Most people experience low back pain (LBP) at least once in their lifetime. A minority goes on to develop persistent LBP causing significant socioeconomic costs. Aim of this study was to identify factors that influence the progression of acute to persistent LBP at an early stage (Hilfiker et al. 2007). Prospective inception cohort study of patients attending a health practitioner for their first episode of acute LBP or recurrent LBP after a pain free period of at least six months. Patients were assessed at baseline addressing occupational and psychological factors as well as pain, disability, quality of life and physical activity, and followed up over six months. Baseline and follow-up questionnaires were based on the recommendations of the Multinational Musculoskeletal Inception Cohort Study (MMICS) Statement (Pincus et al. 2008). Variables were combined to the three indices ‘working condition’, ‘depression and maladaptive cognitions’ and ‘pain and quality of life’. The index ‘depression and maladaptive cognitions’ comprising of depression, somatisation, a resigned attitude towards the job, fear-avoidance, catastrophizing and negative expectations on return to work was found to be a significant baseline predictor for persistent LBP up to six months (OR 5.1; 95%CI 1.04–25.1). The diagnostic accuracy of the predictor model had a sensitivity of 0.54 and a specificity of 0.90. Positive likelihood ratio was moderate with 5.3, negative likelihood ratio 0.5. Overall predictive accuracy of the model was 81%. The area under the curve in receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis of the index was 0.78 (CI95% 0.65–0.92), demonstrating a satisfactory quality of discrimination. Psychological factors in patients with acute LBP in a primary care setting correlated with a progression to persistent LBP up to six months. The benefit of including factors such as ‘depression and maladaptive cognition’ in screening tools is that these factors can be addressed in primary and secondary prevention.
Posterior lumbar fusion is a frequently performed procedure in spinal surgery. High percentages of good and excellent results are indicated by physicians. On the other hand patient-based outcomes are reported. Little is known about the correlations of these two assessment types. We aimed at their comparison. The analysis included 1013 patients with degenerative spinal disease or spondylolisthesis from an international spine registry, treated with posterior lumbar fusion. All patients were pre/postop assessed by physician-based McNab criteria (‘excellent’, ‘good’, ‘fair’, ‘poor’). Of these patients, 210 (mean age 61 years; 57% females) were in addition assessed by patient-based Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). The remaining 803 patients (mean age 59 years; 56% females) were assessed by patient-based Core Outcome Measure Index (COMI), including Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for back and leg pain as well as verbal self-rating (‘helped a lot’, ‘helped’, ‘helped only little’, ‘didn’t help’, ‘made things worse’). McNab criteria were compared to the Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) in ODI (12.8), in VAS back (1.2) and leg pain (1.6). We investigated the correlations between McNab criteria and these patient-based outcomes. In the ‘excellent’ group as rated by physicians, the proposed MCID was reached in 83% of patients for ODI, in 69% for VAS back and in 83% for VAS leg pain. All patients said the treatment had ‘helped’ or ‘helped a lot’. In the ‘good’ group 56% (ODI), 66% (back pain) and 86% (leg pain) reached the MCID. 96% of patients perceived the treatment as positive. In the ‘fair’ group 37% (ODI), 55% (back pain) and 63% (leg pain) reached the MCID. 49% had positive treatment considerations. The ‘poor’ group revealed 30% (ODI), 35% (back pain) and 44% (leg pain) of patients with reached MCID. Only 15% rated the treatment as positive. The Spearman correlation coefficients between McNab criteria on the one hand and ODI, back and leg pain as well as patients’ verbal self-rating on the other hand were 0.57, 0.37, 0.36 and 0.46 respectively. The comparison of physician and patient-based outcomes showed the highest correlations between McNab criteria and ODI, somewhat weaker correlations with patients’ self-rating and the weakest correlations with back and leg pain. Based on these findings, physicians’ evaluation of patient outcomes can be considered a valuable part of patient assessment, corresponding very well with patients’ perceptions of success or failure of spinal surgery.
- lumbar or lumbosacral degenerative spinal stenosis - operative therapy: decompression at least - posterior approach - at least one existing follow-up (FU) - no additional spinal pathology such as deformity, fracture, trauma, spondylolisthesis, inflammation, infection, tumor, or failed surgery This produced 1,493 patients, who were subdivided into three age groups:
<
65 yrs (n=609, 41%), 65–74 yrs (n=487, 33%), and ≥75 yrs (n=397, 26%).
The surgical complication rate in the complete sample was 5.7%. Multivariate logistic regression showed surgery time (p<
0.001), fusion/rigid stabilization (p=0.025) and age group (p=0.043) as a significant co-variates for surgical complications. Group 3 had a 2.1-times higher likelihood for a surgical complication as in group 1. The general complication rate of the complete sample was 2.9%. We found ASA (p=0.002), fusion / rigid stabilization (p=0.022) and age group (p=0.008) as significant influencing factors for general complications. The follow-up complication rate was 10.2% and did not vary significantly between age groups, but multivariate logistic regression showed fusion/rigid stabilization (p<
0.001) and previous surgery (p=0.005) to be significant co-variates for FU complications. Clearly age-related was the duration of hospital admission and level of ASA (both p<
0.001).
Our study and literature leaves no doubt about that aged and very aged patients benefit from surgical treatment. Therefore, although we should be aware of the increased risk for surgical and general complications in this population, high age (>
75 yrs) should not be a main influencing factor in the choice of operative indication and strategy when treating LSS.
Physician administered McNab criteria “excellent, good, fair and poor” were compared to ODI, VAS back- and leg pain and to the patients answer describing the outcome of the operation with the following options: helped a lot, helped, helped only little, didn’t help and made things worse. Then the concept of minimum clinically important difference (MCID) was applied
In the “good” group 86% (MCID: 51.7%) of patients improved regarding ODI, 81% (MCID: 65,7%) regarding back and 93% (MCID: 89.4%) regarding leg pain. 99% of patients said that the treatment helped a lot, helped or helped only little. 65% (MCID: 40%) of patients in the “fair” group had improved ODIs. Even in this group 88% of patients perceived the treatment as helping a lot, helping or helping only little. Moreover in the “poor” group had 60% (MCID: 40%) of patients improved ODIs, 55% (MCID: 40%) alleviated back and 36% (MCID: 30%) reduced leg pain. But only 30% of patient stated that the treatment helped or helped only little. Spearman correlation coefficients for ODI, VAS back, VAS leg and patient’s verbal statement on overall outcome were 0.42, 0.18, 0.27 and 0.53.
Methods: We conducted a two-arm matched pairs case-control study assessing the influence of patient characteristics sex, age, weight, BMI, diagnosis, and activity level (Charnley classification) on the odds for mechanical socket loosening. The cemented and uncemented fixation mode was analyzed separately. Results: 299 cases and 986 controls were included in the cemented study arm and 510 cases and 3000 controls in the uncemented arm. Women had reduced loosening odds for the cemented (OR=0.59, p=0.0024) and uncemented (OR=0.63, p=0.0001) fixation compared to men (OR=1). Each additional year the intervention was postponed reduced the loosening odds by about 2 % for cemented (OR=0.98, p=0.017) and uncemented (OR=0.98, p=0.0002) sockets. In cemented sockets the weight group of 73–82 kg had lower loosening odds (OR=0.63, p=0.017) than the lighter (OR>
0.92) and heavier (OR>
1.1) weight groups. There were no significant effects of weight in the uncemented group. In contrast, obese patients (BMI>
30) with uncemented sockets displayed elevated loosening odds (OR=1.41, p=0.034) compared to an insignificant effect in the cemented arm. Osteonecrosis was the only main pathology revealing elevated loosening odds (OR=1.27, p=0.049) but only in cemented sockets. The Charnley classification as an indirect proxy of activity revealed changing and insignificant effects. Conclusions: Female sex and a delayed intervention have similarly protective effects on the odds for cemented and uncemented socket loosening. Whilst a certain body weight range has a significantly protective effect in cemented sockets the more important finding is the significantly increased risk for uncemented socket loosening in obese patients. Patients with osteonecrosis are the only etiologic group at a significantly increase risk for socket loosening, but only with a cemented fixation. The Charnley classification as a surrogate for activity level had no influence on loosening risks in either socket fixation mode. Level of Evidence: Level III (case-control study)
Take home message: If ethical aspects allow an RCT, than the RCT is the study set up of choice when a new technique/implant has to be introduced in the market. Once the implant has proved its evidence, the following post market surveillance should be accompanied by registries (introduction of an implant in each country). If an RCT is not indicated (ethical or other contra indications), than registries should be used to prove evidence for an indicated therapy. CCSs are not recommended.