Introduction

The aim of this study was to assess patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs) opinions on the validity of using a biopsychosocial model rather than a biomedical model in alleviating patient symptoms/pain.

The outcome of surgery for recurrent lumbar disc herniation is debatable. Some studies show results that are comparable with those of primary discectomy, whereas others report worse outcomes. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcome of revision lumbar discectomy with that of primary discectomy in the same cohort of patients who had both the primary and the recurrent herniation at the same level and side.

A retrospective analysis of prospectively gathered data was undertaken in 30 patients who had undergone both primary and revision surgery for late recurrent lumbar disc herniation. The outcome measures used were visual analogue scales for lower limb (VAL) and back (VAB) pain and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI).

There was a significant improvement in the mean VAL and ODI scores (both p < 0.001) after primary discectomy. Revision surgery also resulted in improvements in the mean VAL (p < 0.001), VAB (p = 0.030) and ODI scores (p < 0.001). The changes were similar in the two groups (all p > 0.05).

Revision discectomy can give results that are as good as those seen after primary surgery.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:90–4.

Aim

To compare outcomes of revision lumbar discectomy to primary surgery in the same patient cohort.

Background

Minimally invasive surgery is an alternative therapeutic option for treating unstable spinal pathologies to reduce approach-related morbidity inherent to conventional open surgery.

Background

Fractures of the odontoid peg are one of the commonest spinal injuries in the elderly population. In this population there is a higher risk of morbidity and mortality as a result of the injury. The magnitude of this risk has not been quantified in the literature.

Background

The relationship between obesity and cauda equina syndrome (CES) has not been previously evaluated or defined.

Venous Thromboembolism (VTE) is the most common complication following major joint surgery. While attention has focused on VTE following joint arthroplasty their exists a gap in the literature examining the incidence of VTE in spinal surgery; with a shortage of epidemiological data, guidelines for optimal prophylaxis are limited.

This survey, undertaken at the 2009 BASS Annual Meeting, sought to examine prevailing trends in VTE thromboprophylaxis in spinal surgery and to compare selections made by Orthopaedic and Neurosurgeons.

We developed a questionnaire based around eight clinical scenarios. Participants were asked to supply details on their speciality (orthopaedics or neurosurgery) and level of training (grade) and to select which method(s) of thromboprophylaxis they would employ for each scenario. Thirty-nine participants provided responses to the eight scenarios; complete details, including speciality and grade of those surveyed, were complied for 27 of the 39 questionnaires completed.

LMWH was the preferred pharmacological method of thromboprophylaixs selected 31% and 72% of the time by orthopaedic and neurosurgeons respectively. For each of the eight clinical scenarios LMWH and BK TEDS were selected more frequently by neurosurgeons than orthopaedic surgeons who elected to employ early mobilisation and mechanical prophylaxis. Neurosurgeons were more likely to employ more than method of thromboprophylaxis.

Thromboprophylactic selections differed between the two groups; Neurosurgeons preferred LMWH and BK TEDS whilst Early Mobilisation and Mechanical prophylaxis were the preferred methods of thromboprophylaxis amongst orthopaedic surgeons. Based on the results of this survey neurosurgeons more closely adhered to guidelines outlined by NICE/BASS.