Aims. Scoliosis is a lateral curvature of the spine with associated rotation, often causing distress due to appearance. For some curves, there is good evidence to support the use of a spinal brace, worn for 20 to 24 hours a day to minimize the curve, making it as straight as possible during growth, preventing progression. Compliance can be poor due to appearance and comfort. A night-time brace, worn for eight to 12 hours, can achieve higher levels of curve correction while patients are supine, and could be preferable for patients, but evidence of efficacy is limited. This is the protocol for a randomized controlled trial of ‘full-time bracing’ versus ‘night-time bracing’ in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). Methods. UK paediatric spine clinics will recruit 780 participants aged ten to 15 years-old with AIS, Risser stage 0, 1, or 2, and curve size (Cobb angle) 20° to 40° with apex at or below T7. Patients are randomly allocated 1:1, to either full-time or night-time bracing. A qualitative sub-study will explore communication and experiences of families in terms of bracing and research. Patient and Public Involvement & Engagement informed study design and will assist with aspects of trial delivery and dissemination. Discussion. The primary outcome is ‘treatment failure’ (Cobb angle progression to 50° or more before skeletal maturity); skeletal maturity is at Risser stage 4 in females and 5 in males, or ‘treatment success’ (Cobb angle less than 50° at skeletal maturity). The comparison is on a non-inferiority basis (non-inferiority margin 11%). Participants are followed up every six months while in brace, and at one and two years after skeletal maturity. Secondary outcomes include the Scoliosis Research Society 22 questionnaire and measures of quality of life, psychological effects of bracing, adherence, anxiety and depression, sleep, satisfaction, and educational attainment. All data will be collected through the British Spine Registry. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(11):873–880

Aims

To provide normative data that can assess spinal-related disability and the prevalence of back or leg pain among adults with no spinal conditions in the UK using validated questionnaires.

Aims. The aim of this study was to identify factors associated with poor outcome following coccygectomy on patients with chronic coccydynia and instability of the coccyx. Methods. From the Danish National Spine Registry, DaneSpine, 134 consecutive patients were identified from a single centre who had coccygectomy from 2011 to 2019. Patient demographic data and patient-reported outcomes, including pain measured on a visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), EuroQol five-dimension five-level questionnaire, and 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey questionnaire (SF-36) were obtained at baseline and at one-year follow-up. Patient satisfaction was obtained at follow-up. Regression analysis, including age, sex, smoking status, BMI, duration of symptoms, work status, welfare payment, preoperative VAS, ODI, and SF-36 was performed to identify factors associated with dissatisfaction with results at one-year follow-up. Results. A minimum of one year follow-up was available in 112 patients (84%). Mean age was 41.9 years (15 to 78) and 97 of the patients were female (87%). Regression showed no statistically significant association between the investigated prognostic factors and a poor outcome following coccygectomy. The satisfied group showed a statistically significant improvement in patient-reported outcomes at one-year follow-up from baseline, whereas the dissatisfied group did not show a significant improvement. Conclusion. We did not identify factors associated with poor outcome following coccygectomy. This suggests that neither of the included parameters should be considered contraindications for coccygectomy in patients with chronic coccydynia and instability of the coccyx. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(7):540–544

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