Objectives To assess the clinical effectiveness of surgical stabilisation (spinal fusion) compared with intensive rehabilitation for patients with chronic low back pain. Design Multicentre randomised controlled trial. Setting 15 secondary care orthopaedic and rehabilitation centres across the United Kingdom. Participants 349 participants aged 18-55 with chronic low back pain of at least one year's duration who were considered candidates for spinal fusion.

Objective To determine whether, from a health provider and patient perspective, surgical stabilisation of the spine is cost effective when compared with an intensive programme of rehabilitation in patients with chronic low back pain. Design Economic evaluation alongside a pragmatic randomised controlled trial. Setting Secondary care. Participants 349 patients randomised to surgery (n = 176) or to an intensive rehabilitation programme (n = 173) from 15 centres across the United Kingdom between June 1996 and February 2002. Main outcome measures Costs related to back pain and incurred by the NHS and patients up to 24 months after randomisation. Return to paid employment and total hours worked. Patient utility as estimated by using the EuroQol EQ-5D questionnaire at several time points and used to calculate quality adjusted life years (QALYs). Cost effectiveness was expressed as an incremental cost per QALY. Results At two years, 38 patients randomised to rehabilitation had received rehabilitation and surgery whereas just seven surgery patients had received both treatments. The mean total cost per patient was estimated to be £7830 (SD £5202) in the surgery group and £4526 (SD £4155) in the intensive rehabilitation arm, a significant difference of £3304 (95% confidence interval £2317 to £4291). Mean QALYs over the trial period were 1.004 (SD 0.405) in the surgery group and 0.936 (SD 0.431) in the intensive rehabilitation group, giving a non-significant difference of 0.068 ( − 0.020 to 0.156). The incremental cost effectiveness ratio was estimated to be £48 588 per QALY gained ( − £279 883 to £372 406). Conclusion Two year follow-up data show that surgical stabilisation of the spine may not be a cost effective use of scarce healthcare resources. However, sensitivity analyses show that this could change-for example, if the proportion of rehabilitation patients requiring subsequent surgery continues to increase.

A 10-year retrospective audit. (1) The incidence of infection; (2) causative organisms; (3) whether eradication of infection is achievable with spinal implant retention; (4) patient outcome. The reported incidence of infection following posterior spinal instrumentation is between 2.6 and 3.8%. Management of infection is controversial, with some advocating serial wound debridement while others report that infection cannot be eradicated with retention of implants. There are no published data demonstrating that propionibacteria are associated with early postoperative infection. The management of infected cases at our institution includes eventual removal of their implants. Our population was identified by studying the case notes of all patients who had undergone removal of spinal implants and cross-referencing this population with positive microbiology or histology reports. The incidence of infection was 3.7%. Propionibacteria were isolated in 45% of cases. The diagnosis of infection was unexpected in 25% of patients, following removal of implants for prominence of implants or back pain. Sixty per cent of patients with acute postoperative deep wound infection had continuing active infection on subsequent removal of implants, despite long-term antibiotics and wound debridement. Fourty-six per cent of patients had a stable, pain-free spine at the end of their treatment. This is the largest reported series of infections following posterior spinal instrumented fusions of which we are aware. Propionibacteria are a common cause of infection and successful eradication of infection cannot be reliably achieved with antibiotics and wound debridement alone.

We have assessed whether an epidural steroid injection is effective in the treatment of symptoms due to compression of a nerve root in the lumbar spine by carrying out a prospective, randomised, controlled trial in which patients received either an epidural steroid injection or an intramuscular injection of local anaesthetic and steroid. We assessed a total of 93 patients according to the Oxford pain chart and the Oswestry disability index and followed up for a minimum of two years. All the patients had been categorised as potential candidates for surgery. There was a significant reduction in pain early on in those having an epidural steroid injection but no difference in the long term between the two groups. The rate of subsequent operation in the groups was similar.

No abstract

The 'law of diminishing returns' is also seen after serial distraction using MCGR. Compared to previously published data for CGRS, there is a gradual linear decline rather than a rapid initial decline in lengthening. In older, heavier children a reduced distraction ratio in the concave rod of the MCGR device is noted over time. Cite this article: 2017;99-B:1658-64.

Low-dose epidural clonidine significantly reduced the demand for morphine and reduced postoperative nausea with few side effects.

Our study shows that MCGRs provide stable correction of the deformity in early-onset scoliosis in both primary and revision procedures. They have the potential to reduce the need for multiple operations and thereby minimise the potential complications associated with traditional growing rod systems. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:1240-47.