Background

Wallis implant was developed in 1986 to stiffen unstable operated degenerate lumbar segments while preserving some intervertebral mobility. The long-term results of first-generation Wallis implant from developers were promising. However, documentation pertaining to safety and efficacy of second generation Wallis implant is sparse in literature.

Background: Non-rigid fixation clearly appears to be a useful technique in the management of degenerative intervertebral lumbar disc disease. A mobile, dynamic stabilization restricting segmental motion is possible to be advantageous in various indications, allowing greater physiological function and reducing the inherent disadvantages of rigid instrumentation and fusion.

Aim: This study is a prospective analysis of the early results of second generation Wallis implant for degenerative disc disease.

Methods and Materials: Twenty-five patients with leg and back pain that was not responsive to conservative treatment underwent discectomy and implantation of second generation device. There were 22 one-level and 3 two-level cases. The preoperative radiological work-up included conventional X-rays, computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). All patients underwent neurological examination, assessment of pain on a visual analog scale, and a functional evaluation using the Revised Oswestry disability index before surgery, 3 months after surgery and at follow- up.

Results: A total of 25 patients (13 men, 12 women) with a mean age of 51.9 years (range, 34 to 69 years) were evaluated with a mean follow-up of 1.4 year after the intervention. Mean pain and function scores improved significantly from baseline to follow up as follows: – back pain scale from 7.2 to 2.9, leg pain scale from 6.8 to 2.5 and Oswestry Disability Index from 59.1% to 22.6%. No cases of infection or worsening of neurological deficit occurred. One patient had revision surgery for persistent pain as a result of granulation tissue underneath the implant. No mechanical failure of the implants or loosening was observed and the process retained motion.

Conclusion: Clinical results are satisfactory and compare well with those obtained by conventional procedures in addition to which mobile stabilisation are less invasive then fusion. Wallis neutralisation proves to be a safe and effective in the treatment of unstable lumbar condition.

Aim: To determine the effectiveness of therapeutic lumbar facet joint injections in patients with chronic low back pain.

Methods: Eighty-six patients with refractory chronic low back pain were randomly assigned to receive facet joint injection using local anaesthetic and corticosteroid suspension under fluoroscopic guidance after clinical and radiological assessment. The main parameter for the success or failure of this treatment was the relief of the pain. Pain intensity was assessed with a visual analog scale (VAS) and changes in function and quality of life were assessed by the revised Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (ODQ) at baseline and during follow-up after injection.

Results: Patients reported lasting pain relief, better function, and improved quality of life following injection. Cumulative significant relief following injection was 91.9% up to 1 to 3 months, 81% for 4 to 6 months, 34% for 7 to 12 months, and 10% after 12 months, with a mean relief of 6.5 +/− 0.76 months. There was significant improvement noted in overall health status with improvement not only in pain relief, but also with physical, functional, and psychological status, as well as return-to-work status. No complications were noted following injection.

Conclusion: The results of this study demonstrate that intra-articular facet joint injection appear to have a beneficial medium-term effect in patients with chronic lower back pain and may therefore be a reasonable adjunct to non-operative treatment.

Background: Several hospitals within the NHS now run specialist teams that look after assisted discharge plans for patients following elective surgeries. Joint replacements form a significant segment of elective majors in orthopaedics. In the second half of the last year alone, the National Joint Registry estimated that there were over 100,000 joint replacements carried out within England and Wales. Such schemes are designed to: 1. Enable patients to be discharged to their home as quickly and safely as possible, to maximise recovery and rehabilitation. 2. Ensure the most effective use of acute orthopaedic beds. 3. Reduce risks of hospital acquired infection 4. Streamline inpatient care so as to positively impact upon inpatient and outpatient waiting times. There is scarce information available about the experience of NHS hospitals with such schemes.

Aims And Objectives: 1. Investigate patient expectations of and satisfaction with discharge planning on the early discharge scheme. 2. Assess areas of concern to the patient and difficulties encountered by the patient in the home environment. 3. Improve our understanding of patient requirements, functional recovery and planning of discharge. 4. Investigate whether our lengths of stay compare with others in the NHS/literature and what factors are influencing the figures. 5. Investigate overall success of the scheme.

Patient And Methods: The study identified 100 consecutive patients who have had joint replacement surgery after August 2003 and have been discharged under the scheme. A Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire was used and the patients completed different sections at discharge and then at about six. Notes were reviewed for any complications or problems.

Conclusions: The scheme to discharge patients early is highly successful and well received by staff and patients. All consultants now use the service and the initial aims have been met, saving approximately 335 bed days in the first six months. The average inpatient stay has been reduced by half in the last 18 months. 98% of patients stated that the scheme met their needs. The majority of comments were positive. Only two patients needed readmission within the first fortnight from discharge, one with a dislocated hip and the other was a knee with wound infection. There were two complaints, which were deemed serious enough for a mention.

Aims: To assess the effectiveness of intra-articular facet joint injections in controlling disability in patients with low back pain. Methods: 100 consecutive patients admitted in our day case unit for facet joint injections were included in the study. Fluoroscopically controlled intra-articular facet joint block with injection of a local anaesthetic and corticosteroid suspension was performed after clinical and radiological assessment. Disability due to back pain was assessed by determining a revised Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Index (Oswestry Score). The patients completed a questionnaire immediately prior to treatment, two weeks following injection and three months following injection. Results: Facet joint injections were performed for intervertebral disc prolapse (66%), spondylolysthesis (13%), spinal stenosis (10%), spondylosis (7%), and sacro-iliac joint pain (4%). The mean Oswestry Score prior to injection was 40.6% (95% conþdence interval 4.4), at two weeks following injection was 26.6% (95% conþdence interval 4.9) and at three months following injection was 21.5% (95% conþdence interval 4.8). 78% of the patients found the facet joint injections useful at 2 weeks following treatment and this þgure was maintained (79%) at 3 months after injection. No complications were reported following treatment. Conclusions: We have found intra-articular facet joint block for the treatment of low back pain a valid therapeutic option, acceptable by the patients and with negligible risks.

Objective: To assess the clinical effectiveness of dexamethasone wound infiltration post lumbar discectomy.

Design: A prospective, double blind, randomised study comparing morphine consumption in two groups of patients in elective lumbar spine surgery via the posterior approach.

Subjects: There were forty patients divided into two randomly selected groups, one received postoperative wound infiltration with dexamethasone, the other with saline. Their morphine usage was measured.

Outcome measures: These included levels of morphine use postoperatively, pain scores and length of hospital stay.

Results: There was no statistically significant difference between postoperative morphine consumption in the two groups or in the length of hospital stay. There appeared to be improvement in pain scores with dexamethasone. There were no complications.

Conclusion: Postoperative wound infiltration with dexamethasone may result in some subjective improvement in pain, but none in analgesic consumption. Despite the lack of complications the subjective benefits do not outweigh the risks in the absence of objective improvement in pain.

Objective: To assess the effect of the Active Spinal Rehabilitation Programme (ASRP) at four years after completion and its impact upon re-referral rates to General Practitioners and Orthopaedic Consultants.

Design: Patients included in the previous twelve-month follow-up study were sent a further explanatory letter and questionnaire including functional goal, exercise, analgesia intake, GP visit, consultant referral, employment status, revised Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Index and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS)

Subjects: The first 140 patients completing the programme between April 1997–1998 were included in this study. An overall response rate of 85% (119 out of 140) was achieved with the aid of a follow-up telephone call (to those who did not respond to the postal questionnaire)

Results: The results obtained were comparable to those at one-year follow up. There was an improved VAS in 46% of the patients at four years post ASRP compared with VAS immediately after completion. The Oswestry Score was improved (decrease in patient perceived disability) in 55% of the patients. 56% of the patients achieved their functional goal and 83% felt in control of their pain. 57% of the patients did not visit their GP in the 12 months prior to the four-year follow up and 76% did not require Consultant referral after completing ASRP.

Conclusion: This study shows that the multiple benefits of an active spinal rehabilitation programme can be maintained for a four-year period, with a significant reduction in the demands on NHS resources.