Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 2 of 2
Results per page:
Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 104-B, Issue SUPP_9 | Pages 14 - 14
1 Oct 2022
Williamson E Boniface G Marian I Dutton S Maredza M Petrou S Garrett A Morris A Hansen Z Ward L Nicolson P Barker K Fairbank J Fitch J Rogers D Comer C French D Mallen C Lamb S
Full Access

Purpose and background

To evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a physical and psychological group intervention (BOOST programme) compared to physiotherapy assessment and advice (best practice advice [BPA]) for older adults with neurogenic claudication (NC) which is a debilitating spinal condition.

Methods and results

A randomised controlled trial of 438 participants. The primary outcome was the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) at 12 months. Data was also collected at 6 months. Other outcomes included Swiss Spinal Stenosis Questionnaire (symptoms), ODI walking item, 6-minute walk test (6MWT) and falls. The analysis was intention-to-treat. We collected the EQ5D and health and social care use to estimate cost-effectiveness.

Participants were, on average, 74.9 years old (SD 6.0). There was no significant difference in ODI scores between groups at 12 months (adjusted mean difference (MD): −1.4 [95% Confidence Intervals (CI) −4.03,1.17]), but, at 6 months, ODI scores favoured the BOOST programme (adjusted MD: −3.7 [95% CI −6.27, −1.06]). Symptoms followed a similar pattern. The BOOST programme resulted in greater improvements in walking capacity (6MWT MD 21.7m [95% CI 5.96, 37.38]) and ODI walking item (MD −0.2 [95% CI −0.45, −0.01]) and reduced falls risk (odds ratio 0.6 [95% CI 0.40, 0.98]) compared to BPA at 12 months. Probability that the BOOST programme is cost-effective ranged from 67%–89% across cost-effectiveness thresholds.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 98-B, Issue SUPP_6 | Pages 23 - 23
1 Feb 2016
Jones M Morris A Pope A Ayer R Breen A
Full Access

Purpose and Background:

The spread of upright MRi scanning is a relatively new development in the UK. However, there is a lack of information about whether weight bearing scans confer any additional useful information for low back conditions.

Methods and Results:

Forty-five patient referrals to the upright MRI Department at the AECC for weight bearing lumbar spine scans between November 1st 2014 and June 30th 2015, and the resulting radiologists' reports were reviewed. Age, gender, clinical history, summary of findings, type of weight bearing scanning performed (sitting, standing, flexion, extension) were abstracted. All patients were scanned in a 0.5T Paramed MRopen scanner and all also received supine lumbar spine sagittal and axial scans.

The patients comprised 18 females and 27 males, mean age 52 years, (SD 15.5). Thirty had leg pain, 6 of which was bilateral. In 15, a stenotic lesion was suspected. Other reasons for referral were; possible malignancy (1), effects of degenerative change (4), spondylolisthesis (2), fracture, (1), previous surgery (3), trauma (1), sacroiliitis (1) and instability (3).

In 12/45 cases, reportable findings were more prominent, and sometimes only identifiable, on weight bearing scans, while in a further 4, the reverse was true. All but one of these involved disruption of the spinal or root canals. Eight of them also involved positional alignment.