There is little information about the optimum number of implants
to be used in the surgical treatment of idiopathic scoliosis. Retrospective
analysis of prospectively collected data from the Swedish spine
register was undertaken to discover whether more implants per operated
vertebra (implant density) leads to a better outcome in the treatment of
idiopathic scoliosis. The hypothesis was that implant density is
not associated with patient-reported outcomes, the correction of
the curve or the rate of reoperation. A total of 328 patients with idiopathic scoliosis, aged between
ten and 20 years at the time of surgery, were identified in the
Swedish spine register (Swespine) and had patient reported outcomes
including the Scoliosis Research Society 22r instrument (SRS-22r)
score, EuroQol 5 dimensions quality of life, 3 level (EQ-5D-3L)
score and a Viual Analogue Score (VAS) for back pain, at a mean
follow-up of 3.1 years and reoperation data at a mean follow-up
of 5.5 years. Implant data and the correction of the curve were
assessed from radiographs, preoperatively and a mean of 1.9 years
postoperatively. The patients were divided into tertiles based on
implant density. Data were analyzed with analysis of variance, logistic
regression or log-rank test. Some analyses were adjusted for gender,
age at the time of surgery, the flexibility of the major curve and
follow-up.Aims
Patients and Methods
Lumbar disc herniation (LDH) is uncommon in youth
and few cases are treated surgically. Very few outcome studies exist
for LDH surgery in this age group. Our aim was to explore differences
in gender in pre-operative level of disability and outcome of surgery
for LDH in patients aged ≤ 20 years using prospectively collected
data. From the national Swedish SweSpine register we identified 180
patients with one-year and 108 with two-year follow-up data ≤ 20
years of age, who between the years 2000 and 2010 had a primary
operation for LDH. Both male and female patients reported pronounced impairment
before the operation in all
The British Spine Registry (BSR) was introduced in May 2012 to be used as a web-based database for spinal surgeries carried out across the UK. Use of this database has been encouraged but not compulsory, which has led to a variable level of engagement in the UK. In 2019 NHS England and NHS Improvement introduced a new Best Practice Tariff (BPT) to encourage input of spinal surgical data on the BSR. The aim of our study was to assess the impact of the spinal BPT on compliance with the recording of surgical data on the BSR. A retrospective review of data was performed at a tertiary spinal centre between 2018 to 2020. Data were collated from electronic patient records, theatre operating lists, and trust-specific BSR data. Information from the BSR included operative procedures (mandatory), patient consent, email addresses, and demographic details. We also identified Healthcare Resource Groups (HRGs) which qualified for BPT.Aims
Methods
The purpose of this study was to investigate the risk of additional surgery in the lumbar spine and to describe long-term changes in patient-reported outcomes after surgery for lumbar disc herniation in adolescents and young adults. We conducted a retrospective study design on prospectively collected data from a national quality register. The 4537 patients were divided into two groups: adolescents (≤ 18 years old, n = 151) and young adults (19 to 39 years old, n = 4386). The risk of additional lumbar spine surgery was surveyed for a mean of 11.4 years (6.0 to 19.3) in all 4537 patients. Long-term patient-reported outcomes were available at a mean of 7.2 years (5.0 to 10.0) in up to 2716 patients and included satisfaction, global assessment for leg and back pain, Oswestry Disability Index, visual analogue scale for leg and back pain, EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D), and 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) Mental Component Summary and Physical Component Summary scores. Statistical analyses were performed with Cox proportional hazard regression, chi-squared test, McNemar’s test, Welch–Satterthwaite Aims
Patients and Methods
