Historically, patients undergoing surgery for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) have been nursed postoperatively in a critical care (CC) setting because of the challenges posed by prone positioning, extensive exposures, prolonged operating times, significant blood loss, major intraoperative fluid shifts, cardiopulmonary complications, and difficulty in postoperative pain management. The primary aim of this paper was to determine whether a scoring system, which uses Cobb angle, forced vital capacity (FVC), forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), and number of levels to be fused, is a valid method of predicting the need for postoperative critical care in AIS patients who are to undergo scoliosis correction with posterior spinal fusion (PSF). We retrospectively reviewed all AIS patients who had undergone PSF between January 2018 and January 2020 in a specialist tertiary spinal referral centre. All patients were assessed preoperatively in an anaesthetic clinic. Postoperative care was defined as ward-based (WB) or critical care (CC)Aims
Methods
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:
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:
To identify a means to reduce the duration and radiation dose coupled with fluoroscopic guided nerve root blocks (NRB). Consecutive prospective two cohort comparative study. A similar method performed during CT guided NRBs was employed to guide needle placement for transforaminal nerve root injections with the aid of static MR images and fluoroscopy. Axial MR images at the level of the target nerve root were used. An angle of inclination of 60 degrees was created from the nerve root to the skin of the back, the apex of this to represent the site of needle introduction. Triangulation on the MRI enabled the lateral entry point to be determined. The transforaminal injections were then performed with the simple expedient of a skin marker line at the appropriate lateral distance from the midline for needle entry. The radiation dose and fluoroscopic time as measured by the image intensifier were recorded. This method was performed for 20 patients and compared to the same parameters for 23 previous patients in whom the transforaminal injections were performed without such a technique.Aim
Method
To compare outcomes of revision lumbar discectomy to primary surgery in the same patient cohort. Prospective outcome data in 36 patients who underwent primary and subsequent revision surgery for lumbar disc herniation between 1995 and 2009. Outcome measures used were Visual Analogue Scores for back (VAB) and leg pain (VAL), the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Low Back Outcome Score (LBO). 5 early recurrences within 3 months were excluded.Aim
Methods
To compare spinal outcome measures between patients reviewed for medico-legal compensation claims relating to perceived injury at work to those having sustained serious structural injury in the form of unstable thoraco-lumbar fractures requiring internal fixation. Two consecutive cohorts of 23 patients with healed spinal fractures and 21 patients with a perception of work related soft tissue injury were compared. Patient demographics and a range of outcome measures including Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Low Back Outcome score (LBOS), Modified Somatic Perception (MSP) and Modified Zung Depression (MZD) indices were measured.Aim
Method
