeons (BASS) in the UK. It allows auditing of spinal surgery outcomes, patient's safety and overall experience. The clinical data include patient's demographics which is entered into the Registry by medical staff, as well as patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) that is submitted to the Registry by the patient themselves at different time periods post-operatively. It has the ability to register Device and Implants as well as co-ordinate multicentre research. This study is to identify both the staff and patient compliance regarding to data submissions to the BSR at St. George's Hospital NHS Trust. Methods and Materials. Retrospective analysis of the BSR data for all spinal surgeries that was performed at SGH by the three Complex Spinal Surgery Consultants between 1st January 2017 to 31st December 2018. This study period allowed up to 12 months PROM data analysis. Staff and Patient compliance were analysed separately depend on the data they submitted. Results. 404 (n) spinal surgeries were performed over this two-year period. Surgical demographics: 39.4% (159/404) males and 56.2% (227/404) females, 4.5% (18/404) declined to be added. Age ranging from 6 to 92, mean age was 47.9. Staff compliance was 89.4% for the registration of patient data. Trauma and tumour patients were excluded as they are not required to complete any pre-operative PROMs. For the remaining patients, 35.8% (116/324) completed their baseline pre-operative PROMs. A steady decrease in patient compliance for post-operative PROMS was observed: 29.8% (2 weeks), 24.9% (6 weeks), 21.2% (6 months), 17.1% (12 months), and 16.6% (24 months). Conclusions. We identified a poor patient compliance in both pre-operative and post-operative PROMS. Patient questionnaire fatigue can occur over time which results in falling compliance to PROMS in 12 months and 24 months. Moreover, patients who do not provide an email address are less likely to fill in their PROMS. Satisfactory compliance for staff regarding to BSR utilisation are shown. Staff should aim to achieve a higher level of compliance as this will help to keep a record of all spinal surgeries that are performed and any complications that are encountered in a particular centre. Over the past three years, the BSR had introduced various schemes to drive up utilisation including a Best Practice Tariff in 2019. Part of the tariff will be withheld when staff failure to enter patients onto the Registry. Further research is needed to determine why there is such fall off especially with patient compliance and to elucidate potential measures to improve their compliance

Purpose. To determine, for the first time, how back pain is portrayed in the United Kingdom press. Methods and Results. LexisNexisTM Professional search engine was utilised to retrieve articles from all national newspapers over a six months containing the terms “back pain/backpain/back ache/backache” from May to October 2009. 284 relevant articles were retrieved. Of these tabloids accounted for 62% and broadsheets for 38%. Back pain was the sole topic in 7%, a main topic in 18% and mentioned in passing in 75%. 15% were essentially case reports and the tone was neutral in 95%, positive in 2.5% and negative in 2.5%. The cause of back pain was mentioned in 11% of articles- trauma accounted for 50% and disc disease and spinal deformity for 20% each. Only 0.3% of articles discussed litigation. Articles mentioned new physiotherapy regimes in 7%, new forms of alternative therapy in 7%, new surgical techniques/technologies in 2% and new medications in 1%. They were significantly more likely to mention new non-surgical techniques- Fishers' Exact Test p=0.01. Articles were alternative therapy related in 3%, physiotherapist related in 2%, surgeon related in 1% and pain specialist related in 1%. 10% of papers included a quote from an “expert” of which 23% were Spine Surgeons, 16% GP's, 13% Sports Physicians, 13% alternative therapists, 10% pain specialists and 7% physiotherapists. Overall, 98% of articles were of a neutral tone and 1% were of a positive tone or negative tone. Articles concerning physiotherapists or new surgical techniques/technologies were significantly more likely to be of a positive overall tone than the other articles- Fishers' Exact Test p=0.04. Conclusions. Back pain receives a considerable amount of attention in the United Kingdom press. Much of this currently concentrates on isolated case reports, the aetiology of back pain is poorly represented, quoted “experts” are frequently non-medical and new surgical treatments receive significantly less attention than new non-surgical treatments. The press play an important role in educating and informing the general public. The stories they cover ad how they cover them have a powerful influence on public perceptions. We need to do more to engage with the press and positively influence their reportage

Aims

Early cases of cauda equina syndrome (CES) often present with nonspecific symptoms and signs, and it is recommended that patients undergo emergency MRI regardless of the time since presentation. This creates substantial pressure on resources, with many scans performed to rule out cauda equina rather than confirm it. We propose that compression of the cauda equina should be apparent with a limited sequence (LS) scan that takes significantly less time to perform.

We have treated 15 patients with massive lumbar disc herniations non-operatively. Repeat MR scanning after a mean 24 months (5 to 56) showed a dramatic resolution of the herniation in 14 patients. No patient developed a cauda equina syndrome.

We suggest that this condition may be more benign than previously thought.