We report our experience with glenohumeral arthrodesis as a salvage procedure for epilepsy-related recurrent shoulder instability. A total of six patients with epilepsy underwent shoulder fusion for recurrent instability and were followed up for a mean of 39 months (12 to 79). The mean age at the time of surgery was 31 years (22 to 38). Arthrodesis was performed after a mean of four previous stabilisation attempts (0 to 11) in all but one patient in whom the procedure was used as a primary treatment. All patients achieved bony union, with a mean time to fusion of 2.8 months (2 to 7). There were no cases of re-dislocation. One revision was undertaken for loosening of the metalwork, and then healed satisfactorily. An increase was noted in the mean subjective shoulder value, which improved from 37 (5 to 50) pre-operatively to 42 (20 to 70) post-operatively although it decreased in two patients. The mean Oxford shoulder instability score improved from 13 pre-operatively (7 to 21) to 24 post-operatively (13 to 36). In our series, glenohumeral arthrodesis eliminated recurrent instability and improved functional outcome. Fusion surgery should therefore be considered in this patient population. However, since the majority of patients are young and active, they should be comprehensively counselled pre-operatively given the functional deficit that results from the procedure.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1525–9.

The effective capture of outcome measures in the healthcare setting can be traced back to Florence Nightingale’s investigation of the in-patient mortality of soldiers wounded in the Crimean war in the 1850s.

Only relatively recently has the formalised collection of outcomes data into Registries been recognised as valuable in itself.

With the advent of surgeon league tables and a move towards value based health care, individuals are being driven to collect, store and interpret data.

Following the success of the National Joint Registry, the British Association of Spine Surgeons instituted the British Spine Registry. Since its launch in 2012, over 650 users representing the whole surgical team have registered and during this time, more than 27 000 patients have been entered onto the database.

There has been significant publicity regarding the collection of outcome measures after surgery, including patient-reported scores. Over 12 000 forms have been directly entered by patients themselves, with many more entered by the surgical teams.

Questions abound: who should have access to the data produced by the Registry and how should they use it? How should the results be reported and in what forum?

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:871–4.

The December 2013 Spine Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Just how common is lumbar spinal stenosis?; How much will they bleed?; C5 palsy associated with stenosis; Atlanto-axial dislocations revisited; 3D predictors of progression in scoliosis; No difference in outcomes by surgical approach for fusion; Cervical balance changes after thoracolumbar surgery; and spinal surgeons first in space.

Using the United States Nationwide Inpatient Sample, we identified national trends in revision spinal fusion along with a comprehensive comparison of comorbidities, inpatient complications and surgical factors of revision spinal fusion compared to primary spinal fusion.

In 2009, there were 410 158 primary spinal fusion discharges and 22 128 revision spinal fusion discharges. Between 2002 and 2009, primary fusion increased at a higher rate compared with revision fusion (56.4% vs 51.0%; p < 0.001). In 2009, the mean length of stay and hospital charges were higher for revision fusion discharges than for primary fusion discharges (4.2 days vs 3.8 days, p < 0.001; USD $91 909 vs. $87 161, p < 0.001). In 2009, recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) was used more in revision fusion than in primary fusion (39.6% vs 27.6%, p < 0.001), whereas interbody devices were used less in revision fusion (41.8% vs 56.6%, p < 0.001).

In the multivariable logistic regression model for all spinal fusions, depression (odds ratio (OR) 1.53, p < 0.001), psychotic disorders (OR 1.49, p < 0.001), deficiency anaemias (OR 1.35, p < 0.001) and smoking (OR 1.10, p = 0.006) had a greater chance of occurrence in revision spinal fusion discharges than in primary fusion discharges, adjusting for other variables. In terms of complications, after adjusting for all significant comorbidities, this study found that dural tears (OR 1.41; p < 0.001) and surgical site infections (OR 3.40; p < 0.001) had a greater chance of occurrence in revision spinal fusion discharges than in primary fusion discharges (p < 0.001). A p-value < 0.01 was considered significant in all final analyses.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:807–16.

We examined the differences in post-operative functional disability and patient satisfaction between 56 patients who underwent a lumbar fusion at three or more levels for degenerative disease (group I) and 69 patients, matched by age and gender, who had undergone a one or two level fusion (group II). Their mean age was 66 years (49 to 84) and the mean follow-up was 43 months (24 to 65).

The mean pre-operative Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and visual analogue scale (VAS) for back and leg pain, and the mean post-operative VAS were similar in both groups (p >  0.05), but post-operatively the improvement in ODI was significantly less in group I (40.6%) than in group II (49.5%) (p < 0.001). Of the ten ODI items, patients in group I showed significant problems with lifting, sitting, standing, and travelling (p < 0.05). The most significant differences in the post-operative ODI were observed between patients who had undergone fusion at four or more levels and those who had undergone fusion at less than four levels (p = 0.005). The proportion of patients who were satisfied with their operations was similar in groups I and II (72.7% and 77.0%, respectively) (p = 0.668). The mean number of fused levels was associated with the post-operative ODI (r = 0.266, p = 0.003), but not with the post-operative VAS or satisfaction grade (p > 0.05). Post-operative functional disability was more severe in those with a long-level lumbar fusion, particularly at four or more levels, but patient satisfaction remained similar for those with both long- and short-level fusions.

Transarticular screw fixation with autograft is an established procedure for the surgical treatment of atlantoaxial instability. Removal of the posterior arch of C1 may affect the rate of fusion. This study assessed the rate of atlantoaxial fusion using transarticular screws with or without removal of the posterior arch of C1. We reviewed 30 consecutive patients who underwent atlantoaxial fusion with a minimum follow-up of two years. In 25 patients (group A) the posterior arch of C1 was not excised (group A) and in five it was (group B). Fusion was assessed on static and dynamic radiographs. In selected patients CT imaging was also used to assess fusion and the position of the screws. There were 15 men and 15 women with a mean age of 51.2 years (23 to 77) and a mean follow-up of 7.7 years (2 to 11.6). Stable union with a solid fusion or a stable fibrous union was achieved in 29 patients (97%). In Group A, 20 patients (80%) achieved a solid fusion, four (16%) a stable fibrous union and one (4%) a nonunion. In Group B, stable union was achieved in all patients, three having a solid fusion and two a stable fibrous union. There was no statistically significant difference between the status of fusion in the two groups. Complications were noted in 12 patients (40%); these were mainly related to the screws, and included malpositioning and breakage. The presence of an intact or removed posterior arch of C1 did not affect the rate of fusion in patients with atlantoaxial instability undergoing C1/C2 fusion using transarticular screws and autograft.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:972–6.

We evaluated the efficacy of Escherichia coli-derived recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (E-BMP-2) in a mini-pig model of spinal anterior interbody fusion. A total of 14 male mini-pigs underwent three-level anterior lumbar interbody fusion using polyether etherketone (PEEK) cages containing porous hydroxyapatite (HA). Four groups of cages were prepared: 1) control (n = 10 segments); 2) 50 μg E-BMP-2 (n = 9); 3) 200 μg E-BMP-2 (n = 10); and 4) 800 μg E-BMP-2 (n = 9). At eight weeks after surgery the mini-pigs were killed and the specimens were evaluated by gross inspection and manual palpation, radiological evaluation including plain radiographs and micro-CT scans, and histological analysis. Rates of fusion within PEEK cages and overall union rates were calculated, and bone formation outside vertebrae was evaluated. One animal died post-operatively and was excluded, and one section was lost and also excluded, leaving 38 sites for assessment. This rate of fusion within cages was 30.0% (three of ten) in the control group, 44.4% (four of nine) in the 50 μg E-BMP-2 group, 60.0% (six of ten) in the 200 μg E-BMP-2 group, and 77.8% (seven of nine) in the 800 μg E-BMP-2 group. Fusion rate was significantly increased by the addition of E-BMP-2 and with increasing E-BMP-2 dose (p = 0.046). In a mini-pig spinal anterior interbody fusion model using porous HA as a carrier, the implantation of E-BMP-2-loaded PEEK cages improved the fusion rate compared with PEEK cages alone, an effect that was significantly increased with increasing E-BMP-2 dosage.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:217–23.

Wrong-level surgery is a unique pitfall in spinal surgery and is part of the wider field of wrong-site surgery. Wrong-site surgery affects both patients and surgeons and has received much media attention. We performed this systematic review to determine the incidence and prevalence of wrong-level procedures in spinal surgery and to identify effective prevention strategies. We retrieved 12 studies reporting the incidence or prevalence of wrong-site surgery and that provided information about prevention strategies. Of these, ten studies were performed on patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery and two on patients undergoing lumbar, thoracic or cervical spine procedures. A higher frequency of wrong-level surgery in lumbar procedures than in cervical procedures was found. Only one study assessed preventative strategies for wrong-site surgery, demonstrating that current site-verification protocols did not prevent about one-third of the cases. The current literature does not provide a definitive estimate of the occurrence of wrong-site spinal surgery, and there is no published evidence to support the effectiveness of site-verification protocols. Further prevention strategies need to be developed to reduce the risk of wrong-site surgery.

The June 2012 Spine Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: back pain; spinal fusion for tuberculosis; anatomical course of the recurrent laryngeal nerve; groin pain with normal imaging; the herniated intervertebral disc; obesity’s effect on the spine; the medicolegal risks of cauda equina syndrome; and intravenous lidocaine use and failed back surgery syndrome.

In a prospective observational study we compared the two-year outcome of lumbar fusion by a simple technique using translaminar screws (n = 57) with a more extensive method using transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and pedicular screw fixation (n = 63) in consecutive patients with degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Outcome was assessed using the validated multidimensional Core Outcome Measures Index. Blood loss and operating time were significantly lower in the translaminar screw group (p < 0.01). The complication rates were similar in each group (2% to 4%). In all, 91% of the patients returned their questionnaire at two-years. The groups did not differ in Core Outcome Measures Index score reduction, 3.6 (sd 2.5) (translaminar screws) vs 4.0 (sd 2.8) (transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion) (p = 0.39); ‘good’ global outcomes, 78% (translaminar screws) vs 78% (transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion) (p = 0.99) or satisfaction with treatment, 82% (translaminar screws) vs 86% (transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion) (p = 0.52).

The two fusion techniques differed markedly in their extent and the cost of the implants, but were associated with almost identical patient-orientated outcomes.

Extensive three-point stabilisation is not always required to achieve satisfactory patient-orientated results at two years.