The October 2015 Spine Roundup360 looks at: Traumatic spinal cord injury under the spotlight; The odontoid peg nonunion; Driving and spinal surgery; Drains and antibiotics post-spinal surgery; Vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty equally effective; Who will benefit from steroid injections?; Back pain following lumbar discectomy

Minimal clinically important differences (MCID) in the scores of patient-reported outcome measures allow clinicians to assess the outcome of intervention from the perspective of the patient. There has been significant variation in their absolute values in previous publications and a lack of consistency in their calculation.

The purpose of this study was first, to establish whether these values, following spinal surgery, vary depending on the surgical intervention and their method of calculation and secondly, to assess whether there is any correlation between the two external anchors most frequently used to calculate the MCID.

We carried out a retrospective analysis of prospectively gathered data of adult patients who underwent elective spinal surgery between 1994 and 2009. A total of 244 patients were included. There were 125 men and 119 women with a mean age of 54 years (16 to 84); the mean follow-up was 62 months (6 to 199) The MCID was calculated using three previously published methods.

Our results show that the value of the MCID varies considerably with the operation and its method of calculation. There was good correlation between the two external anchors. The global outcome tool correlated significantly better.

We conclude that consensus needs to be reached on the best method of calculating the MCID. This then needs to be defined for each spinal procedure. Using a blanket value for the MCID for all spinal procedures should be avoided.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:366–71.

The August 2015 Spine Roundup360 looks at: Steroids may be useful in avoiding dysphagia in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF); Perhaps X-Stop ought to stop?; Is cervical plexus block in ACDF the gateway to day case spinal surgery?; Epidural past its heyday?; Steroids in lumbar back pain; Lumbar disc replacement improving; Post-discectomy arthritis

Objectives

We have observed clinical cases where bone is formed in the overlaying muscle covering surgically created bone defects treated with a hydroxyapatite/calcium sulphate biomaterial. Our objective was to investigate the osteoinductive potential of the biomaterial and to determine if growth factors secreted from local bone cells induce osteoblastic differentiation of muscle cells.

There have been a few reports of patients with a combination of lumbar and thoracic spinal stenosis. We describe six patients who suffered unexpected acute neurological deterioration at a mean of 7.8 days (6 to 10) after lumbar decompressive surgery. Five had progressive weakness and one had recurrent pain in the lower limbs. There was incomplete recovery following subsequent thoracic decompressive surgery.

The neurological presentation can be confusing. Patients with compressive myelopathy due to lower thoracic lesions, especially epiconus lesions (T10 to T12/L1 disc level), present with similar symptoms to those with lumbar radiculopathy or cauda equina lesions. Despite the rarity of this condition we advise that patients who undergo lumbar decompressive surgery for stenosis should have sagittal whole spine MRI studies pre-operatively to exclude proximal neurological compression.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1388–91.

Aims

This study aimed to determine the relationship between pedicle-lengthening distance and bulge-canal volume ratio in cases of lumbar spinal stenosis, to provide a theoretical basis for the extent of lengthening in pedicle-lengthening osteotomies.

Whether to combine spinal decompression with fusion in patients with symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis remains controversial. We performed a cohort study to determine the effect of the addition of fusion in terms of patient satisfaction after decompressive spinal surgery in patients with and without a degenerative spondylolisthesis.

The National Swedish Register for Spine Surgery (Swespine) was used for the study. Data were obtained for all patients in the register who underwent surgery for stenosis on one or two adjacent lumbar levels. A total of 5390 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria and completed a two-year follow-up. Using multivariable models the results of 4259 patients who underwent decompression alone were compared with those of 1131 who underwent decompression and fusion. The consequence of having an associated spondylolisthesis in the operated segments pre-operatively was also considered.

At two years there was no significant difference in patient satisfaction between the two treatment groups for any of the outcome measures, regardless of the presence of a pre-operative spondylolisthesis. Moreover, the proportion of patients who required subsequent further lumbar surgery was also similar in the two groups.

In this large cohort the addition of fusion to decompression was not associated with an improved outcome.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:960–5.

There is no universally agreed definition of cauda equina syndrome (CES). Clinical signs of CES including direct rectal examination (DRE) do not reliably correlate with cauda equina (CE) compression on MRI. Clinical assessment only becomes reliable if there are symptoms/signs of late, often irreversible, CES. The only reliable way of including or excluding CES is to perform MRI on all patients with suspected CES. If the diagnosis is being considered, MRI should ideally be performed locally in the District General Hospitals within one hour of the question being raised irrespective of the hour or the day. Patients with symptoms and signs of CES and MRI confirmed CE compression should be referred to the local spinal service for emergency surgery.

CES can be subdivided by the degree of neurological deficit (bilateral radiculopathy, incomplete CES or CES with retention of urine) and also by time to surgical treatment (12, 24, 48 or 72 hour). There is increasing understanding that damage to the cauda equina nerve roots occurs in a continuous and progressive fashion which implies that there are no safe time or deficit thresholds. Neurological deterioration can occur rapidly and is often associated with longterm poor outcomes. It is not possible to predict which patients with a large central disc prolapse compressing the CE nerve roots are going to deteriorate neurologically nor how rapidly. Consensus guidelines from the Society of British Neurological Surgeons and British Association of Spinal Surgeons recommend decompressive surgery as soon as practically possible which for many patients will be urgent/emergency surgery at any hour of the day or night.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1390–4

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 restoration of knee alignment is an important goal during total knee arthroplasty (TKA). In the past surgeons aimed to restore neutral limb alignment during surgery. However, previous studies have demonstrated alignment to be dynamic, varying depending on the position of the limb and the degree of weight-bearing, and between patients. We used a validated computer navigation system to measure the femorotibial mechanical angle (FTMA) in 264 knees in 77 male and 55 female healthy volunteers aged 18 to 35 years (mean 26.2). We found the mean supine alignment to be a varus angle of 1.2° (standard deviation (sd) 4), with few patients having neutral alignment. FTMA differs significantly between males and females (with a mean varus of 1.7° (sd 4) and 0.4° (sd 3.9), respectively; p = 0.008). It changes significantly with posture, the knee hyperextending by a mean of 5.6°, and coronal plane alignment becoming more varus by 2.2° (sd 3.6) on standing compared with supine.

Knee alignment is different in different individuals and is dynamic in nature, changing with different postures. This may have implications for the assessment of alignment in TKA, which is achieved in non-weight-bearing conditions and which may not represent the situation observed during weight-bearing.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015; 97-B:498–502

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.

No previous studies have examined the physical characteristics of patients with cauda equina syndrome (CES). We compared the anthropometric features of patients who developed CES after a disc prolapse with those who did not but who had symptoms that required elective surgery. We recorded the age, gender, height, weight and body mass index (BMI) of 92 consecutive patients who underwent elective lumbar discectomy and 40 consecutive patients who underwent discectomy for CES. On univariate analysis, the mean BMI of the elective discectomy cohort (26.5 kg/m² (16.6 to 41.7) was very similar to that of the age-matched national mean (27.6 kg/m², p = 1.0). However, the mean BMI of the CES cohort (31.1 kg/m² (21.0 to 54.9)) was significantly higher than both that of the elective group (p < 0.001) and the age-matched national mean (p < 0.001). A similar pattern was seen with the weight of the groups. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed, adjusted for age, gender, height, weight and BMI. Increasing BMI and weight were strongly associated with an increased risk of CES (odds ratio (OR) 1.17, p < 0.001; and OR 1.06, p <  0.001, respectively). However, increasing height was linked with a reduced risk of CES (OR 0.9, p < 0.01). The odds of developing CES were 3.7 times higher (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.2 to 7.8, p = 0.016) in the overweight and obese (as defined by the World Health Organization: BMI ≥ 25 kg/m²) than in those of ideal weight. Those with very large discs (obstructing > 75% of the spinal canal) had a larger BMI than those with small discs (obstructing < 25% of the canal; p < 0.01). We therefore conclude that increasing BMI is associated with CES.

The June 2013 Spine Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: the benefit of MRI in the follow-up of lumbar disc prolapse; gunshot injury to the spinal cord; the link between depression and back pain; floating dural sack sign; short segment fixation at ten years; whether early return to play is safer than previously thought; infection in diabetic spinal patients; and dynesis.

The October 2014 Spine Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: microdiscectomy is not exactly a hands-down winner; lumbar spinal stenosis unpicked; Wallis implant helpful in lumbosacral decompression; multidisciplinary rehabilitation is good for back pain; and understanding the sciatic stretch test.

We have studied 180 patients (128 men and 52 women) who had undergone lumbar discectomy at a mean of 25.4 years (20 to 32) after operation. Pre-operatively, most patients (70 patients; 38.9%) had abnormal reflexes and/or muscle weakness in the leg (96 patients; 53.3%). At follow-up 42 patients (60%) with abnormal reflexes pre-operatively had fully recovered and 72 (75%) with pre-operative muscle impairment had normal muscle strength. When we looked at patient-reported outcomes, we found that the Short form-36 summary scores were similar to the aged-matched normative values. No disability or minimum disability on the Oswestry disability index was reported by 136 patients (75.6%), and 162 (90%) were satisfied with their operation. The most important predictors of patients’ self-reported positive outcome were male gender and higher educational level. No association was detected between muscle recovery and outcome.

Most patients who had undergone lumbar discectomy had long-lasting neurological recovery. If the motor deficit persists after operation, patients can still expect a long-term satisfactory outcome, provided that they have relief from pain immediately after surgery.

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.

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 263 patients who had undergone surgery for herniation of a lumbar disc. Data from the National Swedish Register for lumbar spinal surgery between 2001 and 2002 were used and, in addition, a comparison between our cohort and a Swedish EQ-5D population survey was performed. We analysed the pre- and post-operative quality of life data, age, gender, smoking habits, pain and walking capacity.

The mean age of the patients was 42 years (20 to 66); 155 (59%) were men and 69 (26%) smoked. Pre-operatively, 72 (17%) could walk at least 1 km compared with 200 (76%) postoperatively.

The mean EQ-5D score improved from 0.29 to 0.70, and the HRQOL improved in 195 (74%) of the patients. The pre-operative score did not influence the post-operative score. In most patients, all five EQ-5D dimensions improved, but did not reach the level reported by an age- and gender-matched population sample (mean difference 0.17). Predictors for poor outcome were smoking, a short pre-operative walking distance, and a long history of back pain.

Between March 2000 and February 2006, we carried out a prospective study of 100 patients with a low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis (Meyerding grade II or below), who were randomised to receive a single-level and instrumented posterior lumbar interbody fusion with either one or two cages. The minimum follow-up was for two years. At this stage 91 patients were available for review. A total of 47 patients received one cage (group 1) and 44 two cages (group 2). The clinical and radiological outcomes of the two groups were compared.

There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of post-operative pain, Oswestry Disability Score, clinical results, complication rate, percentage of post-operative slip, anterior fusion rate or posterior fusion rate. On the other hand, the mean operating time was 144 minutes (100 to 240) for patients in group 1 and 167 minutes (110 to 270) for those in group 2 (p = 0.0002). The mean blood loss up to the end of the first post-operative day was 756 ml (510 to 1440) in group 1 and 817 ml (620 to 1730) in group 2 (p < 0.0001).

Our results suggest that an instrumented posterior lumbar interbody fusion performed with either one or two cages in addition to a bone graft around the cage has a low rate of complications and a high fusion rate. The clinical outcomes were good in most cases, regardless of whether one or two cages had been used.