Aims

Repeated lumbar spine surgery has been associated with inferior clinical outcomes. This study aimed to examine and quantify the impact of this association in a national clinical register cohort.

Aims. To identify the incidence and risk factors for five-year same-site recurrent disc herniation (sRDH) after primary single-level lumbar discectomy. Secondary outcome was the incidence and risk factors for five-year sRDH reoperation. Methods. A retrospective study was conducted using prospectively collected data and patient-reported outcome measures, including the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), between 2008 and 2019. Postoperative sRDH was identified from clinical notes and the centre’s MRI database, with all imaging providers in the region checked for missing events. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate five-year sRDH incidence. Cox proportional hazards model was used to identify independent variables predictive of sRDH, with any variable not significant at the p < 0.1 level removed. Hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results. Complete baseline data capture was available for 733 of 754 (97.2%) consecutive patients. Median follow-up time for censored patients was 2.2 years (interquartile range (IQR) 1.0 to 5.0). sRDH occurred in 63 patients at a median 0.8 years (IQR 0.5 to 1.7) after surgery. The five-year Kaplan-Meier estimate for sRDH was 12.1% (95% CI 9.5 to 15.4), sRDH reoperation was 7.5% (95% CI 5.5 to 10.2), and any-procedure reoperation was 14.1% (95% CI 11.1 to 17.5). Current smoker (HR 2.12 (95% CI 1.26 to 3.56)) and higher preoperative ODI (HR 1.02 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.03)) were independent risk factors associated with sRDH. Current smoker (HR 2.15 (95% CI 1.12 to 4.09)) was an independent risk factor for sRDH reoperation. Conclusion. This is one of the largest series to date which has identified current smoker and higher preoperative disability as independent risk factors for sRDH. Current smoker was an independent risk factor for sRDH reoperation. These findings are important for spinal surgeons and rehabilitation specialists in risk assessment, consenting patients, and perioperative management. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(3):315–322

Aims

Lumbar disc prolapse is a frequent indication for surgery. The few available long-term follow-up studies focus mainly on repeated surgery for recurrent disease. The aim of this study was to analyze all reasons for additional surgery for patients operated on for a primary lumbar disc prolapse.

In recent years, machine learning (ML) and artificial neural networks (ANNs), a particular subset of ML, have been adopted by various areas of healthcare. A number of diagnostic and prognostic algorithms have been designed and implemented across a range of orthopaedic sub-specialties to date, with many positive results. However, the methodology of many of these studies is flawed, and few compare the use of ML with the current approach in clinical practice. Spinal surgery has advanced rapidly over the past three decades, particularly in the areas of implant technology, advanced surgical techniques, biologics, and enhanced recovery protocols. It is therefore regarded an innovative field. Inevitably, spinal surgeons will wish to incorporate ML into their practice should models prove effective in diagnostic or prognostic terms. The purpose of this article is to review published studies that describe the application of neural networks to spinal surgery and which actively compare ANN models to contemporary clinical standards allowing evaluation of their efficacy, accuracy, and relatability. It also explores some of the limitations of the technology, which act to constrain the widespread adoption of neural networks for diagnostic and prognostic use in spinal care. Finally, it describes the necessary considerations should institutions wish to incorporate ANNs into their practices. In doing so, the aim of this review is to provide a practical approach for spinal surgeons to understand the relevant aspects of neural networks.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(9):1442–1448.

Aims

Open discectomy (OD) is the standard operation for lumbar disc herniation (LDH). Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD), however, has shown similar outcomes to OD and there is increasing interest in this procedure. However despite improved surgical techniques and instrumentation, reoperation and infection rates continue and are reported to be between 6% and 24% and 0.7% and 16%, respectively. The objective of this study was to compare the rate of reoperation and infection within six months of patients being treated for LDH either by OD or PELD.

Aims

There is evidence that prior lumbar fusion increases the risk of dislocation and revision after total hip arthroplasty (THA). The relationship between prior lumbar fusion and the effect of femoral head diameter on THA dislocation has not been investigated. We examined the relationship between prior lumbar fusion or discectomy and the risk of dislocation or revision after THA. We also examined the effect of femoral head component diameter on the risk of dislocation or revision.

Aims

Diagnosis of cauda equina syndrome (CES) remains difficult; clinical assessment has low accuracy in reliably predicting MRI compression of the cauda equina (CE). This prospective study tests the usefulness of ultrasound bladder scans as an adjunct for diagnosing CES.

Aims

The aim of this study was to explore risk factors for complications associated with dural tear (DT), including the types of DT, and the intra- and postoperative management of DT.

Aims

Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MITLIF) has been well validated in overweight and obese patients who are consequently subject to a higher radiation exposure. This prospective multicentre study aimed to investigate the efficacy of a novel lumbar localisation system for MITLIF in overweight patients.

The effective capture of outcome measures in the healthcare setting can be traced back to Florence Nightingale’s investigation of the in-patient mortality of soldiers wounded in the Crimean war in the 1850s.

Only relatively recently has the formalised collection of outcomes data into Registries been recognised as valuable in itself.

With the advent of surgeon league tables and a move towards value based health care, individuals are being driven to collect, store and interpret data.

Following the success of the National Joint Registry, the British Association of Spine Surgeons instituted the British Spine Registry. Since its launch in 2012, over 650 users representing the whole surgical team have registered and during this time, more than 27 000 patients have been entered onto the database.

There has been significant publicity regarding the collection of outcome measures after surgery, including patient-reported scores. Over 12 000 forms have been directly entered by patients themselves, with many more entered by the surgical teams.

Questions abound: who should have access to the data produced by the Registry and how should they use it? How should the results be reported and in what forum?

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:871–4.

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.

Spinal stenosis and disc herniation are the two most frequent causes of lumbosacral nerve root compression. This can result in muscle weakness and present with or without pain. The difficulty when managing patients with these conditions is knowing when surgery is better than non-operative treatment: the evidence is controversial. Younger patients with a lesser degree of weakness for a shorter period of time have been shown to respond better to surgical treatment than older patients with greater weakness for longer. However, they also constitute a group that fares better without surgery. The main indication for surgical treatment in the management of patients with lumbosacral nerve root compression should be pain rather than weakness.

No previous studies have examined the physical characteristics of patients with cauda equina syndrome (CES). We compared the anthropometric features of patients who developed CES after a disc prolapse with those who did not but who had symptoms that required elective surgery. We recorded the age, gender, height, weight and body mass index (BMI) of 92 consecutive patients who underwent elective lumbar discectomy and 40 consecutive patients who underwent discectomy for CES. On univariate analysis, the mean BMI of the elective discectomy cohort (26.5 kg/m. 2. (16.6 to 41.7) was very similar to that of the age-matched national mean (27.6 kg/m. 2. , p = 1.0). However, the mean BMI of the CES cohort (31.1 kg/m. 2. (21.0 to 54.9)) was significantly higher than both that of the elective group (p < 0.001) and the age-matched national mean (p < 0.001). A similar pattern was seen with the weight of the groups. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed, adjusted for age, gender, height, weight and BMI. Increasing BMI and weight were strongly associated with an increased risk of CES (odds ratio (OR) 1.17, p < 0.001; and OR 1.06, p <  0.001, respectively). However, increasing height was linked with a reduced risk of CES (OR 0.9, p < 0.01). The odds of developing CES were 3.7 times higher (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.2 to 7.8, p = 0.016) in the overweight and obese (as defined by the World Health Organization: BMI ≥ 25 kg/m. 2. ) than in those of ideal weight. Those with very large discs (obstructing > 75% of the spinal canal) had a larger BMI than those with small discs (obstructing < 25% of the canal; p < 0.01). We therefore conclude that increasing BMI is associated with CES

Wrong-level surgery is a unique pitfall in spinal surgery and is part of the wider field of wrong-site surgery. Wrong-site surgery affects both patients and surgeons and has received much media attention. We performed this systematic review to determine the incidence and prevalence of wrong-level procedures in spinal surgery and to identify effective prevention strategies. We retrieved 12 studies reporting the incidence or prevalence of wrong-site surgery and that provided information about prevention strategies. Of these, ten studies were performed on patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery and two on patients undergoing lumbar, thoracic or cervical spine procedures. A higher frequency of wrong-level surgery in lumbar procedures than in cervical procedures was found. Only one study assessed preventative strategies for wrong-site surgery, demonstrating that current site-verification protocols did not prevent about one-third of the cases. The current literature does not provide a definitive estimate of the occurrence of wrong-site spinal surgery, and there is no published evidence to support the effectiveness of site-verification protocols. Further prevention strategies need to be developed to reduce the risk of wrong-site surgery.

Recurrence of back or leg pain after discectomy is a well-recognised problem with an incidence of up to 28%. Once conservative measures have failed, several surgical options are available and have been tried with varying degrees of success. In this study, 42 patients with recurrent symptoms after discectomy underwent less invasive posterior lumbar interbody fusion (LI-PLIF). Clinical outcome was measured using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Short Form 36 (SF-36) questionnaires and visual analogue scales for back (VAS-BP) and leg pain (VAS-LP). There was a statistically significant improvement in all outcome measures (p < 0.001). The debate around which procedure is the most effective for these patients remains controversial.

Our results show that LI-PLIF is as effective as any other surgical procedure. However, given that it is less invasive, we feel that it should be considered as the preferred option.

We performed a prospective study to examine the influence of the patient’s position on the location of the abdominal organs, to investigate the possibility of a true lateral approach for transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy. Pre-operative abdominal CT scans were taken in 20 patients who underwent endoscopic lumbar discectomy. Axial images in parallel planes of each intervertebral disc from L1 to L5 were achieved in both supine and prone positions. The most horizontal approach angles possible to avoid injury to the abdominal organs were measured. The results demonstrated that the safe approach angles were significantly less (i.e., more horizontal) in the prone than in the supine position. Obstacles to a more lateral approach were mainly the liver, the spleen and the kidneys at L1/2 (39 of 40, 97.5%) and L2/3 (28 of 40, 70.0%), and the intestines at L3/4 (33 of 40, 82.5%) and L4/5 (30 of 30, 100%). A true lateral approach from each side was possible for 30 of the 40 discs at L3/4 (75%) and 23 of the 30 discs at L4/5 (76.7%). We concluded that a more horizontal approach for transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy is possible in the prone position but not in the supine. Prone abdominal CT is more helpful in determining the trajectory of the endoscope. While a true lateral approach is feasible in many patients, our study shows it is not universally applicable.

The indications for lumbar discectomy are pain and neurological dysfunction. This paper considers the extent and timing of neurological recovery following spinal decompression

We have studied 180 patients (128 men and 52 women) who had undergone lumbar discectomy at a mean of 25.4 years (20 to 32) after operation. Pre-operatively, most patients (70 patients; 38.9%) had abnormal reflexes and/or muscle weakness in the leg (96 patients; 53.3%). At follow-up 42 patients (60%) with abnormal reflexes pre-operatively had fully recovered and 72 (75%) with pre-operative muscle impairment had normal muscle strength. When we looked at patient-reported outcomes, we found that the Short form-36 summary scores were similar to the aged-matched normative values. No disability or minimum disability on the Oswestry disability index was reported by 136 patients (75.6%), and 162 (90%) were satisfied with their operation. The most important predictors of patients’ self-reported positive outcome were male gender and higher educational level. No association was detected between muscle recovery and outcome. Most patients who had undergone lumbar discectomy had long-lasting neurological recovery. If the motor deficit persists after operation, patients can still expect a long-term satisfactory outcome, provided that they have relief from pain immediately after surgery