Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

Spine

DOSE RESPONSE AND STRUCTURAL INJURY IN THE DISABILITY OF SPINAL INJURY

British Association of Spinal Surgeons (BASS)



Abstract

Aim

To compare spinal outcome measures between patients reviewed for medico-legal compensation claims relating to perceived injury at work to those having sustained serious structural injury in the form of unstable thoraco-lumbar fractures requiring internal fixation.

Method

Two consecutive cohorts of 23 patients with healed spinal fractures and 21 patients with a perception of work related soft tissue injury were compared. Patient demographics and a range of outcome measures including Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Low Back Outcome score (LBOS), Modified Somatic Perception (MSP) and Modified Zung Depression (MZD) indices were measured.

Results

23 patients (8F; 15M) with spinal fractures (group 1) of average age 42 years (range 22-66) were followed up for a mean of 41 months (range 14-89, SD 23.3) post trauma and compared to 21 patients (6 females; 15 males) with self reported back pain (group 2) of average age 47 years (range 37-63), mean time since perceived injury of 42 months (range 12-62, SD 14.5). Both groups were comparable in terms of age and sex (P = 0.254 and 0.752 respectively).

The average ODI was 28% (SD 18.5) compared to 52% (SD 17.1) in group 1 and 2 respectively (P value: 0.000087); LBOS 40 Vs 20 (P=0.000189); MSP 4 Vs 10 (0.01069); and MZD 20 Vs 36 (P=0.000296).

Conclusion

Despite high energy trauma and significant structural damage to the spine, post-traumatic patients had better spinal outcome scores in all measures (ODI, LBO, MSP, MZD). This thereby defies 8 of the 9 Bradford Hill criteria of causation. The reasons for such differences are primarily psychosocial. Addressing obstacles to recovery may improve outcomes. There is no ‘dose-response’ curve to functional outcomes. In fact, uniquely the disability seems greater in the lower energy injury which is unique in trauma care.