header advert
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

Spine

CURRENT PRACTICE IN SCOLIOSIS SURGERY: A SURVEY OF BRITISH SCOLIOSIS SOCIETY MEMBERS

Britspine, British Scoliosis Society (BSS), Society for Back Pain Research (SBPR), British Association of Spine Surgeons (BASS)



Abstract

To determine the current practice of scoliosis surgery in the UK.

A 10 point questionnaire was constructed to identify the philosophy of surgeons on various aspects of scoliosis surgery such as choice of implant, bone graft, autologous blood transfusion (ABT), cord monitoring and computer assisted surgery. Results are compared with the current best evidence.

Consultants and Fellows attending the 2009 British Scoliosis Society meeting. 50 questionnaires were completed: 45 Consultants and 5 Fellows.

All pedicle screw construct favored by 25/50, hybrid 24/50 (one undecided). Posterior construct of less than 10 levels, 20/50 would not cross-link, 11/50 used one and 19/20 used two or more. More than ten levels 17/50 considered cross-links unnecessary, 4/50 used one and 29/50 used two or more. 88% preferred titanium alloy implants, while a mixture of stainless steel and cobalt chrome was used by others. For bone graft, substitutes (24), iliac crest (14), allograft (12) and demineralised bone matrix (9) in addition to local bone. 10/50 would use recombinant bone morphogenetic protein (3 for revision cases only). 39/50 routinely used intra-operative cell salvage or ABT drains and 4/50 never used autologous blood. All used cord monitoring, Sensory (19/50), Motor (2/50) and combined (29/50). None used computer-aided surgery. 26 operated alone 12 operated in pairs and 12 varied depending on type of case.

This survey has brought to light interesting variations in scoliosis surgery in UK. It may reflect the conflicting evidence in the literature.