BackgroundIn the last decades a lot of new reconstructive techniques were developed for the treatment of mangled lower extremity. However failed attempt to limb salvage is related to high risk of mortality for the patient. Several scores were developed to establish guidelines for the decision to amputate or not, however in literature there is no consensus about the reliability of this scores.MethodsThe authors focused their attention on the most used score system to provide guidance of the management of a mangled lower limb. The search term used included mangled lower extremity, MESS, PSI, LSI and NISSSA. The inclusion criteria were: studies dealing with mangled lower extremity; articles reporting MESS, PSI, LSI or NISSSA scores; articles published in English in PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus and web of science in the last 30 years, minimum number of cases in study of 15, minimum follow up of 1 year.ResultsAccording with the criteria described above, we found 134 articles in PubMed, 165 articles in Scopus, 111 articles in the Cochrane Library and 108 articles in Web of Science. The most used score in literature is the MESS. Few results are shown using the other severity scores. There are a lot of controversies in literature about the use of this scale. MESS seems to be more accurate than the LSI in prediction of limb salvage. LSI score shows better results when applied to type III tibial fractures. High sentivity of the PSI score is described when applied to predict successful limb salvage. Low sensitivity and specificity are described for the NISSSA score. The literature is very poor of articles related to mangled lower extremity in children. Higher sensitivity and specificity are described for these scores in children when compared to adult population.ConclusionThe mangled lower extremity treatment is a challenge for the surgeon. Many scores were developed to help the surgeon, however they cannot be used as the sole criterion by which amputation decision are made and, in case of succesful limb salvage, they are not predictive of the functional recovery. Moreover, undue enthusiasm for new surgical techniques can lead to increased morbidity and mortality in case of secondary amputation.

Aims The current pandemic caused by COVID-19 is the biggest challenge for national health systems for a century. While most medical resources are allocated to treat COVID-19 patients, several non-COVID-19 medical emergencies still need to be treated, including vertebral fractures and spinal cord compression. The aim of this paper is to report the early experience and an organizational protocol for emergency spinal surgery currently being used in a large metropolitan area by an integrated team of orthopaedic surgeons and neurosurgeons. Methods An organizational model is presented based on case centralization in hub hospitals and early management of surgical cases to reduce hospital stay. Data from all the patients admitted for emergency spinal surgery from the beginning of the outbreak were prospectively collected and compared to data from patients admitted for the same reason in the same time span in the previous year, and treated by the same integrated team. Results A total of 19 patients (11 males and eight females, with a mean age of 49.9 years (14 to 83)) were admitted either for vertebral fracture or spinal cord compression in a 19-day period, compared to the ten admitted in the previous year. No COVID-19 patients were treated. The mean time between admission and surgery was 1.7 days, significantly lower than 6.8 days the previous year (p < 0.001). Conclusion The structural organization and the management protocol we describe allowed us to reduce the time to surgery and ultimately hospital stay, thereby maximizing the already stretched medical resources available. We hope that our early experience can be of value to the medical communities that will soon be in the same emergency situation. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(6):671–676.

Background:Surgical treatment of adult lumbar spinal disorders is associated with a substantial risk of intraoperative and perioperative complications. There is no clearly defined medical literature on complication in lumbar spine surgery. Purpose of the study is to retrospectively evaluate intraoperative and perioperative complications who underwent various lumbar surgical procedures and to study the possible predisposing role of advanced age in increasing this rate.Materials and Methods:From 2007 to 2011 the number and type of complications were recorded and both univariate, (considering the patients’ age) and a multivariate statistical analysis was conducted in order to establish a possible predisposing role. 133 were lumbar disc hernia treated with microdiscetomy, 88 were lumbar stenosis, treated in 36 cases with only decompression, 52 with decompression and instrumentation with a maximum of 2 levels. 26 patients showed a lumbar fracture treated with percutaneous or open screw fixation. 12 showed a scoliotic or kyphotic deformity treated with decompression, fusion and osteotomies with a maximum of 7.3 levels of fusion (range 5-14). 70 were spondylolisthesis treated with 1 or more level of fusion. In 34 cases a fusion till S1 was performed.Results:Of the 338 patients who underwent surgery, 55 showed one or more complications. Type of surgical treatment (P = 0.004), open surgical approach (open P = 0.001) and operative time (P = 0.001) increased the relative risk (RR) of complication occurrence of 2.3, 3.8 and 5.1 respectively. Major complications are more often seen in complex surgical treatment for severe deformities, in revision surgery and in anterior approaches with an occurrence of 58.3%. Age greater than 65 years, despite an increased RR of perioperative complications (1.5), does not represent a predisposing risk factor to complications (P = 0.006).Conclusion:Surgical decision-making and exclusion of patients is not justified only by due to age. A systematic preoperative evaluation should always be performed in order to stratify risks and to guide decision-making for obtaining the best possible clinical results at lower risk, even for elderly patients.

Facet joints injections have a more effective diagnostic than therapeutic value. The procedure could, however, give a temporary pain relief in cases with an overload of the facet joints due to lumbar hyperlordosis.

Level IV. Retrospective study.