Outcomes of posterolateral lumbar fusion in Utah patients receiving workers' compensation: a retrospective cohort study

STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study consisting of a medical record review and a follow-up telephone survey of patients with lumbar fusion, at least 2 years after their surgery, was performed. OBJECTIVE: To identify presurgical correlates and long-term outcomes from posterolateral lumbar fusion in Utah patients receiving workers' compensation. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Lumbar fusion has been criticized for its highly variable outcomes, and compensated workers are at particular risk for poor outcomes. Evidence suggests that presurgical psychosocial factors may be important modifiers of back pain reporting and back surgery outcomes. METHODS: The patients in this study were 185 compensated workers in Utah who underwent posterolateral lumbar fusion. Patient medical records were independently reviewed, and medical and sociodemographic variables were coded. A telephone outcome survey was completed with 130 patients (70%) an average of 4.6 years after their surgery. RESULTS: Reported solid fusion, reoperation, and disability rates for the follow-up sample were 74%, 24%, and 25%, respectively. As reported by the patients, 41% experienced no change or a worsened quality of life. Mean scores from the Roland and Morris Back Pain Disability Questionnaire, the Stauffer-Coventry-Index, and the Short-Form 20 Multidimensional Health Survey indicate that many patients experienced postsurgical dysfunction. Presurgical predictors of outcomes were number of prior low back operations, income at time of injury, age, litigation, and depression. CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes of posterolateral lumbar fusion among compensated workers in Utah are inconsistent. Outcomes can be predicted by presurgical sociodemographic variables. Screening for such presurgical risk factors may be important for prudent surgical decisions and rehabilitation planning.     

Presurgical biopsychosocial variables predict medical and compensation costs of lumbar fusion in Utah workers'' compensation patients

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Elective lumbar fusion surgery is a prevalent and costly procedure that requires a lengthy rehabilitation. It is important to identify presurgical biopsychosocial predictors of medical and compensation costs in such patients. PURPOSE: To determine if presurgical biopsychosocial variables are predictive of compensation and medical costs in a cohort of Utah lumbar fusion patients receiving workers' compensation. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: A retrospective-cohort study consisting of a review of presurgical medical records and accrued medical and compensations costs. PATIENT SAMPLE: A consecutive sample of 203 compensated workers from Utah who underwent lumbar fusion from 1990 to 1995. Patients were at least 2 years postsurgery. OUTCOME MEASURES: Total accrued medical and compensations costs. METHODS: A retrospective review of presurgical biopsychosocial variables and total accrued medical and compensation costs was conducted. RESULTS: Presurgical variables from each of the biopsychosocial domains were statistically significantly correlated with medical and compensation costs. Social and biological variables were the best predictors of total compensation costs, whereas psychological variables were better predictors of total medical costs. CONCLUSIONS: Compensation and medical costs associated with posterolateral lumbar fusion can be predicted by preintervention biopsychosocial variables. Cost reduction programs might benefit from identifying biopsychosocial factors related to increased costs.     

Reoperations after primary and revision lumbar discectomy: study of a national-level cohort with eight years follow-up

BACKGROUND CONTEXTPublished rates for disc reherniation following primary discectomy are around 6%, but the ultimate reoperation outcomes in patients after receiving revision discectomy are not well understood. Additionally, any disparity in the outcomes of subsequent revision discectomy (SRD) versus subsequent lumbar fusion (SLF) following primary/revision discectomy remains poorly studied.PURPOSETo determine the 8-year SRD/SLF rates and time until SRD/SLF after primary/revision discectomy respectively.STUDY DESIGNRetrospective cohort study.PATIENT SAMPLEPatients undergoing primary or revision discectomy, with records in the PearlDiver Patient Records Database from the years 2010 to 2019.OUTCOME MEASURESSubsequent surgery type and time to subsequent surgery.METHODSPatients were grouped into primary or revision discectomy cohorts based off of the nature of “index” procedure (primary or revision discectomy) using ICD9/10 and CPT procedure codes from 2010 to 19 insurance data sets in the PearlDiver Patient Records Database. Preoperative demographic data was collected. Outcome measures such as subsequent surgery type (fusion or discectomy) and time to subsequent surgery were collected prospectively in PearlDiver Mariner database. Statistical analysis was performed using BellWeather statistical software. A Kaplan-Meier survival analysis of time to SLF/SRD was performed on each cohort, and log-rank test was used to compare the rates of SLF/SRD between cohorts.RESULTSA total of 20,147 patients were identified (17,849 primary discectomy, 2,298 revision discectomy). The 8-year rates of SRD (6.1% in revision cohort, 4.8% in primary cohort, p<.01) and SLF (10.4% in revision cohort, 6.2% in primary cohort, p<.01) were higher after revision versus primary discectomy. Time to SLF was shorter after revision versus primary discectomy (709 vs. 886 days, p<.01). After both primary and revision discectomy, the 8-year rate of SLF (10.4% in revision cohort, 6.2% in primary cohort, p<.01) is greater than SRD (6.1% in revision cohort, 4.8% in primary cohort, p<.01).CONCLUSIONSCompared to primary discectomy, revision discectomy has higher rates of SLF (10.4% vs. 6.2%), and faster time to SLF (2.4 vs. 1.9 years) at 8-year follow up.     

Presurgical biopsychosocial factors predict multidimensional patient: outcomes of interbody cage lumbar fusion.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Interbody cage lumbar fusion (ICLF) has been advanced to improve arthrodesis; however, little attention has been given to quality of life and functional outcomes. Studies suggest that psychosocial factors may be important modifiers of low back surgical outcomes. PURPOSE: To depict outcomes of ICLF surgery across multiple dimensions and to investigate presurgical biopsychosocial predictors of these outcomes. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: A retrospective-cohort research design was used that involved completion of presurgical medical record reviews and postsurgical telephone outcome surveys at least 18 months after surgery. Presurgical variables included in a regression model were age at the time of surgery, spinal pathophysiology rating, smoking tobacco, depression, and pursuing litigation. PATIENT SAMPLE: Seventy-three patients received ICLF, and of those 56 patients completed the outcome survey an average of 2.6 years after surgery. OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcome measures consisted of arthrodesis status, patient satisfaction, back-specific functioning, disability status, and quality of life. RESULTS: Although arthrodesis occurred in 84% of the patients, nearly half were dissatisfied with their current back condition. Functional status was worse than expected, and 38% were totally disabled at follow-up. Regression analyses revealed tobacco use, depression, and litigation were the most consistent presurgical predictors of poorer patient outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, despite a high rate of arthrodesis, ICLF was not associated with substantial improvements in patient functioning. Presurgical biopsychosocial variables predicted patient outcomes, which may help improve patient selection and possible targeted interventions.     

Economic impact of improving outcomes of lumbar discectomy

BackgroundLumbar discectomy is usually a successful operation with a relatively low cost. Potential adjunctive procedures, such as repairing the anulus fibrosus or nucleus replacements, necessitate a cost-benefit analysis.PurposeThis economic analysis was performed to understand the potential value of advanced implantable technologies designed to improve outcomes after discectomy.Study design/settingUsing an insurance claims–based database, the economics of less-than-favorable outcomes after lumbar discectomy were studied. Estimates of improved clinical outcomes because of adjunctive surgical procedural items were modeled.Patient sampleUsing Current Procedural Terminology (CPT-4) codes and International Classification of Diseases, Clinical Modification procedure codes (ICD-9 CM), all lumbar discectomy patients were identified in a 6-month period from a large, 2002, commercially available claims-based data set representing 3.1 million insured lives.Outcome measuresNot applicable.MethodsLongitudinal data analysis from 3 years (2002–2004) of the database was performed for evidence of claims after the insured's discectomy (up to 18 months post) as a utilization estimate of surgical and medical treatment resultant of less-than-favorable outcomes. Incidence and cost of secondary operations, medical management, and complications were determined. Using these inputs, an economic model was generated to estimate the effect of improvement in discectomy outcomes.ResultsOf the 494 patients who had a discectomy within a 6-month period, 137 (28%) had subsequent claims that suggested the outcome was less than favorable within 18 months. Patients whose insurance claims included codes for a second operation (n=52 patients with 56 operations; 11%) and patients being medically/nonsurgically managed (n=85, 17%) were studied. Average reimbursed charges incurred (2006 dollars) of repeated discectomy (80% of cases) was $6,907 and for arthrodesis (20% of cases) was $24,375. Average additional medical treatment cost to diagnose or manage poor outcome requiring another surgery was $3,365. Procedure-related complications within 40 days of surgery were evident in 15% of the group; with additional average cost to manage of $3,939.ConclusionsSubstantial cost associated with poor discectomy outcomes is often overlooked or underappreciated. Surgical technologies that can improve outcomes of discectomy by 50% to 70% thus improving patient quality of life can be overall cost-neutral between $971 and $1,655 additionally per patient.     

One-year outcomes of surgical versus nonsurgical treatments for discogenic back pain: a community-based prospective cohort study

Background contextThe clinical entity “discogenic back pain” remains controversial at fundamental levels, including its pathophysiology, diagnostic criteria, and optimal treatment. This is true despite availability of four randomized trials comparing the efficacy of surgical and nonsurgical treatments. One trial showed benefit for lumbar fusion compared with unstructured nonoperative care, and three others showed roughly similar results for lumbar surgery and structured rehabilitation.PurposeTo compare outcomes of community-based surgical and nonsurgical treatments for patients with chronic back pain attributed to degeneration at one or two lumbar disc levels.DesignProspective observational cohort study.Patient samplePatients presenting with axial back pain to academic and private practice orthopedic surgeons and neurosurgeons in a large metropolitan area.Outcome measuresRoland-Morris back disability score (primary outcome), current rating of overall pain severity on a numerical scale, back and leg pain bothersomeness measures, the physical function scale of the short-form 36 version 2 questionnaire, use of medications for pain, work status, emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and further surgery.MethodsPatients receiving spine surgery within 6 months of enrollment were designated as the “surgical treatment” group and the remainder as “nonsurgical treatment.” Outcomes were assessed at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after enrollment.ResultsWe enrolled 495 patients with discogenic back pain presenting for initial surgical consultation in offices of 16 surgeons. Eighty-six patients (17%) had surgery within 6 months of enrollment. Surgery consisted of instrumented fusion (79%), disc replacement (12%), laminectomy, or discectomy (9%). Surgical patients reported more severe pain and physical disability at baseline and were more likely to have had prior surgery. Adjusting for baseline differences among groups, surgery showed a limited benefit over nonsurgical treatment of 5.4 points on the modified (23-point) Roland disability questionnaire (primary outcome) 1 year after enrollment. Using a composite definition of success incorporating 30% improvement in the Roland score, 30% improvement in pain, no opioid pain medication use, and working (if relevant), the 1-year success rate was 33% for surgery and 15% for nonsurgical treatment. The rate of reoperation was 11% in the surgical group; the rate of surgery after treatment designation in the nonsurgical group was 6% at 12 months after enrollment.ConclusionsThe surgical group showed greater improvement at 1 year compared with the nonsurgical group, although the composite success rate for both treatment groups was only fair. The results should be interpreted cautiously because outcomes are short term, and treatment was not randomly assigned. Only 5% of nonsurgical patients received cognitive behavior therapy. Nonsurgical treatment that patients received was variable and mostly not compliant with major guidelines.     

Adding 3-month patient data improves prognostic models of 12-month disability,pain, and satisfaction after specific lumbar spine surgical procedures: development and validation of a prediction model

BACKGROUND CONTEXTPrognostic models including early postoperative variables may provide optimal estimates of long-term outcomes and help direct postoperative care.PURPOSETo develop and validate prognostic models for 12-month disability, back pain, leg pain, and satisfaction among patients undergoing microdiscectomy, laminectomy, and laminectomy with fusion for degenerative lumbar conditions.STUDY DESIGN/SETTINGRetrospective cohort study using the Quality Outcomes Database.PATIENT SAMPLEPatients receiving elective lumbar spine surgery due to degenerative spine conditions.OUTCOME MEASURESOswestry Disability Index, pain numerical rating scale, and NASS Patient Satisfaction Index.METHODSPrognostic models were developed using proportional odds ordinal logistic regression using patient characteristics and baseline and 3-month patient-reported outcome scores. Models were fit for each outcome stratified by type of surgical procedure. Adjusted odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals were reported for all predictors by procedure. Models were internally validated using bootstrap resampling. Discrimination was reported as the c-index and calibration was presented using the calibration slope. We compared the performance of models with and without 3-month patient-reported variables. This research was supported by the Foundation for Physical Therapy's Center of Excellence in Physical Therapy Health Services, and Health Policy Research and Training grant.RESULTSThe sample consisted of 5,840 patients receiving a microdiscectomy (n=2,085), laminectomy (n=1,837), or laminectomy with fusion (n=1,918). The 3-month Oswestry score was the strongest and most consistent predictor associated with 12-month outcomes. All prognostic models performed well with overfitting-corrected c-index values ranging from 0.718 to 0.795 and all optimism corrected calibration slopes over 0.92. The increase in c-index values ranged from 0.09 to 0.21 when adding 3-month patient-reported outcome scores.CONCLUSIONSModels had good discrimination and were well calibrated for estimating 12-month disability, back pain, leg pain, and satisfaction. Patient-reported outcomes at 3 months after surgery, especially 3-month Oswestry scores, improved the 12-month performance of all prognostic models beyond using only baseline variables.     

Characteristics and outcomes of patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery for axial back pain in the Michigan Spine Surgery Improvement Collaborative

BACKGROUND CONTEXTThe indications for surgical intervention of axial back pain without leg pain for degenerative lumbar disorders have been limited in the literature, as most study designs allow some degree of leg symptoms in the inclusion criteria.PURPOSETo determine the outcome of surgery (decompression only vs. fusion) for pure axial back pain without leg pain.STUDY DESIGN/SETTINGProspectively collected data in the Michigan Spine Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MSSIC).PATIENT SAMPLEPatients with pure axial back pain without leg pain underwent lumbar spine surgery for primary diagnoses of lumbar disc herniation, lumbar stenosis, and isthmic or degenerative spondylolisthesis ≤ grade II.OUTCOME MEASURESMinimally clinically important difference (MCID) for back pain, Numeric Rating Scale of back pain, Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function (PROMIS-PF), MCID of PROMIS-PF, and patient satisfaction on the North American Spine Surgery Patient Satisfaction Index were collected at 90 days, 1 year, and 2 years after surgery.METHODSLog-Poisson generalized estimating equation models were constructed with patient-reported outcomes as the independent variable, reporting adjusted risk ratios (RR_adj).RESULTSOf the 388 patients at 90 days, multi-level versus single level lumbar surgery decreased the likelihood of obtaining a MCID in back pain by 15% (RR_adj=0.85, p=.038). For every one-unit increase in preoperative back pain, the likelihood for a favorable outcome increased by 8% (RR_adj=1.08, p<.001). Of the 326 patients at 1 year, symptom duration > 1 year decreased the likelihood of a MCID in back pain by 16% (RR_adj=0.84, p=.041). The probability of obtaining a MCID in back pain increased by 9% (RR_adj=1.09, p<.001) for every 1-unit increase in baseline back pain score and by 14% for fusions versus decompression alone (RR_adj=1.14, p=.0362). Of the 283 patients at 2 years, the likelihood of obtaining MCID in back pain decreased by 30% for patients with depression (RR_adj=0.70, p<.001) and increased by 8% with every one-unit increase in baseline back pain score (RR_adj=1.08, p<.001).CONCLUSIONSOnly the severity of preoperative back pain was associated with improvement in MCID in back pain at all time points, suggesting that surgery should be considered for selected patients with severe axial pain without leg pain. Fusion surgery versus decompression alone was associated with improved patient-reported outcomes at 1 year only, but not at the other time points.     

Incidence of lumbar discectomy during pregnancy and within 12 months post-partum in Finland between 1999 and 2017: a retrospective register-based cohort study

Background ContextBoth lumbar disc herniation in the general population and lower back pain in the pregnant population are known to be common conditions. The physiological and anatomical of the mother predispose to increased strain of the lumbar disc, whereas pregnancy may promote caution in physicians contemplating surgical care.PurposeWe aimed to report the incidence of lumbar discectomy during pregnancy and 12 months postpartum in Finland between 1999 and 2017.Study DesignRetrospective register-based cohort study.Patient SampleUsing nationwide data from the Finnish Care Register for Health Care and the Finnish Medical Birth Register, all women aged 15 to 49 years with a lumbar discectomy or pregnancy ending in delivery from 1st January, 1999 to 31st December, 2017 were included.Outcome MeasuresIncidence rates and their 95% confidence intervals were calculated for lumbar discectomy. Incidence rate ratios (IRR) were calculated between the study population and the control population. The effect of smoking on surgery risk was reported using odds ratios.MethodsA retrospective statistical analysis was performed to identify patients undergoing lumbar discectomy during pregnancy or the first 12 months after delivery. Incidence rates were compared with the age-adjusted values of the age-matched female general population. The effect of smoking on the risk of lumbar discectomy was analyzed using age-adjusted odds ratios.ResultsIn total, 91 discectomies were performed during pregnancy and 508 within 12 months postpartum. The total incidence of lumbar discectomy during pregnancy was 11 operations per 100,000 person-years with an IRR of 0.2 (95% CI 0.1–0.2) when compared with the age-adjusted female general population. Women with active smoking before pregnancy were at a higher risk for lumbar discectomy during pregnancy (OR 2.0, 95% CI 1.2–3.2). Caesarean section was more common after lumbar discectomy (22%). No perinatal mortality was observed. During the first-year postpartum the rate of lumbar discectomy increased to 47 per 100 000 person-years with an IRR of 0.7 (95% CI 0.6–0.8). 90-day reoperation rates were higher than in the general population with an IRR of 1.7 (95% CI 1.1– 2.7).ConclusionsLumbar discectomy during pregnancy is rare, but smoking increases the risk. Lumbar discectomy during pregnancy seems to be safe for the neonate. Postpartum incidences increased towards the end of the first year, but remained below the rates in the general population with a higher risk for short-term reoperation.     

Rheumatoid arthritis patients are at increased risk for adverse events following lumbar discectomy

BACKGROUND CONTEXTLumbar discectomy is a common procedure for which patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) may be considered. RA is an autoinflammatory disease that may predispose patients to postoperative adverse outcomes.PURPOSETo assess the relative odds of adverse events after lumbar discectomy for those with versus without RA in a large, national, administrative dataset.STUDY DESIGN/SETTINGRetrospective cohort study using the 2010 to 2020 MSpine PearlDiver dataset.PATIENT SAMPLEAfter exclusion of patients under 18 years old, those with any trauma, neoplasm, or infection diagnosis within the month before lumbar discectomy, and any patients who had any alternative lumbar spinal surgery performed on the same day as lumbar discectomy, we identified 36,479 lumbar discectomy patients. 2,937 (8.1%) of these patients had a prior diagnosis of RA. After matching 4:1 by patient age, sex, and Elixhauser Comorbidity Index (ECI, a longitudinal measure of patient comorbidity burden generated via ICD-9 and 10 diagnosis codes), 8,485 lumbar discectomy patients without RA and 2,149 with RA were included.OUTCOME MEASURESIncidence of severe and minor adverse events in the 90-days following lumbar discectomy, predictive factors for adverse events within 90-days of lumbar discectomy, risk of adverse events within 90-days of lumbar discectomy stratified by patient medication regimen, 5-year survival to reoperation following lumbar discectomy.METHODSPatients undergoing lumbar discectomy were identified from the PearlDiver MSpine dataset. The subset of those with versus without RA were identified and matched 1:4 based on patient age, sex, and ECI scores. The incidence of 90-day adverse events in the two groups was determined and compared by univariate and multivariate analyses. Subgroup analysis was performed based on RA medications being taken.RESULTSMatched lumbar discectomy patients with RA (n=2,149) and without RA (n=8,485) were identified. Controlling for patient age, sex, and ECI, those with RA were at significantly higher odds of any (odds ratio [OR] 3.30), severe (OR 2.78), and minor (OR 3.30) adverse events (p<.0001 for all).Stratifying by medications being taken (and relative to those without RA), there was increasing odds of all adverse events (AAE) based on potency of medications (no biologic or disease modifying antirheumatic drugs [DMARDs] OR 2.33, DMARDs only OR 3.86, biologic±DMARDs OR 5.69 (p<.0001 for all). Despite this, no statistically significant difference in 5-year survival from subsequent lumbar surgery was found between those with versus without RA (p=.1000).CONCLUSIONSLumbar discectomy patients with RA were found to be at significantly higher risk for 90-day adverse events following lumbar discectomy, and this was incrementally greater for those on increasingly suppressive medications. Lumbar discectomy patients with RA bear specific consideration and perioperative monitoring when considered for lumbar discectomy.     

Preoperative Zung depression scale predicts patient satisfaction independent of the extent of improvement after revision lumbar surgery

Background contextPatient satisfaction ratings are increasingly being used in health care as a proxy for quality and are becoming the focal point for several quality improvement initiatives. Affective disorders, such as depression, have been shown to influence patient-reported outcomes and self-interpretation of health status. We hypothesize that patient psychiatric profiles influence reported satisfaction with care, independent of surgical effectiveness.PurposeTo assess the predictive value of preoperative depression on patient satisfaction after revision surgery for same-level recurrent stenosis.Study designRetrospective cohort study.Patient sampleFifty-three patients undergoing a revision surgery for symptomatic same-level recurrent stenosis.Outcome measuresPatient-reported outcome measures were assessed using an outcomes questionnaire that included questions on health state values (EuroQol-5D [EQ-5D]), disability (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI]), pain (visual analog scale [VAS]), depression (Zung self-rating depression scale), and Short Form 12 (SF-12) physical and mental component scores (PCS and MCS). Patient satisfaction was dichotomized as either “YES” or “NO” on whether they were satisfied with their surgical outcome 2 years after the surgery.MethodsA total of fifty-three patients undergoing revision neural decompression and instrumented fusion for same-level recurrent stenosis-associated back and leg pain were included in this study. Preoperative Zung self-rating depression score (ZDS), education status, comorbidities, and postoperative satisfaction with surgical care and outcome was assessed for all patients. Baseline and 2-year VAS for leg pain (VAS-LP), VAS for low back pain (VAS-BP), ODI, SF-12 PCS and MCS, and health-state utility (EQ-5D) were assessed. Factors associated with patient satisfaction after surgery were assessed via multivariate logistic regression analysis.ResultsTwo years after surgery, a significant improvement was reported in all outcome measures: VAS-BP (5±2.94 vs. 9.28±1, p<.001), VAS-LP (3.43±2.95 vs. 9.5±0.93, p<.001), ODI (21.75±12.07 vs. 36.01±6, p<.001), SF-12 PCS (32.30±11.01 vs. 25.13±5.84, p<.001), SF-12 MCS (47.48±10.96 vs. 34.91±12.77, p<.001), EQ-5D (0.60±0.31 vs. 0.18±0.22, p<.001), and ZDS (37.52±11.98 vs. 49.90±10.88, p<.001). Independent of postoperative improvement in pain and disability (surgical effectiveness), increasing preoperative Zung depression score was significantly associated with patient dissatisfaction 2 years after revision lumbar surgery (Odds ratio=0.67 [confidence interval: 0.38, 0.87], p<.001).ConclusionsOur study suggests that independent of the surgical effectiveness, the extent of preoperative depression influences the reported patient satisfaction after revision lumbar surgery. Quality improvement initiatives using patient satisfaction as a proxy for quality should account for the patients' baseline depression as potential confounders.     

The effect of prior lumbar surgeries on the flexion relaxation phenomenon and its responsiveness to rehabilitative treatment

Background contextAbnormal pretreatment flexion-relaxation in chronic disabling occupational lumbar spinal disorder patients has been shown to improve with functional restoration rehabilitation. Little is known about the effects of prior lumbar surgeries on flexion-relaxation and its responsiveness to treatment.PurposeTo quantify the effect of prior lumbar surgeries on the flexion-relaxation phenomenon and its responsiveness to rehabilitative treatment.Study design/settingA prospective cohort study of chronic disabling occupational lumbar spinal disorder patients, including those with and without prior lumbar spinal surgeries.Patient sampleA sample of 126 chronic disabling occupational lumbar spinal disorder patients with prior work-related injuries entered an interdisciplinary functional restoration program and agreed to enroll in this study. Fifty-seven patients had undergone surgical decompression or discectomy (n=32) or lumbar fusion (n=25), and the rest had no history of prior injury-related spine surgery (n=69). At post-treatment, 116 patients were reevaluated, including those with prior decompressions or discectomies (n=30), lumbar fusions (n=21), and no surgery (n=65). A comparison group of 30 pain-free control subjects was tested with an identical assessment protocol, and compared with post-rehabilitation outcomes.Outcome measuresMean surface electromyography (SEMG) at maximum voluntary flexion; subject achievement of flexion-relaxation (SEMG≤3.5 μV); gross lumbar, true lumbar, and pelvic flexion ROM; and a pain visual analog scale self-report during forward bending task. Identical measures were obtained at pretreatment and post-treatment.MethodsPatients entered an interdisciplinary functional restoration program, including a quantitatively directed, medically supervised exercise process and a multimodal psychosocial disability management component. The functional restoration program was accompanied by a SEMG-assisted stretching training program, designed to teach relaxation of the lumbar musculature during end-range flexion, thereby improving or normalizing flexion-relaxation and increasing lumbar flexion ROM. At 1 year after discharge from the program, a structured interview was used to obtain socioeconomic outcomes.ResultsAt pre-rehabilitation, the no surgery group patients demonstrated significantly better performance than both surgery groups on absolute SEMG at maximum voluntary flexion and on true lumbar flexion ROM. Both surgery groups were less likely to achieve flexion-relaxation than the no surgery patients. The fusion patients had reduced gross lumbar flexion ROM and greater pain during bending compared with the no surgery patients, and reduced true lumbar flexion ROM compared with the discectomy patients. At post-rehabilitation, all groups improved substantially on all measures. When post-rehabilitation measures were compared with the pain-free control group, with gross and true lumbar ROM corrected by 8° per spinal segment fused, there were no differences between any of the patient groups and the pain-free control subjects on spinal ROM and only small differences in SEMG. The three groups had comparable socioeconomic outcomes at 1 year post-treatment in work retention, health-care utilization, new injury, and new surgery.ConclusionsDespite the fact that the patients with prior surgery demonstrated greater pretreatment SEMG and ROM deficits, functional restoration treatment, combined with SEMG-assisted stretching training, was successful in improving all these measures by post-treatment. After treatment, both groups demonstrated ROM within anticipated limits, and the majority of patients in all three groups successfully achieved flexion-relaxation. In a chronic disabling occupational lumbar spinal disorder cohort, surgery patients were nearly equal to nonoperated patients in responding to interdisciplinary functional restoration rehabilitation on measures investigated in this study, achieving close to normal performance measures associated with pain-free controls. The responsiveness and final scores shown in this study suggests that flexion-relaxation may be a useful, objective diagnostic tool to measure changes in physical capacity for chronic disabling occupational lumbar spinal disorder patients.     

20 years follow-up after the first microsurgical lumbar discectomies in Iceland

Summary Background. Microsurgical discectomies are an established procedure in spinal surgery. This operating technique was first used in the Department of Neurosurgery in Iceland in 1981 and has become standard operative treatment for herniated lumbar discs. There is a great variability in outcome reports regarding recurrence rate and re-operation rate. Few articles are based on follow-up of more than 10 years. This article presents the results of a 20 years follow-up study. Methods. A retrospective study of all patients undergoing microsurgical discectomy for herniated lumbar disc, from June 1, 1981 to December 31, 1984. Outcome, based on recurrence rate, return to work and patient satisfaction was determined by a self-evaluation questionnaire, phone interviews and patient medical records. Findings. Of the 170 patients, 134 (78.8%) were included in the study (M:F, 58:42%). Preoperative symptoms: back pain with sciatica 108 (80.6%), sciatica 20 (14.9%), back pain 2 (1.5%). Mean follow-up time was 20.7 years (19.5–22.8). Recurrence rate was 12.7%. 19 patients (14.2%) underwent a subsequent lumbar operation at a different level or side. A majority of patients 108 (80.6%) returned to previous level of work, 26 (19.4%) lost some or all working capabilities. Patient satisfaction was high, 91.1% reporting excellent (68.7%) or good (22.4%) results. 5.2% of patients rated the outcome fair and 3.7% poor. Women reported worse outcome than men, excellent M:F 74.7:60.7%, and poor 7.1:1.3%. There was no significant difference in patient satisfaction in patients undergoing additional operations or those with recurrence of the herniated disc. Conclusions. Outcome was very good with 92.0% return to work and 91.1% patient satisfaction. The recurrence rate was 12.7% with a substantial number of cases occuring 10–20 years after operation. To conclude, microsurgical discectomies maintain a high success rate in the long-term.     

Back pain improves significantly following discectomy for lumbar disc herniation

Background Context

Although lumbar disc herniation (LDH) classically presents with lower extremity radiculopathy, there are patients who have substantial associated back pain.

Biportal endoscopic versus microscopic discectomy for lumbar herniated disc: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND CONTEXTBiportal endoscopic discectomy has been frequently performed in recent years and has shown acceptable clinical outcomes. However, evidence regarding its efficacy and safety remains limited.PURPOSEThis study aimed to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of biportal endoscopic with that of open microscopic discectomy in patients with single-level herniated lumbar discs.STUDY DESIGNProspective, randomized, multicenter, open-label, assessor-blind, non-inferiority controlled trial.PATIENT SAMPLESixty-four participants suffering from low back and leg pain with a single-level herniated lumbar disc and required discectomy.OUTCOME MEASURESOutcomes were assessed with the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), visual analog scale (VAS) pain score for surgical site, low back and lower extremity, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) for lumbar disabilities, European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions value for quality of life, and painDETECT for neuropathic pain. Surgery-related outcomes such as hospital stay, operation time, and opioid usage were collected. Adverse events occurring during the follow-up period were also noted.METHODSAll participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to undergo biportal endoscopic (biportal group) or microscopic discectomy (microscopy group). The primary outcome was the difference in ODI scores at 12-months post surgically based on a modified intention-to-treat strategy, with a non-inferiority margin of 12.8 points. The secondary outcomes included PROMs, surgery-related outcomes, and adverse events.RESULTSThe ODI score at the 12-month follow-up was 11.97 in the microscopy group and 13.89 in the biportal group (mean difference, 1.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], -3.50 to 7.34), showing the non-inferiority of biportal group. The results for the secondary outcomes were similar to those for the primary outcome. Creatinine phosphokinase ratios were low in the biportal group. Early surgical site pain was slightly lower in the biportal group (mean difference of VAS pain score at 48-hr, -0.98; 95% CI, -1.77 to -0.19). Adverse events including reoperation showed no significant difference between the groups.CONCLUSIONBiportal endoscopic discectomy was non-inferior to microscopic discectomy over a 12 month period. Biportal endoscopic discectomy is suggested to be a relatively safe and effective surgical technique with the slight advantage of reduced muscle damage. However, the clinical implications of surgical site pain should be carefully considered.     

An evidence-based review of the literature on the consequences of conservative versus aggressive discectomy for the treatment of primary disc herniation with radiculopathy

Background contextIt remains unknown whether aggressive disc removal with curettage versus conservative removal of a disc fragment with little disc invasion provides a better outcome for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation with radiculopathy.PurposeDetermine the level of evidence within the clinical literature that supports the performance of a conservative versus aggressive technique for discectomy.Study design/settingSystematic evidence-based review of clinical literature.Patient samplePatients with primary lumbar disc herniation with radiculopathy.Outcome measuresOperative time, return to work status, recurrent disc herniation, self-reported, and functional measures assessed less than 2 years (short term) and greater than 2 years (long term) after surgery.MethodsSystematic Medline search was performed to identify all published studies relating to outcome after aggressive or conservative discectomy. Levels of evidence (I–V) were assessed for each study and grades of recommendation were generated (Good, Fair, Poor, Insufficient evidence) based on the NASS Clinical Guidelines' Levels of Evidence and Grades of Recommendation.ResultsThere is fair evidence that conservative discectomy will result in shorter operative times and a quicker return to work despite similar lengths of hospital stay, similar pain levels at discharge, similar 6-month functional status, and a similar 2-year incidence of persistent/recurrent back and leg pain. There is poor quality evidence that conservative discectomy will result in a lower incidence of recurrent back pain beyond 2 years postoperatively. There is fair quality evidence that conservative discectomy will result in a higher incidence of recurrent disc herniation.ConclusionsThere are no Level I studies to support conservative versus aggressive discectomy for the treatment of primary disc herniation. However, systematic review of the literature suggests that conservative discectomy may result in shorter operative time, quicker return to work, and a decreased incidence of long-term recurrent low back pain but with an increased incidence of recurrent disc herniation. Prospective randomized trails are needed to firmly assess this possible benefit.     

Long-term outcome of redo discectomy for recurrent lumbar disc herniations

Purpose

Recurrent lumbar disc herniation (RLDH) is an important cause of morbidity and healthcare costs. The goal of this investigation is to assess surgical outcomes and their predictors in patients who underwent revision discectomy for RLDH, with a minimum follow-up of ten years, to shed light on the best treatment to offer to these patients.

Methods

Patients who underwent revision discectomy to treat RLDH between 2004 and 2011 in our Department were enrolled. Demographic, clinical, and surgical data were collected. The need of third intervention for RLDH was the primary outcome. Patient’s satisfaction, Core Outcome Measures Index, Oswestry Disability Index, and EuroQoL-5D scores were also evaluated.

Results

This study includes 55 patients, with a mean follow-up time of 144 months [112–199]. In this period, a third intervention was needed in 30.9% (n = 17) of patients. Most recurrences took place in the first 2 years after the second surgery (58.8%, n = 10) and the risk of needing a third surgery decreased over time. After 5 years, the probability of not having surgery for recurrence was 71% [CI 95%: 60–84%], with a tendency to stabilize after that. An interval between the first discectomy and the surgery for recurrence shorter than 7.6 months was identified as a predictor for a second recurrence.

Conclusion

The risk of needing a third surgery seems to stabilize after five years. Patients with an early recurrence after the first discectomy seem to have a higher risk of a new recurrence, so an arthrodesis might be worth considering.

     

Assessment of spine surgery outcomes: inconsistency of change amongst outcome measurements

Background ContextOutcomes of spinal treatments are evaluated by clinical relevance: the proportion of patients who reach a minimum clinically important outcome change. Outcomes are evaluated through multiple measurements, and the inconsistency of outcome change across measurements is not known.PurposeThe primary purpose of this study was to illustrate outcome inconsistencies after spinal surgery. Secondary goals of this study were to develop an index of overall change that incorporates outcome inconsistencies, to relate the index of overall change to patients' global assessment and satisfaction with treatment, to relate the index of global change to an intuitively understandable outcome: the level of tolerable pain.Study DesignThis study is a review of prospectively collected patient-reported outcomes data.Patient SampleFour hundred sixty patients from a large multicenter database were chosen. Those patients were included in the sample because they had undergone lumbar surgery and had baseline and 1-year follow-up scores. Baseline and 1-year follow-up scores for Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), physical component summary (PCS) of the Medical Outcome Study Short Form-36 (SF-36), numerical back and leg pain scales, and 1-year scores for satisfaction with results were included in the study.Outcome MeasuresThe outcome measures of the study were preoperative and 1-year postoperative scores for ODI, PCS, back pain scale, leg pain scale, health transition item of the SF-36, and satisfaction with results scales.MethodsOswestry Disability Index, SF-36, and pain scales were administered before and 1 year after spinal surgery. Satisfaction with results questionnaires were administered 1 year after surgery. The following threshold values were previously established and were used to evaluate outcome changes: minimum clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and standard error of the mean. The following proportions of patients were determined according to outcome changes: “deteriorated,” “no change,” “below MCID,” “above MCID,” and “above SCB.” The consistency of outcome change was determined amongst the four outcome measures. An index of overall change was developed and related to patients' answers to the health transition item of the SF-36 and to the satisfaction with results scale. The overall change index was also compared with the tolerable pain level.ResultsOnly 40.5% of patients report consistent outcome changes on all four measures. The overall change index was significantly correlated to the global change and satisfaction scale (ρ=.67, p less than .001). The overall change index was clearly associated with the tolerable pain level.ConclusionsEfforts should be made to take into account the inconsistency of outcomes and to make clinical relevance more readily understandable by patients and clinicians.     

Is discectomy effective for treating low back pain in patients with lumbar disc herniation and Modic changes? A systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies

BACKGROUND CONTEXTPrevious low-quality evidence has suggested preoperative Modic changes (MC) showed a trend toward less improvement in low back pain in patients with lumbar disc herniation (LDH) undergoing discectomy. However, a recent meta-analysis concluded that the presence of preoperative MC did not significantly impact clinical outcomes following lumbar discectomy.PURPOSETo compare low back pain and functional outcomes of patients after discectomy for LDH with preoperative MC.STUDY DESIGNSystematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies.METHODSThis comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis used English-language articles identified through searches using Pubmed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane library until August 2022. The included studies identified publications that concentrated on the patients suffering from LDH with different preoperative MCs treated by discectomy. The Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were the two main metrics to evaluate outcomes.RESULTSA series of 2,299 LDH patients with a definitive type of MC were included in four retrospective and five prospective studies. Overall, there is moderate to high quality evidence suggesting no significant difference between normal and MC groups for pain outcomes as well as normal and Modic type 2 groups in terms of pain or functional outcomes at one or two-year follow up. There are less functional outcomes in LDH patients with preoperative MC compared with no MC at 2-year follow up and showed no significant difference at 1-year follow-up. However, above all results may due to heterogeneity. Subgroup analysis revealed that only Modic type 1 showed statistically lower functional scores (mean difference in ODI scores range from 0 to 100) compared with Modic type 2 or compared with no MC at 2-year follow-up and showed no significant difference at 1-year follow-up (MC1 vs. MC0, p=.24, MD= -2.70; 95% CI, -7.15 to 1.76 for 1-year;p<.00001, MD= -7.92; 95% CI, -11.19 to -4.66 for 2 years. MC1 vs. MC2, p=.58, MD= -1.29; 95% CI, -5.83 to 3.25 for 1-year;p<.0001, MD= -6.77; 95% CI, -9.94 to -3.61 for 2 years).CONCLUSIONSThese data suggest LDH patients with or without preoperative MCs show a similar improvement of low back pain at 1 and 2-year follow-up and functional scores after discectomy at one-year follow-up. LDH patients with preoperative Modic type 1 are associated with worse functional status after discectomy at 2-year follow-up. However, high-quality randomized controlled trials and prospective cohort studies which focus on analyzing the risk and confounding factors are lacking.