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: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1395–1404.

Intraspinal re-implantation after traumatic avulsion of the brachial plexus is a relatively new technique. Three different approaches to the spinal cord have been described to date, namely the posterior scapular, anterolateral interscalenic multilevel oblique corpectomy and the pure lateral. We describe an anatomical study of the pure lateral approach, based on our clinical experience and studies on cadavers.

The August 2013 Spine Roundup³⁶⁰ 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.

We have assessed whether an epidural steroid injection is effective in the treatment of symptoms due to compression of a nerve root in the lumbar spine by carrying out a prospective, randomised, controlled trial in which patients received either an epidural steroid injection or an intramuscular injection of local anaesthetic and steroid. We assessed a total of 93 patients according to the Oxford pain chart and the Oswestry disability index and followed up for a minimum of two years. All the patients had been categorised as potential candidates for surgery.

There was a significant reduction in pain early on in those having an epidural steroid injection but no difference in the long term between the two groups. The rate of subsequent operation in the groups was similar.

Patients with Bertolotti’s syndrome have characteristic lumbosacral anomalies and often have severe sciatica. We describe a patient with this syndrome in whom standard decompression of the affected nerve root failed, but endoscopic lumbosacral extraforaminal decompression relieved the symptoms.

We suggest that the intractable sciatica in this syndrome could arise from impingement of the nerve root extraforaminally by compression caused by the enlarged transverse process.

Spinal stenosis and disc herniation are the two most frequent causes of lumbosacral nerve root compression. This can result in muscle weakness and present with or without pain. The difficulty when managing patients with these conditions is knowing when surgery is better than non-operative treatment: the evidence is controversial. Younger patients with a lesser degree of weakness for a shorter period of time have been shown to respond better to surgical treatment than older patients with greater weakness for longer. However, they also constitute a group that fares better without surgery. The main indication for surgical treatment in the management of patients with lumbosacral nerve root compression should be pain rather than weakness.

Traumatic unilateral facet dislocation of the lumbosacral junction without fracture or with non-displaced fractures of adjacent vertebrae is extremely rare. We describe a case of a young male who sustained a unilateral facet dislocation of the lumbosacral junction in a motor vehicle accident. The unusual features of this case include an unremarkable physical and neurological examination on presentation and absence of other substantial vertebral or extra-vertebral injuries.

The presacral retroperitoneal approach for axial lumbar interbody fusion (presacral ALIF) is not widely reported, particularly with regard to the mid-term outcome. This prospective study describes the clinical outcomes, complications and rates of fusion at a follow-up of two years for 26 patients who underwent this minimally invasive technique along with further stabilisation using pedicle screws. The fusion was single-level at the L5-S1 spinal segment in 17 patients and two-level at L4–5 and L5-S1 in the other nine. The visual analogue scale for pain and Oswestry Disability Index scores were recorded pre-operatively and during the 24-month study period. The evaluation of fusion was by thin-cut CT scans at six and 12 months, and flexion-extension plain radiographs at six, 12 and 24 months. Significant reductions in pain and disability occurred as early as three weeks postoperatively and were maintained. Fusion was achieved in 22 of 24 patients (92%) at 12 months and in 23 patients (96%) at 24 months. One patient (4%) with a pseudarthrosis underwent successful revision by augmentation of the posterolateral fusion mass through a standard open midline approach.

There were no severe adverse events associated with presacral ALIF, which in this series demonstrated clinical outcomes and fusion rates comparable with those of reports of other methods of interbody fusion.

Recurrence of back or leg pain after discectomy is a well-recognised problem with an incidence of up to 28%. Once conservative measures have failed, several surgical options are available and have been tried with varying degrees of success. In this study, 42 patients with recurrent symptoms after discectomy underwent less invasive posterior lumbar interbody fusion (LI-PLIF). Clinical outcome was measured using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Short Form 36 (SF-36) questionnaires and visual analogue scales for back (VAS-BP) and leg pain (VAS-LP). There was a statistically significant improvement in all outcome measures (p < 0.001). The debate around which procedure is the most effective for these patients remains controversial.

Our results show that LI-PLIF is as effective as any other surgical procedure. However, given that it is less invasive, we feel that it should be considered as the preferred option.