Aim

To investigate the role of websites in enhancing patients' understanding of reason and risk of surgery as a part of informed consent for elective un-instrumented lumbar spine surgery (EULSS).

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

Background. The majority of studies assessing minimal clinical important difference in outcome do so for management of chronic low back pain. Those that identify MCID following spinal surgical intervention fail to differentiate between the different pathologies and treatments or use variable methods and anchors in the calculation. Aim. To identify the MCID in scores across the most common spinal surgical procedures using standardised methods of calculation. Method. Prospective longitudinal study following elective lumbar spinal surgery. All patients had a complete set of spinal outcome assessments (ODI and VAS) and self perceived rating of the global and Mcnab criteria. MCID was calculated as defined by Hagg et al. Results. 244 patients of average age 53 years were followed up for 62 months post surgery. The MCID across the range of spinal surgeries was a 10 point change in ODI and 28 points for the VAS. A MCID following lumbar decompression surgery was a 3 point change in ODI and 29 points for VAS; 24 points in ODI and 37 points in the VAS for a discectomy, and 13 points in ODI and 23 point change in VAS for revision surgery. This value also varied depending on the anchor and method used for calculation. Conclusion. The MCID in score varies between different spinal procedures, method of calculation and the external anchor used. Standardised methods of calculating MCID in outcome measures should be used to allow comparative research and assessment. Generalisation of MCID in scores across a range of spinal procedures should be strongly discouraged. Conflicts of Interest. None. Source of Funding. None. This abstract has not been previously published in whole or substantial part nor has it been presented previously at a national meeting