Minimal clinically important differences (MCID) in the scores of patient-reported outcome measures allow clinicians to assess the outcome of intervention from the perspective of the patient. There has been significant variation in their absolute values in previous publications and a lack of consistency in their calculation.

The purpose of this study was first, to establish whether these values, following spinal surgery, vary depending on the surgical intervention and their method of calculation and secondly, to assess whether there is any correlation between the two external anchors most frequently used to calculate the MCID.

We carried out a retrospective analysis of prospectively gathered data of adult patients who underwent elective spinal surgery between 1994 and 2009. A total of 244 patients were included. There were 125 men and 119 women with a mean age of 54 years (16 to 84); the mean follow-up was 62 months (6 to 199) The MCID was calculated using three previously published methods.

Our results show that the value of the MCID varies considerably with the operation and its method of calculation. There was good correlation between the two external anchors. The global outcome tool correlated significantly better.

We conclude that consensus needs to be reached on the best method of calculating the MCID. This then needs to be defined for each spinal procedure. Using a blanket value for the MCID for all spinal procedures should be avoided.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:366–71.

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

Rotatory subluxation of the atlantoaxial joint has been thoroughly documented in children. However, pure traumatic atlantoaxial rotatory subluxation (TAARS) is a rare injury in adults with only a few cases reported in the English literature.

Background

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

The use of interspinous distraction devices should remain the subject of audit and research. They are a relatively new addition to the armamentarium of surgical treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. The reported results are variable and there are a number of different devices available. It is recognised that there is an early failure rate with interspinous distraction devices. This is a report of the clinical results after conversion to segmental lumbar decompression following a failure of interspinous distraction procedure.

18 patients had removal of device and conversion to a standard lumbar decompression at an average of 13 months after the index procedure. There were 7 females and 11 males. The average age was 68 years (range 49-85). The two youngest patients had a decompression and instrumented fusion, the others had decompression alone. Prior to the Index procedure of stand alone interspinous distraction device the average Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) was 42 and Visual Analogue Score (VAS) leg 7.2. Prior to revision the average ODI was 42 and VAS leg 6.7.

Complications: One intra operative myocardial infarction, one incidental durotomy and one post operative infection (pseudomonas isolated).

At a mean of 9 months follow up the average ODI was 23 and VAS leg 2.1. The VAS back was 1.9. The walking distance was subjectively reported as 246 yards pre op and 1100 yards post procedure. There was a clinically significant improvement in all patients.

A failed interspinous distraction device can be satisfactorily salvaged with a segmental lumbar decompression.

The use of nerve root blocks is common in the management of radicular pain due to lumbar disc prolapse. However, most papers reporting their use do not necessarily specify the position or level at which the needle is positioned with respect to the level of pathology. We therefore set out to investigate this. We performed a survey of medical practitioners across the UK with an interest or involvement in the management of radicular pain secondary to lumbar disc prolapse The survey depicted the clinical scenario of a patient with radicular pain from an L4/5 disc prolapse and a number of questions were asked in relation to the use of nerve root blocks.

Questionnaires were sent to 319 practitioners. We received 153 responses of which, 120 (37.6%) were sufficiently complete to be analysed. Of those who responded, 83% used a combination of local anaesthetic and steroids together with or without contrast. There were variations across the respondents in terms of the level injected with 22.5% injecting at the level of the L4/5 foramen, while 45% injected at the level of the L5/1 foramen. Differences were also noted when respondents were subgrouped according to their speciality. Of those who worked in pain management, 34.1% injected at the L4/5 foramen while 31.8% injected at the L5/1 foramen. For spine surgeons the respective figures were 20.5% and 43.2% and for radiologists 9.4% and 65.6%.

In the treatment of radicular leg pain, there are apparent variations in the use and positioning of root blocks for a given level of disc pathology. This suggests that caution is necessary when considering the validity of published studies on the use of root blocks relative to an individual clinician's practice.