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:
