Aims. People with severe, persistent low back pain (LBP) may be offered lumbar spine fusion surgery if they have had insufficient benefit from recommended non-surgical treatments. However, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) 2016 guidelines recommended not offering spinal fusion surgery for adults with LBP, except as part of a randomized clinical trial. This survey aims to describe UK clinicians’ views about the suitability of patients for such a future trial, along with their views regarding equipoise for randomizing patients in a future clinical trial comparing lumbar spine fusion surgery to best conservative care (BCC; the FORENSIC-UK trial). Methods. An online cross-sectional survey was piloted by the multidisciplinary research team, then shared with clinical professional groups in the UK who are involved in the management of adults with severe, persistent LBP. The survey had seven sections that covered the demographic details of the clinician, five hypothetical case vignettes of patients with varying presentations, a series of questions regarding the preferred management, and whether or not each clinician would be willing to recruit the example patients into future clinical trials. Results. There were 72 respondents, with a response rate of 9.0%. They comprised 39 orthopaedic spine surgeons, 17 neurosurgeons, one pain specialist, and 15 allied health professionals. Most respondents (n = 61,84.7%) chose conservative care as their first-choice management option for all five case vignettes. Over 50% of respondents reported willingness to randomize three of the five cases to either surgery or BCC, indicating a willingness to participate in the future randomized trial. From the respondents, transforaminal interbody fusion was the preferred approach for spinal fusion (n = 19, 36.4%), and the preferred method of BCC was a combined programme of physical and psychological therapy (n = 35, 48.5%). Conclusion. This survey demonstrates that there is uncertainty about the role of lumbar spine fusion surgery and BCC for a range of example patients with severe, persistent LBP in the UK. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(7):612–620

Aims

We compared decompression alone to decompression with fusion surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis, with or without degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS). The aim was to evaluate if five-year outcomes differed between the groups. The two-year results from the same trial revealed no differences.

Aims

The optimal procedure for the treatment of ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL) remains controversial. The aim of this study was to compare the outcome of anterior cervical ossified posterior longitudinal ligament en bloc resection (ACOE) with posterior laminectomy and fusion with bone graft and internal fixation (PTLF) for the surgical management of patients with this condition.

Aims

The aims of this study were first, to determine if adding fusion to a decompression of the lumbar spine for spinal stenosis decreases the rate of radiological restenosis and/or proximal adjacent level stenosis two years after surgery, and second, to evaluate the change in vertebral slip two years after surgery with and without fusion.

Objectives. Pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) stimulation was evaluated after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) procedures in a randomized, controlled clinical study performed for United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval. PEMF significantly increased fusion rates at six months, but 12-month fusion outcomes for subjects at elevated risk for pseudoarthrosis were not thoroughly reported. The objective of the current study was to evaluate the effect of PEMF treatment on subjects at increased risk for pseudoarthrosis after ACDF procedures. Methods. Two evaluations were performed that compared fusion rates between PEMF stimulation and a historical control (160 subjects) from the FDA investigational device exemption (IDE) study: a post hoc (PH) analysis of high-risk subjects from the FDA study (PH PEMF); and a multicentre, open-label (OL) study consisting of 274 subjects treated with PEMF (OL PEMF). Fisher’s exact test and multivariate logistic regression was used to compare fusion rates between PEMF-treated subjects and historical controls. Results. In separate comparisons of PH PEMF and OL PEMF groups to the historical control group, PEMF treatment significantly (p < 0.05, Fisher’s exact test) increased the fusion rate at six and 12 months for certain high-risk subjects who had at least one clinical risk factor of being elderly, a nicotine user, osteoporotic, or diabetic; and for those with at least one clinical risk factor and who received at least a two- or three-level arthrodesis. Conclusion. Adjunctive PEMF treatment can be recommended for patients who are at high risk for pseudoarthrosis. Cite this article: D. Coric, D. E. Bullard, V. V. Patel, J. T. Ryaby, B. L. Atkinson, D. He, R. D. Guyer. Pulsed electromagnetic field stimulation may improve fusion rates in cervical arthrodesis in high-risk populations. Bone Joint Res 2018;7:124–130. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.72.BJR-2017-0221.R1