To review blood transfusion practices during elective spinal surgery procedures Prospective clinical audit All patients who underwent elective spinal surgery between January 2009 and March 2009. Crossmatch: Transfusion ratio (C: T ratio); Transfusion index (TI) (Evaluates cost-effective crossmatch). British Haematological society standards are C:T ratio= 2.5:1 and TI>0.5 Data was collected from electronic records of blood bank, pathology system (NOTIS) and review of patient notes. A total of 194 patients underwent elective spinal surgery in our unit. (Cervical spine = 15, Thoracic spine = 3, Vertebroplasty = 10, Lumbar spine = 142, Deformity = 31, other = 8). Of these, 62 patients had 197 blood products crossmatched but only 37 units were used. C:T ratio in lumbar spine surgery was 22:1. However C: T ratio in cervical spine procedures, thoracic spine and deformity correction were 6:1, 11:0 and 4:1 respectively. TI was <0.5 in all procedures except deformity surgery (TI=1). Over- ordering of blood products is still common in spinal surgery as routine blood transfusion may not be required in most elective procedures. Therefore implementing Electronic Issue (EI) of blood products for elective spinal procedures for non deformity procedures can be a cost effective and safe practice.
Northumbria Healthcare NHS Trust, Ashington, UK To assess if a pain diary is useful in assessment and management of patients who undergo diagnostic nerve root block (NRB) for lumbar radicular pain. Prospective study 23 patients who underwent diagnostic NRB for lumbar radicular pain were given a pain diary. They recorded their response to one of four options from Day 0 to Day 14 (good relief, partial satisfactory, partial unsatisfactory, and no relief of leg pain) and could also add additional comments. A Consultant Spinal Surgeon reviewed the diary with the patient at 6-week follow up appointment to formulate a management plan. Patient response, completion of the pain diary and final clinical outcome (surgical or non surgical treatment). The response rate was 91% (21/23). The pain diary was very useful in 43% (9/21), useful in 33% (7/21) and not useful in 24% (5/21) of patients in formulating further management. There was a tendency for patients with complex problems and poor response to add descriptive notes and comments (9/ 23). Patient compliance with pain diary was good and it has been valuable in making further management decisions. We found the pain diary to be a useful and inexpensive adjunct in the assessment of patients who underwent diagnostic NRB.
