No difference in reoperation rates for nonunions (operative nonunions) in posterior cervical fusions stopping at C7 versus T1/2: a cohort of 875 patients

OBJECTIVE The challenges of posterior cervical fusions (PCFs) at the cervicothoracic junction (CTJ) are widely known, including the development of adjacent-segment disease by stopping fusions at C7. One solution has been to cross the CTJ (T1/T2) rather than stopping at C7. This approach may have undue consequences, including increased reoperations for symptomatic nonunion (operative nonunion). The authors sought to investigate if there is a difference in operative nonunion in PCFs that stop at C7 versus T1/T2. METHODS A retrospective analysis identified patients from the authors’ spine registry (Kaiser Permanente) who underwent PCFs with caudal fusion levels at C7 and T1/T2. Demographics, diagnoses, operative times, lengths of stay, and reoperations were extracted from the registry. Operative nonunion was adjudicated via chart review. Patients were followed until validated operative nonunion, membership termination, death, or end of study (March 31, 2020). Descriptive statistics and 2-year crude incidence rates and 95% confidence intervals for operative nonunion for PCFs stopping at C7 or T1/T2 were reported. Time-dependent crude and adjusted multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate operative nonunion rates. RESULTS The authors identified 875 patients with PCFs (beginning at C3, C4, C5, or C6) stopping at either C7 (n = 470) or T1/T2 (n = 405) with a mean follow-up time of 4.6 ± 3.3 years and a mean time to operative nonunion of 0.9 ± 0.6 years. There were 17 operative nonunions, and, after adjustment for age at surgery and smoking status, the cumulative incidence rates were similar between constructs stopping at C7 and those that extended to T1/T2 (C7: 1.91% [95% CI 0.88%–3.60%]; T1/T2: 1.98% [95% CI 0.86%–3.85%]). In the crude model and model adjusted for age at surgery and smoking status, no difference in risk for constructs extended to T1/T2 compared to those stopping at C7 was found (adjusted HR 1.09 [95% CI 0.42–2.84], p = 0.86). CONCLUSIONS In one of the largest cohort of patients with PCFs stopping at C7 or T1/T2 with an average follow-up of > 4 years, the authors found no statistically significant difference in reoperation rates for symptomatic nonunion (operative nonunion). This finding shows that there is no added risk of operative nonunion by extending PCFs to T1/T2 or stopping at C7.

Anterior versus posterior fusion surgery in idiopathic scoliosis: a comparison of health-related quality of life and radiographic outcomes in Lenke 5C curves - results from the Swedish spine registry

Purpose To compare health-related quality of life and radiographic outcomes in patients treated with either anterior or posterior fusion surgery for Lenke 5C type idiopathic scoliosis. Methods We used data from the Swedish spine registry and identified 59 patients with idiopathic scoliosis treated with fusion for Lenke 5C type curves; 27 patients underwent anterior surgery and 32 underwent posterior surgery. All patients had pre- and postoperative radiographic data and postoperative clinical data at a minimum of two years after surgery. Patient-reported outcomes measures included the Scoliosis Research Society (SRS)-22r, EuroQoL 5 dimensions 3 levels (EQ-5D-3L), EQ-visual analogue scale (VAS) and VAS for back pain. Radiographic assessment included measurement of the angle of the major curve, disc angulation below the lowest instrumented vertebra, curve flexibility, rate of curve correction, differences in sagittal parameters, number of fused vertebrae and length of fusion. Results The mean age at surgery was 16 years in both groups. The mean follow-up time was 3.8 years. There were no significant differences in the SRS-22r score and EQ-5D-3L index at follow-up (all p ≥ 0.2). Postoperatively, both the anterior and posterior fusion group demonstrated a significant correction of the major curve (p ≤ 0.001) with no significant difference of the correction rate between the groups (p = 0.4). The posterior fusion group had shorter operative time (p < 0.001) and higher perioperative blood loss (p = 0.004) while the anterior group had lower number of fused vertebrae ( p< 0.001). Conclusion The type of surgical approach for Lenke 5C curves is not associated with differences in health-related quality of life, despite the lower number of fused vertebrae after anterior surgery. Level of Evidence III

Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion (ALIF) or Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF) for Fusion Surgery in L5/S1 – What Is the Best Way to Restore a physiological Alignment?

Study Design A retrospective single center cohort study with prospective collected data from an institutional spine registry. Objectives To determine whether restoration of lordosis L5/S1 is possible with both anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and to find out which technique is superior to recreate lordosis in L5/S1. Methods Seventy-seven patients with ALIF and seventy-nine with TLIF L5/S1 were included. Operation time, estimated blood loss), and complications were evaluated. Segmental lordosis L5/S1 and L4/5, overall lordosis, and proximal lordosis (L1 to L4) were measured in X-rays before and after surgery. Oswesery disability index and EQ-5D were assessed before surgery, and 3 and 12 months after surgery. Results Mean operation time was 176.9 minutes for ALIF and 195.7 minutes for TLIF (p = 0.048). Estimated blood loss was 249.2 cc for ALIF and 362.9 cc for TLIF (p = 0.005). In terms of complications, only a difference in dural tears were found (TLIF 6, ALIF none; p = 0.014). Lordosis L5/S1 increased in the ALIF group (15.8 to 24.6°; p < 0.001), whereas no difference was noted in the TLIF group (18.4 to 19.4°; p = 0.360). Clinical results showed significant improvement in the Oswesery disability index (ALIF: 43 to 21.9, TLIF: 45.2 to 23.0) and EQ-5D (ALIF: 0.494 to 0.732, TLIF: 0.393 to 0.764) after 12 months in both groups, without differences between the groups. Conclusion ALIF and TLIF are comparable methods for performing fusion at L5/S1, with good clinical outcomes and comparable rates of complications. However, there is only a limited potential for recreating lordosis at L5/S1 with a TLIF.

1201 The Impact of a Spinal Best Practice Tariff on Compliance with The British Spine Registry

Aim The British Spine Registry (BSR) was introduced in May 2012 to be used as a web-based database for spinal surgeries carried out across the UK. In 2019 NHS England and NHS Improvement introduced a new Best Practice Tariff (BPT) to encourage input of spinal surgical data on the BSR. The aim of our study was to assess the impact of the spinal BPT on compliance with the recording of surgical data on the BSR. Method A retrospective review of data was performed at a tertiary spinal centre, Royal Orthopaedic Hospital Birmingham, between 2018-2020. 3587 patients were included in our study. Data was collated from electronic patient records, theatre operating lists and trust specific BSR data. Results 1684 patients were eligible for BPT. In 2018-19 269/974 (28%) records were complete on the BSR for those that would be eligible for BPT. Following introduction of BPT in 2019, 671/710 (95%) records were complete having filled in the mandatory data (P &lt; 0.01). Patient consent to data collection also improved from 62% to 93%. Email details were present in 43% of patients compared with 68% following BPT introduction. Conclusions Our study found that following the introduction of a BPT, there was a statistically significant improvement in BSR record completion compliance in our unit. The BPT offers a financial incentive which can help generate further income for trusts. National data input into the BSR is vitally important to assess patient outcome following spinal surgery. The BSR can also aid future research in spinal surgery.

What does the SRS-22 outcome measure tell us about spinal deformity surgery for Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis in the UK?

Introduction The purpose of this study was to analyse SRS-22 outcomes measures recorded on the British Spine Registry (BSR) for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) surgery in the UK. Methods All cases having completed an SRS-22 outcome score and labelled with a diagnosis code of ‘AIS’ on the BSR were analysed. The SRS-22 score for primary cases was analysed by both individual domains and as a total score over time following surgery. Results A total of 3,860 cases were labelled as AIS recorded from 3,481 individuals. For primary cases, surgery improved the SRS-22 scores in every domain and as a total score, and this was maintained over time. There was no significant change in the scores recorded between 1 and 2 years of follow up apart from in function (and thus total score) for primary cases. Conclusions Surgery for AIS in the UK improves quality of life assessed using SRS-22. Mandatory follow up to 2 years postoperatively adds little information not already known at 1 year. We recommend that the Best Practice Tariff incorporates the collection of outcomes data as this is likely to reduce missing data.

The use of electronic PROMs provides same outcomes as paper version in a spine surgery registry. Results from a prospective cohort study

Background and Purpose Patient-Reported Measured Outcomes (PROMs) are essential to gain a full understanding of a patient’s condition, and in spine surgery, these questionnaires are of help when tailoring a surgical strategy. Electronic registries allow for a systematic collection and storage of PROMs, making them readily available for clinical and research purposes. This study aimed to investigate the reliability between the electronic and paper form of ODI (Oswestry Disability Index), SF-36 (Short Form Health Survey 36) and COMI-back (Core Outcome Measures Index for the back) questionnaires. Methods A prospective analysis was performed of ODI, SF-36 and COMI-back questionnaires collected in paper and electronic format in two patients’ groups: Pre-Operatively (PO) or at follow-up (FU). All patients, in both groups, completed the three questionnaires in paper and electronic form. The correlation between both methods was assessed with the Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC). Results The data from 100 non-consecutive, volunteer patients with a mean age of 55.6 ± 15.0 years were analysed. For all of the three PROMs, the reliability between paper and electronic questionnaires results was excellent (ICC: ODI = 0.96; COMI = 0.98; SF36-MCS = 0.98; SF36-PCS = 0.98. For all p < 0.001). Conclusions This study proved an excellent reliability between the electronic and paper versions of ODI, SF-36 and COMI-back questionnaires collected using a spine registry. This validation paves the way for stronger widespread use of electronic PROMs. They offer numerous advantages in terms of accessibility, storage, and data analysis compared to paper questionnaires.

The impact of a spinal best practice tariff on compliance with the British Spine Registry

Aims The British Spine Registry (BSR) was introduced in May 2012 to be used as a web-based database for spinal surgeries carried out across the UK. Use of this database has been encouraged but not compulsory, which has led to a variable level of engagement in the UK. In 2019 NHS England and NHS Improvement introduced a new Best Practice Tariff (BPT) to encourage input of spinal surgical data on the BSR. The aim of our study was to assess the impact of the spinal BPT on compliance with the recording of surgical data on the BSR. Methods A retrospective review of data was performed at a tertiary spinal centre between 2018 to 2020. Data were collated from electronic patient records, theatre operating lists, and trust-specific BSR data. Information from the BSR included operative procedures (mandatory), patient consent, email addresses, and demographic details. We also identified Healthcare Resource Groups (HRGs) which qualified for BPT. Results A total of 3,587 patients were included in our study. Of these, 1,684 patients were eligible for BPT. Between 2018 and 2019 269/974 (28%) records were complete on the BSR for those that would be eligible for BPT. Following introduction of BPT in 2019, 671/710 (95%) records were complete having filled in the mandatory data (p < 0.001). Patient consent to data collection also improved from 62% to 93%. Email details were present in 43% of patients compared with 68% following BPT introduction. Conclusion Our study found that following the introduction of a BPT, there was a statistically significant improvement in BSR record completion compliance in our unit. The BPT offers a financial incentive which can help generate further income for trusts. National data input into the BSR is important to assess patient outcome following spinal surgery. The BSR can also aid future research in spinal surgery. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2-3:198–201.

The efficacy of coccygectomy in patients with persistent coccydynia

Aims The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy of coccygectomy in patients with persistent coccydynia and coccygeal instability. Methods The Danish National Spine Registry, DaneSpine, was used to identify 134 consecutive patients who underwent surgery, performed by a single surgeon between 2011 and 2019. Routine demographic data, surgical variables, and patient-reported outcomes, including a visual analogue scale (VAS) (0 to 100) for pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D), and the Physical Component Score (PCS) and Mental Component Score (MCS) of the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey questionnaire (SF-36) were collected at baseline and one-year postoperatively. Results A total of 112 (84%) patients with a minimum follow-up of one year had data available for analysis. Their mean age was 41.9 years, and 15 (13%) were males. At 12 months postoperatively, there were statistically significant improvements (p < 0.001) from baseline for the mean VAS for pain (70.99 to 35.34), EQ-5D (0.52 to 0.75), ODI (31.84 to 18.00), and SF-36 PCS (38.17 to 44.74). A total of 78 patients (70%) were satisfied with the outcome of treatment. Conclusion Patients with persistent coccydynia and coccygeal instability resistant to nonoperative treatment may benefit from coccygectomy. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(3):542–546.