Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 3 of 3
Results per page:
The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 98-B, Issue 6 | Pages 825 - 828
1 Jun 2016
Craxford S Bayley E Walsh M Clamp J Boszczyk BM Stokes OM

Aim. Identifying cervical spine injuries in confused or comatose patients with multiple injuries provides a diagnostic challenge. Our aim was to investigate the protocols which are used for the clearance of the cervical spine in these patients in English hospitals. Patients and Methods. All hospitals in England with an Emergency Department were asked about the protocols which they use for assessing the cervical spine. All 22 Major Trauma Centres (MTCs) and 141 of 156 non-MTCs responded (response rate 91.5%). Results. Written guidelines were used in 138 hospitals (85%). CT scanning was the first-line investigation in 122 (75%). A normal CT scan was sufficient to clear the cervical spine in 73 (45%). However, 40 (25%) would continue precautions until the patient regained full consciousness. MRI was performed in all confused or comatose patients with a possible cervical spinal injury in 15 (9%). There were variations in the grade and speciality of the clinician who had responsibility for deciding when to discontinue precautions. A total of 31 (19%) reported at least one missed cervical spinal injury following discontinuation of spinal precautions within the last five years. Only 93 (57%) had a formal mechanism for reviewing missed injuries. Take home message: There are significant variations in protocols and practices for the clearance of the cervical spine in multiply injured patients in acute hospitals in England. The establishment of trauma networks should be taken as an opportunity to further standardise trauma care. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:825–8


Bone & Joint Open
Vol. 2, Issue 12 | Pages 1096 - 1101
23 Dec 2021
Mohammed R Shah P Durst A Mathai NJ Budu A Woodfield J Marjoram T Sewell M

Aims

With resumption of elective spine surgery services in the UK following the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, we conducted a multicentre British Association of Spine Surgeons (BASS) collaborative study to examine the complications and deaths due to COVID-19 at the recovery phase of the pandemic. The aim was to analyze the safety of elective spinal surgery during the pandemic.

Methods

A prospective observational study was conducted from eight spinal centres for the first month of operating following restoration of elective spine surgery in each individual unit. Primary outcome measure was the 30-day postoperative COVID-19 infection rate. Secondary outcomes analyzed were the 30-day mortality rate, surgical adverse events, medical complications, and length of inpatient stay.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 97-B, Issue 2 | Pages 235 - 239
1 Feb 2015
Prime M Al-Obaidi B Safarfashandi Z Lok Y Mobasheri R Akmal M

This study examined spinal fractures in patients admitted to a Major Trauma Centre via two independent pathways, a major trauma (MT) pathway and a standard unscheduled non-major trauma (NMT) pathway. A total of 134 patients were admitted with a spinal fracture over a period of two years; 50% of patients were MT and the remainder NMT. MT patients were predominantly male, had a mean age of 48.8 years (13 to 95), commonly underwent surgery (62.7%), characteristically had fractures in the cervico-thoracic and thoracic regions and 50% had fractures of more than one vertebrae, which were radiologically unstable in 70%. By contrast, NMT patients showed an equal gender distribution, were older (mean 58.1 years; 12 to 94), required fewer operations (56.7%), characteristically had fractures in the lumbar region and had fewer multiple and unstable fractures. This level of complexity was reflected in the length of stay in hospital; MT patients receiving surgery were in hospital for a mean of three to four days longer than NMT patients. These results show that MT patients differ from their NMT counterparts and have an increasing complexity of spinal injury.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:235–9.