We have examined the outcome in 19 professional rugby union players who underwent anterior cervical discectomy and fusion between 1998 and 2003. Through a retrospective review of the medical records and telephone
The aim of this study was to determine whether
obesity affects pain, surgical and functional outcomes following lumbar
spinal fusion for low back pain (LBP). A systematic literature review and meta-analysis was made of
those studies that compared the outcome of lumbar spinal fusion
for LBP in obese and non-obese patients. A total of 17 studies were
included in the meta-analysis. There was no difference in the pain
and functional outcomes. Lumbar spinal fusion in the obese patient resulted
in a statistically significantly greater intra-operative blood loss
(weighted mean difference: 54.04 ml; 95% confidence interval (CI)
15.08 to 93.00; n = 112; p = 0.007) more complications (odds ratio:
1.91; 95% CI 1.68 to 2.18; n = 43858; p <
0.001) and longer duration
of surgery (25.75 mins; 95% CI 15.61 to 35.90; n = 258; p <
0.001). Obese
patients have greater intra-operative blood loss, more complications
and longer duration of surgery but pain and functional outcome are
similar to non-obese patients. Based on these results, obesity is
not a contraindication to lumbar spinal fusion. Cite this article:
Clinical, radiological, and Scoliosis Research
Society-22 questionnaire data were reviewed pre-operatively and
two years post-operatively for patients with thoracolumbar/lumbar
adolescent idiopathic scoliosis treated by posterior spinal fusion
using a unilateral convex segmental pedicle screw technique. A total
of 72 patients were included (67 female, 5 male; mean age at surgery
16.7 years (13 to 23)) and divided into groups: group 1 included
53 patients who underwent fusion between the vertebrae at the limit
of the curve (proximal and distal end vertebrae); group 2 included
19 patients who underwent extension of the fusion distally beyond
the caudal end vertebra. A mean scoliosis correction of 80% (45% to 100%) was achieved.
The mean post-operative lowest instrumented vertebra angle, apical
vertebra translation and trunk shift were less than in previous
studies. A total of five pre-operative radiological parameters differed
significantly between the groups and correlated with the extension
of the fusion distally: the size of the thoracolumbar/lumbar curve,
the lowest instrumented vertebra angle, apical vertebra translation,
the Cobb angle on lumbar convex bending and the size of the compensatory
thoracic curve. Regression analysis allowed an equation incorporating
these parameters to be developed which had a positive predictive
value of 81% in determining whether the lowest instrumented vertebra
should be at the caudal end vertebra or one or two levels more distal.
There were no differences in the Scoliosis Research Society-22 outcome
scores between the two groups (p = 0.17). In conclusion, thoracolumbar/lumbar curves in patients with adolescent
idiopathic scoliosis may be effectively treated by posterior spinal
fusion using a unilateral segmental pedicle screw technique. Five
radiological parameters correlate with the need for distal extension
of the fusion, and an equation incorporating these parameters reliably
informs selection of the lowest instrumented vertebra. Cite this article:
This study assessed the frequency of acute injury to the spinal cord in Irish Rugby over a period of ten years, between 1995 and 2004. There were 12 such injuries; 11 were cervical and one was thoracic. Ten occurred in adults and two in schoolboys. All were males playing Rugby Union and the mean age at injury was 21.6 years (16 to 36). The most common mechanism of injury was hyperflexion of the cervical spine and the players injured most frequently were playing at full back, hooker or on the wing. Most injuries were sustained during the tackle phase of play. Six players felt their injury was preventable. Eight are permanently disabled as a result of their injury.
We reviewed 212 consecutive patients with adolescent
idiopathic scoliosis who underwent posterior spinal arthrodesis
using all pedicle screw instrumentation in terms of clinical, radiological
and Scoliosis Research Society (SRS)-22 outcomes. In Group 1 (51
patients), the correction was performed over two rods using bilateral
segmental pedicle screws. In Group 2 (161 patients), the correction
was performed over one rod using unilateral segmental pedicle screws
with the second rod providing stability of the construct
through two-level screw fixation at proximal and distal ends. The
mean age at surgery was
14.8 years in both groups. Comparison between groups showed no significant
differences with regard to age and Risser grade at surgery, pre-
and post-operative scoliosis angle, coronal Cobb correction, length
of hospital stay and SRS scores. Correction of upper thoracic curves
was significantly better in Group 1 (p = 0.02). Increased surgical time
and intra-operative blood loss was recorded in Group 1 (p <
0.001
and p = 0.04, respectively). The implant cost was reduced by mean
35% in Group 2 due to the lesser number of pedicle screws. Unilateral and bilateral pedicle screw techniques have both achieved
excellent deformity correction in adolescent patients with idiopathic
scoliosis, which was maintained at two-year follow-up. This has
been associated with high patient satisfaction and low complication
rates.
We validated the North American Spine Society (NASS) outcome-assessment instrument for the lumbar spine in a computerised touch-screen format and assessed patients’ acceptance, taking into account previous computer experience, age and gender. Fifty consecutive patients with symptomatic and radiologically-proven degenerative disease of the lumbar spine completed both the hard copy (paper) and the computerised versions of the NASS questionnaire. Statistical analysis showed high agreement between the paper and the touch-screen computer format for both subscales (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.94, 95% confidence interval (0.90 to 0.97)) independent of computer experience, age and gender. In total, 55% of patients stated that the computer format was easier to use and 66% preferred it to the paper version (p <
0.0001 among subjects expressing a preference). Our data indicate that the touch-screen format is comparable to the paper form. It may improve follow-up in clinical practice and research by meeting patients’ preferences and minimising administrative work.