Hypothesis. Athletes significantly alter their lumbar spinal motion when performing squat lifting at heavy weights. This altered motion effects a change in pressure in the posterior annulus of lumbar discs. Methods. 48 athletes performed 6 lifts at 40% maximum, 4 lifts at 60% maximum and 2 lifts at 80% maximum. Zebris 3-D motion analysis system used to measure lumbar spine motion. Exercise then repeated with weight lifting support belt. 4 cadaveric sheep spinal motion segments fixed to tension/compression loading frame, allowing compression replicating the forces seen in in vivo study. Pressure measurement achieved using a Flexiforce single element force sensor strip, positioned at posterior annulus. Posterior annulus pressure measured during axial compression and on compression with specimen fixed at 3° of extension. Results. Significant decrease (p<0.05) seen in flexion in all groups studied when lifting at 40% maximum was compared with lifting at 60% and 80% of maximum lift. Extension from a calibrated zero point ranged in groups studied from -1.5° (40% group), to -20.3° (80% group). No statistically significant difference found between motion seen when performing exercise as ‘free’ squat or when lifting using support belt in any group. Comparing axially loaded specimens with specimens loaded in extension, there was an average increase in pressure of 36.4% in the posterior annulus, when the spine was loaded in 3° of extension at a pressure equivalent to the 80% lift in the in vivo motion study, in comparison to axial loading. Conclusions. Squat weight lifting at heavier weights, causes athletes to lift at a progressively greater degree of extension. The use of a weight lifting support belt does not significantly alter spinal motion during lifting. The increased extension at heavier weights results in a stress concentration in the posterior annulus

Abstract

Symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis is a common entity and increasing in prevalence. Limited evidence is available regarding patient reported outcomes comparing primary vs revision surgery for those undergoing lumbar decompression, with or without fusion. Evidence available suggest a lower rate of improvement in the revision group. The aim of this study was to assess patient reported outcomes in patients undergoing revision decompression, with or without fusion, when compared to primary surgery.

Patient data was collected from the Canadian Spine Outcomes Research Network (CSORN) database. Patients undergoing lumbar decompression without or without fusion were included. Patients under 18, undergoing discectomy, greater than two level decompressions, concomitant cervical or thoracic spine surgery were excluded. Demographic data, smoking status, narcotic use, number of comorbidities as well as individual comorbidities were included in our propensity scores. Patients undergoing primary vs revision decompression were matched in a four:one ratio according to their scores, whilst a separate matched cohort was created for those undergoing primary vs revision decompression and fusion. Continuous data was compared using a two-tailed t-test, whilst categorical variables were assessed using chi-square test.

A total of 555 patients were included, with 444 primary patients matched to 111 revision surgery patients, of which 373 (67%) did not have fusion. Patients undergoing primary decompression with fusion compared to revision patients were more likely to answer yes to “feel better after surgery” (87.8% vs 73.8%, p=0.023), “undergo surgery again” (90.1% vs 76.2%, P=0.021) and “improvement in mental health” (47.7% vs 28.6%, p=0.03) at six months. There was no difference in either of these outcomes at 12 or 24 months. There was no difference between the groups ODI, EQ-5D, SF 12 scores at any time point. Patients undergoing primary vs revision decompression alone showed no difference in PROMs at any time point.

In a matched cohort, there appears to be no difference in improvement in PROMS between patients undergoing primary vs revision decompression, with or without fusion, at two year follow-up. This would suggest similar outcomes can be obtained in revision cases.

Study Design

A prospective cohort study was carried out looking at the functional outcome and post-procedure translational segmental instability after multi-level lumbar decompression using a Hinge osteotomy technique.

Introduction

This study investigates the effect of somatisation on results of lumbar surgery.

Hypothesis

Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is diagnosed by a history of claudication, clinical investigation, cross-sectional area (CSA) of the dural sac on MRI or CT, and walking distance on the treadmill test. As radiological findings do not always correlate with clinical symptoms, additional diagnostic signs are needed. In patients without LSS, we observe the sedimentation of lumbar nerve roots to the dorsal part of the dural sac on supine MRI scans. In patients with LSS, this sedimentation is rarely seen. We named this phenomenon ‘sedimentation sign’ and defined the absence of sedimenting nerve roots as positive sedimentation sign for the diagnosis of LSS. We hypothesised that the new sedimentation sign discriminates between non-specific low back pain (LBP) and LSS.

Introduction

We propose that Total Hip Replacement with correction of fixed flexion deformity of the hip and exaggerated lumbar lordosis will result in relief of symptoms from spinal stenosis, possibly avoiding a spinal surgery. A sequence of patients with this dual pathology has been assessed to examine this and suggest a possible management algorithm.

The Nerve Root Sedimentation Sign in transverse magnetic resonance imaging has been shown to discriminate well between selected patients with and without lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS), but the performance of this new test, when used in a broad patient population, is not yet known (Barz et al. 2010).

We conducted a retrospective study of consecutive patients with suspected LSS from 2004–2006, before the sign had been described, to assess its association with health outcomes. Based on clinical and radiological diagnostics, patients had been treated with decompression surgery or conservative treatment (physical therapy, oral pain medication). Changes in the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) from baseline to 24 month follow-up were compared between Sedimentation Sign positives and negatives in both treatment arms.

Of the 146 included patients (52% female, mean age 59 yrs), 71 underwent surgery. Baseline ODI in this treatment arm was 52%, the sign was positive in 44 patients (mean ODI improvement 25 points) and negative in 27 (ODI improvement 24), with no significant difference between groups. In the 75 patients of the conservative treatment arm, baseline ODI was 44%, the sign was negative in 45 (ODI improvement 17), and positive in 30 (ODI improvement 5). Here a positive sign was associated with a smaller ODI improvement compared with sign negatives (t-test, p=0.003).

This study allowed an unbiased clinical validation of the Sedimentation Sign by avoiding it influencing treatment selection. In the conservative treatment arm a positive sign identifies a group of patients who are less likely to benefit. In these cases, surgery might be effective; however, this needs confirmation in prospective studies.

Objectives

Neurogenic intermittent claudication secondary to lumbar spinal stenosis is a posture dependant complaint typically affecting patients aged 50 years or older. Various treatment options exist for the management of this potentially debilitating condition. Non-surgical treatments: activity modification, exercise, NSAIDs, epidural injections. Surgical treatment options include decompression surgery and interspinous process device surgery. Interspinous process decompression is a relatively new, minimally invasive, stand-alone alternative to conservative and standard surgical decompressive treatments. The aim of this review is to evaluate the use of the X-Stop interspinous implant in all patients with spinal stenosis who were managed using the device in Northern Ireland up to June 2009.

The objective of this paper is to demonstrate the difference in post-operative complication rates between Computer-assisted surgery (CAS) and conventional techniques in spine surgery. Several studies have shown that the accuracy of pedicle screw placement significantly improves with use of CAS. Yet, few studies have compared the incidence of post-operative complications between CAS and conventional techniques. The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database was used to identify patients that underwent posterior lumbar fusion from 2011 to 2013. Multivariate analysis was conducted to demonstrate the difference in post-operative complication rates between CAS and conventional techniques in spine surgery. Out of 15,222 patients, 14,382 (95.1%) were operated with conventional techniques and 740 (4.90%) were operated with CAS. Multivariate analysis showed that patients in the CAS group had less odds to experience adverse events post-operatively (OR 0.57, P <0.001). This paper examined the complications in lumbar spinal surgery with or without the use of CAS. These results suggest that CAS may provide a safer technique for implant placement in lumbar fusion surgeries

Repetitive manual handling caused 31% of all work related musculoskeletal disorders in 2015, with the back being the site of injury 38% of the time. Despite its high resilience, studies have shown that intervertebral discs can be damaged during repetitive loading at physiological motions, causing cumulative damage and disc herniation. To understand the mechanism of disc injury resulting from repetitive lifting, it is important to measure disc deformations/strains accompanied by MRI imaging to identify disc tissue damage. Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine associations between the magnitude of 3D internal strains, tissue damage and macroscopic evidence of disc injury after simulated repetitive lifting on normal human lumbar discs. Sixteen cadaver lumbar functional spinal units (FSUs) were subjected to pre-test MRI. Eight FSUs (control) underwent 20,000 cycles or until failure (5 mm displacement) of loading under compression (1.7 MPa – to simulate lifting a 20 kg weight) + flexion (13°) + right axial rotation (2°) using a novel Hexapod Robot. The remaining eight FSUs (experimental) had a grid of tantalum wires inserted, and stereoradiographs were taken to track internal disc displacements at increasing cyclic intervals. Maximum shear strains (MSS) were calculated from the displacements using radiostereometric analysis at cycle 1 and 20,000 cycles (or failure). Post-test MRI was conducted to determine the extent of tissue damage and associated with regions of highest MSS. A repeated measures ANOVA was performed on MSS with a within–subjects factor of cycle number (cycle 1 and failure cycle) and a between subjects-factor of disc region and failure type (p < 0 .05). Pfirrmann grading revealed mostly normal discs [I (N=2), II (N=13), and III (N=1)]. No significant difference in MSS between control and experimental groups was found for number of cycles to failure (p=0.279). Pre and post-test MRI analysis revealed that 13 specimens were injured after repetitive lifting with either an endplate failure (N=9) or disc bulge (N=4), and two specimens did not fail. Failure strain was significantly greater than cycle 1 in all regions except posterior, left/right posterolateral (p>0.109). Largest MSS at failure was seen in the anterior (60%), and left/right posterolateral regions (64% and 70%, respectively). MSS at failure for the endplate failure group was significantly larger than the no injury group in all regions except right lateral and nucleus (p>0.707). Disc bulge group MSS was significantly larger than the no injury group in the anterior, right anterolateral, and left/right posterolateral regions (p < 0 .027). Simulated repetitive lifting led to largest shear strains in the anterior, left and right posterolateral regions that corresponded to annular tears or annular protrusion. The no injury group shear strain was less than 50% in all regions, indicating there may be a threshold that could be associated with tissue damage linked with injuries such as disc bulge and endplate failure. There was no evidence of disc herniation in normal discs, agreeing with current clinical knowledge. These results may be indicative of the effects of repetitive manual handling on normal discs of younger patients

The purpose of this study is to determine whether the mode of anaesthesia chosen for patients undergoing lumbar microdiscectomy surgery has any significant influence on the immediate outcome in terms of safety, efficacy or patient satisfaction. This prospective randomised study compared safety, efficacy and satisfaction levels in patients having spinal versus general anaesthesia for single level lumbar microdiscectomy. Fifty consecutive healthy and cooperative patients were recruited and prospectively randomised into two equal groups; half the patients received a spinal anaesthetic (SA), the remainder a general anaesthetic (GA). Each specific mode of anaesthesia was standardised. Comprehensive post-operative evaluation concentrated on documenting any complications specific to the particular mode of anaesthesia, recording the pace at which the various milestones of physiological and functional recovery were reached, and the level of patient satisfaction with the type of anaesthesia used. The results showed no serious complication specific to their particular mode of anaesthesia in either group. Thirteen out of 25 SA patients required temporary urinary catheterisation (9 males, 4 females) while among the GA group 4 patients required urinary catheterisation (4 males and 1 female). Post-operative pain perception was significantly lower in the SA group. The SA patients achieved the milestones of physiological and functional recovery more rapidly. While both groups were satisfied with their procedure, the level of satisfaction was significantly higher in the SA group. In conclusion, lumbar spinal microdiscectomy can be carried out with equal safety, employing either spinal or general anaesthesia. While they require more temporary urinary catheterisation associated with the previous use of intrathecal morphine, patients undergoing SA suffer less pain in association with their procedure and recover more rapidly. Blinded to an extent by not having experienced the alternative, both groups appeared satisfied with their anaesthetic. However, the level of satisfaction was significantly higher in the SA group

Back pain is a significant socio-economic problem affecting around 80% of the population at some point during their lives. Chronic back pain leads to millions of days of work absence per year, posing a burden to health services around the world. In order to assess surgical interventions, such as disc replacements and spinal instrumentations, to treat chronic back pain it is important to understand the biomechanics of the spine and the intervertebral disc (IVD). A wide range of testing protocols, machines and parameters are employed to characterise the IVD, making it difficult to compare data across laboratories. The aim of this study was to compare the two most commonly used testing protocols in the literature: the stiffness and the flexibility protocols, and determine if they produce the same data when testing porcine specimens in six degrees of freedom under the same testing conditions. In theory, the stiffness and the flexibility protocols should produce equivalent data, however, no detailed comparison study is available in the literature for the IVD, which is a very complex composite structure. Tests were performed using the unique six axis simulator at the University of Bath on twelve porcine lumbar functional spinal unit (FSU) specimens at 0.1 Hz under 400 N preload. The specimens were divided in two groups of six and each group was tested using one of the two testing protocols. To ensure the same conditions were used, tests were firstly carried out using the stiffness protocol, and the equivalent loading amplitudes were then applied using the flexibility protocol. The results from the two protocols were analysed to produce load-displacement graphs and stiffness matrices. The load-displacement graphs of the translational axes show that the stiffness protocol produces less spread between specimens than the flexibility protocol. However, for the rotational axes there is a large variability between specimens in both protocols. Additionally, a comparison was made between the six main diagonal terms of the stiffness matrices using the Mann-Whitney test, since the data was not normally distributed. No statistically significant difference was found between the stiffness terms produced by each protocol. However, overall the stiffness protocol generally produced larger stiffnesses and less variation between specimens. This study has shown that when testing porcine FSU specimens at 0.1 Hz and 400 N preload, there is no statistically significant difference between the main diagonal stiffness terms produced by the stiffness and the flexibility protocols. This is an important result, because it means that at this specific testing condition, using the same testing parameters and environment, both the stiffness and flexibility methods can be used to characterise the behaviour of the spine, and the results can be compared across the two protocols. Future work should investigate if the same findings occur at other testing conditions