Aims. The escalating demand for medical resources to address spinal diseases as society ages is an issue that requires careful evaluation. However, few studies have examined trends in spinal surgery, especially unscheduled hospitalizations or surgeries performed after hours, through large databases. Our study aimed to determine national trends in the number of spine surgeries in Japan. We also aimed to identify trends in after-hours surgeries and unscheduled hospitalizations and their impact on complications and costs. Methods. We retrospectively investigated data extracted from the Diagnosis Procedure Combination database, a representative inpatient database in Japan. The data from April 2010 to March 2020 were used for this study. We included all patients who had undergone any combination of laminectomy, laminoplasty, discectomy, and/or spinal arthrodesis. Results. This investigation included 739,474 spinal surgeries and 739,215 hospitalizations in Japan. There was an average annual increase of 4.6% in the number of spinal surgeries. Scheduled hospitalizations increased by 3.7% per year while unscheduled hospitalizations increased by 11.8% per year. In-hours surgeries increased by 4.5% per year while after-hours surgeries increased by 9.9% per year. Complication rates and costs increased for both after-hours surgery and unscheduled hospitalizations, in comparison to their respective counterparts of in-hours surgery and scheduled hospitalizations. Conclusion. This study provides important insights for those interested in improving spine care in an ageing society. The swift surge in after-hours spinal surgeries and unscheduled hospitalizations highlights that the medical needs of an increasing number of patients due to an ageing society are outpacing the capacity of existing medical resources. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(8):662–670

Background. Over 55,000 spinal operations are performed annually in the NHS. Effective postoperative analgesia facilitates early mobilisation and assists rehabilitation and hospital discharge, but is difficult to achieve with conventional, opioid-based, oral analgesia. The clinical and cost-effectiveness of two alternative techniques, namely intrathecal opioid and the more novel erector-spinae plane blockade, is unknown. The Pain Relief After Instrumented Spinal Surgery (PRAISE) trial aims to evaluate these techniques. Methods. PRAISE is a multicentre, prospective, parallel group, patient-blinded, randomised trial, seeking to recruit 456 adult participants undergoing elective, posterior lumbar-instrumented spinal surgery from up to 25 NHS hospitals. Participants will be randomised 1:1:1 to receive (1) Usual Care with local wound infiltration, (2) Intrathecal Opioid plus Usual Care with local wound infiltration or (3) Erector Spinae Plane blockade plus Usual Care with no local wound infiltration. The primary outcome is pain on movement on a 100mm visual analogue scale at 24 hours post-surgery. Secondary outcomes include pain at rest, leg pain, quality of recovery (QoR-15), postoperative opioid consumption, time to mobilisation, length of hospital stay, health utility (EQ-5D-5L), adverse events and resource use. Parallel economic evaluation will estimate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Results. Differences in the primary outcome at 24 hours will be estimated by mixed-effects linear regression modelling, with fixed effects for randomisation factors and other important prognostic variables, and random effects for centre, using the as-randomised population. Treatment effects with 95% confidence intervals will be presented. Conclusion. The study is due to open in May 2024 and complete in 2026. Conflicts of Interest. No conflicts of interest declared. Sources of Funding. NIHR Health Technology Award – grant number NIHR153170. Trial presentations so far. APOMP 2023 and 2024; RCOA conference, York, November 2023; Faculty of Pain Management training day, London, February 2024

Aims. The current pandemic caused by COVID-19 is the biggest challenge for national health systems for a century. While most medical resources are allocated to treat COVID-19 patients, several non-COVID-19 medical emergencies still need to be treated, including vertebral fractures and spinal cord compression. The aim of this paper is to report the early experience and an organizational protocol for emergency spinal surgery currently being used in a large metropolitan area by an integrated team of orthopaedic surgeons and neurosurgeons. Methods. An organizational model is presented based on case centralization in hub hospitals and early management of surgical cases to reduce hospital stay. Data from all the patients admitted for emergency spinal surgery from the beginning of the outbreak were prospectively collected and compared to data from patients admitted for the same reason in the same time span in the previous year, and treated by the same integrated team. Results. A total of 19 patients (11 males and eight females, with a mean age of 49.9 years (14 to 83)) were admitted either for vertebral fracture or spinal cord compression in a 19-day period, compared to the ten admitted in the previous year. No COVID-19 patients were treated. The mean time between admission and surgery was 1.7 days, significantly lower than 6.8 days the previous year (p < 0.001). Conclusion. The structural organization and the management protocol we describe allowed us to reduce the time to surgery and ultimately hospital stay, thereby maximizing the already stretched medical resources available. We hope that our early experience can be of value to the medical communities that will soon be in the same emergency situation. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(6):671–676

Purpose of study and background. Spinal surgery is a high-risk surgical speciality, a patient's understanding of surgical interventions, alternative treatment options, and the benefits and risks must be ascertained to gain informed consent. This pilot study aims to evaluate if the provision of a digital recording of a patient's consultation enhances patient satisfaction, improves recall of clinical diagnosis, recall of treatment options and the risks and benefits of Spinal Surgery. Methodology and results. A coalition team was identified. A safe and secure process for recording and storage identified. Both qualitative and quantitative data was collected via questionnaires. 62 patients were invited to participate in the pilot, 12 declined. Data was collected immediately post consultation, and two weeks following the consultation via telephone. Comparison was made of the relative increase or decrease in patient recall of the clinical diagnosis, treatment options, and the benefits and the risks of spinal surgery. Patient satisfaction was measured pre- and post- consultation. 50 patients (81%) participated. 32 participants (52%) responded to follow up questionnaire at 2 weeks. Recall of risk for surgical intervention increased by 37%, and of benefit by 36%. Patient satisfaction was rated excellent or very satisfied in 93% at initial consultation and at 2 week follow up all participant's rated satisfaction as excellent or very satisfied. Conclusion. This pilot study was small. COVID delayed further recruitment. Initial outcomes demonstrated high levels of patient satisfaction and appear to demonstrate improved recall. Significant technological issues were identified. Further collaborative work needs to be undertaken. Conflicts of interest: No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: No funding obtained

With the identification of literature shortfalls on the techniques employed in intraoperative navigated (ION) spinal surgery, we outline a number of measures which have been synthesised into a coherent operative technique. These include positioning, dissection, management of the reference frame, the grip, the angle of attack, the drill, the template, the pedicle screw, the wire, and navigated intrathecal analgesia. Optimizing techniques to improve accuracy allow an overall reduction of the repetition of the surgical steps with its associated productivity benefits including time, cost, radiation, and safety. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(3):371–375

Minimal clinically important differences (MCID) in the scores of patient-reported outcome measures allow clinicians to assess the outcome of intervention from the perspective of the patient. There has been significant variation in their absolute values in previous publications and a lack of consistency in their calculation. The purpose of this study was first, to establish whether these values, following spinal surgery, vary depending on the surgical intervention and their method of calculation and secondly, to assess whether there is any correlation between the two external anchors most frequently used to calculate the MCID. . We carried out a retrospective analysis of prospectively gathered data of adult patients who underwent elective spinal surgery between 1994 and 2009. A total of 244 patients were included. There were 125 men and 119 women with a mean age of 54 years (16 to 84); the mean follow-up was 62 months (6 to 199) The MCID was calculated using three previously published methods. Our results show that the value of the MCID varies considerably with the operation and its method of calculation. There was good correlation between the two external anchors. The global outcome tool correlated significantly better. We conclude that consensus needs to be reached on the best method of calculating the MCID. This then needs to be defined for each spinal procedure. Using a blanket value for the MCID for all spinal procedures should be avoided. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:366–71

Venous Thromboembolism (VTE) is the most common complication following major joint surgery. While attention has focused on VTE following joint arthroplasty their exists a gap in the literature examining the incidence of VTE in spinal surgery; with a shortage of epidemiological data, guidelines for optimal prophylaxis are limited. This survey, undertaken at the 2009 BASS Annual Meeting, sought to examine prevailing trends in VTE thromboprophylaxis in spinal surgery and to compare selections made by Orthopaedic and Neurosurgeons. We developed a questionnaire based around eight clinical scenarios. Participants were asked to supply details on their speciality (orthopaedics or neurosurgery) and level of training (grade) and to select which method(s) of thromboprophylaxis they would employ for each scenario. Thirty-nine participants provided responses to the eight scenarios; complete details, including speciality and grade of those surveyed, were complied for 27 of the 39 questionnaires completed. LMWH was the preferred pharmacological method of thromboprophylaixs selected 31% and 72% of the time by orthopaedic and neurosurgeons respectively. For each of the eight clinical scenarios LMWH and BK TEDS were selected more frequently by neurosurgeons than orthopaedic surgeons who elected to employ early mobilisation and mechanical prophylaxis. Neurosurgeons were more likely to employ more than method of thromboprophylaxis. Thromboprophylactic selections differed between the two groups; Neurosurgeons preferred LMWH and BK TEDS whilst Early Mobilisation and Mechanical prophylaxis were the preferred methods of thromboprophylaxis amongst orthopaedic surgeons. Based on the results of this survey neurosurgeons more closely adhered to guidelines outlined by NICE/BASS

To review blood transfusion practices during elective spinal surgery procedures. Prospective clinical audit. All patients who underwent elective spinal surgery between January 2009 and March 2009. Crossmatch: Transfusion ratio (C: T ratio); Transfusion index (TI) (Evaluates cost-effective crossmatch). British Haematological society standards are C:T ratio= 2.5:1 and TI>0.5. Data was collected from electronic records of blood bank, pathology system (NOTIS) and review of patient notes. A total of 194 patients underwent elective spinal surgery in our unit. (Cervical spine = 15, Thoracic spine = 3, Vertebroplasty = 10, Lumbar spine = 142, Deformity = 31, other = 8). Of these, 62 patients had 197 blood products crossmatched but only 37 units were used. C:T ratio in lumbar spine surgery was 22:1. However C: T ratio in cervical spine procedures, thoracic spine and deformity correction were 6:1, 11:0 and 4:1 respectively. TI was <0.5 in all procedures except deformity surgery (TI=1). Over- ordering of blood products is still common in spinal surgery as routine blood transfusion may not be required in most elective procedures. Therefore implementing Electronic Issue (EI) of blood products for elective spinal procedures for non deformity procedures can be a cost effective and safe practice

A dural tear is a common but troublesome complication of endoscopic spinal surgery. The limitations of space make repair difficult, and it is often necessary to proceed to an open operation to suture the dura in order to prevent leakage of cerebrospinal fluid. We describe a new patch technique in which a small piece of polyglactin 910 is fixed to the injured dura with fibrin glue. Three pieces are generally required to obtain a watertight closure after lavage with saline. We have applied this technique in seven cases. All recovered well with no adverse effects. MRI showed no sign of leakage of cerebrospinal fluid

Surgery of the spine is associated with blood loss and frequently transfusion, with consequent risk of infection and reactions. It also costly, and puts a strain on national blood banks. A new blood salvage device works by ‘washing’ and centrifuging the blood lost during surgery; which can then be re-transfused into the patient. In a retrospective study 46 consecutive spinal surgeries with Cell Saver were compared with 39 matched surgeries without. Blood loss and units transfused was obtained from the transfusion database and the anaesthetic record. Average blood loss in the Cell saver group was 1382ml compared to 1405ml in the pre-Cell Saver group. Average allogenic transfusion was 1.30 units with cell saver compared to 2.78 units without. An average 2.3 units of lost blood were re-infused in the Cell Saver group. 26 (57%) of the Cell Saver group require no allogenic blood at all, whereas only 10 (26%) of patients in the pre-Cell Saver group had no transfusions. One unit of blood costs £130.52, and the Cell saver device costs £100 per patient. The average cost per patient in the Cell saver group was £270 (any transfusion plus cost of Cell Saver), compared to an average of £368.50 in the pre-Cell Saver group: a saving of £92.50. The Cell Saver decreased blood transfusions by 46% per patient and by 40% overall, a saving of £92.50 per patient. The number of patients receiving no allogenic blood increased by 31%

Objectives:. To establish the demand, referral pathways, utility and patient satisfaction of a physiotherapy led post operative spinal surgery review clinic. Methods:. From July 2014 to January 2015 a pilot physiotherapy led clinic was established. The following clinic data was collected: number of patients reviewed, surgical procedure, outcome of clinic assessment, numbers requiring further investigation, numbers requiring review in the consultant led clinic and adverse events. A patient satisfaction survey was also administered to all English speaking patients. Patients were asked to rate the ease of getting through to the service by phone, length of wait, time spent with the clinician, answers to questions, explanation of results, advice about exercise and return to activities, the technical skills of the clinician, their personal manner and their overall visit. Data was anonymised and inserted into an excel spreadsheet for analysis. Descriptive statistical analysis was undertaken. Results:. 28 patients were reviewed in the pilot clinic. 17 (61%) patients were reviewed and discharged. 11 (39%) patients required discussion with the consultant. The outcome was: Referral for further imaging: n=5 (18%), referral to other specialist: n=2 (6%), consultant led OPD clinic review n=4 (14%) and surgical review of wound n=1 (4%). 84% (n=21/25) of eligible patients completed a post operative satisfaction survey. 86% (n= 18/21) rated their overall visit as excellent. There were no adverse events reported. Conclusion:. The pilot clinic has informed the development of a permanent physiotherapy led post op clinic in the National Neurosurgical Spinal Service and demonstrates the value of interdisciplinary care in this population

Wrong-level surgery is a unique pitfall in spinal surgery and is part of the wider field of wrong-site surgery. Wrong-site surgery affects both patients and surgeons and has received much media attention. We performed this systematic review to determine the incidence and prevalence of wrong-level procedures in spinal surgery and to identify effective prevention strategies. We retrieved 12 studies reporting the incidence or prevalence of wrong-site surgery and that provided information about prevention strategies. Of these, ten studies were performed on patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery and two on patients undergoing lumbar, thoracic or cervical spine procedures. A higher frequency of wrong-level surgery in lumbar procedures than in cervical procedures was found. Only one study assessed preventative strategies for wrong-site surgery, demonstrating that current site-verification protocols did not prevent about one-third of the cases. The current literature does not provide a definitive estimate of the occurrence of wrong-site spinal surgery, and there is no published evidence to support the effectiveness of site-verification protocols. Further prevention strategies need to be developed to reduce the risk of wrong-site surgery.

To audit patient satisfaction throughout the perioperative period amongst emergency and elective admissions in the spinal team.

92 patients were identified whom underwent operations within a 3 month period using the operating database. A self administered postal questionnaire was sent to assess preoperative waiting time, quality of preoperative assessment and information given, assessment of their admission, their experience throughout hospital stay and the quality of their post operative assessment and discharge.

Patient reported outcomes (PROMS)

Response rate 35% (32/92) of which 24 (14F 10M) were elective admissions and 8 emergency admissions (2F 6M). Average wait for elective procedure was 5.7 weeks (median 2).

63% of elective patients were seen in prescreening clinic and 79% of these received an information booklet prior to operation.

22% of patients had delayed discharge due to non clinical causes including awaiting transport, awaiting medications and physiotherapy clearance.

88% of patients reported they were given adequate information regarding post-operative daily activities.

79% of elective patients reported seeing a doctor on the day of their discharge however only 38% reported seeing a physiotherapist postoperatively. This fell to 0% for patients operated on a Friday.

Although 94% of patients reported that they were satisfied with the overall care they were given, they reported certain aspects of their clinical care being less than optimal.

Trust wide assessment of patient reported outcomes to assess and improve the quality of care against national guidelines.

Ethics Approval: Self questionnaire approved by ethics committee

We have examined how many and which potential complications (PCs) are recorded on the consent form by a group of consultant surgeons performing common spinal procedures - anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and posterior lumbar discectomy and/or medial facetectomy (PLD).

Email survey

Consultant spinal surgeons performing ACDF and/or PLD practicing in Southwest England

Identification of the PCs each surgeon listed on the consent form for the specified procedures.

There were 23 responses from 28 Consultant surgeons approached. 21 surgeons performed both ACDF and PLD, 2 performed only PLD. Surgeons quoted 5 to 17 (mode 10) PCs for ACDF and 4 to 15 (mode 13) for PLD. These did not necessarily represent the most common or most dangerous PCs recorded in the literature^1,2. Small difference in PCs mentioned by Neurosurgeons and Orthopaedic surgeons was seen (ACDF mode: 12vs10, PLD mode: 12vs13). There was a strong correlation between the number of PCs recorded by surgeons for ACDF and PLD.

We have found a wide variation in consenting practice amongst a group of surgeons performing common spinal operations. Issues of consent are common causes of formal complaints and potential litigation, causing anxiety for both patient and surgeon. A more homogenous consent process, employing objective measures where possible, may help reduce this burden and may be achieved by setting a national standard.

Introduction. Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) and psychological aspects of spinal conditions play an important role in its management. Disability benefit in the social welfare system is being closely scrutinized. The PHQ9 and GAD7 are used widely in general practice to aid assessment of depression and anxiety/somatization. To date, their use in the spinal surgery out patient setting has not been assessed. Materials and Method. Over a one-year period the senior author saw 516 new patients. Each patient completed a standard spinal assessment questionnaire consisting of several demographic/aetiological questions and PROMs (VAS back, VAS leg, ODI/NDI, PHQ9 and GAD7). An analysis of these scores was performed. Results. The mean age was 54 years with 237 males and 279 females. The mean VAS Neck/Back was 6.7, VAS Limb 6, ODI/NDI 48, PHQ9 12 and GAD7 8.7. The PHQ9 and GAD7 correlated strongly with the VAS and ODI/NDI scores (r=0.3–0.4, p<0.0001). The PHQ9 correlated strongly with the GAD7 (r=0.83, p<0.0001). 163 patients (31.6%) were receiving disability benefit. Disability benefit was strongly associated with increasing age, VAS, ODI/NDI, PHQ9 and GAD7 scores (p<0.0001). Patients receiving disability benefit have more concerns regarding their pain and worse PROMs. Similar findings were found in the subgroup of 81 patients with chronic degenerative low back pain. Conclusion. The PHQ9 and GAD7 scores appear to correlate well with the standard spinal disability assessment PROMs (VAS and ODI/NDI). Patients receiving disability benefit appear to have worse PROMs including worse measures of depression and anxiety/somatization

Modern techniques facilitate the treatment of adult spinal deformity. Decision making is a challenge because of potential complications relating to the surgery itself and medical problems. This study aims to provide useful data in facilitating the decision making process.

Retrospective analysis of consecutive single surgeon series of patients aged >50 between 2006-2009 undergoing multi-level spinal deformity surgery with concomitant decompression. Medical co-morbidities, age and ASA were recorded.

71 patients (57 female) mean age 66 (50-83). 29 (12 multiple) failed previous stenosis surgery. 14(19.7%) in hospital complications in 11(15.5%) patients. 4 were ‘medical’. 8/11 patients were revision cases versus 3/11 primary. 4 patients (5.6%) needed further surgery. 13(18.3%) outpatient complications in 12(16.9%)patients. 7/12 occurred in revision cases versus 5/12 in primary. 11(15.5%) needed further surgery.

Revisional surgery in adult deformity presents a significantly higher overall complication rate than primary surgery (p= 0.0084), but both revisional and primary cases have a relatively high re-operation rate once initially discharged. The results indicate that complex medical and surgical factors contribute to the decision making challenge in patients with adult spinal deformity and stenosis.

Aims. We compared decompression alone to decompression with fusion surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis, with or without degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS). The aim was to evaluate if five-year outcomes differed between the groups. The two-year results from the same trial revealed no differences. Methods. The Swedish Spinal Stenosis Study was a multicentre randomized controlled trial with recruitment from September 2006 to February 2012. A total of 247 patients with one- or two-level central lumbar spinal stenosis, stratified by the presence of DS, were randomized to decompression alone or decompression with fusion. The five-year Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were the EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D), visual analogue scales for back and leg pain, and patient-reported satisfaction, decreased pain, and increased walking distance. The reoperation rate was recorded. Results. Five-year follow-up was completed by 213 (95%) of the eligible patients (mean age 67 years; 155 female (67%)). After five years, ODI was similar irrespective of treatment, with a mean of 25 (SD 18) for decompression alone and 28 (SD 22) for decompression with fusion (p = 0.226). Mean EQ-5D was higher for decompression alone than for fusion (0.69 (SD 0.28) vs 0.59 (SD 0.34); p = 0.027). In the no-DS subset, fewer patients reported decreased leg pain after fusion (58%) than with decompression alone (80%) (relative risk (RR) 0.71 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 0.97). The frequency of subsequent spinal surgery was 24% for decompression with fusion and 22% for decompression alone (RR 1.1 (95% CI 0.69 to 1.8)). Conclusion. Adding fusion to decompression in spinal stenosis surgery, with or without spondylolisthesis, does not improve the five-year ODI, which is consistent with our two-year report. Three secondary outcomes that did not differ at two years favoured decompression alone at five years. Our results support decompression alone as the preferred method for operating on spinal stenosis. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(7):705–712

Aims. The British Spine Registry (BSR) was introduced in May 2012 to be used as a web-based database for spinal surgeries carried out across the UK. Use of this database has been encouraged but not compulsory, which has led to a variable level of engagement in the UK. In 2019 NHS England and NHS Improvement introduced a new Best Practice Tariff (BPT) to encourage input of spinal surgical data on the BSR. The aim of our study was to assess the impact of the spinal BPT on compliance with the recording of surgical data on the BSR. Methods. A retrospective review of data was performed at a tertiary spinal centre between 2018 to 2020. Data were collated from electronic patient records, theatre operating lists, and trust-specific BSR data. Information from the BSR included operative procedures (mandatory), patient consent, email addresses, and demographic details. We also identified Healthcare Resource Groups (HRGs) which qualified for BPT. Results. A total of 3,587 patients were included in our study. Of these, 1,684 patients were eligible for BPT. Between 2018 and 2019 269/974 (28%) records were complete on the BSR for those that would be eligible for BPT. Following introduction of BPT in 2019, 671/710 (95%) records were complete having filled in the mandatory data (p < 0.001). Patient consent to data collection also improved from 62% to 93%. Email details were present in 43% of patients compared with 68% following BPT introduction. Conclusion. Our study found that following the introduction of a BPT, there was a statistically significant improvement in BSR record completion compliance in our unit. The BPT offers a financial incentive which can help generate further income for trusts. National data input into the BSR is important to assess patient outcome following spinal surgery. The BSR can also aid future research in spinal surgery. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2-3:198–201

Introduction. The British Spinal Registry (BSR) is a web-based database commissioned by the British Association of Spine Surgeons (BASS) in the UK. It allows auditing of spinal surgery outcomes, patient's safety and overall experience. The clinical data include patient's demographics which is entered into the Registry by medical staff, as well as patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) that is submitted to the Registry by the patient themselves at different time periods post-operatively. It has the ability to register Device and Implants as well as co-ordinate multicentre research. This study is to identify both the staff and patient compliance regarding to data submissions to the BSR at St. George's Hospital NHS Trust. Methods and Materials. Retrospective analysis of the BSR data for all spinal surgeries that was performed at SGH by the three Complex Spinal Surgery Consultants between 1st January 2017 to 31st December 2018. This study period allowed up to 12 months PROM data analysis. Staff and Patient compliance were analysed separately depend on the data they submitted. Results. 404 (n) spinal surgeries were performed over this two-year period. Surgical demographics: 39.4% (159/404) males and 56.2% (227/404) females, 4.5% (18/404) declined to be added. Age ranging from 6 to 92, mean age was 47.9. Staff compliance was 89.4% for the registration of patient data. Trauma and tumour patients were excluded as they are not required to complete any pre-operative PROMs. For the remaining patients, 35.8% (116/324) completed their baseline pre-operative PROMs. A steady decrease in patient compliance for post-operative PROMS was observed: 29.8% (2 weeks), 24.9% (6 weeks), 21.2% (6 months), 17.1% (12 months), and 16.6% (24 months). Conclusions. We identified a poor patient compliance in both pre-operative and post-operative PROMS. Patient questionnaire fatigue can occur over time which results in falling compliance to PROMS in 12 months and 24 months. Moreover, patients who do not provide an email address are less likely to fill in their PROMS. Satisfactory compliance for staff regarding to BSR utilisation are shown. Staff should aim to achieve a higher level of compliance as this will help to keep a record of all spinal surgeries that are performed and any complications that are encountered in a particular centre. Over the past three years, the BSR had introduced various schemes to drive up utilisation including a Best Practice Tariff in 2019. Part of the tariff will be withheld when staff failure to enter patients onto the Registry. Further research is needed to determine why there is such fall off especially with patient compliance and to elucidate potential measures to improve their compliance