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
To determine whether side-bending films in scoliosis are assessed for adequacy in clinical practice; and to introduce a novel method for doing so. Six surgeons and eight radiographers were invited to participate in four online surveys. The generic survey comprised erect and left and right bending radiographs of eight individuals with scoliosis, with an average age of 14.6 years. Respondents were asked to indicate whether each bending film was optimal (adequate) or suboptimal. In the first survey, they were also asked if they currently assessed the adequacy of bending films. A similar second survey was sent out two weeks later, using the same eight cases but in a different order. In the third survey, a guide for assessing bending film adequacy was attached along with the radiographs to introduce the novel T1-45B method, in which the upper endplate of T1 must tilt ≥ 45° from baseline for the study to be considered optimal. A fourth and final survey was subsequently conducted for confirmation.Aims
Methods
People with severe, persistent low back pain (LBP) may be offered lumbar spine fusion surgery if they have had insufficient benefit from recommended non-surgical treatments. However, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) 2016 guidelines recommended not offering spinal fusion surgery for adults with LBP, except as part of a randomized clinical trial. This survey aims to describe UK clinicians’ views about the suitability of patients for such a future trial, along with their views regarding equipoise for randomizing patients in a future clinical trial comparing lumbar spine fusion surgery to best conservative care (BCC; the FORENSIC-UK trial). An online cross-sectional survey was piloted by the multidisciplinary research team, then shared with clinical professional groups in the UK who are involved in the management of adults with severe, persistent LBP. The survey had seven sections that covered the demographic details of the clinician, five hypothetical case vignettes of patients with varying presentations, a series of questions regarding the preferred management, and whether or not each clinician would be willing to recruit the example patients into future clinical trials.Aims
Methods
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
