header advert
Results 1 - 2 of 2
Results per page:
Applied filters
Spine

Include Proceedings
Dates
Year From

Year To
Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 94-B, Issue SUPP_X | Pages 37 - 37
1 Apr 2012
Leung Y Sell P
Full Access

To prospectively determine the relationship between the two most commonly used generic spinal outcome measures, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the Low Back Outcome Score (LBOS).

Outcome measures inform audit and research. Few spine surgical specific outcome measures are in general use. Generic measures are used for a variety of spinal disorders it is not known which is best or exactly how they relate for different conditions. Pre-operatively and two years post surgical results were available in 240 patients. There were 125 males, 115 females. Sub groups numbering 82 discetomy, 78 decompression, 26 revision and 19 fusions were analysed.

Average age 55 years (range 23-88). The pre op average ODI was 55% and the LBOS was 29. Correlation was -0.73. The overall post operative score at 2 years was 34% ODI and 37 LBOS, the correlation was better at -0.87.

The correlation between the two scores post operatively was very good for Discectomy surgery (-0.916) and fusion surgery (-0.907) but not so close pre operatively with Discectomy (-0.786) and fusion correlation poor at (-0.302). Revision surgery and decompression surgery had similar good correlation post operatively. The correlation of both outcome measures to the Modified Zung depression index was poor.

The poor pre operative correlation suggests that thresholds for surgery cannot be compared within registries using different measures. The post operative scores and change in scores correlate better. This is important in comparative studies using different outcomes scores within the same spine registry.

No conflict of Interest. Registered database and audit of service standard


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 94-B, Issue SUPP_X | Pages 4 - 4
1 Apr 2012
Chinwalla F Grevitt M Leung Y
Full Access

Determine the detection rate of modern spinal implants using the current technology.

There is a paucity of data regarding detection rates of modern spinal implants using modern walk-through pulsed archway metal detectors (AMDs). No published reports compare detection capability with hand-held metal detectors (HHMDs).

ex-vivo & in-vivo comparison of detection rates using AMD & HHMD (set to maximum DoT sensitivities), in patients of varying Body Mass Index (BMI), implants, implant mass/density and alloys.

40 patients with: lumbar disc replacement (CoCr) (n=8), cervical disc replacement (CoCr) (1), posterior deformity instrumentation (17), anterior deformity instrumentation (2), anterior reconstruction (2), PLIF (6), interspinous distraction device (1), anterior cervical plate (2) ALIF (1), All implants were titanium unless indicated. Mean metal mass was 98g (range 6g-222g).

The AMD did not detect any instrumentation individually or in combination up to a titanium mass totalling 215g. The HHMD detected all instrumentation at a distance of 5cm; with the minimum mass being 2g

No implants were detected in patients by the AMD. The HHMD did not detect any anterior lumbar or thoracic surgical implants. It detected anterior cervical implants. The HHMD detected all posterior surgical implants. There was no significant relationship between detection, BMI, total metal mass, and metal density/segment.

AMD detectors do not detect modern spinal implants. HHMD detect all modern posterior spinal implants; this has implications for patient documentation.