Aims

The timing of surgical fixation in spinal fractures is a contentious topic. Existing literature suggests that early stabilization leads to reduced morbidity, improved neurological outcomes, and shorter hospital stay. However, the quality of evidence is low and equivocal with regard to the safety of early fixation in the severely injured patient. This paper compares complication profiles between spinal fractures treated with early fixation and those treated with late fixation.

There is no universally agreed definition of cauda equina syndrome (CES). Clinical signs of CES including direct rectal examination (DRE) do not reliably correlate with cauda equina (CE) compression on MRI. Clinical assessment only becomes reliable if there are symptoms/signs of late, often irreversible, CES. The only reliable way of including or excluding CES is to perform MRI on all patients with suspected CES. If the diagnosis is being considered, MRI should ideally be performed locally in the District General Hospitals within one hour of the question being raised irrespective of the hour or the day. Patients with symptoms and signs of CES and MRI confirmed CE compression should be referred to the local spinal service for emergency surgery.

CES can be subdivided by the degree of neurological deficit (bilateral radiculopathy, incomplete CES or CES with retention of urine) and also by time to surgical treatment (12, 24, 48 or 72 hour). There is increasing understanding that damage to the cauda equina nerve roots occurs in a continuous and progressive fashion which implies that there are no safe time or deficit thresholds. Neurological deterioration can occur rapidly and is often associated with longterm poor outcomes. It is not possible to predict which patients with a large central disc prolapse compressing the CE nerve roots are going to deteriorate neurologically nor how rapidly. Consensus guidelines from the Society of British Neurological Surgeons and British Association of Spinal Surgeons recommend decompressive surgery as soon as practically possible which for many patients will be urgent/emergency surgery at any hour of the day or night.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1390–4

This study examined spinal fractures in patients admitted to a Major Trauma Centre via two independent pathways, a major trauma (MT) pathway and a standard unscheduled non-major trauma (NMT) pathway. A total of 134 patients were admitted with a spinal fracture over a period of two years; 50% of patients were MT and the remainder NMT. MT patients were predominantly male, had a mean age of 48.8 years (13 to 95), commonly underwent surgery (62.7%), characteristically had fractures in the cervico-thoracic and thoracic regions and 50% had fractures of more than one vertebrae, which were radiologically unstable in 70%. By contrast, NMT patients showed an equal gender distribution, were older (mean 58.1 years; 12 to 94), required fewer operations (56.7%), characteristically had fractures in the lumbar region and had fewer multiple and unstable fractures. This level of complexity was reflected in the length of stay in hospital; MT patients receiving surgery were in hospital for a mean of three to four days longer than NMT patients. These results show that MT patients differ from their NMT counterparts and have an increasing complexity of spinal injury.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:235–9.

We assessed the frequency and causes of neurological deterioration in 59 patients with spinal cord injury on whom reports were prepared for clinical negligence litigation. In those who deteriorated neurologically we assessed the causes of the change in neurology and whether that neurological deterioration was potentially preventable. In all 27 patients (46%) changed neurologically, 20 patients (74% of those who deteriorated) had no primary neurological deficit. Of those who deteriorated, 13 (48%) became Frankel A. Neurological deterioration occurred in 23 of 38 patients (61%) with unstable fractures and/or dislocations; all 23 patients probably deteriorated either because of failures to immobilise the spine or because of inappropriate removal of spinal immobilisation. Of the 27 patients who altered neurologically, neurological deterioration was, probably, avoidable in 25 (excess movement in 23 patients with unstable injuries, failure to evacuate an epidural haematoma in one patient and over-distraction following manipulation of the cervical spine in one patient). If existing guidelines and standards for the management of actual or potential spinal cord injury had been followed, neurological deterioration would have been prevented in 25 of the 27 patients (93%) who experienced a deterioration in their neurological status.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:527–31.

Despite the increasing prevalence of sleep apnoea, little information is available regarding its impact on the peri-operative outcome of patients undergoing posterior lumbar fusion. Using a national database, patients who underwent lumbar fusion between 2006 and 2010 were identified, sub-grouped by diagnosis of sleep apnoea and compared. The impact of sleep apnoea on various outcome measures was assessed by regression analysis. The records of 84 655 patients undergoing posterior lumbar fusion were identified and 7.28% (n = 6163) also had a diagnostic code for sleep apnoea. Compared with patients without sleep apnoea, these patients were older, more frequently female, had a higher comorbidity burden and higher rates of peri-operative complications, post-operative mechanical ventilation, blood product transfusion and intensive care. Patients with sleep apnoea also had longer and more costly periods of hospitalisation.

In the regression analysis, sleep apnoea emerged as an independent risk factor for the development of peri-operative complications (odds ratio (OR) 1.50, confidence interval (CI) 1.38;1.62), blood product transfusions (OR 1.12, CI 1.03;1.23), mechanical ventilation (OR 6.97, CI 5.90;8.23), critical care services (OR 1.86, CI 1.71;2.03), prolonged hospitalisation and increased cost (OR 1.28, CI 1.19;1.37; OR 1.10, CI 1.03;1.18).

Patients with sleep apnoea who undergo posterior lumbar fusion pose significant challenges to clinicians.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:242–8.