Subject(s)
Kyphosis/prevention & control , Postoperative Complications/prevention & control , Spinal Diseases/surgery , Spinal Fusion/methods , Adult , Age Factors , Humans , Incidence , Kyphosis/epidemiology , Kyphosis/etiology , Pedicle Screws , Postoperative Complications/epidemiology , Postoperative Complications/etiology , Reoperation , Risk Factors , Spinal Fusion/adverse effects , Spinal Fusion/instrumentationABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have become an important part of routine auditing of outcomes in spinal surgery in the UK. PROMs can be used to help assess the quality of care provided by surgical units by determining the comparative health status of patients, before and after surgery. This study was designed to review the PROMs used to assess outcomes in spinal surgery and to determine if they are fit for the purpose. METHODS: A systematic literature search was undertaken to identify studies that reported PROMs data following lumbar spinal surgery. The PROMs that were used in each study were recorded and a separate search was undertaken to determine the evidence regarding the validity of each measure. RESULTS: The initial search identified 1142 abstracts, which were reduced through de-duplication, filtering and review to 58 articles, which were retrieved and reviewed in full. The search identified that the majority of studies used either the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), SF-36, Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) and EQ-5D along with visual analogue scales or numeric rating scales for back and leg pain. CONCLUSIONS: The consistent use of PROMs supports the comparison of outcomes from different studies, although there was minimal evidence regarding the specificity and sensitivity of these measures for use with lumbar spinal patients. Our review highlights the need to determine a consensus regarding the use and reporting of outcome measures within the lumbar spine literature.
Subject(s)
Lumbar Vertebrae/surgery , Orthopedic Procedures , Patient Reported Outcome Measures , Humans , Orthopedic Procedures/adverse effects , Orthopedic Procedures/statistics & numerical data , Postoperative Complications , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
AIM: Identifying cervical spine injuries in confused or comatose patients with multiple injuries provides a diagnostic challenge. Our aim was to investigate the protocols which are used for the clearance of the cervical spine in these patients in English hospitals. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All hospitals in England with an Emergency Department were asked about the protocols which they use for assessing the cervical spine. All 22 Major Trauma Centres (MTCs) and 141 of 156 non-MTCs responded (response rate 91.5%). RESULTS: Written guidelines were used in 138 hospitals (85%). CT scanning was the first-line investigation in 122 (75%). A normal CT scan was sufficient to clear the cervical spine in 73 (45%). However, 40 (25%) would continue precautions until the patient regained full consciousness. MRI was performed in all confused or comatose patients with a possible cervical spinal injury in 15 (9%). There were variations in the grade and speciality of the clinician who had responsibility for deciding when to discontinue precautions. A total of 31 (19%) reported at least one missed cervical spinal injury following discontinuation of spinal precautions within the last five years. Only 93 (57%) had a formal mechanism for reviewing missed injuries. TAKE HOME MESSAGE: There are significant variations in protocols and practices for the clearance of the cervical spine in multiply injured patients in acute hospitals in England. The establishment of trauma networks should be taken as an opportunity to further standardise trauma care. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:825-8.
Subject(s)
Cervical Vertebrae/injuries , Clinical Protocols , Diagnostic Errors/prevention & control , Emergency Service, Hospital , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/statistics & numerical data , Spinal Injuries/diagnosis , Cervical Vertebrae/diagnostic imaging , England/epidemiology , Humans , Immobilization/statistics & numerical data , Magnetic Resonance Imaging/statistics & numerical data , Surveys and Questionnaires , Tomography, X-Ray Computed/statistics & numerical data , Trauma CentersABSTRACT
Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis affects about 3% of children. Non-operative measures are aimed at altering the natural history to maintain the size of the curve below 40° at skeletal maturity. The application of braces to treat spinal deformity pre-dates the era of evidence-based medicine, and there is a paucity of irrefutable prospective evidence in the literature to support their use and their effectiveness has been questioned. This review considers this evidence. The weight of the evidence is in favour of bracing over observation. The most recent literature has moved away from addressing this question, and instead focuses on developments in the design of braces and ways to improve compliance.
