Guidelines for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 2: assessment of functional outcome

Functional disability secondary to acute low-back pain, chronic low-back pain, lumbar stenosis, and lumbar disc disease may be reliably and validly assessed using functional outcome surveys that are valid, reliable, and responsive. Outcome instruments supported by Class I and Class II medical evidence for the evaluation of low-back pain include the Spinal Stenosis Survey of Stucki, Waddell-Main, RMDQ, DPQ, QPDS, SIP, Million Scale, LBPR Scale, ODI, and CBSQ. Many of these outcome measures have been applied to patients who have been treated with lumbar fusion for degenerative lumbar disease and have proven to be valid and responsive; however, the reliability of these instruments has never been specifically assessed in the lumbar fusion patient population. Patient satisfaction surveys have been used to measure outcome following lumbar fusion. Their usefulness resides in their insight into patient attitudes toward the treatment experience but is limited because of their inability to measure responsiveness and the lack of information on their reliability.     

Guidelines for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 3: assessment of economic outcome

Lumbar fusion may be associated with a high short-term cost, especially if instrumentation is placed; however, there appear to be long-term economic benefits associated with lumbar fusion including resumption of employment. To describe the economic impact of lumbar fusion for degenerative disease adequately, it is important to define the patient population treated with fusion and to compare efficacy as well as the costs of other treatment alternatives. Any such analysis should include both short- and long-term costs and benefits.     

Guidelines for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 13: injection therapies, low-back pain, and lumbar fusion

In summary, there is no meaningful evidence in the medical literature that the use of epidural injections is of any long-term value in the treatment of patients with chronic low-back pain. The literature does indicate that the use of lumbar epidural injections can provide short-term relief in selected patients with chronic low-back pain. There is evidence that suggests that facet joint injections can be used to predict outcome after RF ablation of a facet joint. The predictive ability of facet joint injections does not appear to apply to lumbar fusion surgery. No evidence exists to support the effectiveness of facet injections in the treatment of patients with chronic low-back pain. There is conflicting evidence suggesting that the use of local TPIs can be effective for the short-term relief of low-back pain. There are no data to suggest that TPIs with either steroids or anesthetics alone provide lasting benefit for patients suffering from chronic low-back pain.     

Guidelines for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 4: radiographic assessment of fusion

The assessment of fusion status with static plain radiography is accurate in approximately two thirds of patients treated with lumbar fusion when the radiographic results are compared with surgical exploration findings. Therefore, static plain radiography is not recommended as a stand-alone modality following lumbar fusion procedures. The addition of lateral flexion-extension radiography may improve accuracy because the lack of motion between fused lumbar segments on lateral views is highly suggestive of a solid fusion. Some degree of motion between segments may be present even when the spine has fused. The amount of motion allowable across fused segments is not clear, and the role of internal fixation in limiting motion has also not been adequately addressed. The addition of multiplanar CT scanning results in the detection of pseudarthrosis in some patients in whom fusion has been deemed successful based on plain radiographic criteria. Therefore, CT scanning may be more accurate in the determination of fusion status than plain radiography; however, a rigorous comparison of modern CT scanning and surgical exploration has not been performed. It appears that RSA is exquisitely sensitive for the detection of motion between vertebral bodies, and the loss of motion between treated vertebral segments does appear to indicate the presence of fusion. The modality, however, is invasive and not widely available. Furthermore, the only     

Guidelines for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 5: correlation between radiographic and functional outcome

At the present time, there is no Class I or II medical evidence to indicate that the appearance of a radiographic fusion is significantly associated with improved functional outcomes. The majority of Class III medical evidence does suggest that successful radiographic fusion is associated with improved clinical outcomes. It is widely acknowledged that this relationship is not perfect.     

Guidelines for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 7: intractable low-back pain without stenosis or spondylolisthesis

Class I medical evidence exists in support of the use of lumbar fusion as a treatment standard for carefully selected patients with low-back pain intractable to the best medical management. There is Class III medical evidence that suggests that a course of intensive cognitive and physical therapy may be an efficacious treatment option for the treatment of patients with chronic disabling low-back pain.     

Guidelines for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 10: fusion following decompression in patients with stenosis without spondylolisthesis

Based on the medical evidence derived from the scientific literature on this topic, there does not appear to be evidence to support the hypothesis that fusion (with or without instrumentation) provides any benefit over decompression alone in the treatment of lumbar stenosis in patients in whom there is no evidence of preoperative deformity or instability. A single report provides Class II medical evidence and several papers provide Class III medical evidence suggesting that the addition of fusion to decompression in patients with lumbar stenosis and instability evidenced by movement on preoperative flexion-extension radiographs does improve outcome. There are also reports (Class III medical evidence) indicating that patients with lumbar stenosis, without deformity or instability, treated with wide decompression or facetectomy may suffer iatrogenic lumbar instability. Fusion in these patients may improve outcome. There is conflicting Class III medical evidence regarding the application of instrumentation in addition to PLF in patients treated for lumbar stenosis without deformity or preoperative instability.