The April 2013 Spine Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: smuggling spinal implants; local bone graft and PLIF; predicting disability with slipped discs; mortality and spinal surgery; spondyloarthropathy; brachytherapy; and fibrin mesh and BMP.

The June 2014 Spine Roundup³⁶⁰ 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

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

This study assessed the effect of concomitant back pain on the Oxford knee score (OKS), Short-Form (SF)-12 and patient satisfaction after total knee replacement (TKR). It involved a prospectively compiled database of demographics and outcome scores for 2392 patients undergoing primary TKR, of whom 829 patients (35%) reported back pain. Compared with those patients without back pain, those with back pain were more likely to be female (odds ratio (OR) 1.5 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.3 to 1.8)), have a greater level of comorbidity, a worse pre-operative OKS (2.3 points (95% CI 1.7 to 3.0)) and worse SF-12 physical (2.0 points (95% CI 1.4 to 2.6)) and mental (3.3 points (95% CI 2.3 to 4.3)) components.

One year post-operatively, those with back pain had significantly worse outcome scores than those without with a mean difference in the OKS of 5 points (95% CI 3.8 to 5.4), in the SF-12 physical component of 6 points (95% CI 5.4 to 7.1) and in the mental component of 4 points (95% CI 3.1 to 4.9). Patients with back pain were less likely to be satisfied (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.5 to 0.78).

After adjusting for confounding variables, concomitant back pain was an independent predictor of a worse post-operative OKS, and of dissatisfaction. Clinicians should be aware that patients suffering concomitant back pain pre-operatively are at an increased risk of being dissatisfied post-operatively.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1632–9.

We investigated the pre-operative and one-year post-operative health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcome by using a Euroqol (EQ-5D) questionnaire in 230 patients who underwent surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. Data were obtained from the National Swedish Registry for operations on the lumbar spine between 2001 and 2002. We analysed the pre- and postoperative quality of life data, age, gender, smoking habits, pain and walking ability. The relative differences were compared to a Swedish EQ-5D population survey.

The mean age of the patients was 66 years, and there were 123 females (53%). Before the operation 62 (27%) of the patients could walk more than 500 m. One year after the operation 150 (65%) were able to walk 500 m or more.

The mean EQ-5D score improved from 0.36 to 0.64, and the HRQoL improved in 184 (80%) of the patients. However, they did not reach the level reported by a matched population sample (mean difference 0.18). Women had lower pre- and post-operative EQ-5D scores than men. Severe low back pain was a predictor for a poor outcome.

We describe a modified technique of micro-decompression of the lumbar spine involving the use of an operating microscope, a malleable retractor and a high-speed burr, which allows decompression to be performed on both sides of the spine through a unilateral, hemi-laminectomy approach. The first 100 patients to be treated with this technique have been evaluated prospectively using a visual analogue score for sciatica and back pain, the MacNab criteria for patient satisfaction, and functional assessment with the Oswestry Disability Index.

After a period of follow-up from 12 months to six years and four months, sciatica had improved in 90 patients and back pain in 84 patients. Their result was graded as good or excellent by 82 patients according to the MacNab criteria, and 75 patients had subjective improvement in their walking distance. Late instability developed in four patients.

Lumbar micro-decompression has proved to be safe, with few complications. Postoperative instability requiring fusion was uncommon, and less than using traditional approaches in published series.

We reviewed 59 bone graft substitutes marketed by 17 companies currently available for implantation in the United Kingdom, with the aim of assessing the peer-reviewed literature to facilitate informed decision-making regarding their use in clinical practice. After critical analysis of the literature, only 22 products (37%) had any clinical data. Norian SRS (Synthes), Vitoss (Orthovita), Cortoss (Orthovita) and Alpha-BSM (Etex) had Level I evidence. We question the need for so many different products, especially with limited published clinical evidence for their efficacy, and conclude that there is a considerable need for further prospective randomised trials to facilitate informed decision-making with regard to the use of current and future bone graft substitutes in clinical practice.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:583–97.

Procedures performed at the incorrect anatomical site are commonly perceived as being relatively rare. However, they can be a devastating event for patients and doctors. Evidence from the United Kingdom and North America suggests that wrong-site, wrong-procedure and wrong-patient events occur more commonly than we think. Furthermore, their incidence may be increasing as NHS Trusts increase the volume and complexity of procedures undertaken in order to cope with increasing demands on the system. In previous studies from North America orthopaedic surgery has been found to be the worst-offending specialty.

In this paper we review the existing literature on wrong-site surgery and analyse data from the National Patient Safety Agency and NHS Litigation Authority on 292 cases of wrong-site surgery in England and Wales. Orthopaedic surgery accounted for 87 (29.8%) of these cases. In the year 2006 to 2007, the rate of wrong-site surgery in England and Wales was highest in orthopaedic surgery, in which the estimated rate was 1:105 712 cases.

Surgical decision-making in lumbar spinal stenosis involves assessment of clinical parameters and the severity of the radiological stenosis. We suspected that surgeons based surgical decisions more on dural sac cross-sectional area (DSCA) than on the morphology of the dural sac. We carried out a survey among members of three European spine societies. The axial T2-weighted MR images from ten patients with varying degrees of DSCA and morphological grades according to the recently described morphological classification of lumbar spinal stenosis, with DSCA values disclosed in half the assessed images, were used for evaluation. We provided a clinical scenario to accompany the images, which were shown to 142 responding physicians, mainly orthopaedic surgeons but also some neurosurgeons and others directly involved in treating patients with spinal disorders. As the primary outcome we used the number of respondents who would proceed to surgery for a given DSCA or morphological grade. Substantial agreement among the respondents was observed, with severe or extreme stenosis as defined by the morphological grade leading to surgery. This decision was not dependent on the number of years in practice, medical density or specialty. Disclosing the DSCA did not alter operative decision-making. In all, 40 respondents (29%) had prior knowledge of the morphological grading system, but their responses showed no difference from those who had not. This study suggests that the participants were less influenced by DSCA than by the morphological appearance of the dural sac.

Classifying lumbar spinal stenosis according to morphology rather than surface measurements appears to be consistent with current clinical practice.

Radiological imaging is necessary in a wide variety of trauma and elective orthopaedic operations. The evolving orthopaedic workforce includes an increasing number of pregnant workers. Current legislation in the United Kingdom, Europe and United States allows them to choose their degree of participation, if any, with fluoroscopic procedures. For those who wish to engage in radiation-prone procedures, specific regulations apply to limit the radiation dose to the pregnant worker and unborn child.

This paper considers those aspects of radiation protection, the potential effects of exposure to radiation in pregnancy and the dose of radiation from common orthopaedic procedures, which are important for safe clinical practice.

We carried out a prospective study to determine whether the addition of a recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein (rhBMP-2) to a machined allograft spacer would improve the rate of intervertebral body fusion in the spine. We studied 77 patients who were to undergo an interbody fusion with allograft and instrumentation. The first 36 patients received allograft with adjuvant rhBMP-2 (allograft/rhBMP-2 group), and the next 41, allograft and demineralised bone matrix (allograft/demineralised bone matrix group). Each patient was assessed clinically and radiologically both pre-operatively and at each follow-up visit using standard methods. Follow-up continued for two years.

Every patient in the allograft/rhBMP-2 group had fused by six months. However, early graft lucency and significant (> 10%) subsidence were seen radiologically in 27 of 55 levels in this group. The mean graft height subsidence was 27% (13% to 42%) for anterior lumbar interbody fusion, 24% (13% to 40%) for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, and 53% (40% to 58%) for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Those who had undergone fusion using allograft and demineralised bone matrix lost only a mean of 4.6% (0% to 15%) of their graft height.

Although a high rate of fusion (100%) was achieved with rhBMP-2, significant subsidence occurred in more than half of the levels (23 of 37) in the lumbar spine and 33% (6 of 18) in the cervical spine. A 98% fusion rate (62 of 63 levels) was achieved without rhBMP-2 and without the associated graft subsidence. Consequently, we no longer use rhBMP-2 with allograft in our practice if the allograft has to provide significant structural support.

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.

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.

We studied 52 patients, each with a lumbosacral transitional vertebra. Using MRI we found that the lumbar discs immediately above the transitional vertebra were significantly more degenerative and those between the transitional vertebrae and the sacrum were significantly less degenerative compared with discs at other levels. We also performed an anatomical study using 70 cadavers. We found that the iliolumbar ligament at the level immediately above the transitional vertebra was thinner and weaker than it was in cadavers without a lumbosacral transitional vertebra.

Instability of the vertebral segment above the transitional vertebra because of a weak iliolumbar ligament could lead to subsequent disc degeneration which may occur earlier than at other disc levels. Some stability between the transitional vertebra and the sacrum could be preserved by the formation of either an articulation or by bony union between the vertebra and the sacrum through its transverse process. This may protect the disc from further degeneration in the long term.