We reported the first single surgeon series comparing outcome of microscopic and open primary single level unilateral lumbar decompression or discectomy. We aimed to determine any difference in outcomes between the two techniques. Forty-six decompressions were performed with use of an operating microscope (microscopic), and forty without (open) at two different hospitals. All procedures were performed by the senior author. Information was obtained by analysis of the patients' notes. The average age of the patients in both groups was comparable. Operating time was shorter in the microscopic group (68min, range 30-130) compared to the open group (83 mins, range 30-180). Dural tear rate was 4.3% with use of a microscope (0% symptomatic dural tear rate) and 7.5% without (2.5% symptomatic dural tear rate). Nerve damage incidence was 0% with use of a microscope and 5% (two patients) without. One of these was a neurapraxia and the patient made a full recovery. Wound infection rates, diagnosed on grounds of clinical suspicion, were 4.3% and 2.5% for microscopic and open respectively. There were no incidences of deep infection or post-operative discitis. Average inpatient stay was under 48 hours in both groups. Using the modified Macnab criteria, results using the microscope were 0% poor, 14% fair, 32% good, and 55% excellent. The results for the open group were 0% poor, 10% fair, 37% good and 53% excellent. Average follow-up was six months (1-19) for the microscope group, and seven months (2-16) for the open group. We conclude that primary single level unilateral lumbar decompressive surgery, performed without the use of a microscope, has a higher dural tear rate than the same surgery performed with the benefit of an operating microscope. Surgical time and incidence of nerve damage are also reduced by use of the microscope

The primary objective is to compare revision rates for lumbar disc replacement (LDR) and fusion at the same or adjacent levels in Ontario, Canada. The secondary objectives include acute complications during hospitalization and in 30 days, and length of hospital stay. A population-based cohort study was conducted using health administrative databases including patients undergoing LDR or single level fusion between October 2005 to March 2018. Patients receiving LDR or fusion were identified using physician claims recorded in the Ontario Health Insurance Program database. Additional details of surgical procedure were obtained from the Canadian Institute for Health Information hospital discharge abstract. Primary outcome measured was presence of revision surgery in the lumbar spine defined as operation greater than 30 days from index procedure. Secondary outcomes were immediate/ acute complications within the first 30 days of index operation. A total of 42,024 patients were included. Mean follow up in the LDR and fusion groups were 2943 and 2301 days, respectively. The rates of revision surgery at the same or adjacent levels were 4.7% in the LDR group and 11.1% in the fusion group (P=.003). Multivariate analysis identified risk factors for revision surgery as being female, hypertension, and lower surgeon volume. More patients in the fusion group had dural tears (p<.001), while the LDR group had more “other” complications (p=.037). The LDR group had a longer mean hospital stay (p=.018). In this study population, the LDR group had lower rates of revision compared to the fusion group. Caution is needed in concluding its significance due to lack of clinical variables and possible differences in indications between LDR and posterior decompression and fusion

Abstract. Background. Elderly patients with degenerative lumbar disease are increasingly undergoing posterior lumbar decompression without instrumented stabilisation. There is a paucity of studies examining clinical outcomes, morbidity & mortality associated with this procedure in this population. Methods. A retrospective analysis of aged 80–100 years who underwent posterior lumbar decompression without instrumented stabilisation at University Hospitals of Derby &Burton between 2016–2020. Results. Total 167 eligible patients, 163 octogenarians & 4 nonagenarians. Mean age was 82.78 ± 3.07 years. Mean length of hospital stay 4.79 ± 10.92 days. 76% were pain free at 3months following decompression. The average Charleston co-morbidity index (CCI) was 4.87. No association found with CCI in predicting mortality (ODD ratio 0.916, CI95%). 17patients suffered complications; dural tear (0.017%), post-op paralysis (0.017%), SSI(0.01%), and 0.001% of hospital acquired pneumonia, delirium, TIA, urinary retention, ileus, anaemia. High BMI (35+) was associated with increased incidence of complication (CI 95%, p<0.002). There was significant social drift following discharge as 147 patients went home and 4 patients to rehabilitation facility (p<0.001FE test). The mean operative time was 91.408±41.17 mins and mean anaesthetic time was 36.8±16.06 mins. Prolonged operative time was not associated with increased mortality.2year revision decompression rate was 0.011%. Conclusion. Posterior lumbar decompression without instrumented stablisation in elderly is safe & associated with low mortality with 99.5%survival at 1 year. It significantly improves PROMs & has extremely low revision rate. Incidence of post-op complication is <0.05% and 54% of patients get discharged within 72hours of surgery. Careful selection & optimising patients with high BMI would reduced perioperative morbidity and mortality

Purpose. To review the outcome of multilevel (≥4) instrumented lumbar fusion to sacrum / pelvis performed for degenerative conditions. Methods. Clinical data of 47 consecutive patients from 2002 to 2012 were reviewed retrospectively. Inclusion criteria included fusion from at least L2 to S1 / pelvis, i.e. minimum of 4 levels. Imaging was assessed for restoration of normal sagittal profile as well as subsequent fusion. EQ5D, OSD and VAS scores pre-op and at 6 months post op were analysed. Average age at surgery was 64 years (50–78). Thirteen cases were primary and 34 revisions. Indications were axial back pain either associated with sagittal imbalance (40%) or leg pain (36%) and leg pain alone in 10%. Results. The intra-operative blood loss averaged 2222 (250–7000) ml with 40% re-infusion from cell-saver. The average surgical duration was 268 minutes. Proximal extent of instrumentation was T2 (1), T3 (1), T4 (2), T8 (1), T9 (1), T10 (17), T11 (2), T12 (5), L1 (4) and L2 (13). TLIF's were done in 20 cases mostly at the base of the construct. Pedicle subtraction osteotomies were performed in 14 revision cases. Dural tears occurred in 14 cases, all revision cases except one. Wound infection occurred in 3 cases. Except for transient quadriceps weakness related to osteotomy, no neurological complications occurred. One patient deceased peri-operatively. Subsequent revision was required in 13 cases for instrumentation failure. OSD score improved by 15.3 points on average, which is clinically and statistically significant. Conclusion. Long lumbar fusions remain technically demanding with a high incidence of adverse events. This is due to the nature of revision surgery and high biomechanical demands on constructs. Surgical intervention can however be justified by the desperation of the cohort in terms of pain and poor function which can be modestly improved with this intervention. NO DISCLOSURES

The use of robots in orthopaedic surgery is an emerging field that is gaining momentum. It has the potential for significant improvements in surgical planning, accuracy of component implantation and patient safety. Advocates of robot-assisted systems describe better patient outcomes through improved pre-operative planning and enhanced execution of surgery. However, costs, limited availability, a lack of evidence regarding the efficiency and safety of such systems and an absence of long-term high-impact studies have restricted the widespread implementation of these systems. We have reviewed the literature on the efficacy, safety and current understanding of the use of robotics in orthopaedics.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015; 97-B:292–9.