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.

Initial treatment of traumatic spinal cord injury remains as controversial in 2023 as it was in the early 19th century, when Sir Astley Cooper and Sir Charles Bell debated the merits or otherwise of surgery to relieve cord compression. There has been a lack of high-class evidence for early surgery, despite which expeditious intervention has become the surgical norm. This evidence deficit has been progressively addressed in the last decade and more modern statistical methods have been used to clarify some of the issues, which is demonstrated by the results of the SCI-POEM trial. However, there has never been a properly conducted trial of surgery versus active conservative care. As a result, it is still not known whether early surgery or active physiological management of the unstable injured spinal cord offers the better chance for recovery. Surgeons who care for patients with traumatic spinal cord injuries in the acute setting should be aware of the arguments on all sides of the debate, a summary of which this annotation presents.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(4):347–355.

Aims

Cervical radiculopathy is a significant cause of pain and morbidity. For patients with severe and poorly controlled symptoms who may not be candidates for surgical management, treatment with transforaminal epidural steroid injections (CTFESI) has gained widespread acceptance. However, a paucity of high-quality evidence supporting their use balanced against perceived high risks of the procedure potentially undermines the confidence of clinicians who use the technique. We undertook a systematic review of the available literature regarding CTFESI to assess the clinical efficacy and complication rates of the procedure.

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.

The clinical and radiological outcome of 34 patients who were treated with PDN-Solo and PDN-Solo XL devices for symptomatic degenerative lumbar discs is described.

34 patients had PDNs implanted in their lumbar spines between September 2002 and August 2004. Suitable patients, with proven discogenic back pain, who failed at least six months of conservative treatment, were fully consented prior to surgery. The approach was retroperitoneal in all cases except at L5/S1 when it was transperitoneal. The primary clinical outcome measure was the Low Back Outcome Score (LBOS). X-rays were taken at these follow-up points to assess the integrity and effectiveness of the implants.

36 operations were performed in 15 males and 19 females (including 2 early revision PDNs). All patients were between 20 and 65 years old, with a mean age of 42. 17 patients were treated with PDN alone and 17 with PDN as an adjunct to an interbody fusion.

There were 10 device related complications, two being amenable to early PDN revision and six requiring revision to fusion. Two patients remain symptom-free.

According to the LBOS, only 19 of 29 patients who have not been revised to fusion have had successful outcomes (65.5% of unrevised patients, 56% of all patients). Final follow-up x-rays show that when the PDN remains intact the disc space height is very similar to its neighbours. If the device has dissociated, the disc is narrowed.

Fifty years after lumbar disc nucleus replacement was first attempted by Fernstrom, the success rate is no higher and the reasons for revision are the same. Clearly there has to be a major improvement in this technology before it can be widely adopted. Until such a time as that improvement has occurred, we cannot recommend this device as a treatment for back pain.

Statement of purposes of the study and background: Validated outcome measures should be an essential tool in clinical practice. The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), since its publication in 1980, is now a principle measure of condition-specific outcome in spinal management. The Low Back Outcome Score (LBOS), another popular measure, emphasises objective questions and gives a broad based status for low back illness. We have analysed the use of these instruments to see if they were directly comparable.

Method: Fifty five consecutive patients attending our clinic between February and June 2005 for treatment of low back disorders completed the questionnaires. These were then scored in the conventional manner. To directly compare LBOS with ODI the LBOS score was converted to a percentage and inversed. The individual LBOS evaluations were then marked in two ways. Firstly the questions that did not appear to correlate to the ODI were removed. Secondly the weighting system was adjusted to match the ODI weighting. Statistical regression analysis was performed.

Results: Direct comparison of ODI versus an inverse of the LBOS percentage score gave a scatter of results. The R squared result was 0.117

Removing the non-core answers from the LBOS gave an R squared value of 0.130

Removing the weighting of the LBOS gave an R squared value of 0.132

Removing the non-core questions and weighting system of the LBOS gave an R squared value of 0.133

Conclusion: These two validated disease specific outcome tools provide very different results when applied to the same group of patients. This has significant implications for outcome research especially when comparing studies which do not use similar instruments.