Aim. To compare outcomes of revision lumbar discectomy to primary surgery in the same patient cohort. Methods. Prospective outcome data in 36 patients who underwent primary and subsequent revision surgery for lumbar disc herniation between 1995 and 2009. Outcome measures used were Visual Analogue Scores for back (VAB) and leg pain (VAL), the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Low Back Outcome Score (LBO). 5 early recurrences within 3 months were excluded. Results. Complete data was available in 31 patients 13F;18M. The average age was 39 years at index and 45 years at revision. Average interval between surgery of 39 months (range 6-122). Mean Pre op ODI 54 and VAL 73 primary procedure, final follow up of primary procedure ODI 33, VAL 43; prior to revision ODI 57, VAL 75; at last FU ODI 32 and VAL 40. There was no statistical difference between outcomes. In the primary discectomy group there was a statistically significant improvement in the VAL, ODI and LBO scores (P<0.05), with no significant improvement in the VAB (P=0.67). In the revision group there was a statistical significant improvement in all the outcomes (P<0.05). Overall, 45% of patients felt their outcome from revision discectomy was better/much better with 54% of patients rating their treatment as either good/excellent. Conclusion. Primary discectomy produced significant improvement in leg pain, ODI and LBO. Revision discectomy did the same, but also a significant improvement in VAB scores. There was no statistically significant difference in comparing the preoperative and postoperative scores for both procedures. Revision discectomy is a procedure which yields clinically significant and patient perceived improvements in spinal outcome measures with an unexplained improvement in VAB scores as compared to the primary procedure. This may challenge the belief of some surgeons in the need for fusion at the time of revision

Aims

Open discectomy (OD) is the standard operation for lumbar disc herniation (LDH). Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD), however, has shown similar outcomes to OD and there is increasing interest in this procedure. However despite improved surgical techniques and instrumentation, reoperation and infection rates continue and are reported to be between 6% and 24% and 0.7% and 16%, respectively. The objective of this study was to compare the rate of reoperation and infection within six months of patients being treated for LDH either by OD or PELD.

The exact prevalence of scoliosis remains unknown however it appears to be stable over time. In contrast the surgical management of spinal deformity has evolved considerably. In the UK this can be observed by examining recorded hospital statistics. Specifically the volume of procedures undertaken and preferred technique to correct deformity can be analysed and trends captured providing a comprehensive picture of changing UK practice. Annual data tables from 2000 to 2013 were downloaded from the health information and social care UK website which contains Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data online. Numbers of completed consultant episodes for the four character primary procedure codes V41.1 (posterior attachment of correctional instrument to spine), V41.2 (anterior attachment of correctional instrument to spine), V41.4 (Anterior and posterior attachment of correctional instrument to spine), V41.8 and V41.9 (other specified and other non-specified instrumental correction of spinal deformity respectively) as main procedure where recorded. The total number of attachment of correctional instrument procedures listed as main procedure has increased significantly. The increase consists of higher numbers of posterior attachment procedures over this time from 352 in 2011–2012 to 1967 in 2012–2013 with data demonstrating a year on year increase to 2009–2010 before plateauing. Unspecified and other specified instrumental correctional spinal procedures have also contributed to the overall rise increasing from 206 in 2000–2001 to 447 in 2012–2013. Anterior attachment procedures listed as the main procedure are currently declining in number from a peak of 230 in 2005–2006 to 89 in 2012–2013. Combined posterior and anterior attachment procedures have also decreased marginally from 27 in 2009–2010 to 19 in 2012–2013. Unfortunately combined anterior and posterior procedures were not uniquely coded until 2009–2010. There is also some inherent variability in accuracy of coding which may distort HES data. Despite these limitations these results are likely to represent genuine changes in practice for the surgical correction of spinal deformity over the time period examined

To describe a modification of the existing technique for C2 translaminar screw fixation that can be used for salvage in difficult cases. Bilateral crossing C2 laminar screws have recently become popular as an alternative technique for C2 fixation. This technique is particularly useful in patients with anomalous anatomy, as a salvage technique where other modes of fixation have failed or as a primary procedure. However, reported disadvantages of this technique include breach of the dorsal lamina and spinal canal, early hardware failure and difficulty in bone graft placement due to the position of the polyaxial screw heads. To address some of these issues, a modified technique is described. In this technique, the upper part of the spinous process of C2 is removed and the entry point of the screw is in the base of this removed spinous process. From October 2008 to March 2009, 6 patients underwent insertion of unilateral translaminar screws using our technique. The indications were: basilar invagination(three cases), C1/C2 fracture (two cases), tumour (one case). Age varied from 22 to 81 years (mean 48 years). All patients had post-operative x-ray and CT scan to assess position of the screws. Mean follow-up was 6 months. The screw position was satisfactory in all patients. There were no intraoperative or early postoperative complications. Our modification enables placement of bone graft on the C2 lamina and is also less likely to cause inadvertent cortical breach. Because of these advantages, it is especially suitable for patients with advanced rheumatoid arthritis with destruction of the lateral masses of C2 or as part of a hybrid construct in patients with unilateral high riding vertebral artery. This technique is not suitable for bilateral translaminar screw placement

Aims

Magnetically controlled growing rods (MCGR) have been gaining popularity in the management of early-onset scoliosis (EOS) over the past decade. We present our experience with the first 44 MCGR consecutive cases treated at our institution.

Aims. Magnetically controlled growing rod (MCGR) systems use non-invasive spinal lengthening for the surgical treatment of early-onset scoliosis (EOS). The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of these devices in the prevention of progression of the deformity. A secondary aim was to record the rate of complications. Patients and Methods. An observational study of 31 consecutive children with EOS, of whom 15 were male, who were treated between December 2011 and October 2017 was undertaken. Their mean age was 7.7 years (2 to 14). The mean follow-up was 47 months (24 to 69). Distractions were completed using the tailgating technique. The primary outcome measure was correction of the radiographic deformity. Secondary outcomes were growth, functional outcomes and complication rates. Results. The mean Cobb angle was 54° (14° to 91°) preoperatively and 37° (11° to 69°) at the latest follow-up (p < 0.001). The mean thoracic kyphosis (TK) was 45° (10° to 89°) preoperatively and 42° (9° to 84°) at the latest follow-up. The mean T1–S1 height increased from 287 mm (209 to 378) to 338 mm (240 to 427) (p < 0.001) and the mean sagittal balance reduced from 68 mm (-76 to 1470) preoperatively to 18 mm (-32 to 166) at the latest follow-up. The mean coronal balance was 3 mm (-336 to 64) preoperatively and 8 mm (-144 to 64) at the latest follow-up. The mean increase in weight and sitting and standing height at the latest follow-up was 45%, 10% and 15%, respectively. The mean Activity Scale for Kids (ASKp) scores increased in all domains, with only personal care and standing skills being significant at the latest follow-up (p = 0.02, p = 0.03). The improvements in Cobb angle, TK and T1-S1 heights were not related to gender, the aetiology of the EOS, or whether the procedure was primary or conversion from a conventional growing rod system. A total of 21 children developed 23 complications at a rate of 0.23 per patient per year. Seven developed MCGR-specific complications. Complications developed at a mean of 38 months (3 to 67) after the initial surgery and required 22 further procedures. Children who developed a complication were more likely to be younger, have syndromic EOS, and have a single-rod construct (6.9 versus 9.3 years, p = 0.034). Conclusion. The progression of EOS can be controlled using MCGRs allowing growth and improved function. Younger and syndromic children are more likely to develop complications following surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:1187–1200

Aims

We present a case series of five patients who had revision surgery following magnetic controlled growing rods (MGCR) for early onset scoliosis. Metallosis was found during revision in four out of five patients and we postulated a mechanism for rod failure based on retrieval analysis.

Aims

We undertook a prospective non-randomised radiological study to evaluate the preliminary results of using magnetically-controlled growing rods (MAGEC System, Ellipse technology) to treat children with early-onset scoliosis.

The outcome of surgery for recurrent lumbar disc herniation is debatable. Some studies show results that are comparable with those of primary discectomy, whereas others report worse outcomes. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcome of revision lumbar discectomy with that of primary discectomy in the same cohort of patients who had both the primary and the recurrent herniation at the same level and side.

A retrospective analysis of prospectively gathered data was undertaken in 30 patients who had undergone both primary and revision surgery for late recurrent lumbar disc herniation. The outcome measures used were visual analogue scales for lower limb (VAL) and back (VAB) pain and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI).

There was a significant improvement in the mean VAL and ODI scores (both p < 0.001) after primary discectomy. Revision surgery also resulted in improvements in the mean VAL (p < 0.001), VAB (p = 0.030) and ODI scores (p < 0.001). The changes were similar in the two groups (all p > 0.05).

Revision discectomy can give results that are as good as those seen after primary surgery.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:90–4.

We describe a modified technique of micro-decompression of the lumbar spine involving the use of an operating microscope, a malleable retractor and a high-speed burr, which allows decompression to be performed on both sides of the spine through a unilateral, hemi-laminectomy approach. The first 100 patients to be treated with this technique have been evaluated prospectively using a visual analogue score for sciatica and back pain, the MacNab criteria for patient satisfaction, and functional assessment with the Oswestry Disability Index.

After a period of follow-up from 12 months to six years and four months, sciatica had improved in 90 patients and back pain in 84 patients. Their result was graded as good or excellent by 82 patients according to the MacNab criteria, and 75 patients had subjective improvement in their walking distance. Late instability developed in four patients.

Lumbar micro-decompression has proved to be safe, with few complications. Postoperative instability requiring fusion was uncommon, and less than using traditional approaches in published series.