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 outcome of surgery for recurrent lumbar disc herniation is debatable. Some studies show results that are comparable with those of primary discectomy, whereas others report worse outcomes. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcome of revision lumbar discectomy with that of primary discectomy in the same cohort of patients who had both the primary and the recurrent herniation at the same level and side.

A retrospective analysis of prospectively gathered data was undertaken in 30 patients who had undergone both primary and revision surgery for late recurrent lumbar disc herniation. The outcome measures used were visual analogue scales for lower limb (VAL) and back (VAB) pain and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI).

There was a significant improvement in the mean VAL and ODI scores (both p < 0.001) after primary discectomy. Revision surgery also resulted in improvements in the mean VAL (p < 0.001), VAB (p = 0.030) and ODI scores (p < 0.001). The changes were similar in the two groups (all p > 0.05).

Revision discectomy can give results that are as good as those seen after primary surgery.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:90–4.

Background

The majority of studies assessing minimal clinical important difference in outcome do so for management of chronic low back pain. Those that identify MCID following spinal surgical intervention fail to differentiate between the different pathologies and treatments or use variable methods and anchors in the calculation.

Background

Cauda equina syndrome (CES) is a physical process. There is compression of the cauda equina resulting in arrest of the electrochemical signal from the central nervous system. Previous studies have demonstrated that anthropomorphic features influence nerve conduction properties.

Background

In 2009, NICE CG 88 guideline on the management of non-specific low back pain was published. We looked at whether the introduction of these guidelines has had an impact on the management of back pain within primary care.

Background

The relationship between obesity and cauda equina syndrome (CES) has not been previously evaluated or defined.

PURPOSE OF STUDY

We investigated the effect of weekend knee arthroplasty surgery on length of inpatient stay.

Aim

To compare outcomes of revision lumbar discectomy to primary surgery in the same patient cohort.

Background

Rotatory subluxation of the atlantoaxial joint has been thoroughly documented in children. However, pure traumatic atlantoaxial rotatory subluxation (TAARS) is a rare injury in adults with only a few cases reported in the English literature.

Background

The relationship between obesity and cauda equina syndrome (CES) has not been previously evaluated or defined.

The use of interspinous distraction devices should remain the subject of audit and research. They are a relatively new addition to the armamentarium of surgical treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. The reported results are variable and there are a number of different devices available. It is recognised that there is an early failure rate with interspinous distraction devices. This is a report of the clinical results after conversion to segmental lumbar decompression following a failure of interspinous distraction procedure.

18 patients had removal of device and conversion to a standard lumbar decompression at an average of 13 months after the index procedure. There were 7 females and 11 males. The average age was 68 years (range 49-85). The two youngest patients had a decompression and instrumented fusion, the others had decompression alone. Prior to the Index procedure of stand alone interspinous distraction device the average Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) was 42 and Visual Analogue Score (VAS) leg 7.2. Prior to revision the average ODI was 42 and VAS leg 6.7.

Complications: One intra operative myocardial infarction, one incidental durotomy and one post operative infection (pseudomonas isolated).

At a mean of 9 months follow up the average ODI was 23 and VAS leg 2.1. The VAS back was 1.9. The walking distance was subjectively reported as 246 yards pre op and 1100 yards post procedure. There was a clinically significant improvement in all patients.

A failed interspinous distraction device can be satisfactorily salvaged with a segmental lumbar decompression.

The use of nerve root blocks is common in the management of radicular pain due to lumbar disc prolapse. However, most papers reporting their use do not necessarily specify the position or level at which the needle is positioned with respect to the level of pathology. We therefore set out to investigate this. We performed a survey of medical practitioners across the UK with an interest or involvement in the management of radicular pain secondary to lumbar disc prolapse The survey depicted the clinical scenario of a patient with radicular pain from an L4/5 disc prolapse and a number of questions were asked in relation to the use of nerve root blocks.

Questionnaires were sent to 319 practitioners. We received 153 responses of which, 120 (37.6%) were sufficiently complete to be analysed. Of those who responded, 83% used a combination of local anaesthetic and steroids together with or without contrast. There were variations across the respondents in terms of the level injected with 22.5% injecting at the level of the L4/5 foramen, while 45% injected at the level of the L5/1 foramen. Differences were also noted when respondents were subgrouped according to their speciality. Of those who worked in pain management, 34.1% injected at the L4/5 foramen while 31.8% injected at the L5/1 foramen. For spine surgeons the respective figures were 20.5% and 43.2% and for radiologists 9.4% and 65.6%.

In the treatment of radicular leg pain, there are apparent variations in the use and positioning of root blocks for a given level of disc pathology. This suggests that caution is necessary when considering the validity of published studies on the use of root blocks relative to an individual clinician's practice.

A large proportion of our patients are not salaried and many had expressed concerns about the amount of time taken off work following carpal tunnel surgery. Impressions were formed from information given by other health professionals or by friends and relatives who had previously undergone surgery. Some patients declined surgery because of their concerns over this particular issue. We therefore set out to challenge these traditional beliefs. This prompted us to adopt a more aggressive postoperative approach by encouraging immediate and unrestricted hand use following surgery. We found that patients were able to tolerate early activity and were able to return to work sooner than they had expected. For the purposes of this study, our aim was to identify when a return to any form of meaningful employment occurred, such that the individual was earning a salary. Consequently, we did not differentiate between the individual returning to either light or full duties. Subsequently, in a cohort of 494 patients prospectively studied, we have seen 93.1% patients return to work by two weeks and 99.4% by four weeks.

This has obvious benefits in terms of reducing loss of income. Individuals undergoing surgery now do not have to be concerned with taking lengthy periods of time off work with the financial implications for them and their families.

There are obvious economic implications to our findings. An individual back at work should not be claiming related sickness benefit. The Confederation of British Industry (May 2007) report a cost of £76.70 for each day an employee is off work due to sickness. An individual who is able to return to work even one week earlier than previously would have been expected following carpal tunnel surgery could theoretically produce a saving to the economy of £383. In this series there were 318 (64.4%) patients in employment indicating a potential economic saving of £121,794. Given that nationally there are about 50 000 carpal tunnel procedures carried out each year then the potential savings are significant.

There may be a number of reasons for our observations. The absence of a bulky restrictive dressing and sling following surgery clearly allows immediate mobilization to occur. Our service allows the development of a close professional relationship based on trust between the operator and the patient. This ultimately reassures patients who, we believe, feeling more involved in decisions about their post-operative care, are consequently well-motivated and have the confidence to use their hand immediately following surgery. We have seen a low postoperative complication rate in this group of patients, in particular, a low incidence of swelling, stiffness and scar sensitivity. Reasons for these low complication rates are unclear, but we would suggest that early mobilisation protects patients against these particular problems.

Purpose: To determine the clinical effectiveness of a stand alone interspinous distraction device

Method: Prospective consecutive longitudinal study in five hospital sites. Outcome measures Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Visual Analogue score for leg and back (VAS Leg, VAS Back). Implant failure determined by removal and revision.

A cohort of 69 patients having clinical and radiological evidence of spinal stenosis. Selected according to recommendations of clinical trials groups for the x-stop, i.e. sitting tolerance of greater than 30 minutes.

Clinical outcome data at average of 10 month (6–24) available for 66 patients (95% FU).

Average age 67 years ( Range 49–84). The average outcomes were Pre op ODI 42, Post op ODI 27. A change from baseline of 15 points. Pre op VAS leg 7.2 post op 4.4, and VAS Back Pre 4.8, post op 3.6

Taking a 16 point change in ODI as representing a clinically significant improvement half the study group failed to achieve this. A small number (17 patients 25%) had a dramatic improvement of greater than 24 points, which significantly skews the average change from baseline.

17 Revisions have occurred so far (24% failure rate)

Conclusion: A small proportion of successful results occur, however implant failure and revision rate is high.

Ethics approval: NPIAG registered audit

Interest Statement: No commercial or grant support

Introduction: Microfracture is found to be effective for isolated chondral defect of knee in young adults however controversy exists over the relevance of microfracture treatment in degenerative knee. The purpose of the study is to assess the outcome and patient satisfaction with the arthroscopic microfracture of osteoarthritic knee.

Materials: We collected the demographic details of the patient, weight, procedure and follow up details from June 2000 to Dec 2002. We reviewed the case notes retrospectively and assessed the patient satisfaction with Oxford knee score and Lysholm score.

Results: There were total of 194 patients but only 76 patients returned the questionnaire. The average patient age was 57 years (range: 27–87 years) with majority of the patients being male patients (43 patients). The average weight of the patient was 82 kg (44–119) and the mean duration of operation was 28 minutes. The patients were evaluated at an average follow-up of 51 months (range: 36–66 months). The average Lysholm score was 49 (4–100) with mean oxford score of 32.5(13–56).

21 patients required knee replacement at an average of 24 months (range: 6–48 months) from the initial microfracture. 17 out of 21 patients had kissing lesion and all showed grade 4 degenerative changes

Discussion: Age and weight does not appear to have any effect on microfracture treatment however more number of female patients seem to have more kissing lesion and poor result. With shorter duration of operation and proper explanation to patient give short term symptomatic relief before replacement surgery. It is worth considering this treatment for isolated grade 4 lesion or less than grade 4 degenerative chondral lesions in appropriately selected patients.