The August 2015 Spine Roundup360 looks at: Steroids may be useful in avoiding dysphagia in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF); Perhaps X-Stop ought to stop?; Is cervical plexus block in ACDF the gateway to day case spinal surgery?; Epidural past its heyday?; Steroids in lumbar back pain; Lumbar disc replacement improving; Post-discectomy arthritis

The effective capture of outcome measures in the healthcare setting can be traced back to Florence Nightingale’s investigation of the in-patient mortality of soldiers wounded in the Crimean war in the 1850s.

Only relatively recently has the formalised collection of outcomes data into Registries been recognised as valuable in itself.

With the advent of surgeon league tables and a move towards value based health care, individuals are being driven to collect, store and interpret data.

Following the success of the National Joint Registry, the British Association of Spine Surgeons instituted the British Spine Registry. Since its launch in 2012, over 650 users representing the whole surgical team have registered and during this time, more than 27 000 patients have been entered onto the database.

There has been significant publicity regarding the collection of outcome measures after surgery, including patient-reported scores. Over 12 000 forms have been directly entered by patients themselves, with many more entered by the surgical teams.

Questions abound: who should have access to the data produced by the Registry and how should they use it? How should the results be reported and in what forum?

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:871–4.

The February 2015 Spine Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Paracetamol use for lower back pain; En-bloc resection of vertebra reported for the first time; Spinopelvic disassociation under the spotlight; Hope for back pain; Disc replacement and ACDF equivalent in randomised study; Interspinous process devices ineffective

The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether concerns about the release of metal ions in metal-on-metal total hip replacements (THR) should be extended to patients with metal-bearing total disc replacements (TDR).

Cobalt and chromium levels in whole blood and serum were measured in ten patients with a single-level TDR after a mean follow-up of 34.5 months (13 to 61) using inductively-coupled plasma mass spectrometry. These metal ion levels were compared with pre-operative control levels in 81 patients and with metal ion levels 12 months after metal-on-metal THR (n = 21) and resurfacing hip replacement (n = 36). Flexion-extension radiographs were used to verify movement of the TDR.

Cobalt levels in whole blood and serum were significantly lower in the TDR group than in either the THR (p = 0.007) or the resurfacing group (p < 0.001). Both chromium levels were also significantly lower after TDR versus hip resurfacing (p < 0.001), whereas compared with THR this difference was only significant for serum levels (p = 0.008). All metal ion levels in the THR and resurfacing groups were significantly higher than in the control group (p < 0.001). In the TDR group only cobalt in whole blood appeared to be significantly higher (p < 0.001). The median range of movement of the TDR was 15.5° (10° to 22°).

These results suggest that there is minimal cause for concern about high metal ion concentrations after TDR, as the levels appear to be only moderately elevated. However, spinal surgeons using a metal-on-metal TDR should still be aware of concerns expressed in the hip replacement literature about toxicity from elevated metal ion levels, and inform their patients appropriately.

The December 2014 Spine Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: surgeon outcomes;

complications and scoliosis surgery; is sequestrectomy enough in lumbar disc prolapse?; predicting outcomes in lumbar disc herniation; sympathectomy has a direct effect on the dorsal root ganglion; and distal extensions of fusion in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis.

Lumbar disc herniation (LDH) is uncommon in youth and few cases are treated surgically. Very few outcome studies exist for LDH surgery in this age group. Our aim was to explore differences in gender in pre-operative level of disability and outcome of surgery for LDH in patients aged ≤ 20 years using prospectively collected data.

From the national Swedish SweSpine register we identified 180 patients with one-year and 108 with two-year follow-up data ≤ 20 years of age, who between the years 2000 and 2010 had a primary operation for LDH.

Both male and female patients reported pronounced impairment before the operation in all patient reported outcome measures, with female patients experiencing significantly greater back pain, having greater analgesic requirements and reporting significantly inferior scores in EuroQol (EQ-5D-index), EQ-visual analogue scale, most aspects of Short Form-36 and Oswestry Disabilities Index, when compared with male patients. Surgery conferred a statistically significant improvement in all registered parameters, with few gender discrepancies. Quality of life at one year following surgery normalised in both males and females and only eight patients (4.5%) were dissatisfied with the outcome. Virtually all parameters were stable between the one- and two-year follow-up examination.

LDH surgery leads to normal health and a favourable outcome in both male and female patients aged 20 years or younger, who failed to recover after non-operative management.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1675–82.

The October 2014 Spine Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: microdiscectomy is not exactly a hands-down winner; lumbar spinal stenosis unpicked; Wallis implant helpful in lumbosacral decompression; multidisciplinary rehabilitation is good for back pain; and understanding the sciatic stretch test.

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.

The aim of this study was to determine whether obesity affects pain, surgical and functional outcomes following lumbar spinal fusion for low back pain (LBP).

A systematic literature review and meta-analysis was made of those studies that compared the outcome of lumbar spinal fusion for LBP in obese and non-obese patients. A total of 17 studies were included in the meta-analysis. There was no difference in the pain and functional outcomes. Lumbar spinal fusion in the obese patient resulted in a statistically significantly greater intra-operative blood loss (weighted mean difference: 54.04 ml; 95% confidence interval (CI) 15.08 to 93.00; n = 112; p = 0.007) more complications (odds ratio: 1.91; 95% CI 1.68 to 2.18; n = 43858; p < 0.001) and longer duration of surgery (25.75 mins; 95% CI 15.61 to 35.90; n = 258; p < 0.001). Obese patients have greater intra-operative blood loss, more complications and longer duration of surgery but pain and functional outcome are similar to non-obese patients. Based on these results, obesity is not a contraindication to lumbar spinal fusion.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1395–1404.

The June 2014 Spine Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: spinal pedicle screws in paediatric patients; improving diagnosis in lumbar spine stenosis; back pain all in the head?; brace three patients, save one scoliosis operation; pedicle screws more often misplaced than one would think; and incidental dural tears usually no problem

The February 2014 Spine Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: single posterior approach for severe kyphosis; risk factors for recurrent disc herniation; dysphagia and cervical disc replacement or fusion; hang on to your topical antibiotics; cost-effective lumbar disc replacement; anxiolytics no role to play in acute lumbar back pain; and surgery best for lumbar disc herniation.

Few studies have examined the order in which a spinal osteotomy and total hip replacement (THR) are to be performed for patients with ankylosing spondylitis. We have retrospectively reviewed 28 consecutive patients with ankylosing spondylitis who underwent both a spinal osteotomy and a THR from September 2004 to November 2012. In the cohort 22 patients had a spinal osteotomy before a THR (group 1), and six patients had a THR before a spinal osteotomy (group 2). The mean duration of follow-up was 3.5 years (2 to 9). The spinal sagittal Cobb angle of the vertebral osteotomy segment was corrected from a pre-operative kyphosis angle of 32.4 (SD 15.5°) to a post-operative lordosis 29.6 (SD 11.2°) (p < 0.001). Significant improvements in pain, function and range of movement were observed following THR. In group 2, two of six patients had an early anterior dislocation. The spinal osteotomy was performed two weeks after the THR. At follow-up, no hip has required revision in either group. Although this non-comparative study only involved a small number of patients, given our experience, we believe a spinal osteotomy should be performed prior to a THR, unless the deformity is so severe that the procedure cannot be performed.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:360–5.

The December 2013 Spine Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Just how common is lumbar spinal stenosis?; How much will they bleed?; C5 palsy associated with stenosis; Atlanto-axial dislocations revisited; 3D predictors of progression in scoliosis; No difference in outcomes by surgical approach for fusion; Cervical balance changes after thoracolumbar surgery; and spinal surgeons first in space.

The October 2013 Spine Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Standing straighter may reduce falls; Operative management of congenital kyphosis; Athletic discectomy; Lumbar spine stenosis worsens with time; Flexible stabilisation?: spinal stenosis revisited; Do epidural steroids cause spinal fractures?; Who does well with cervical myelopathy?; Secretly adverse to BMP-2?

The June 2013 Spine Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: the benefit of MRI in the follow-up of lumbar disc prolapse; gunshot injury to the spinal cord; the link between depression and back pain; floating dural sack sign; short segment fixation at ten years; whether early return to play is safer than previously thought; infection in diabetic spinal patients; and dynesis.

The December 2012 Spine Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: the Japanese neck disability index; adjacent segment degeneration; sacroiliac loads determined by limb length discrepancy; whether epidural steroids improve outcome in lumbar disc herniation; spondylodiscitis in infancy; total pedicle screws; and iliac crest autograft complications.

Whether to combine spinal decompression with fusion in patients with symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis remains controversial. We performed a cohort study to determine the effect of the addition of fusion in terms of patient satisfaction after decompressive spinal surgery in patients with and without a degenerative spondylolisthesis.

The National Swedish Register for Spine Surgery (Swespine) was used for the study. Data were obtained for all patients in the register who underwent surgery for stenosis on one or two adjacent lumbar levels. A total of 5390 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria and completed a two-year follow-up. Using multivariable models the results of 4259 patients who underwent decompression alone were compared with those of 1131 who underwent decompression and fusion. The consequence of having an associated spondylolisthesis in the operated segments pre-operatively was also considered.

At two years there was no significant difference in patient satisfaction between the two treatment groups for any of the outcome measures, regardless of the presence of a pre-operative spondylolisthesis. Moreover, the proportion of patients who required subsequent further lumbar surgery was also similar in the two groups.

In this large cohort the addition of fusion to decompression was not associated with an improved outcome.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:960–5.

The June 2012 Spine Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: back pain; spinal fusion for tuberculosis; anatomical course of the recurrent laryngeal nerve; groin pain with normal imaging; the herniated intervertebral disc; obesity’s effect on the spine; the medicolegal risks of cauda equina syndrome; and intravenous lidocaine use and failed back surgery syndrome.

This article reviews the current knowledge of the intervertebral disc (IVD) and its association with low back pain (LBP). The normal IVD is a largely avascular and aneural structure with a high water content, its nutrients mainly diffusing through the end plates. IVD degeneration occurs when its cells die or become dysfunctional, notably in an acidic environment. In the process of degeneration, the IVD becomes dehydrated and vascularised, and there is an ingrowth of nerves. Although not universally the case, the altered physiology of the IVD is believed to precede or be associated with many clinical symptoms or conditions including low back and/or lower limb pain, paraesthesia, spinal stenosis and disc herniation.

New treatment options have been developed in recent years. These include biological therapies and novel surgical techniques (such as total disc replacement), although many of these are still in their experimental phase. Central to developing further methods of treatment is the need for effective ways in which to assess patients and measure their outcomes. However, significant difficulties remain and it is therefore an appropriate time to be further investigating the scientific basis of and treatment of LBP.