Aims. Patients with cauda equina syndrome (CES) require emergency imaging and surgical decompression. The severity and type of symptoms may influence the timing of imaging and surgery, and help predict the patient’s prognosis. Categories of CES attempt to group patients for management and prognostication purposes. We aimed in this study to assess the inter-rater reliability of dividing patients with CES into categories to assess whether they can be reliably applied in clinical practice and in research. Methods. A literature review was undertaken to identify published descriptions of categories of CES. A total of 100 real anonymized clinical vignettes of patients diagnosed with CES from the Understanding Cauda Equina Syndrome (UCES) study were reviewed by consultant spinal surgeons, neurosurgical registrars, and medical students. All were provided with published category definitions and asked to decide whether each patient had ‘suspected CES’; ‘early CES’; ‘incomplete CES’; or ‘CES with urinary retention’. Inter-rater agreement was assessed for all categories, for all raters, and for each group of raters using Fleiss’s kappa. Results. Each of the 100 participants were rated by four medical students, five neurosurgical registrars, and four consultant spinal surgeons. No groups achieved reasonable inter-rater agreement for any of the categories. CES with retention versus all other categories had the highest inter-rater agreement (kappa 0.34 (95% confidence interval 0.27 to 0.31); minimal agreement). There was no improvement in inter-rater agreement with clinical experience. Across all categories, registrars agreed with each other most often (kappa 0.41), followed by medical students (kappa 0.39). Consultant spinal surgeons had the lowest inter-rater agreement (kappa 0.17). Conclusion. Inter-rater agreement for categorizing CES is low among clinicians who regularly manage these patients. CES categories should be used with caution in clinical practice and research studies, as groups may be heterogenous and not comparable. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(9):1007–1012

Introduction and aims. Low back pain is a common complaint, affecting up to one third of the adult population costing over £1 billion to the NHS each year and £3.5 billion to the UK economy in lost production. The demand for spinal injections is increasing allowing for advanced spinal physiotherapists to perform the procedure. The objective of this study was to investigate outcome following spinal injections performed by consultant spinal surgeon (n=40) and advanced spinal physiotherapists (ASP) (n=40) at our centre. Method and Materials. Data on 80 patients who had received caudal epidural (n=36), nerve root block (n=28) and facet joint injections (n=16) form August 2010 to October 2011 consented to be in the study. 40 patients in each group completed Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Visual Analogue Scores (VAS) before and 6 weeks after the procedure and patient satisfaction questionnaire investigating their experience and any complications related to the spinal injection retrospectively. The study included 32 males and 48 females. Mean age 57 years, range 21–88. [Consultant group M:17, F:23 mean age: 55, range 21–81. ASP group M:15, F:25 mean age 59, range 22–88]. Measures of patient satisfaction and outcome were obtained; using 2 tailed independent samples t-test with 95% confidence interval, statistical significance was investigated. Results. Data analysis shows that there are no significant differences (p>0.05) in either overall patient satisfaction or outcomes between patients of the surgeon vs physiotherapists. Patients of the surgeon were found to be more satisfied with the procedure itself (p< 0.05). Conclusion. Physiotherapists are able to provide spinal injections with equal efficacy to spinal surgeons, with no reduction in overall patient outcome. Benefits of this scheme include greater number of spinal injections performed. Therefore, reducing the overall waiting times. Further, multi-centre studies on larger populations are required to investigate injection treatment by physiotherapists

Introduction: We believe the information given by a new 2D/3D low dose radiation system is useful to the spinal surgeon. Method: This commercially developed system was evaluated over the past three years. We evaluated 150 patients, with normal controls, using two prototypes. We compared it with a CT scan for accuracy in 2D and 3D reconstruction and for radiation doses. Results: We found various advantages of this system over CT scanning:. Reductions in radiation exposure of x8 to x10 fold in 2D, and x800 to x1000 in 3D. It gives data from standing imaging compared with supine in a CT scanner. It allows imaging of the skeleton from head to foot, which in CT imaging demands excessive radiation. It allows surface reconstruction from head to foot. It can be used with a force plate to indicate gravity forces. It, uniquely, can give a view of the skeleton from the top. It can measure thoracic cage volume. It can assess the effects of bracing. When combined with other non-invasive methods of measurement, can help to define operative procedures. Overall it provides a new approach to assessing spinal deformity both in the horizontal plane and in volumetric measurement. Conclusion: his innovative method is clearly a help for both patients and surgeons

The diagnostic sub-categorization of cauda equina syndrome (CES) is used to aid communication between doctors and other healthcare professionals. It is also used to determine the need for, and urgency of, MRI and surgery in these patients. A recent paper by Hoeritzauer et al (2023) in this journal examined the interobserver reliability of the widely accepted subcategories in 100 patients with cauda equina syndrome. They found that there is no useful interobserver agreement for the subcategories, even for experienced spinal surgeons. This observation is supported by the largest prospective study of the treatment of cauda equina syndrome in the UK by Woodfield et al (2023). If the accepted subcategories are unreliable, they cannot be used in the way that they are currently, and they should be revised or abandoned. This paper presents a reassessment of the diagnostic and prognostic subcategories of cauda equina syndrome in the light of this evidence, with a suggested cure based on a more inclusive synthesis of symptoms, signs, bladder ultrasound scan results, and pre-intervention urinary catheterization. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(3):227–231

Aims

The aim of this study was a quantitative analysis of a surgeon’s learning curve for scoliosis surgery and the relationship between the surgeon’s experience and post-operative outcomes, which has not been previously well described.

Aims. To identify the incidence and risk factors for five-year same-site recurrent disc herniation (sRDH) after primary single-level lumbar discectomy. Secondary outcome was the incidence and risk factors for five-year sRDH reoperation. Methods. A retrospective study was conducted using prospectively collected data and patient-reported outcome measures, including the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), between 2008 and 2019. Postoperative sRDH was identified from clinical notes and the centre’s MRI database, with all imaging providers in the region checked for missing events. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate five-year sRDH incidence. Cox proportional hazards model was used to identify independent variables predictive of sRDH, with any variable not significant at the p < 0.1 level removed. Hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results. Complete baseline data capture was available for 733 of 754 (97.2%) consecutive patients. Median follow-up time for censored patients was 2.2 years (interquartile range (IQR) 1.0 to 5.0). sRDH occurred in 63 patients at a median 0.8 years (IQR 0.5 to 1.7) after surgery. The five-year Kaplan-Meier estimate for sRDH was 12.1% (95% CI 9.5 to 15.4), sRDH reoperation was 7.5% (95% CI 5.5 to 10.2), and any-procedure reoperation was 14.1% (95% CI 11.1 to 17.5). Current smoker (HR 2.12 (95% CI 1.26 to 3.56)) and higher preoperative ODI (HR 1.02 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.03)) were independent risk factors associated with sRDH. Current smoker (HR 2.15 (95% CI 1.12 to 4.09)) was an independent risk factor for sRDH reoperation. Conclusion. This is one of the largest series to date which has identified current smoker and higher preoperative disability as independent risk factors for sRDH. Current smoker was an independent risk factor for sRDH reoperation. These findings are important for spinal surgeons and rehabilitation specialists in risk assessment, consenting patients, and perioperative management. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(3):315–322

Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2023;12(6):372–374.

The June 2024 Spine Roundup. 360. looks at: Intraoperative navigation increases the projected lifetime cancer risk in patients undergoing surgery for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis; Intrawound vancomycin powder reduces delayed deep surgical site infections following posterior spinal fusion for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis; Characterizing negative online reviews of spine surgeons; Proximal junctional failure after surgical instrumentation in adult spinal deformity: biomechanical assessment of proximal instrumentation stiffness; Nutritional supplementation and wound healing: a randomized controlled trial

Aims. People with severe, persistent low back pain (LBP) may be offered lumbar spine fusion surgery if they have had insufficient benefit from recommended non-surgical treatments. However, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) 2016 guidelines recommended not offering spinal fusion surgery for adults with LBP, except as part of a randomized clinical trial. This survey aims to describe UK clinicians’ views about the suitability of patients for such a future trial, along with their views regarding equipoise for randomizing patients in a future clinical trial comparing lumbar spine fusion surgery to best conservative care (BCC; the FORENSIC-UK trial). Methods. An online cross-sectional survey was piloted by the multidisciplinary research team, then shared with clinical professional groups in the UK who are involved in the management of adults with severe, persistent LBP. The survey had seven sections that covered the demographic details of the clinician, five hypothetical case vignettes of patients with varying presentations, a series of questions regarding the preferred management, and whether or not each clinician would be willing to recruit the example patients into future clinical trials. Results. There were 72 respondents, with a response rate of 9.0%. They comprised 39 orthopaedic spine surgeons, 17 neurosurgeons, one pain specialist, and 15 allied health professionals. Most respondents (n = 61,84.7%) chose conservative care as their first-choice management option for all five case vignettes. Over 50% of respondents reported willingness to randomize three of the five cases to either surgery or BCC, indicating a willingness to participate in the future randomized trial. From the respondents, transforaminal interbody fusion was the preferred approach for spinal fusion (n = 19, 36.4%), and the preferred method of BCC was a combined programme of physical and psychological therapy (n = 35, 48.5%). Conclusion. This survey demonstrates that there is uncertainty about the role of lumbar spine fusion surgery and BCC for a range of example patients with severe, persistent LBP in the UK. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(7):612–620

Pseudoarthrosis after spinal fusion is an important complication leading to revision spine surgeries. Iliac Crest Bone Graft is considered the gold standard, but with limited availability and associated co-morbidities, spine surgeons often utilize alternative bone grafts. Determine the non-inferiority of a novel submicron-sized needle-shaped surface biphasic calcium phosphate (BCP<µm) as compared to autograft in instrumented posterolateral spinal fusion. Adult patients indicated for instrumented posterolateral spinal fusion of one to six levels from T10-S2 were enrolled at five participating centers. After instrumentation and preparation of the bone bed, the randomized allocation side of the graft type was disclosed. One side was grafted with 10cc of autograft per level containing a minimum of 50% iliac crest bone. The other side was grafted with 10cc of BCP<µm granules standalone (without autograft or bone marrow aspirate). In total, 71 levels were treated. Prospective follow-up included adverse events, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and a fine-cut Computerized Tomography (CT) at one year. Fusion was systematically scored as fused or not fused per level per side by two spine surgeons blinded for the procedure. The first fifty patients enrolled are included in this analysis (mean age: 57 years; 60% female and 40% male). The diagnoses included deformity (56%), structural instability (28%), and instability from decompression (20%). The fusion rate determined by CT for BCP<μm was 76.1%, which compared favorably to the autograft fusion rate of 43.7%. Statistical analysis through binomial modeling showed that the odds of fusion of BCP<μm was 2.54 times higher than that of autograft. 14% of patients experienced a procedure or possible device-related severe adverse event and there were four reoperations. Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score decreased from a mean of 46.0 (±15.0) to a mean of 31.7 (±16.9), and 52.4% of patients improved with at least 15-point decrease. This data, aiming to determine non-inferiority of standalone BCP<μm as compared to autograft for posterior spinal fusions, is promising. Ongoing studies to increase the power of the statistics with more patients are forthcoming

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

INTRODUCTION. The correct placement of pedicle screws is a major part of spine fusion and it requires experienced trained spinal surgeons. In the era of European Working Time Directive (EWTD), surgical trainees have less opportunity to acquire skills. Josh Kauffman (Author of The First 20 Hours) examined the K. Anders-Ericsson study that 10,000 hours is required to be an expert. He suggests you can be good at anything in 20 hours following 5 methods. This study was done to show the use of accelerated learning in trainees to achieve competency and confidence on the insertion of pedicle screws. METHODS. Data was collected using 3 experienced spine surgeons, 8 trainees and 1 novice (control) on the cadaveric insertion of pedicle screws over a 4 day didactic lecture in the cadaver lab. Each candidate had 2 cadavers and 156 screw placements over 4 hour shifts. Data was collected for time of pedicle screw insertion for each level on the left and right side. A pre-course and post-course questionnaire (Likert scale) was conducted. RESULTS. There were 8 candidates (surgeons) involved. 1 spinal SpR, 6 spine fellows and 1 junior consultant. A physiotherapist was the control novice. The surgeons and the control got significantly faster over time. The control made significantly more errors than the surgeons. Surgeons were significantly faster by the end (p value < 0.05). The control got faster over time and by the end, was no longer significantly slower than the surgeon when they first started. CONCLUSION. Pedicle screw insertion can cause significant morbidity, which includes paralysis. As a trainee, this is not an easy skill to acquire or practice. This focused pedicle screw course shows that a junior spinal surgeon can achieve improved competency and confidence in 20 hours but furthermore a complete novice can learn to insert pedicle screws and reach a level of competence almost at the level of the trainee in 20 hours as well

Continuous technical improvement in spinal surgical procedures, with the aim of enhancing patient outcomes, can be assisted by the deployment of advanced technologies including navigation, intraoperative CT imaging, and surgical robots. The latest generation of robotic surgical systems allows the simultaneous application of a range of digital features that provide the surgeon with an improved view of the surgical field, often through a narrow portal. There is emerging evidence that procedure-related complications and intraoperative blood loss can be reduced if the new technologies are used by appropriately trained surgeons. Acceptance of the role of surgical robots has increased in recent years among a number of surgical specialities including general surgery, neurosurgery, and orthopaedic surgeons performing major joint arthroplasty. However, ethical challenges have emerged with the rollout of these innovations, such as ensuring surgeon competence in the use of surgical robotics and avoiding financial conflicts of interest. Therefore, it is essential that trainees aspiring to become spinal surgeons as well as established spinal specialists should develop the necessary skills to use robotic technology safely and effectively and understand the ethical framework within which the technology is introduced. Traditional and more recently developed platforms exist to aid skill acquisition and surgical training which are described. The aim of this narrative review is to describe the role of surgical robotics in spinal surgery, describe measures of proficiency, and present the range of training platforms that institutions can use to ensure they employ confident spine surgeons adequately prepared for the era of robotic spinal surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(5):568–572

Aims. The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of pedicle screw placement, as well as intraoperative factors, radiation exposure, and complication rates in adult patients with degenerative disorders of the thoracic and lumbar spines who have undergone robotic-navigated spinal surgery using a contemporary system. Methods. The authors reviewed the prospectively collected data on 196 adult patients who had pedicle screws implanted with robot-navigated assistance (RNA) using the Mazor X Stealth system between June 2019 and March 2022. Pedicle screws were implanted by one experienced spinal surgeon after completion of a learning period. The accuracy of pedicle screw placement was determined using intraoperative 3D fluoroscopy. Results. A total of 1,123 pedicle screws were implanted: 1,001 screws (89%) were placed robotically, 63 (6%) were converted from robotic placement to a freehand technique, and 59 (5%) were planned to be implanted freehand. Of the robotically placed screws, 942 screws (94%) were determined to be Gertzbein and Robbins grade A with median deviation of 0.8 mm (interquartile range 0.4 to 1.6). Skive events were noted with 20 pedicle screws (1.8%). No adverse clinical sequelae were noted in the 90-day follow-up. The mean fluoroscopic exposure per screw was 4.9 seconds (SD 3.8). Conclusion. RNA is highly accurate and reliable, with a low rate of abandonment once mastered. No adverse clinical sequelae occurred after implanting a large series of pedicle screws using the latest generation of RNA. Understanding of patient-specific anatomical features and the real-time intraoperative identification of risk factors for suboptimal screw placement have the potential to improve accuracy further. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(5):543–550

Aims. Patients may present with concurrent symptomatic osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip and degenerative disorders of the lumbar spine, with surgical treatment being indicated for both. Whether arthroplasty of the hip or spinal surgery should be performed first remains uncertain. Materials and Methods. Clinical scenarios were devised for a survey asking the preferred order of surgery and the rationale for this decision for five fictional patients with both OA of the hip and degenerative lumbar disorders. These were symptomatic OA of the hip and: 1) lumbar spinal stenosis with neurological claudication; 2) lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis with leg pain; 3) lumbar disc herniation with leg weakness; 4) lumbar scoliosis with back pain; and 5) thoracolumbar disc herniation with myelopathy. This survey was sent to 110 members of The Hip Society and 101 members of the Scoliosis Research Society. The choices of the surgeons were compared among scenarios and between surgical specialties using the chi-squared test. The free-text comments were analyzed using text-mining. Results. Responses were received from 51 hip surgeons (46%) and 37 spine surgeons (37%). The percentages of hip surgeons recommending ‘hip first’ differed significantly among scenarios: 59% for scenario 1; 73% for scenario 2; 47% for scenario 3; 47% for scenario 4; and 10% for scenario 5 (p < 0.001). The percentages of spine surgeons recommending ‘hip first’ were 49% for scenario 1; 70% for scenario 2; 19% for scenario 3; 78% for scenario 4; and 0% for scenario 5. There were significant differences between the groups for scenarios 3 (more hip surgeons recommended ‘hip first’; p = 0.012) and 4 (more hip surgeons recommended ‘spine first’; p = 0.006). Conclusion. In patients with coexistent OA of the hip and degenerative disorders of the spine, the question of ‘hip or spinal surgery first’ elicits relatively consistent answers in some clinical scenarios, but remains controversial in others, even for experienced surgeons. The nature of neurological symptoms can influence surgeons’ decision-making. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B(6 Supple B):37–44