With resumption of elective spine surgery services in the UK following the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, we conducted a multicentre British Association of Spine Surgeons (BASS) collaborative study to examine the complications and deaths due to COVID-19 at the recovery phase of the pandemic. The aim was to analyze the safety of elective spinal surgery during the pandemic. A prospective observational study was conducted from eight spinal centres for the first month of operating following restoration of elective spine surgery in each individual unit. Primary outcome measure was the 30-day postoperative COVID-19 infection rate. Secondary outcomes analyzed were the 30-day mortality rate, surgical adverse events, medical complications, and length of inpatient stay.Aims
Methods
The aim of this study was to systematically compare the safety and accuracy of robot-assisted (RA) technique with conventional freehand with/without fluoroscopy-assisted (CT) pedicle screw insertion for spine disease. A systematic search was performed on PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and WANFANG for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated the safety and accuracy of RA compared with conventional freehand with/without fluoroscopy-assisted pedicle screw insertion for spine disease from 2012 to 2019. This meta-analysis used Mantel-Haenszel or inverse variance method with mixed-effects model for heterogeneity, calculating the odds ratio (OR), mean difference (MD), standardized mean difference (SMD), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The results of heterogeneity, subgroup analysis, and risk of bias were analyzed.Aims
Methods
Chronic low back pain due to degenerative disc disease is sometimes treated with fusion. We compared the outcome of three different fusion techniques in the Swedish Spine Register: noninstrumented posterolateral fusion (PLF), instrumented posterolateral fusion (IPLF), and interbody fusion (IBF). A total of 2874 patients who were operated on at one or two lumbar levels were followed for a mean of 9.2 years (3.6 to 19.1) for any additional lumbar spine surgery. Patient-reported outcome data were available preoperatively (n = 2874) and at one year (n = 2274), two years (n = 1958), and a mean of 6.9 years (n = 1518) postoperatively and consisted of global assessment and visual analogue scales of leg and back pain, Oswestry Disability Index, EuroQol five-dimensional index, 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey, and satisfaction with treatment. Statistical analyses were performed with competing-risks proportional hazards regression or analysis of covariance, adjusted for baseline variables.Aims
Patients and Methods
Although vertebroplasty is very effective for relieving acute pain from an osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture, not all patients who undergo vertebroplasty receive the same degree of benefit from the procedure. In order to identify the ideal candidate for vertebroplasty, pre-operative prognostic demographic or clinico-radiological factors need to be identified. The objective of this study was to identify the pre-operative prognostic factors related to the effect of vertebroplasty on acute pain control using a cohort of surgically and non-surgically managed patients. Patients with single-level acute osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture at thoracolumbar junction (T10 to L2) were followed. If the patients were not satisfied with acute pain reduction after a three-week conservative treatment, vertebroplasty was recommended. Pain assessment was carried out at the time of diagnosis, as well as three, four, six, and 12 weeks after the diagnosis. The effect of vertebroplasty, compared with conservative treatment, on back pain (visual analogue score, VAS) was analysed with the use of analysis-of-covariance models that adjusted for pre-operative VAS scores.Objectives
Patients and Methods
In this prospective observational study, we investigated the
time-dependent changes and correlations of upper arm performance
tests (ten-second test and Simple Test for Evaluating Hand Function
(STEF), the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, and the
JOA Cervical Myelopathy Evaluation Questionnaire (JOACMEQ) in 31
patients with cervical myelopathy who had undergone surgery. We hypothesised that all the indices correlate with each other,
but show slightly different recovery patterns, and that the newly
described JOACMEQ is a sensitive outcome measure.Aims
Patients and Methods
Our aim was to perform a systematic review of the literature
to assess the incidence of post-operative epidural haematomas and
wound infections after one-, or two-level, non-complex, lumbar surgery
for degenerative disease in patients with, or without post-operative
wound drainage. Studies were identified from PubMed and EMBASE, up to and including
27 August 2015, for papers describing one- or two-level lumbar discectomy
and/or laminectomy for degenerative disease in adults which reported
any form of subcutaneous or subfascial drainage.Aims
Patients and Methods
Pain catastrophising is an adverse coping mechanism,
involving an exaggerated response to anticipated or actual pain. The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of
pain ‘catastrophising’, as measured using the pain catastrophising
scale (PCS), on treatment outcomes after surgery for lumbar spinal
stenosis (LSS). A total of 138 patients (47 men and 91 women, mean age 65.9;
45 to 78) were assigned to low (PCS score <
25, n = 68) and high
(PCS score ≥ 25, n = 70) PCS groups. The primary outcome measure
was the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) 12 months after surgery.
Secondary outcome measures included the ODI and visual analogue
scale (VAS) for back and leg pain, which were recorded at each assessment
conducted during the 12-month follow-up period The overall changes in the ODI and VAS for back and leg pain
over a 12-month period were significantly different between the
groups (ODI, p <
0.001; VAS for back pain, p <
0.001; VAS
for leg pain, p = 0.040). The ODI and VAS for back and leg pain
significantly decreased over time after surgery in both groups (p
<
0.001 for all three variables). The patterns of change in the
ODI and VAS for back pain during the follow-up period significantly
differed between the two groups, suggesting that the PCS group is
a potential treatment moderator. However, there was no difference
in the ODI and VAS for back and leg pain between the low and high
PCS groups 12 months after surgery. In terms of minimum clinically important differences in ODI scores
(12.8), 22 patients (40.7%) had an unsatisfactory surgical outcome
in the low PCS group and 16 (32.6%) in the high PCS group. There
was no statistically significant difference between the two groups
(p = 0.539). Pre-operative catastrophising did not always result in a poor
outcome 12 months after surgery, which indicates that this could
moderate the efficacy of surgery for LSS. Cite this article:
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:
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:
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.
