The Finnish spine register (FinSpine): development, design, validation and utility.

PURPOSE: Our aim was to develop a nationwide, computer-based, Spine Register (FinSpine) for monitoring surgical activity, quality of surgery, long-term outcomes, and effectiveness of treatment. In this paper, we describe our experiences in the development and implementation of the register. METHODS: The register was developed by a steering group, consisting of orthopedic surgeons and neurosurgeons from the whole country. We strived to develop a register which would be in active use by spine surgeons and enable collection of Patient Reported Outcome and Experience Measures (PROMs and PREMs) automatically and prospectively. We are actively promoting the use of the register in order to gain a nationwide coverage and achieve high response-rates from both surgeons and patients. RESULTS: The use of FinSpine started in 2016 and it has been granted continuous funding from the Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare from the 1st of January 2023 onwards. Currently the register is used by 19/23 (83%) public hospitals and the use is expanding to private hospitals as well. The response-rate of surgeons is currently 80%. The response-rate of patients is on average 56% but reaches up to 90% in hospitals using register-coordinators. CONCLUSION: The use of FinSpine is increasing. By gaining a larger coverage and completeness, the data can be used for research purposes which we believe will influence decision making and ultimately improve the outcomes and quality of life of the patients. Comparison with other national spine registers is possible, since FinSpine includes similar baseline characteristics and outcome measures (e.g., ODI, EQ-5D, VAS).

Analgesic Effect of Intraoperative Intravenous S-Ketamine in Opioid-Naïve Patients After Major Lumbar Fusion Surgery Is Temporary and Not Dose-Dependent: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Severe pain often accompanies major spine surgery. Opioids are the cornerstone of postoperative pain management but their use can be limited by numerous side effects. Several studies claim that adjuvant treatment with intravenous (IV) ketamine reduces opioid consumption and pain after back surgery. However, the exact role of ketamine for this indication is yet to be elucidated. We compared 2 different doses of S-ketamine with placebo on postoperative analgesic consumption, pain, and adverse events in adult, opioid-naïve patients after lumbar fusion surgery. METHODS: One hundred ninety-eight opioid-naïve patients undergoing lumbar spinal fusion surgery were recruited to this double-blind trial and randomly assigned into 3 study groups: Group C (placebo) received a preincisional IV bolus of saline (sodium chloride [NaCl] 0.9%) followed by an intraoperative IV infusion of NaCl 0.9%. Both groups K2 and K10 received a preincisional IV bolus of S-ketamine (0.5 mg/kg); in group K2, this was followed by an intraoperative IV infusion of S-ketamine (0.12 mg/kg/h), while in group K10, it was followed by an intraoperative IV infusion of S-ketamine (0.6 mg/kg/h). Postoperative analgesia was achieved by an IV patient-controlled analgesia (IV PCA) device delivering oxycodone. The primary end point was cumulative oxycodone consumption at 48 hours after surgery. The secondary end points included postoperative pain up to 2 years after surgery, adverse events, and level of sedation and confusion in the immediate postoperative period. RESULTS: The median [interquartile range (IQR)] cumulative oxycodone consumption at 48 hours was 154.5 [120] mg for group K2, 160 [109] mg for group K10, and 178.5 [176] mg for group C. The estimated difference was -24 mg between group K2 and group C (97.5% confidence interval [CI], -73.8 to 31.5; P = .170) and -18.5 mg between group K10 and C (97.5% CI, 78.5-29.5; P = .458). There were no significant differences between groups.Postoperative pain scores were significantly lower in both ketamine treatment groups at the fourth postoperative hour but not later during the 2-year study period.The higher ketamine dose was associated with more sedation. Otherwise, differences in the occurrence of adverse events between study groups were nonsignificant. CONCLUSIONS: Neither a 0.12 nor a 0.6 mg/kg/h infusion of intraoperative IV S-ketamine was superior to the placebo in reducing oxycodone consumption at 48 hours after lumbar fusion surgery in an opioid-naïve adult study population. Future studies should assess ketamine's feasibility in specific study populations who most benefit from reduced opioid consumption.

[Update on current care guidelines: spinal cord injury]. / Selkäydinvamma.

Traumatic spinal cord injury is most common among men between 16 and 30 years. Prevention should be targeted both on traffic safety and individual behaviour Key issues in patient care are safe transfer from the place of injury to a hospital, diagnostic imaging (primarily CT, MRI if needed) and assessment of neurological injury by AIS-questionnaire, early surgical decompression and stabilisation for most cases, and treatment and rehabilitation starting from the emergency room and extending to life-long care carried out by a multi-professional team.

Long-term results of surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis: a randomised controlled trial.

We randomised a total of 94 patients with long-standing moderate lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) into a surgical group and a non-operative group, with 50 and 44 patients, respectively. The operative treatment comprised undercutting laminectomy of stenotic segments, augmented with transpedicular-instrumented fusion in suspected lumbar instability. The primary outcome was the Oswestry disability index (ODI), and the other main outcomes included assessments of leg and back pain and self-reported walking ability, all based on questionnaire data from 85 patients at the 6-year follow-up. At the 6-year follow-up, the mean difference in ODI in favour of surgery was 9.5 (95% confidence interval 0.9-18.1, P-value for global difference 0.006), whereas the intensity of leg or back pain did not differ between the two treatment groups any longer. Walking ability did not differ between the treatment groups at any time. Decompressive surgery of LSS provided modest but consistent improvement in functional ability, surpassing that obtained after non-operative measures.

Surgical or nonoperative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis? A randomized controlled trial.

STUDY DESIGN: A randomized controlled trial. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of decompressive surgery as compared with nonoperative measures in the treatment of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: No previous randomized trial has assessed the effectiveness of surgery in comparison with conservative treatment for spinal stenosis. METHODS: Four university hospitals agreed on the classification of the disease, inclusion and exclusion criteria, radiographic routines, surgical principles, nonoperative treatment options, and follow-up protocols. A total of 94 patients were randomized into a surgical or nonoperative treatment group: 50 and 44 patients, respectively. Surgery comprised undercutting laminectomy of the stenotic segments in 10 patients augmented with transpedicular fusion. The primary outcome was based on assessment of functional disability using the Oswestry Disability Index (scale, 0-100). Data on the intensity of leg and back pain (scales, 0-10), as well as self-reported and measured walking ability were compiled at randomization and at follow-up examinations at 6, 12, and 24 months. RESULTS: Both treatment groups showed improvement during follow-up. At 1 year, the mean difference in favor of surgery was 11.3 in disability (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.3-18.4), 1.7 in leg pain (95% CI, 0.4-3.0), and 2.3(95% CI, 1.1-3.6) in back pain. At the 2-year follow-up, the mean differences were slightly less: 7.8 in disability (95% CI, 0.8-14.9) 1.5 in leg pain (95% CI, 0.3-2.8), and 2.1 in back pain (95% CI, 1.0-3.3). Walking ability, either reported or measured, did not differ between the two treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Although patients improved over the 2-year follow-up regardless of initial treatment, those undergoing decompressive surgery reported greater improvement regarding leg pain, back pain, and overall disability. The relative benefit of initial surgical treatment diminished over time, but outcomes of surgery remained favorable at 2 years. Longer follow-up is needed to determine if these differences persist.