Evaluation of Surgical Site Infection Rates in Traumatic Surgical Fixation and Arthroplasty Performed in Laminar Flow Versus Non-laminar Flow Theatres During the COVID Pandemic.

Introduction Laminar flow (LF) in theatres has become the standard of care in orthopaedic implant surgery. Most of the evidence for laminar flow use is based on arthroplasty surgery, with early studies showing a significant reduction in infections. We conducted a retrospective comparative study to assess surgical site infection (SSI) rates in consecutive patients undergoing surgery for trauma in LF and non-laminar flow (NLF) theatres. Methods Due to COVID-19 safety restrictions, trauma surgery was performed in non-laminar flow theatres during the pandemic. We identified consecutive patients who had trauma surgery pre- and post-pandemic from February 2019 to June 2021 to avoid selection bias. A total of 1809 patients were identified for the study, and the relevant patient details were collected through the hospital operating theatre software (Bluespier) and patient records (Welsh Clinical Portal). There were 917 in the laminar theatre group and 892 in the non-laminar theatre group. For the purpose of this study, we recorded SSI rates within the first 90 days. The two groups were statistically similar in terms of age and gender of the patients. Results Nineteen patients developed surgical site infections in non-laminar flow theatres and 25 patients in laminar flow theatres. There was no significant difference between the SSI rate in laminar flow theatres (2.72%) as compared to non-laminar flow theatres (2.13%) (p=0.399). There was no link between infections and the duration of surgery. Two patients in the laminar flow group were MRSA-positive and were excluded. Conclusion In our study, the laminar flow theatres did not show a statistically significant reduction in surgical site infections. We conclude in the practical environment of trauma theatres the theoretical advantage of laminar flow does not translate to an observable reduction of infections.

Lumbar spine fusion surgery versus best conservative care for patients with severe, persistent low back pain.

Aims: People with severe, persistent low back pain (LBP) may be offered lumbar spine fusion surgery if they have had insufficient benefit from recommended non-surgical treatments. However, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) 2016 guidelines recommended not offering spinal fusion surgery for adults with LBP, except as part of a randomized clinical trial. This survey aims to describe UK clinicians' views about the suitability of patients for such a future trial, along with their views regarding equipoise for randomizing patients in a future clinical trial comparing lumbar spine fusion surgery to best conservative care (BCC; the FORENSIC-UK trial). Methods: An online cross-sectional survey was piloted by the multidisciplinary research team, then shared with clinical professional groups in the UK who are involved in the management of adults with severe, persistent LBP. The survey had seven sections that covered the demographic details of the clinician, five hypothetical case vignettes of patients with varying presentations, a series of questions regarding the preferred management, and whether or not each clinician would be willing to recruit the example patients into future clinical trials. Results: There were 72 respondents, with a response rate of 9.0%. They comprised 39 orthopaedic spine surgeons, 17 neurosurgeons, one pain specialist, and 15 allied health professionals. Most respondents (n = 61,84.7%) chose conservative care as their first-choice management option for all five case vignettes. Over 50% of respondents reported willingness to randomize three of the five cases to either surgery or BCC, indicating a willingness to participate in the future randomized trial. From the respondents, transforaminal interbody fusion was the preferred approach for spinal fusion (n = 19, 36.4%), and the preferred method of BCC was a combined programme of physical and psychological therapy (n = 35, 48.5%). Conclusion: This survey demonstrates that there is uncertainty about the role of lumbar spine fusion surgery and BCC for a range of example patients with severe, persistent LBP in the UK.

AO Spine Guideline for the Use of Osteobiologics (AOGO) in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion for Spinal Degenerative Cases.

STUDY DESIGN: Guideline. OBJECTIVES: To develop an international guideline (AOGO) about the use of osteobiologics in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for treating degenerative spine conditions. METHODS: The guideline development process was guided by AO Spine Knowledge Forum Degenerative (KF Degen) and followed the Guideline International Network McMaster Guideline Development Checklist. The process involved 73 participants with expertise in degenerative spine diseases and surgery from 22 countries. Fifteen systematic reviews were conducted addressing respective key topics and evidence was collected. The methodologist compiled the evidence into GRADE Evidence-to-Decision frameworks. Guideline panel members judged the outcomes and other criteria and made the final recommendations through consensus. RESULTS: Five conditional recommendations were created. A conditional recommendation is about the use of allograft, autograft or a cage with an osteobiologic in primary ACDF surgery. Other conditional recommendations are about the use of osteobiologic for single- or multi-level ACDF, and for hybrid construct surgery. It is suggested that surgeons use other osteobiologics rather than human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (BMP-2) in common clinical situations. Surgeons are recommended to choose 1 graft over another or 1 osteobiologic over another primarily based on clinical situation, and the costs and availability of the materials. CONCLUSION: This AOGO guideline is the first to provide recommendations for the use of osteobiologics in ACDF. Despite the comprehensive searches for evidence, there were few studies completed with small sample sizes and primarily as case series with inherent risks of bias. Therefore, high-quality clinical evidence is demanded to improve the guideline.

Bracing Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis (BASIS) study - night-time versus full-time bracing in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: study protocol for a multicentre, randomized controlled trial.

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.

Predictive value of post-void residual volume as an adjunctive tool in the clinical evaluation of cauda equina syndrome.

The early diagnosis of cauda equina syndrome (CES) is crucial for a favourable outcome. Several studies have reported the use of an ultrasound scan of the bladder as an adjunct to assess the minimum post-void residual volume of urine (mPVR). However, variable mPVR values have been proposed as a threshold without consensus on a value for predicting CES among patients with relevant symptoms and signs. The aim of this study was to perform a meta-analysis and systematic review of the published evidence to identify a threshold mPVR value which would provide the highest diagnostic accuracy in patients in whom the diagnosis of CES is suspected. The search strategy used electronic databases (PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, and AMED) for publications between January 1996 and November 2021. All studies that reported mPVR in patients in whom the diagnosis of CES was suspected, followed by MRI, were included. A total of 2,115 studies were retrieved from the search. Seven fulfilled the inclusion criteria. These included 1,083 patients, with data available from 734 being available for meta-analysis. In 125 patients, CES was confirmed by MRI. The threshold value of mPVR reported in each study varied and could be categorized into 100 ml, 200 ml, 300 ml, and 500 ml. From the meta-analysis, 200 ml had the highest diagnostic accuracy, with 82% sensitivity (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 0.90) and 65% specificity (95% CI 0.70 to 0.90). When compared using summative receiver operating characteristic curves, mPVR of 200 ml was superior to other values in predicting the radiological confirmation of CES. mPVR is a useful tool when assessing patients in whom the diagnosis of CES is suspected. Compared with other values a mPVR of 200 ml had superior sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values. In a patient with a suggestive history and clinical findings, a mPVR of > 200 ml should further raise the suspicion of CES. Caution is recommended when considering the mPVR in isolation and using it as an 'exclusion tool', and it should only be used as an adjunct to a full clinical assessment.

A national survey on the management of foot drop secondary to lumbar degenerative disease in the United Kingdom.

PURPOSE: There is considerable variation in the management of foot drop secondary to lumbar degenerative disease (LDD) that occurs between centres and surgeons (spinal surgeons and neurosurgeons). The lack of standardised practice reflects the paucity in evidence base for management of this condition. In this survey, we aimed to assess current practice in the UK and identify the areas of variation. METHODS: A case-based survey was distributed to members of the Society of British Neurological Surgeons and British Association of Spine Surgeons through an online questionnaire. The survey consisted of 10 questions designed to determine the management of foot drop secondary to LDD. RESULTS: A total of 163 responses were collected among UK neurosurgeons and spinal surgeons with good geographical representation. 92% were Consultants. 86% of the respondents would offer surgery. The indication for offering surgery varied but 54% of respondents would offer surgery to patients who present with a painful foot drop. There was a huge variation in offering surgery dependent on the grade of weakness. The strongest prognostic indicator predicted was duration of weakness (92%). The timing of intervention was wide-ranging in the responses received. Almost all responded that they would be willing to participate in a prospective study in the future to determine best practice. CONCLUSIONS: This survey highlights the significant variability in management of foot drop secondary to LDD amongst consultant surgeons within the UK. It is also suggestive of a weak evidence base and indicates an urgent need for a high quality national prospective study.

Posterior spinal stabilization: A biomechanical comparison of Laminar Hook Fusion to a Pedicle Screw System.

BACKGROUND: Several spine instrumentation techniques have been introduced to correct inter-segmental alignment, or provide long-term stability. Whilst pedicle screws are considered the intervention of reference, we hypothesize that the week hold of osteoporotic bone, might be a clinical indicator for an alternative surgical approach. METHODS: To put this to the test, a non-linear Finite Element model, of a ligamentous lumbosacral spine, was employed to examine a stabilization spanning over L3-L5. Two different immobilization techniques (a Pedicle Screw System and Laminar Hook Fusion) are compared as to their biomechanical response during 7.5 Nm flexion, lateral flexion and torsion, while considering a 280 N follower load. Fifteen analyses performed in total, simulating patients of healthy and osteoporotic Bone Mineral Density. FINDINGS: Range of Motion was significantly reduced after instrumentation for both implant systems. This trend was more pronounced in the Pedicle Screw models, which were stressed to a higher degree. To evaluate implant loosening risk, we introduce the consideration of strain energy patterns around the screw tract. The notably higher intensity of these, for the osteoporotic model, taken into consideration with the weaker strength of the tissue and inconsistencies in the stress allocation between implant and bone, affirmed an increased risk for loosening of the Pedicle Screws in osteoporotic patients. INTERPRETATION: The analysis provided refined insight as to the treatment of osteoporotic patients as well as to their postoperative care, as restriction of specific movements (e.g. through bracing), could significantly restrict the stress values in the bone-implant interface and thus, reduce implant failure.

Surgery versus conservative management of stable thoracolumbar fracture: the PRESTO feasibility RCT.

BACKGROUND: There is informal consensus that simple compression fractures of the body of the thoracolumbar vertebrae between the 10th thoracic vertebra and the second lumbar vertebra without neurological complications can be managed conservatively and that obvious unstable fractures require surgical fixation. However, there is a zone of uncertainty about whether surgical or conservative management is best for stable fractures. OBJECTIVES: To assess the feasibility of a definitive randomised controlled trial comparing surgical fixation with initial conservative management of stable thoracolumbar fractures without spinal cord injury. DESIGN: External randomised feasibility study, qualitative study and national survey. SETTING: Three NHS hospitals. METHODS: A feasibility randomised controlled trial using block randomisation, stratified by centre and type of injury (high- or low-energy trauma) to allocate participants 1 : 1 to surgery or conservative treatment; a costing analysis; a national survey of spine surgeons; and a qualitative study with clinicians, recruiting staff and patients. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged ≥ 16 years with a high- or low-energy fracture of the body of a thoracolumbar vertebra between the 10th thoracic vertebra and the second lumbar vertebra, confirmed by radiography, computerised tomography or magnetic resonance imaging, with at least one of the following: kyphotic angle > 20° on weight-bearing radiographs or > 15° on a supine radiograph or on computerised tomography; reduction in vertebral body height of 25%; a fracture line propagating through the posterior wall of the vertebra; involvement of two contiguous vertebrae; or injury to the posterior longitudinal ligament or annulus in addition to the body fracture. INTERVENTIONS: Surgical fixation: open spinal surgery (with or without spinal fusion) or minimally invasive stabilisation surgery. Conservative management: mobilisation with or without a brace. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Recruitment rate (proportion of eligible participants randomised). RESULTS: Twelve patients were randomised (surgery, n = 8; conservative, n = 4). The proportion of eligible patients recruited was 0.43 (95% confidence interval 0.24 to 0.63) over a combined total of 30.7 recruitment months. Of 211 patients screened, 28 (13.3%) fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Patients in the qualitative study (n = 5) expressed strong preferences for surgical treatment, and identified provision of information about treatment and recovery and when and how they are approached for consent as important. Nineteen surgeons and site staff participated in the qualitative study. Key themes were the lack of clinical consensus regarding the implementation of the eligibility criteria in practice and what constitutes a stable fracture, alongside lack of equipoise regarding treatment. Based on the feasibility study eligibility criteria, 77% (50/65) and 70% (46/66) of surgeons participating in the survey were willing to randomise for high- and low-energy fractures, respectively. LIMITATIONS: Owing to the small number of participants, there is substantial uncertainty around the recruitment rate. CONCLUSIONS: A definitive trial is unlikely to be feasible currently, mainly because of the small number of patients meeting the eligibility criteria. The recruitment and follow-up rates were slightly lower than anticipated; however, there is room to increase these based on information gathered and the support within the surgical community for a future trial. FUTURE WORK: Development of consensus regarding the population of interest for a trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN12094890. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 62. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Fractures occurring in the mid- to low back region (or thoracolumbar fractures) are the most common back fractures. When the fracture is stable with no spinal nerve injury, there is uncertainty whether treatment with surgery or non-surgical treatment (e.g. stabilising the spine with a brace) results in the best outcome for patients. The Pragmatic Randomised Evaluation of Stable Thoracolumbar fracture treatment Outcomes (PRESTO) study aimed to explore whether or not it would be feasible to carry out a full-scale study to find out which of these two treatments works best. Adults aged ≥ 16 years being treated for these fractures in three hospitals were invited to take part in the study. Over the course of 1 year, we assessed how many patients were treated, the number who met the study entry criteria and the proportion of eligible patients who agreed to take part. Staff and patients were interviewed about the study processes and their experiences of taking part. Spine surgeons from around the UK were also asked to complete an online survey, which asked questions about the treatment of patients with this fracture. There were fewer patients than expected who met the study entry criteria and, of these, fewer patients who agreed to take part. There were differences among surgeons about the definition of a stable fracture, and we found that surgeons have strong views about whether or not surgery is appropriate when fractures are stable. We also found that more support would be required for the staff involved in inviting patients to take part in a bigger study, and that the format and content of information provided to patients needs to be improved. The findings of the PRESTO study showed that a large trial is unlikely to be successful at this time; however, we have provided important information for future research into the treatment of these fractures.

Prognostic indicators of surgical outcome in painful foot drop: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Foot drop is a relatively uncommon presentation of lumbar degenerative disease and there is currently a paucity of evidence on management and outcomes which is reflective of the lack of standardised treatment provided to patients. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to determine the effectiveness of surgical management and the factors that predict surgical outcome. METHODS: A systematic database search of Cochrane Library, Ovid Medline, Pubmed, Embase and Google Scholar was undertaken from inception through August 2018. Only studies reporting on surgical outcome in adult patients who had a painful foot drop and underwent decompression were included. Case reports and studies with surgical fixation were excluded. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. RESULTS: 797 studies were screened and 9 observational studies met the inclusion criteria. This resulted in a total of 431 patients who underwent decompression for foot drop. Pooled rates of outcome for improvement in foot drop MRC grade were 84.5% (range 67.9-96%). Sub-group meta-analyses of studies revealed a statistically significant association between duration of foot drop (pooled 4.95 [95% CI 1.13-21.74]), severity of preoperative weakness (pooled 0.38 [95% CI 0.15-0.93]) on post-operative outcome and age (pooled 6.28 [1.33-29.72]). CONCLUSION: This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the outcome and prognostic indicators of lumbar decompression for foot drop. Findings indicate that age, duration of foot drop weakness and MRC grade of foot drop prior to intervention were strong predictors of surgical outcome.

The Relative Merits of Posterior Surgical Treatments for Multi-Level Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy Remain Uncertain: Findings from a Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the reporting of study design and characteristics in multi-level degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) treated by posterior surgical approaches, and perform a comparison of clinical and radiographic outcomes between different approaches. METHODS: A literature search was performed in Embase and MEDLINE between 1995-2019 using a sensitive search string combination. Studies were selected by predefined selection criteria: Full text articles in English, with >10 patients (prospective) or >50 patients (retrospective), reporting outcomes of multi-level DCM treated by posterior surgical approach. RESULTS: A total of 75 studies involving 19,510 patients, conducted worldwide, were identified. Laminoplasty was described in 56 studies (75%), followed by laminectomy with (36%) and without fusion (16%). The majority of studies were conducted in Asia (84%), in the period of 2016-2019 (51%), of which laminoplasty was studied predominantly. Twelve (16%) prospective studies and 63 (84%) retrospective studies were identified. The vast majority of studies were conducted in a single centre (95%) with clear inclusion/exclusion criteria and explicit cause of DCM. Eleven studies (15%) included patients with ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament exclusively with cohorts of 57 to 252. The clinical and radiographic outcomes were reported with heterogeneity when comparing laminoplasty, laminectomy with and without fusion. CONCLUSIONS: Heterogeneity in the reporting of study and sample characteristics exists, as well as in clinical and radiographic outcomes, with a paucity of studies with a higher level of evidence. Future studies are needed to elucidate the clinical effectiveness of posterior surgical treatments.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on acute spine surgery referrals to UK tertiary spinal unit: any lessons to be learnt?

INTRODUCTION: Evidence is emerging, suggesting a significant drop in hospital referrals and attendances for various medical conditions due to the COVID-19 pandemic. With the implementation of lockdown rules, road traffic and outdoor activities were expected to drop, thereby reducing the number of high-energy spinal injuries. Critical non-traumatic spinal conditions like spinal tumours, infections, or compressive pathologies, however, should continue to present as before. We assessed all acute spinal referrals to our tertiary spine unit comparing with the acute activity for a similar time frame in the previous year. The aim was to identify any variance in the acute spinal activity, explain reasons for the discrepancy and identify any learning points. MATERIALS: All acute referrals to our tertiary spinal surgery unit made from 01 February 2020 to 30 April 2020 were evaluated. Similar data from the preceding year, i.e. 2019 was evaluated for comparison. Data were analysed for qualitative or quantitative changes in the referral pattern and their subsequent management outcomes. RESULTS: Spinal referral numbers reduced by 46.05% during the time frame of February-April 2020 when compared to the same period in 2019 (p < 0.017). Similarly, numbers of high-energy traumatic presentations reduced by 72% (p < 0.002). Referrals for critical spinal conditions declined by two-thirds for spinal infections and more than a third for spinal tumours. Emergency surgical workload waned by 27%, especially more so during the six-week lockdown duration. CONCLUSION: Reduction in spinal activity, even for critical spinal conditions, during the pandemic is likely due to a combination of factors like patient behaviour, fear of contracting COVID-19 infection during hospital visit, self-isolation advice, availability of a senior decision maker on the frontlines, and changes in healthcare service provisions. The health crisis may provide an opportunity for optimisation of spinal healthcare services both at the referring hospital and at the tertiary centre.

Pragmatic randomised evaluation of stable thoracolumbar fracture treatment outcomes (PRESTO): study protocol for a randomised controlled feasibility trial combined with a qualitative study and survey.

BACKGROUND: A thoracolumbar fracture is the most common fracture of the spinal column. Where the fracture is not obviously stable or unstable, the optimal management is uncertain. There are variations between surgeons, treating centres and within the evidence base as to whether surgical or non-surgical approaches should be used. In addition, the boundaries of this zone of uncertainty for stability are unclear.This study has been designed in response to an NIHR HTA commissioning brief to assess the feasibility of undertaking a large-scale trial to evaluate the effectiveness of surgical and non-surgical treatments for thoracolumbar fractures without neurological deficit. METHODS: Assessment of feasibility will be addressed through three elements: a randomised external feasibility study, a national survey of surgeons and a qualitative study.The external feasibility study is a pragmatic, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial comparing surgical fixation (intervention) versus non-surgical management (control). Recruitment will take place in three secondary care centres in the UK.The primary outcome is recruitment rate, defined as the proportion of eligible participants who are randomised. Further outcomes related to recruitment, randomisation, drop-out, cross-over, loss to follow-up, completeness of outcome data, study processes and details of the interventions delivered will be collected.The survey of surgeons and qualitative study of clinicians, recruiting staff and patients will enhance the feasibility study, enabling a broad overview of current practice in the field in addition to perceived facilitators and barriers to running a full-scale trial. DISCUSSION: PRESTO is a feasibility study which aims to inform methodology for a definitive trial comparing surgical fixation with non-surgical management for patients with stable thoracolumbar fractures. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Register (ISRCTN12094890). Date of registration was 22/02/2018 (http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN12094890).

Does the external remote controller's reading correspond to the actual lengthening in magnetic-controlled growing rods?

PURPOSE: Magnetic-controlled growing rods (MCGRs) are now routinely used in many centres to treat early-onset scoliosis (EOS). MCGR lengthening is done non-invasively by the external remote controller (ERC). Our experience suggests that there may be a discrepancy between the reported rod lengthening on the ERC and the actual rod lengthening. The aim of this study was to investigate this discrepancy. METHODS: This was a prospective series. Eleven patients who were already undergoing treatment for EOS using MCGRs were included in this study. RESULTS: One hundred and ninety-two sets of ultrasound readings were obtained (96 episodes of rod lengthening on dual-rod constructs) and compared to their ERC readings. Only 15/192 (7.8%) readings were accurate; 27 readings (14.9%) were false positive; and 8 readings (4.2%) were an underestimation while 142 readings (74.0%) were an overestimation by the ERC. Average over-reporting by the ERC was 5.31 times of the actual/ultrasound reading. When comparing interval radiographs with lengthening obtained on ultrasound, there was a discrepancy with an average overestimation of 1.35 times with ultrasound in our series. There was a significant difference between ERC and USS (p = 0.01) and ERC and XR (p = 0.001). However, there was no significant difference between USS and XR (p > 0.99). CONCLUSION: The reading on the ERC does not equate to the actual rod lengthening. The authors would recommend that clinicians using the MCGR for the treatment of early-onset scoliosis include pre- and post-extension imaging (radiographs or ultrasound) to confirm extension lengths at each outpatient extension. In centres with ultrasound facilities, we would suggest that patients should have ultrasound to monitor each lengthening after distraction but also 6-month radiographs. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Is it mandatory to routinely use image intensifier during scoliosis surgery? - Results of an email survey.

BACKGROUND: It is now considered standard of care to use Spinal cord monitoring during scoliosis surgery. Use of Image intensifier during scoliosis surgery, on the other hand, is highly variable in United Kingdom (UK) spine centres. Our objective was to evaluate the use of image intensifier during scoliosis surgery in UK spine centres. METHODS: Ninety three British scoliosis spine surgeons were invited to complete a survey via email using Survey Monkey platform. Surgeons were asked about the routine use of image intensifier during scoliosis surgery, including the reasons for using it and if, in their opinion, routine use is medico-legally mandatory. RESULTS: Thirty four Spine surgeons replied (response rate of 36.5%). Among these 85% have been consultants for at least 5 years. 91% performed more than 10 paediatric scoliosis operations per annum and 53% performed more than 30 operations per annum. 68% always routinely use image intensifier during scoliosis surgery while 21% do not use it routinely. However 66% mentioned that in their opinion, it is not medico-legally mandatory to use the Image intensifier during scoliosis surgery and that routine use should be left to the discretion of the operating surgeon. CONCLUSIONS: Although majority of the United Kingdom spine surgeons, who responded to this survey, routinely use image intensifier during scoliosis surgery, they agree that it is not medico-legally mandatory to routinely use the image intensifier.

Complete remodelling of a displaced odontoid synchondrosis fracture managed conservatively: a case report.

Odontoid synchondrosis fractures are the most common cervical fracture in young children, although their overall incidence is rare. Various strategies have been proposed in the management of injuries with significant displacement or angulation. In this report, we present the long-term functional and radiological outcomes following nonoperative treatment of such a fracture in a 5-year-old female. The patient was referred to our tertiary centre with radiological progression of angulation from 10° to 35° within 5 weeks of the injury, despite wearing a rigid collar. She had no neurological compromise. Although we examined the fracture under general anaesthetic, and subsequently applied halo traction, there was no effect on alignment. The halo device was removed after 11 days and a rigid collar was fitted again. The patient had no pain or neurological symptoms out of the collar at 12 weeks after injury (6 weeks after removal of halo), and a computed tomography scan at 15 weeks confirmed that the fracture had united in malalignment. However, serial radiographs and MRI subsequently have shown that the axis has remodelled completely. At 7 years follow-up, there has been no impact on the patient's functional range of movement or quality of life. This case highlights the preservation of the motion segment and the remarkable remodelling potential of the paediatric cervical spine.

Sacroiliac joint fusion for low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Although pain is generally regarded as originating in the lumbar spine, it has been estimated that in 15-30 % of patients, LBP originates from the sacroiliac joint (SIJ). PURPOSE: To determine whether sacroiliac joint fusion (SIJF) for LBP is effective in reducing pain when the SIJ is known to be the pain generator. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis was performed of observational studies describing outcome of SIJF in patients with LBP. Outcome measures were VAS pain, ODI, SF-36 PCS/MCS and Majeed score. The following databases were searched: PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Medline and Google scholar. The methodological quality of selected studies was assessed using the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute case series quality assessment tool. Meta-analysis was used to combine the studies for each outcome and forest plots were prepared. Outcomes were expressed as mean difference (MD). RESULTS: Six studies were included in the meta-analysis with a mean follow-up of 17.6 months. All outcomes showed statistical and clinical improvement (VAS pain MD: 54.8; 95 % CI 48.6, 61.0; n = 380; p < 0.001, ODI MD: 14.5; 95 % CI 8.4, 20.6; n = 102; p < 0.001, SF-36 PCS MD: -19.5; 95 % CI -24.7, -14.2; n = 140; p < 0.001, SF-36 MCS MD: -8.5; 95 % CI -12.9, -4.1; n = 198; p < 0.001 and Majeed score MD: -35.4; 95 % CI -48.5, -22.2; n = 140; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: SIJF appears to be a satisfactory procedure for alleviating pelvic girdle pain.

Do magnetic growing rods have lower complication rates compared with conventional growing rods?

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The main advantage cited for the use of the magnetic controlled growing rod (MCGR) system over the conventional growing rod (CGR) in early-onset scoliosis is avoiding repeated invasive surgical procedures for lengthening, thus reducing, complications. PURPOSE: The study aimed to evaluate the complications of the MCGR system against the CGR system in our center. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: This is a retrospective case control series. PATIENT SAMPLE: The sample includes patients with early-onset scoliosis treated with MCGR or CGR. OUTCOME MEASURES: Complications and unplanned return to theater were the outcome measures. RESULTS: Of the 37 patients (MCGR, N=10; CGR, N=27) in our cohort, 28 patients (76%) had at least one complication. Taking into account the follow-up period, MCGR had a higher complication rate than CGR group (0.32 complication per patient per year vs. 0.15 complication per patient per year). The use of MCGR was associated with a lower risk of deep infection (odds ratio [OR]: 0.22; p=.22) and superficial infection (OR: 0.07, p=.017) but increased risk of metalwork problems (OR: 4.67; p=.045) and unplanned return to theater (OR: 2.92; p=.05) compared with CGR. CONCLUSIONS: Although MCGR has a lower rate of both deep and superficial infections when compared with CGR, it does not completely avoid repeated invasive surgical procedures as previously suggested. It does have a significant increased risk of metalwork problems and unplanned return to theater.

Magnetic controlled growing rods for early-onset scoliosis: a 4-year follow-up.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: There have been no studies with medium-term follow-up of magnetic controlled growing rods (MCGRs). PURPOSE: This study aimed to report our single center experience of a magnetic growing rod system with an average of 4 years' follow-up. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: A retrospective case series was carried out. PATIENT SAMPLE: The sample comprised patients with early-onset scoliosis treated with magnetic controlled growth rods who were operated in 2011. OUTCOME MEASURES: Cobb angle, spinal growth rate, complications, and revision were the outcome measures. METHODS: Clinical case notes and radiographs were reviewed. RESULTS: There were 8 patients (5 dual-rod construct, 3 single-rod construct) who had a minimum of 44 months' follow-up and average of 48 months (44-55 months). Mean age at surgery was 8.2 years (range 3-10). Mean preoperative Cobb angle was 60° (34-94), whereas mean postoperative Cobb angle was 42° (32-63). The average number of extensions was 13.8 (range: 12-20). There were 6 patients (75%) who required 8 revision surgeries: rod problems (N=4), proximal screw pull-out (N=3), and development of proximal junction kyphosis (N=1). All three patients who had single-rod construct underwent revision procedure. Currently, four patients (50%) still have the magnetic rods in situ. The mean duration of MCGR in the patient in the removed group was 39 months (range: 34-46). CONCLUSIONS: Medium-term results of MCGR are not as promising as previously reported early results. Hence, MCGRs should be used with caution. Single-rod constructs should definitely be avoided. The role of MCGRs in revision cases still remains unknown.

British Association of Spine Surgeons standards of care for cauda equina syndrome.

This group of articles looks at the BASS guidelines for CES. TG and AC gave us the background on the long journey taken in publishing this, SA summarized the forum discussion on the BASS Web site, and NT gave us a medicolegal comment. The guidelines are concise, highlighting the need for prompt MRI scanning and as a consequence emergency surgery in appropriate cases. This has resource implication in terms of MRI availability and a comprehensive spinal on-call system. The question of whether operating "in the small hours" carries increased risk or whether we are using this as an excuse not to get out of bed needs to be addressed. CES discs tend to be more difficult than standard ones and probably associated with a higher complication rate. Literature on complications from night-time trauma surgery has considerably reduced out-of-hour operating in trauma. Guidelines on CES will allow the spinal community to prospectively collect data on a national registry which in time will allow us to further improve our understanding and treatment of this condition. Spinal surgery is quickly evolving into a separate specialty. These guidelines further highlight the need for a single spinal society to help set standards, educate, and revalidate our members. It is important that we all engage in this debate to get a consensus opinion to improve spinal practice across the United Kingdom.