Surface replacement arthroplasty (SRA) has been proposed as a viable option for the treatment of osteoarthritis in young, active patients. Positive results of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) in select patient groups have been described in international series and registry data. We report 5–10 year U.S. follow-up for the BHR at our high volume institution.

314 patients (361 hips) between 2006–2011 underwent BHR at our institution and agreed to participate in research. Demographic features, modified Harris Hip Score, UCLA Activity Score, and satisfaction were recorded for patients with minimum 5-year follow-up (90%). Radiographs were evaluated for implant position and “at risk” signs. Complications, reoperations, and revisions were investigated.

Mean modified Harris Hip and UCLA scores significantly improved postoperatively to scores of 89.96 and 7.90 (p < 0.001), respectively. Kaplan-Meier estimated survival for all-cause revision was 96.7% [95% CI 94.7 – 98.7%] at 5 years and 91.5% [95% CI 85.3 – 97.6%] at 10 years. Estimated survival for aseptic revision in males less than 60 years old with a primary diagnosis of osteoarthritis was 99.5% [95% CI 98.7 – 100%] at 5 years and 98.8% [95% CI 97.0 – 100%] at 10 years. 14 patients required revision, including 5 revisions for adverse local tissue reaction.

Our study demonstrated excellent survivorship and clinical outcomes at 5–10 year follow up for the BHR. These results mirror other series and registry data published outside of the United States. Continued long-term follow-up and additional studies are necessary to validate the long-term safety and outcomes of the BHR, especially in young active arthroplasty patients.

As the population ages, the prevalence of degenerative spinal conditions is estimated to increase. With soaring healthcare costs, we must be vigilant in our accountability for proper resource allocation to ensure universal access. Significant recent increases in lumbar fusion rates have been observed in the US. Less is known regarding the Canadian experience. Our objective was to evaluate recent trends in lumbar fusion and determine how surgeon factors influence reoperation for spinal stenosis (SS) surgery.

Longitudinal follow-up study of lumbar surgical procedures for SS using administrative databases. Data was gathered on patient-hospital encounters from April 1, 1995 to December 31, 2001. We analyzed trends in spinal fusion. Index procedures (decompressions or fusions) and surgeon variables, such as specialty (orthopaedics, neurosurgery) and volume (above or below thirty cases/year), were selected as predictors of patient reoperation for SS. Adjustments were made for age, gender, and comorbidity. Reoperation rates were evaluated at six weeks, one and two years and until maximal follow-up.

6128 patients were identified (4200 decompressions and 1928 fusions). Proportionally more fusions were performed over the study period when compared to decompressions (1:2.6 in 1995 versus 1:1.5 in 2001). Orthopaedic specialty and higher surgical volume were associated with increased proportion of fusions (p< 0.0001). Reoperation rate was higher for decompressions at two years (OR 1.4) but not at long-term follow-up to ten years. Surgeon specialty had no impact on reoperation rates. Lower surgical volume demonstrated a higher reoperation rate after adjusting for specialty (Hazard Ratio 1.28).

Rates of lumbar spinal fusion have been increasing in Ontario, but at a lesser rate compared with the US. There is wide variation in surgical procedures between surgeon specialty and volume. Surgeon specialty had little impact on reoperation rates. Better long-term survival was observed in spinal surgeons with volumes over thirty cases per year after adjusting for surgeon specialty. Due to increasing rates of spinal fusion, the benefit of improved long-term survival in SS surgery with higher volume surgeons requires more detailed analysis before policy recommendations can be made.

To evaluate the effect of wait time to surgery on patient derived generic and disease-specific functional outcome following lumbar surgery.

Study cohort of seventy patients undergoing elective posterior lumbar spinal surgery for degenerative conditions. Prospectively collected SF-36 and Oswestry Disability questionnaires administered preoperatively, six weeks, six months, one year postoperatively. Time intervals from onset of symptoms to initial consultation by family physician through investigations, spinal surgical consultation and time spent on the surgical waiting list to surgery quantified. Time intervals compared to patient-specific improvements in reported outcome following surgery using Cox-Regression analysis. The effect of patient and surgical parameters on wait time was evaluated using median time as a reference for patients with either a longer or shorter wait.

Patient follow-up completed in fifty-three (76%). Improvements in patient derived outcome were observed comparing post-operative to pre-operative baseline scores (p< 0.05). The greatest improvements were observed in aspects relating to physical function and pain. A longer wait to surgery was associated with less improvement in surgical outcome (p< 0.05, SF-36 domains BP, GH, RP, VT, and Physical Component Scores). The greatest impact observed was a prolonged surgical wait-list time on SF-36 PCS scores following surgery (Hazard’s ratio 3.53). Patients requiring spinal fusion had a longer wait when compared to those not requiring fusion (p< 0.05).

A longer wait time to spinal surgery can negatively influence surgical results as quantified by patient derived functional outcome measures. Surgery resulted in the greatest improvement in pain severity and physical aspects of function, however, these areas also appeared the most impacted by a longer wait to surgery.

There is increasing knowledge regarding the functional outcome of patients following posterior lumbar spinal surgery for degenerative conditions of the spine. There is less known regarding the expectations patients have for spinal surgery and how that may relate to commonly reported surgical outcome measures. It was the purpose of this study to evaluate the results of elective lumbar spinal surgery as it relates to patient expectations for outcome. and outcome as quantified by both physician reported outcome and patient derived generic and disease-specific measures.

Patient expectations for surgery were evaluated in one hundred and fifty-five consecutive patients undergoing posterior lumbar surgery for degenerative conditions (single institution, two surgeons).

SF-36+Oswestry disability was quantified preoperatively, and serially postoperatively. Preoperative expectations (pain relief, sleep, recreational, ADL, work return) were documented and postoperative expectations quantified at time of anticipated maximal medical improvement (6mos decompressions,1yr with fusions). Mean preoperative SF-36 MCS and PCS scores were 3.4 and 1.2 S.D. below age/gender matched Canadian norms. Although patients reported improvements in SF-36+Oswestry scores following surgery, mean SF-36 MCS and PCS scores were still 2 and 1.5 S.D. below norms. Mean Oswestry disability improved from 48.7%±1.7% to 23.1±1.9%.

Expectations for surgery were met in 81%(responders:143/155). Of 19%(27/143) where expectations were not met, 6/27 have either nonunion, technical, or medical factors. There was no difference in mean age, gender, comorbidity, procedure type and follow-up comparing patients where expectations were met to those that were not. Patients where expectations were not met reported lower preoperative SF-36 (GH and VT) domain scores (p=0.02 and 0.04, respectively), however, preoperative Oswestry, SF-36 MCS and PCS scores were not significantly different. Patients were less satisfied if they had prior lumbar surgery (p=0.02) or involved in WCB/litigation (p< 0.001).

We note 15%(21/143) where expectations were not met and there were no apparent surgical or medical confounds to account. There are likely other factors that may influence patient perception and expectation for treatment which requires further study.

A retrospective review, comparing outcome following circumferential versus anterior decompression and fusion for patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM).

To assess the safety and efficacy of the circumferential operation for CSM.

Cervical spondylotic myelopathy has traditionally been managed by anterior or posterior decompression with/ without fusion. However, there is a considerable variation in neurological recovery and clinical outcome following these procedures. While circumferential decompression and fusion has been shown to provide superior neurological outcome in selected patients with cervical trauma and tumours, its role in the management of CSM has yet to be clearly defined.

Fifteen patients who underwent a 360° operation (Groupl) for CSM were matched (age, number of levels operated and follow-up duration) with patients (Group 2, n=15), that underwent anterior decompression and fusion for the same problem. All patients were operated by a single surgeon and reviewed independently. Charts, radiographs, patient interviews and MODEMS Cervical Spine Outcome questionnaires were the basis for assessment.

The operative time, blood loss, in-hospital stay and post-operative complications were higher in group l. The pseudoarthrosis rate was comparable though a trend towards increased graft and hardware problems was noted in group 2. Neurological improvement as measured by the mJOA Myelopathy Scale was significantly better (p = 0. 039) in group 1. 87% of those in group1 and 67% in group 2 showed improved function. Patients in group1 also performed better (p=0. 056) in the neurological domain and treatment expectation scales of the cervical spine questionnaire, though the incidence of post-op, neck pain was higher.

Single stage circumferential spinal decompression and fusion permits consistent neurological recovery in selected patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy and it can be performed with limited morbidity.