Aims. The aim of this paper is to describe the impact of COVID-19 on spine surgery services in a district general hospital in England in order to understand the spinal service provisions that may be required during a pandemic. Methods. A prospective cohort study was undertaken between 17 March 2020 and 30 April 2020 and compared with retrospective data from same time period in 2019. We compared the number of patients requiring acute hospital admission or orthopaedic referrals and indications of referrals from our admission sheets and obtained operative data from our theatre software. Results. Between 17 March to 30 April 2020, there were 48 acute spine referrals as compared to 68 acute referrals during the same time period last year. In the 2019 period, 69% (47/68) of cases referred to the on-call team presented with back pain, radiculopathy or myelopathy compared to 43% (21/48) in the 2020 period. Almost 20% (14/68) of spine referrals consisted of spine trauma as compared to 35% (17/48) this year. There were no confirmed cases of cauda equine last year during this time. Overall, 150 spine cases were carried out during this time period last year, and 261 spine elective cases were cancelled since 17 March 2020. Recommendations. We recommend following steps can be helpful to deal with similar situations or new pandemics in future:. 24 hours on-call spine service during the pandemic. Clinical criteria in place to prioritize urgent spinal cases. Pre-screening spine patients before elective operating. Start of separate specialist trauma list for patients needing urgent surgeries. Conclusion. This paper highlights the impact of COVID-19 pandemic in a district general hospital of England. We demonstrate a decrease in hospital attendances of spine pathologies, despite an increase in emergency spine operations. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-6:281–286

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

Aims. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of the level of upper instrumented vertebra (UIV) in frail patients undergoing surgery for adult spine deformity (ASD). Methods. Patients with adult spinal deformity who had undergone T9-to-pelvis fusion were stratified using the ASD-Modified Frailty Index into not frail, frail, and severely frail categories. ASD was defined as at least one of: scoliosis ≥ 20°, sagittal vertical axis (SVA) ≥ 5 cm, or pelvic tilt ≥ 25°. Means comparisons tests were used to assess differences between both groups. Logistic regression analyses were used to analyze associations between frailty categories, UIV, and outcomes. Results. A total of 477 patients were included (mean age 60.3 years (SD 14.9), mean BMI 27.5 kg/m. 2. (SD 5.8), mean Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) 1.67 (SD 1.66)). Overall, 74% of patients were female (n = 353), and 49.6% of patients were not frail (237), 35.4% frail (n = 169), and 15% severely frail (n = 71). At baseline, differences in age, BMI, CCI, and deformity were significant (all p = 0.001). Overall, 15.5% of patients (n = 74) had experienced mechanical complications by two years (8.1% not frail (n = 36), 15.1% frail (n = 26), and 16.3% severely frail (n = 12); p = 0.013). Reoperations also differed between groups (20.2% (n = 48) vs 23.3% (n = 39) vs 32.6% (n = 23); p = 0.011). Controlling for osteoporosis, baseline deformity, and degree of correction (by sagittal age-adjusted score (SAAS) matching), frail and severely frail patients were more likely to experience mechanical complications if they had heart failure (odds ratio (OR) 6.6 (95% CI 1.6 to 26.7); p = 0.008), depression (OR 5.1 (95% CI 1.1 to 25.7); p = 0.048), or cancer (OR 1.5 (95% CI 1.1 to 1.4); p = 0.004). Frail and severely frail patients experienced higher rates of mechanical complication than ‘not frail’ patients at two years (19% (n = 45) vs 11.9% (n = 29); p = 0.003). When controlling for baseline deformity and degree of correction in severely frail and frail patients, severely frail patients were less likely to experience clinically relevant proximal junctional kyphosis or failure or mechanical complications by two years, if they had a more proximal UIV. Conclusion. Frail patients are at risk of a poor outcome after surgery for adult spinal deformity due to their comorbidities. Although a definitively prescriptive upper instrumented vertebra remains elusive, these patients appear to be at greater risk for a poor outcome if the upper instrumented vertebra is sited more distally. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(11):1342–1347

The December 2015 Spine Roundup360 looks at: Ketamine in scoliosis surgery; Teriparatide in osteoporotic spinal fractures; Trabecular metal in the spine?; Revision surgery a SPORTing chance?; The course of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis; Hip or lumbar spine: a common conundrum

Aims. Autologous bone graft (ABG) is considered the ‘gold standard’ among graft materials for bone regeneration. However, complications including limited availability, donor site morbidity, and deterioration of regenerative capacity over time have been reported. P-15 is a synthetic peptide that mimics the cell binding domain of Type-I collagen. This peptide stimulates new bone formation by enhancing osteogenic cell attachment, proliferation, and differentiation. The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic literature review to determine the clinical efficacy and safety of P-15 peptide in bone regeneration throughout the skeletal system. Methods. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched for relevant articles on 13 May 2023. The systematic review was reported according to the PRISMA guidelines. Two reviewers independently screened and assessed the identified articles. Quality assessment was conducted using the methodological index for non-randomized studies and the risk of bias assessment tool for randomized controlled trials. Results. After screening, 28 articles were included and grouped by surgical indication, e.g. maxillofacial procedures (n = 18), spine (n = 9), and trauma (n = 1). Published results showed that P-15 peptide was effective in spinal fusion (n = 7) and maxillofacial (n = 11), with very few clinically relevant adverse events related to P-15 peptide. Conclusion. This systematic literature review concluded that moderate- (risk of bias, some concern: 50%) to high-quality (risk of bias, low: 46%) clinical evidence exists showing equivalent safety and efficacy in bone regeneration using a P-15 peptide enhanced bone graft substitute compared to ABG. P-15 peptide is safe and effective, resulting in rapid bone formation with a low probability of minor complications. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2025;14(2):77–92

Aims. 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. Methods. 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. Results. Ten RCTs with 713 patients and 3,331 pedicle screws were included. Compared with CT, the accuracy rate of RA was superior in Grade A with statistical significance and Grade A + B without statistical significance. Compared with CT, the operating time of RA was longer. The difference between RA and CT was statistically significant in radiation dose. Proximal facet joint violation occurred less in RA than in CT. The postoperative Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) of RA was smaller than that of CT, and there were some interesting outcomes in our subgroup analysis. Conclusion. RA technique could be viewed as an accurate and safe pedicle screw implantation method compared to CT. A robotic system equipped with optical intraoperative navigation is superior to CT in accuracy. RA pedicle screw insertion can improve accuracy and maintain stability for some challenging areas. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2020;9(10):653–666

Aims. Patients may present with concurrent symptomatic osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip and degenerative disorders of the lumbar spine, with surgical treatment being indicated for both. Whether arthroplasty of the hip or spinal surgery should be performed first remains uncertain. Materials and Methods. Clinical scenarios were devised for a survey asking the preferred order of surgery and the rationale for this decision for five fictional patients with both OA of the hip and degenerative lumbar disorders. These were symptomatic OA of the hip and: 1) lumbar spinal stenosis with neurological claudication; 2) lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis with leg pain; 3) lumbar disc herniation with leg weakness; 4) lumbar scoliosis with back pain; and 5) thoracolumbar disc herniation with myelopathy. This survey was sent to 110 members of The Hip Society and 101 members of the Scoliosis Research Society. The choices of the surgeons were compared among scenarios and between surgical specialties using the chi-squared test. The free-text comments were analyzed using text-mining. Results. Responses were received from 51 hip surgeons (46%) and 37 spine surgeons (37%). The percentages of hip surgeons recommending ‘hip first’ differed significantly among scenarios: 59% for scenario 1; 73% for scenario 2; 47% for scenario 3; 47% for scenario 4; and 10% for scenario 5 (p < 0.001). The percentages of spine surgeons recommending ‘hip first’ were 49% for scenario 1; 70% for scenario 2; 19% for scenario 3; 78% for scenario 4; and 0% for scenario 5. There were significant differences between the groups for scenarios 3 (more hip surgeons recommended ‘hip first’; p = 0.012) and 4 (more hip surgeons recommended ‘spine first’; p = 0.006). Conclusion. In patients with coexistent OA of the hip and degenerative disorders of the spine, the question of ‘hip or spinal surgery first’ elicits relatively consistent answers in some clinical scenarios, but remains controversial in others, even for experienced surgeons. The nature of neurological symptoms can influence surgeons’ decision-making. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B(6 Supple B):37–44

Aims. The aim of this study was to determine the differences in spinal imaging characteristics between subjects with or without lumbar developmental spinal stenosis (DSS) in a population-based cohort. Methods. This was a radiological analysis of 2,387 participants who underwent L1-S1 MRI. Means and ranges were calculated for age, sex, BMI, and MRI measurements. Anteroposterior (AP) vertebral canal diameters were used to differentiate those with DSS from controls. Other imaging parameters included vertebral body dimensions, spinal canal dimensions, disc degeneration scores, and facet joint orientation. Mann-Whitney U and chi-squared tests were conducted to search for measurement differences between those with DSS and controls. In order to identify possible associations between DSS and MRI parameters, those who were statistically significant in the univariate binary logistic regression were included in a multivariate stepwise logistic regression after adjusting for demographics. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were reported where appropriate. Results. Axial AP vertebral canal diameter (p < 0.001), interpedicular distance (p < 0.001), AP dural sac diameter (p < 0.001), lamina angle (p < 0.001), and sagittal mid-vertebral body height (p < 0.001) were significantly different between those identified as having DSS and controls. Narrower interpedicular distance (OR 0.745 (95% CI 0.618 to 0.900); p = 0.002) and AP dural sac diameter (OR 0.506 (95% CI 0.400 to 0.641); p < 0.001) were associated with DSS. Lamina angle (OR 1.127 (95% CI 1.045 to 1.214); p = 0.002) and right facet joint angulation (OR 0.022 (95% CI 0.002 to 0.247); p = 0.002) were also associated with DSS. No association was observed between disc parameters and DSS. Conclusion. From this large-scale cohort, the canal size is found to be independent of body stature. Other than spinal canal dimensions, abnormal orientations of lamina angle and facet joint angulation may also be a result of developmental variations, leading to increased likelihood of DSS. Other skeletal parameters are spared. There was no relationship between DSS and soft tissue changes of the spinal column, which suggests that DSS is a unique result of bony maldevelopment. These findings require validation in other ethnicities and populations. Level of Evidence: I (diagnostic study). Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(4):725–733

Aims. 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). Patients and Methods. 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. Results. The number of patients with additional surgery were 32/183 (17%) in the PLF group, 229/1256 (18%) in the IPLF group, and 439/1435 (31%) in the IBF group. With the PLF group as a reference, the hazard ratio for additional lumbar surgery was 1.16 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 1.72) for the IPLF group and 2.13 (95% CI 1.45 to 3.12) for the IBF group. All patient-reported outcomes improved after surgery (p < 0.001) but were without statistically significant differences between the groups at the one-, two- and 6.9-year follow-ups (all p ≥ 0.12). Conclusion. The addition of interbody fusion to posterolateral fusion was associated with a higher risk for additional surgery and showed no advantages in patient-reported outcome. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:1526–1533

The April 2015 Spine Roundup360 looks at: Hyperostotic spine in injury; App based back pain control; Interspinous process devices should be avoided in claudication; Robot assisted pedicle screws: fad or advance?; Vancomycin antibiotic power in spinal surgery; What to do with that burst fracture?; Increasing complexity of spinal fractures in major trauma pathways; Vitamin D and spinal fractures

Aims. While previously underappreciated, factors related to the spine contribute substantially to the risk of dislocation following total hip arthroplasty (THA). These factors must be taken into consideration during preoperative planning for revision THA due to recurrent instability. We developed a protocol to assess the functional position of the spine, the significance of these findings, and how to address different pathologies at the time of revision THA. Patients and Methods. Prospectively collected data on 111 patients undergoing revision THA for recurrent instability from January 2014 to January 2017 at two institutions were included (protocol group) and matched 1:1 to 111 revisions specifically performed for instability not using this protocol (control group). Mean follow-up was 2.8 years. Protocol patients underwent standardized preoperative imaging including supine and standing anteroposterior (AP) pelvis and lateral radiographs. Each case was scored according to the Hip-Spine Classification in Revision THA. Results. Survival free of dislocation at two years was 97% in the protocol group (three dislocations, all within three months of surgery) versus 84% in the control group (18 patients). Furthermore, 77% of the inappropriately positioned acetabular components would have been unrecognized by supine AP pelvis imaging alone. Conclusion. Using the Hip-Spine Classification System in revision THA, we demonstrated a significant decrease in the risk of recurrent instability compared with a control group. Without the use of this algorithm, 77% of inappropriately positioned acetabular components would have been unrecognized and incorrect treatment may have been instituted. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:817–823

Aims. The surgical treatment of tuberculosis (TB) of the spine consists of debridement and reconstruction of the anterior column. Loss of correction is the most significant challenge. Our aim was to report the outcome of single-stage posterior surgery using bone allografts in the management of this condition. Patients and Methods. The study involved 24 patients with thoracolumbar TB who underwent single-stage posterior spinal surgery with a cortical bone allograft for anterior column reconstruction and posterior instrumentation between 2008 and 2015. A unilateral approach was used for 21 patients with active TB, and a bilateral approach with decompression and closing-opening wedge osteotomy was used for three patients with healed TB. Results. A median of 1.25 vertebrae were removed (interquartile range (IQR) 1 to 1.75) and the median number of levels that were instrumented was five (IQR 3 to 6). The median operating time was 280 minutes (IQR 230 to 315) and the median blood loss was 700 ml (IQR 350 to 900). The median postoperative kyphosis was 8.5° (IQR 0° to 15°) with a mean correction of the kyphosis of 71.6%. Good neurological recovery occurred, with only two patients (8%) requiring assistance to walk at a mean follow-up of 24 months (9 to 50), at which time there was a mean improvement in disability, as assessed by the Oswestry Disability Index, of 83% (90% to 72%). Conclusion. The posterior-only approach using cortical allografts for anterior column reconstruction achieved good clinical and radiological outcomes. Differentiation should be made between flexible (active) and rigid (healed) TB spine. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:1208–13

The June 2014 Spine Roundup. 360 . looks at: spinal pedicle screws in paediatric patients; improving diagnosis in lumbar spine stenosis; back pain all in the head?; brace three patients, save one scoliosis operation; pedicle screws more often misplaced than one would think; and incidental dural tears usually no problem

The August 2013 Spine Roundup. 360 . looks at: SPECT CT and facet joints; a difficult conversation: scoliosis and complications; time for a paradigm shift? complications under the microscope; minor trauma and cervical injury: a predictable phenomenon?; more costly all round: incentivising more complex operations?; minimally invasive surgery = minimal scarring; and symptomatic lumbar spine stenosis

The October 2013 Spine Roundup. 360 . looks at: Standing straighter may reduce falls; Operative management of congenital kyphosis; Athletic discectomy; Lumbar spine stenosis worsens with time; Flexible stabilisation?: spinal stenosis revisited; Do epidural steroids cause spinal fractures?; Who does well with cervical myelopathy?; Secretly adverse to BMP-2?

Aims. 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. Methods. 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. Results. A total of 3,587 patients were included in our study. Of these, 1,684 patients were eligible for BPT. Between 2018 and 2019 269/974 (28%) records were complete on the BSR for those that would be eligible for BPT. Following introduction of BPT in 2019, 671/710 (95%) records were complete having filled in the mandatory data (p < 0.001). Patient consent to data collection also improved from 62% to 93%. Email details were present in 43% of patients compared with 68% following BPT introduction. Conclusion. Our study found that following the introduction of a BPT, there was a statistically significant improvement in BSR record completion compliance in our unit. The BPT offers a financial incentive which can help generate further income for trusts. National data input into the BSR is important to assess patient outcome following spinal surgery. The BSR can also aid future research in spinal surgery. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2-3:198–201