Search

BackgroundTimely treatment is essential for achieving optimal outcomes after traumatic spinal cord injury (TSCI), and expeditious transfer to a specialist spinal cord injury unit (SCIU) is recommended within 24 hours from injury. Previous research in New South Wales (NSW) found only 57% of TSCI patients were admitted to SCIU for acute post-injury care; 73% transferred within 24 hours from injury. We evaluated pre-hospital and inter-hospital transfer practices to better understand the post-injury care pathways impact on patient outcomes and highlight areas in the health service pathway that may benefit from improvement.MethodsThis record linkage study included administrative pre-hospital (Ambulance), admissions (Admitted Patients) and costs data obtained from the Centre for Health Record Linkage, NSW. All patients aged ≥16 years with incident TSCI in NSW (2013-2016) were included. We investigated impacts of geographical disparities on pre-hospital and inter-hospital transport decisions from injury location using geospatial methods. Outcomes assessed included time to SCIU, surgery and the impact of these variables on the experience of inpatient complications. ResultsInclusion criteria identified 316 patients, geospatial analysis showed that over half (53%, n=168) of all patients were injured within 60 minutes road travel of a SCIU, yet only 28.6% (n=48) were directly transferred to a SCIU. Patients were more likely to experience direct transfer to a SCIU without comorbid trauma (p<0.01) but higher ICISS (p<0.001), cervical injury (p<0.01), and transferred by air-ambulance (p<0.01). Indirect transfer to SCIU was more likely with two or more additional traumatic injuries (p<0.01) or incomplete injury (p<0.01). Patients not admitted to SCIU at all were older (p=0.05) with lower levels of injury (p<0.01). Direct transfers received earlier operative intervention (median (IQR) 12.9(7.9) hours), compared with patients transferred indirectly to SCIU (median (IQR) 19.5(18.9) h

The study aimed to determine how much change in neurogenic claudication spinal surgeons expect in patients following lumbar decompression for lumbar spine stenosis (LSS), and radicular leg pain following microdiscectomy. Secondary aims were to identify surgeons' preferences regarding surgical techniques for lumbar decompression, and their rating of the quality of current evidence for lumbar decompression. All Australian spine surgeons were invited, of whom 71 completed the survey (31% response rate). Only registered spinal surgeons were included. The online survey, administered using REDCap, included 4 sections: demographics and background; expected change in symptoms on a +/- 100% scale (-100% worst, 0% no change and 100% best possible); surgical preference; and rating of current evidence for lumbar decompression compared with other treatments. There were 71 complete responses, 76% were neurosurgeons (N = 54), predominantly male (96%; N = 68). On average, surgeons expected an 86% (median: 87%, inter-quartile range (IQR): 80%, 91%) improvement in neurogenic claudication following lumbar decompression for LSS and 89% (median: 91%, IQR: 85%, 95%) improvement in radicular pain following microdiscectomy. A multiple linear regression found no surgeon characteristics were associated with expected change following surgery. The preferred surgical technique for LSS was full laminectomy (58%; N = 41). Thirty-five percent of surgeons accurately rated the evidence supporting the superiority of lumbar decompression compared with non-surgical care for LSS as low quality. Spine surgeons expect large symptom improvements following lumbar decompression and microdiscectomy. Understanding of the current evidence was higher for lumbar decompression with fusion, than for decompression alone for LSS.

Study Design.Record linkage study using healthcare utilization and costs data.Objective.To identify predictors of higher acute-care treatment costs and length of stay for patients with traumatic spinal cord injury (TSCI).Summary of Background Data.There are few current or population-based estimates of acute hospitalization costs, length of stay, and other outcomes for people with TSCI, on which to base future planning for specialist SCI health care services.Methods.Record linkage study using healthcare utilization and costs data; all patients aged more than or equal to 16 years with incident TSCI in the Australian state of New South Wales (June 2013-June 2016). Generalized Linear Model regression to identify predictors of higher acute care treatment costs for patients with TSCI. Scenario analysis quantified the proportionate cost impacts of patient pathway modification.Results.Five hundred thirty-four incident cases of TSCI (74% male). Total cost of all acute index episodes approximately AUD$40.5 (95% confidence interval [CI] ±4.5) million; median cost per patient was AUD$45,473 (Interquartile Range: $15,535-$94,612). Patient pathways varied; acute care was less costly for patients admitted directly to a specialist spinal cord injury unit (SCIU) compared with indirect transfer within 24 hours. Over half (53%) of all patients experienced at least one complication during acute admission; their care was less costly if they had been admitted directly to SCIU. Scenario analysis demonstrated that a reduction of indirect transfers to SCIU by 10% yielded overall cost savings of AUD$3.1 million; an average per patient saving of AUD$5,861.Conclusion.Direct transfer to SCIU for patients with acute TSCI resulted in lower treatment costs, shorter length of stay, and less costly complications. Modeling showed that optimizing patient-care pathways can result in significant acute-care cost savings. Reducing potentially preventable complications would further reduce costs and improv

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Introduction: Central lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a common cause of pain, reduced function and quality of life in older adults. Current management of LSS includes surgery to decompress the spinal canal and alleviate symptoms. However, evidence supporting surgical decompression derives from unblinded randomised trials with high cross-over rates or cohort studies showing modest benefits. This protocol describes the design of the SUrgery for Spinal Stenosis (SUcceSS) trial-the first randomised placebo-controlled trial of decompressive surgery for symptomatic LSS. Methods and analysis: SUcceSS will be a prospectively registered, randomised placebo-controlled trial of decompressive spinal surgery. 160 eligible participants (80 participants/group) with symptomatic LSS will be randomised to either surgical spinal decompression or placebo surgical intervention. The placebo surgical intervention is identical to surgical decompression in all other ways with the exception of the removal of any bone or ligament. All participants and assessors will be blinded to treatment allocation. Outcomes will be assessed at baseline and at 3, 6, 12 and 24 months. The coprimary outcomes will be function measured with the Oswestry Disability Index and the proportion of participants who have meaningfully improved their walking capacity at 3 months postrandomisation. Secondary outcomes include back pain intensity, lower limb pain intensity, disability, quality of life, anxiety and depression, neurogenic claudication score, perceived recovery, treatment satisfaction, adverse events, reoperation rate and rehospitalisation rate. Those who decline to be randomised will be invited to participate in a parallel observational cohort. Data analysis will be blinded and by intention to treat. A trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis will determine the potential incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained. Ethics and dissemination: Ethics approval ha

Lumbar spine fusion is a common procedure associated with a high cost burden and risk of serious complications. We aimed to summarise systematic reviews on the effectiveness of lumbar spine fusion for most diagnoses. We found no high-quality systematic reviews and the risk of bias of the randomised controlled trials in the reviews was generally high. The available evidence does not support a benefit from spine fusion compared to non-operative alternatives for back pain associated with degeneration. The available evidence does not support a clinical benefit from spine fusion compared to non-operative treatment or stabilisation without fusion for thoracolumbar burst fractures. Benefits of spine fusion compared to non-operative treatment for isthmic spondylolisthesis are unclear (one trial at high risk of bias). Surgical intervention for metastatic carcinoma of the spine associated with spinal cord compromise improves mobility and neurological outcome (based on a single trial). Better evidence is required to determine more accurately the effectiveness of spine fusion surgery for all indications. Patients contemplating spinal fusion should be fully informed about the evidence base for their particular problem, including the relative potential benefits and harms of fusion compared with non-operative treatments.

Background: To describe pre-hospital, emergency department and acute care assessment and management practices of senior clinicians for patients with acute traumatic spinal cord injury (TSCI) across Australia; and to describe clinical practice variation. Methods: We used a descriptive, cross-sectional study design to survey senior clinicians (greater than 10 years practice in this field) caring for patients with acute TSCI. The assessment, management and referral practices of prehospital, emergency department/trauma and surgical expert clinicians, across prehospital, early hospital care, diagnostic imaging and haemodynamic management were surveyed. Results: We invited 95 eligible senior clinicians; the response rate was 75%. Survey findings demonstrated overall lack of awareness or consistent use of evidence based published guidelines; many clinicians following 'locally written' or 'no particular' guideline. Practitioners were conflicted across multiple areas including patient assessment and diagnosis, treatment and transport decisions. Reported spinal immobilisation practices differed substantially, as did target setting for blood pressure; the majority of clinicians actively monitored risk of respiratory deterioration. Specialist care consult and specialist service bed availability was reported as problematic by more than one third of clinicians. Conclusions: Unwarranted clinical practice variation is known to contribute to different health outcomes for patients with similar etiologies. Clinical practice guidelines offer evidence based, best practice standards, however are only effective if adopted throughout the healthcare system. Wide variability in acute care practices, pathways and timing to specialist centres for TSCI was evidenced by this survey despite seniority among clinicians. This devastating injury requires prompt, consistent, evidence based care from the moment of first responder. Improved outcomes for patients with TSCI would be more likely with stand

Background Context: Traumatic spinal injuries are often associated with both long-term disability, higher frequency of hospital readmissions, and high medical costs for individuals of all ages. Age differences in terms of injury profile and health outcomes among those who sustain a spinal cord injury have been identified. However, factors that may influence health outcomes among those with a spinal injury have not been extensively examined at a population level. Purpose: The present study aims to describe the characteristics of traumatic spinal injury, identify factors predictive of mortality, and estimate the cost of hospital treatment for younger and older people. Study Design/Setting: This is a population-based retrospective epidemiological study using linked hospitalization and mortality records during January 1, 2010 to June 30, 2014 in New South Wales, Australia. Patient Sample: The present study included 13,429 hospitalizations. Outcome Measures: Mortality within 30 and 90 days of hospitalization, hospital length of stay (LOS), and hospitalization costs were determined. Methods: Hospitalizations with a principal diagnosis of spinal cord injury or spinal fractures were used to identify traumatic spinal injuries. Age-standardized incidence rates were calculated and negative binomial regression was used to examine statistical significant changes over time. Cox proportional hazard regression was used to examine the effect of risk factors on survival at 90 days. Results: There were 13,429 hospitalizations, with 52.4% of individuals aged ≥65 years. The hospitalization rates for individuals aged ≤64 and ≥65 years were both estimated to significantly increase per year by 3.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.97–5.79, p<.006) and 3.3% (95% CI 1.02–5.71, p=.005), respectively. For individuals aged ≥65 years, there were a higher proportion of women injured, comorbid conditions, injuries after a fall in the home or aged care facility, a longer hospital LOS, unplanned hosp

BACKGROUND: To describe pre-hospital, emergency department and acute care assessment and management practices of senior clinicians for patients with acute traumatic spinal cord injury (TSCI) across Australia; and to describe clinical practice variation. METHODS: We used a descriptive, cross-sectional study design to survey senior clinicians (greater than 10 years practice in this field) caring for patients with acute TSCI. The assessment, management and referral practices of prehospital, emergency department/trauma and surgical expert clinicians, across prehospital, early hospital care, diagnostic imaging and haemodynamic management were surveyed. RESULTS: We invited 95 eligible senior clinicians; the response rate was 75%. Survey findings demonstrated overall lack of awareness or consistent use of evidence based published guidelines; many clinicians following 'locally written' or 'no particular' guideline. Practitioners were conflicted across multiple areas including patient assessment and diagnosis, treatment and transport decisions. Reported spinal immobilisation practices differed substantially, as did target setting for blood pressure; the majority of clinicians actively monitored risk of respiratory deterioration. Specialist care consult and specialist service bed availability was reported as problematic by more than one third of clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: Unwarranted clinical practice variation is known to contribute to different health outcomes for patients with similar etiologies. Clinical practice guidelines offer evidence based, best practice standards, however are only effective if adopted throughout the healthcare system. Wide variability in acute care practices, pathways and timing to specialist centres for TSCI was evidenced by this survey despite seniority among clinicians. This devastating injury requires prompt, consistent, evidence based care from the moment of first responder. Improved outcomes for patients with TSCI would be more likely with stand

Introduction: Around 300 people sustain a new traumatic spinal cord injury (TSCI) in Australia each year; a relatively low incidence injury with extremely high long-term associated costs. Care standards are inconsistent nationally, lacking in consensus across important components of care such as prehospital spinal immobilisation, timing of surgery and timeliness of transfer to specialist services. This study aims to develop 'expertly defined' and agreed standards of care across the majority of disciplines involved for these patients. Methods and analysis: A modified e-Delphi process will be used to gain consensus for best practice across specific clinical early care areas for the patient with TSCI; invited participants will include clinicians across Australia with relevant and significant expertise. A rapid literature review will identify available evidence, including any current guidelines from 2005 to 2015. Level and strength of evidence identified, including areas of contention, will be used to formulate the first round survey questions and statements. Participants will undertake 2-3 online survey rounds, responding anonymously to questionnaires regarding care practices and indicating their agreement or otherwise with practice standard statements. Relevant key stakeholders, including patients, will also be interviewed face to face. Ethics and dissemination: Ethics approval for this study was obtained by the NSW Population & Health Services Research Ethics Committee on 14 January 2016 (HREC/12/CIPHS/74). Seeking comprehensive understanding of how the variation in early care pathways and treatment can be addressed to achieve optimal patient outcomes and economic costs; the overall aim is the agreement to a consistent approach to the triage, treatment, transport and definitive care of acute TSCI victims. The agreed practice standards of care will inform the development of a Clinical Pathway with practice change strategies for implementation. These standards will off

Background En bloc resection of Ewing sarcoma in the cervical spine according to Enneking's principles is technically challenging owing to the proximity of important neurovascular structures, the complex local anatomy, and the biomechanical instability of radical resection. The rarity of Ewing sarcoma and variability of its presentation justifies ongoing exploration and compilation of the surgical nuances and subtleties of en bloc resection in the cervical spine. Case Description We present a 34-year-old male with Ewing sarcoma of the neck who underwent successful en bloc resection using a novel technique of splitting the laminae and osteomizing the lateral masses under imaging guidance. Conclusions This novel and successful approach of en bloc resection in the cervical spine can add to the spinal surgeon's repertoire when dealing with complex cervical tumor masses.