Psychoeducative prehabilitation to optimize surgical outcomes is relatively novel in spinal fusion surgery and, like most rehabilitation treatments, they are rarely well specified. Spinal fusion patients experience anxieties perioperatively about pain and immobility, which might prolong hospital length of stay (LOS). The aim of this prospective cohort study was to determine if a Preoperative Spinal Education (POSE) programme, specified using the Rehabilitation Treatment Specification System (RTSS) and designed to normalize expectations and reduce anxieties, was safe and reduced LOS. POSE was offered to 150 prospective patients over ten months (December 2018 to November 2019) Some chose to attend (Attend-POSE) and some did not attend (DNA-POSE). A third independent retrospective group of 150 patients (mean age 57.9 years (SD 14.8), 50.6% female) received surgery prior to POSE (pre-POSE). POSE consisted of an in-person 60-minute education with accompanying literature, specified using the RTSS as psychoeducative treatment components designed to optimize cognitive/affective representations of thoughts/feelings, and normalize anxieties about surgery and its aftermath. Across-group age, sex, median LOS, perioperative complications, and readmission rates were assessed using appropriate statistical tests.Aims
Methods
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
We reviewed 34 consecutive patients (18 female-16 male) with
isthmic spondylolysis and grade I to II lumbosacral spondylolisthesis
who underwent in situ posterolateral arthodesis between the L5 transverse
processes and the sacral ala with the use of iliac crest autograft.
Ten patients had an associated scoliosis which required surgical correction
at a later stage only in two patients with idiopathic curves unrelated
to the spondylolisthesis. No patient underwent spinal decompression or instrumentation
placement. Mean surgical time was 1.5 hours (1 to 1.8) and intra-operative
blood loss 200 ml (150 to 340). There was one wound infection treated
with antibiotics but no other complication. Radiological assessment
included standing posteroanterior and lateral, Ferguson and lateral flexion/extension
views, as well as CT scans. Aims
Methods
The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility
of using the intact S1 nerve root as a donor nerve to repair an avulsion
of the contralateral lumbosacral plexus. Two cohorts of patients
were recruited. In cohort 1, the L4–S4 nerve roots of 15 patients
with a unilateral fracture of the sacrum and sacral nerve injury
were stimulated during surgery to establish the precise functional
distribution of the S1 nerve root and its proportional contribution
to individual muscles. In cohort 2, the contralateral uninjured
S1 nerve root of six patients with a unilateral lumbosacral plexus
avulsion was transected extradurally and used with a 25 cm segment
of the common peroneal nerve from the injured leg to reconstruct
the avulsed plexus. The results from cohort 1 showed that the innervation of S1 in
each muscle can be compensated for by L4, L5, S2 and S3. Numbness
in the toes and a reduction in strength were found after surgery
in cohort 2, but these symptoms gradually disappeared and strength
recovered. The results of electrophysiological studies of the donor
limb were generally normal. Severing the S1 nerve root does not appear to damage the healthy
limb as far as clinical assessment and electrophysiological testing
can determine. Consequently, the S1 nerve can be considered to be
a suitable donor nerve for reconstruction of an avulsed contralateral
lumbosacral plexus. Cite this article:
We evaluated the use of surgical stabilisation for atlantoaxial subluxation after a follow-up of 24 years in 50 rheumatoid patients who had some degree of pain but no major neurological deficit. The mortality of patients treated by atlantoaxial fusion was significantly lower than for those who received conservative treatment. The deaths resulted from infection or comorbid conditions. The significantly high relative risks of mortality from conservative treatment compared with surgical treatment were mutilating disease and susceptible factors on both of the HLA-DRB1 alleles. Relief from pain and neurological and functional recovery were better, and the radiological degree of atlantoaxial translocation was less in those who were surgically treated compared with those who were not. Two patients had superficial local infections after surgery. We conclude that prophylactic atlantoaxial fusion is better than conservative treatment in these patients.
