Introduction. Degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) is associated with progressive neurological deterioration. Surgical decompression can halt but not reverse this progression. The Modified Japanese Orthopaedic Assessment (MJOA) tool is recommended by international guidelines to grade disease severity into mild, moderate and severe, where moderate and severe are both recommended to undergo surgical intervention. During Covid-19 Nottingham University Hospitals (NUH) NHS Trust, identified DCM patients as high risk for sustaining permanent neurological damage due to surgical delay. The Advanced Spinal Practitioner (ASP) team implemented a surveillance project to evaluate those at risk. Methods. A spreadsheet was compiled of all DCM patients known to the service. Patients were telephoned (Oct-Nov 2021) by an ASP. MJOA score was recorded and those describing progressive deterioration were reviewed by the ASP team on a spinal same day emergency assessment unit. Incident forms were completed for clinical deterioration and recorded as severe harm. Acute, progressive neurological deterioration was fast tracked for emergency surgical decompression. Results. 45 patients were telephoned, 18 (40%) had deteriorated. Of the 18, 9 underwent urgent surgical decompression, 6 still await surgery and 3 continue to be monitored. Those who had deteriorated were sent a formal apology and duty of candour letter. Conclusion. It appears that patients with a diagnosis of DCM deteriorate over time. Delays to timely surgical intervention can have a deleterious effect on patient's neurological function. Baseline assessment should be clearly documented and scoring system such as MJOA considered for effective monitoring. Safety netting for deterioration should be standard practice, and a clear pathway for emergency presentation identified. Conflicts of interest: No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: No funding obtained

Purpose. The behavioural change wheel methodology and social cognitive theory were combined to inform and develop a rehabilitation programme following lumbar fusion surgery (REFS). This qualitative study evaluated participant's experiences of lumbar fusion surgery, including REFS, to identify valued programme content (‘active ingredients’). Background. A feasibility-RCT suggested REFS achieved a meaningful impact in disability and pain self-efficacy compared to ‘usual care’ (p=0.014, p=0.007). In keeping with MRC guidance a qualitative evaluation was undertaken to understand possible mechanisms of action. Methods. Thematic analysis was utilised on data from semi-structured, face-to-face interviews, in a purposive sample (REFS n=10, ‘usual care’ n=10). Results. Three themes (8 sub-themes) were identified, which illuminated the experiences of 1) the impact of living with a chronic lumbar disorder 2) reflections on recovery, and 3) the experience of rehabilitation with(out) REFS. REFS participants identified valued programme content including the opportunity for vicarious learning, the shared rehabilitation experience, and expert physiotherapy. They were unable to identify pre-eminent programme content, in keeping with inter-dependent ‘active ingredients’. Abstraction with the overarching theme of ‘loss of self’ was evident for analysis across all themes. Conclusion. In conclusion the findings were theoretically congruous with other published works e.g. recent mega-ethnographic review of patients experience of chronic non-malignant pain. Two emergent areas were identified to inform future REFS iterations and better understand potential mechanisms of action. 1-Participants fear of harm appears directly attributable to the instillation of metalware, this association is mediated by inadequate advice. 2-Lumbar fusion surgery is not perceived as elective. No conflicts of interest. Funding; NIHR (Doctoral fellowship, awarded to J Greenwood)

The aim of this study was first, to determine whether CT scans undertaken to identify serious injury to the viscera were of use in detecting clinically unrecognised fractures of the thoracolumbar vertebrae, and second, to identify patients at risk of ‘missed injury’. . We retrospectively analysed CT scans of the chest and abdomen performed for blunt injury to the torso in 303 patients. These proved to be positive for thoracic and intra-abdominal injuries in only 2% and 1.3% of cases, respectively. However, 51 (16.8%) showed a fracture of the thoracolumbar vertebrae and these constituted our subset for study. There were eight women and 43 men with mean age of 45.2 years (15 to 94). There were 29 (57%) stable and 22 (43%) unstable fractures. Only 17 fractures (33.3%) had been anticipated after clinical examination. Of the 22 unstable fractures, 11 (50%) were anticipated. Thus, within the whole group of 303 patients, an unstable spinal injury was missed in 11 patients (3.6%); no harm resulted as they were all protected until the spine had been cleared. A subset analysis revealed that patients with a high Injury Severity Score, a low Glasgow Coma Scale and haemodynamic instability were most likely to have a significant fracture in the absence of positive clinical findings. This is the group at greatest risk. Clinical examination alone cannot detect significant fractures of the thoracolumbar spine. It should be combined with CT imaging to reduce the risk of missed injury

Aims

Historically, patients undergoing surgery for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) have been nursed postoperatively in a critical care (CC) setting because of the challenges posed by prone positioning, extensive exposures, prolonged operating times, significant blood loss, major intraoperative fluid shifts, cardiopulmonary complications, and difficulty in postoperative pain management. The primary aim of this paper was to determine whether a scoring system, which uses Cobb angle, forced vital capacity (FVC), forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), and number of levels to be fused, is a valid method of predicting the need for postoperative critical care in AIS patients who are to undergo scoliosis correction with posterior spinal fusion (PSF).

Traditionally, spinal surgeons placed radiographs on viewing boxes in a manner (PA) to replicate the view they would have at surgery. The introduction of digital Picture Archiving and Communications System (PACS) appears to have had marked impact upon this convention. Some Units have the ability to lock digital radiographs such that they are always viewed in the same manner and cannot be reversed. Following ‘two near misses’ we carried out a survey to confirm the previous practice with radiographs; to ascertain the current practice with PACS and to find out whether the variation in practice could lead to clinical mishaps and harm to patients. Questionnaires were completed by practicing spinal surgeons. Previous and current practice of viewing radiographs. Either actual or potential wrong side surgery. Opinions as to whether a single convention was important were recorded. 78 % Spine surgeons used to flip radiographs over prior to introduction of PACS. With PACS, 56 % spine surgeons flip the radiographs over in clinic and 72 % in theatre so to resemble viewing spine from behind. 56% Surgeons had nearly operated on the wrong side of the spine while 94 % have seen or heard of a patient operated on the wrong side. 72 % Spine surgeons agree that the radiographs should be flipped over so as to resemble the spine as viewed intraoperatively. There is need for a single convention in spine surgery to view radiographs to avoid potential clinical mistakes

We assessed the frequency and causes of neurological deterioration in 59 patients with spinal cord injury on whom reports were prepared for clinical negligence litigation. In those who deteriorated neurologically we assessed the causes of the change in neurology and whether that neurological deterioration was potentially preventable. In all 27 patients (46%) changed neurologically, 20 patients (74% of those who deteriorated) had no primary neurological deficit. Of those who deteriorated, 13 (48%) became Frankel A. Neurological deterioration occurred in 23 of 38 patients (61%) with unstable fractures and/or dislocations; all 23 patients probably deteriorated either because of failures to immobilise the spine or because of inappropriate removal of spinal immobilisation. Of the 27 patients who altered neurologically, neurological deterioration was, probably, avoidable in 25 (excess movement in 23 patients with unstable injuries, failure to evacuate an epidural haematoma in one patient and over-distraction following manipulation of the cervical spine in one patient). If existing guidelines and standards for the management of actual or potential spinal cord injury had been followed, neurological deterioration would have been prevented in 25 of the 27 patients (93%) who experienced a deterioration in their neurological status.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:527–31.

Objectives

To employ a simple and fast method to evaluate those patients with neurological deficits and misplaced screws in relatively safe lumbosacral spine, and to determine if it is necessary to undertake revision surgery.

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

A combined anterior and posterior surgical approach is generally recommended in the treatment of severe congenital kyphosis, despite the fact that the anterior vascular supply of the spine and viscera are at risk during exposure. The aim of this study was to determine whether the surgical treatment of severe congenital thoracolumbar kyphosis through a single posterior approach is feasible, safe and effective.

We reviewed the records of ten patients with a mean age of 11.1 years (5.4 to 14.1) who underwent surgery either by pedicle subtraction osteotomy or by vertebral column resection with instrumented fusion through a single posterior approach.

The mean kyphotic deformity improved from 59.9° (45° to 110°) pre-operatively to 17.5° (3° to 40°) at a mean follow-up of 47.0 months (29 to 85). Spinal cord monitoring was used in all patients and there were no complications during surgery. These promising results indicate the possible advantages of the described technique over the established procedures. We believe that surgery should be performed in case of documented progression and before structural secondary curves develop. Our current strategy after documented progression is to recommend surgery at the age of five years and when 90% of the diameter of the spinal canal has already developed.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1527–32.