Aims. To determine the value of scoliosis surgery, it is necessary to evaluate outcomes in domains that matter to patients. Since randomized trials on adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) are scarce, prospective cohort studies with comparable outcome measures are important. To enhance comparison, a core set of patient-related outcome measures is available. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of AIS fusion surgery at two-year follow-up using the core outcomes set. Methods. AIS patients were systematically enrolled in an institutional registry. In all, 144 AIS patients aged ≤ 25 years undergoing primary surgery (median age 15 years (interquartile range 14 to 17) were included. Patient-reported (condition-specific and health-related quality of life (QoL); functional status; back and leg pain intensity) and clinician-reported outcomes (complications, revision surgery) were recorded. Changes in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were analyzed using Friedman’s analysis of variance. Clinical relevancy was determined using minimally important changes (Scoliosis Research Society (SRS)-22r), cut-off values for relevant effect on functioning (pain scores) and a patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS; Oswestry Disability Index). Results. At baseline, 65 out of 144 patients (45%) reported numerical rating scale (NRS) back pain scores > 5. All PROMs significantly improved at two-year follow-up. Mean improvements in SRS-22r function (+ 1.2 (SD 0.6)), pain (+ 0.6 (SD 0.8)), and self-image (+ 1.1 (SD 0.7)) domain scores, and the SRS-22r total score (+ 0.5 (SD 0.5)), were clinically relevant. At two-year follow-up, 14 out of 144 patients (10%) reported NRS back pain > 5. Surgical site infections did not occur. Only one patient (0.7%) underwent revision surgery. Conclusion. Relevant improvement in functioning, condition-specific and health-related QoL, self-image, and a relevant decrease in pain is shown at two-year follow-up after fusion surgery for AIS, with few adverse events. Contrary to the general perception that AIS is a largely asymptomatic condition, nearly half of patients report significant preoperative back pain, which reduced to 10% at two-year follow-up. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(2):265–273

Endoscopic spine surgery is a promising and minimally invasive technique for the treatment of disc herniation and spinal stenosis. However, the literature on the outcome of interlaminar endoscopic decompression (IED) versus conventional microsurgical technique (CMT) in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis is scarce. We analyzed 88 patients (IED: 36/88, 40.9%; CMT: 52/88, 59.1%) presenting with lumbar central spinal stenosis between 2018–2020. Surgery-related (operation time, complications, time to hospital release (THR), ASA score, C-reactive protein (CRP), white blood cell count (WBC), side (unilateral/bilateral), patient-reported (ODI, NRS (leg-, back pain), eQ5D, COMI), and radiological (preoperative dural sack cross-sectional area (DSCA), Shizas score (SC), left (LRH) and right (RRH) lateral recess heights, left (LFA) and right (RFA) facet angle) parameters were extracted. Complication (most often re-stenosis due to hematoma and/or residual sensorimotor deficits) rates were higher in the endoscopic (38.9%) than microsurgical (13.5%) treatment group (p<0.01). Age, THR, SC, CRP, and DSCA revealed significant correlations with 3 weeks and 1 year postoperatively evaluated ODI, COMI, eQ5D, NRS leg, or NRS back values in our cohort. We did not observe significant differences in the endoscopic versus microsurgical group for the patient-reported outcomes. Age, THR, SC, CRP, and DSCA revealed significant correlations with patient-centered outcomes and should be considered in future studies. Endoscopic treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis was similarly successful as the conventional microsurgical approach, although it was associated with higher complication rates in our single-center study experience. This was probably because of the surgeons' lack of experience with this method and the resulting different learning curve compared with the conventional technique

Background. There is growing evidence for an important role of central sensitization (CS) in the development and maintenance of chronic pain. This accounts for patients with chronic low back pain radiating to the leg (CLBPr) as well. Care as Usual (CaU) in these patients consists of diagnostic segmental nerve root blocks (dSNRB) followed by therapeutic interventions, i.e. a therapeutic segmental nerve root block (tSNRB) or pulsed radiofrequency (pRF). However, it is unknown if these procedures affect the amount of CS in these patients. Aim. The aim of the present study is to determine the alterations in the presentation of CS in CLBPr patients during care as usual. Hypothesis. A decrease in pain measured by NRS correlates with a decrease in CS (signs) in CLBPr patients undergoing SNRBs. Method/design. Case control study in 50 patients with CLBPr, for whom the physician is considering dSNRB and tSNRB or pRF, and 50 sex- and age-matched healthy controls. Following care as usual protocol, patients will receive dSNRB and tSNRB or pRF. Healthy control subjects will not undergo any procedure. The study has three to five visits, depending on the number of dSNRBs performed (max. 3). Evaluation. The bedside examination and questionnaires that are part of CaU will be extended with QST and CSI, NRS, PCS and PVAQ. The measurements will take place just before the dSNRBs, the tSNRBs or pRF and a follow-up four weeks after the intervention. Data collection will take 1 year. No conflict of interest. No funding obtained

Aims. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of a percutaneous radiofrequency heat lesion at the medial branch of the primary dorsal ramus with a sham procedure, for the treatment of lumbar facet joint pain. Patients and Methods. A randomised sham-controlled double blind multicentre trial was carried out at the multidisciplinary pain centres of two hospitals. A total of 60 patients aged > 18 years with a history and physical examination suggestive of facet joint pain and a decrease of ≥ 2 on a numerical rating scale (NRS 0 to 10) after a diagnostic facet joint test block were included. In the treatment group, a percutaneous radiofrequency heat lesion (80. o. C during 60 seconds per level) was applied to the medial branch of the primary dorsal ramus. In the sham group, the same procedure was undertaken without for the radiofrequency lesion. Both groups also received a graded activity physiotherapy programme. The primary outcome measure was decrease in pain. A secondary outcome measure was the Global Perceived Effect scale (GPE). Results. There was a statistically significant effect on the level of pain in the factor Period (T0-T1). However, there was no statistically significant difference with the passage of time between the groups (Group × Period) or in the factor Group. In the crossover group, 11 of 19 patients had a decrease in NRS of ≥ 2 at one month crossover (p = 0.65). There was no statistically significant difference in satisfaction with the passage of time between the groups (Group × Period). The independent factors Group and Period also showed no statistically significant difference. There was no statistically significant Group × Period effect for recovery, neither an effect of Group or of Period. Conclusion. The null hypothesis of no difference in the decrease in pain and in GPE between the treatment and sham groups cannot be rejected. Post hoc analysis revealed that the age of the patients and the severity of the initial pain significantly predicted a positive outcome. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:1526–33

Background. There is a paucity of prognosis research in patients with neuropathic low back-related leg pain (LBLP) in primary care. Purpose. To investigate the clinical course and prognostic factors in primary care LBLP patients consulting with neuropathic pain (NP). Methods. LBLP patients in a primary-care cohort study (n=606) completed the self-report version of Leeds Assessment for Neurological Symptoms and Signs (s-LANSS, score of ≥12 indicates possible NP) at baseline and 4-months. Mixed effects models compared pain-intensity (highest of mean leg or mean back pain - 0–10 NRS at baseline, 4-months, 12-months and 3-years) between those with persistent NP (s-LANSS ≥12 at baseline and 4-months) and those without (s-LANSS ≥12 at baseline and <12 at 4-months). Univariable and multivariable binary logistic regression examined association between potential prognostic factors (chosen from baseline self-report questionnaires, clinical examination, MRI scan findings) and persistent NP. Multiple imputation was used to account for missing data. Results. 44% (72/164) of patients with NP at baseline had persistent NP at 4-months. Mean pain intensity of patients with persistent NP was higher at 4-months, 12-months and 3-years compared to those without. In univariable analysis, only pain self-efficacy was significantly associated with persistent NP (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.96 to 0.998). In multivariable analysis, none of the 7 investigated factors were significantly associated with persistent NP. Conclusion. Patients with persistent NP were consistently worse-off up to 3-years follow-up compared to those without. It was difficult to identify those patients with NP at baseline who would have persistent NP at 4-months. No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: Sarah Harrisson is a Clinical Doctoral Fellow funded through a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Research Professorship for Nadine Foster (NIHR-RP-011-015). Nadine Foster is a NIHR Senior Investigator. Kika Konstantinou is supported by a Higher Education Funding Council for England/ National Institute for Health Research Senior Clinical Lectureship. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s), not necessarily those of the NHS, NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. This work relates to an Education and Continued Professional Development (level 2) award by the Musculoskeletal Association of Chartered Physiotherapists to Sarah Harrisson (June 2016)

Aims

Repeated lumbar spine surgery has been associated with inferior clinical outcomes. This study aimed to examine and quantify the impact of this association in a national clinical register cohort.

Background & purpose. Measurement inconsistency across clinical trials is tackled by the development of a core outcome measurement set. Four core outcome domains were recommended for clinical trials in patients with non-specific LBP (nsLBP): physical functioning, pain intensity, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and number of deaths. This study aimed to reach consensus on core instruments to measure the first three domains. Methods & Results. The Steering Committee overseeing this project selected 17 potential core instruments for physical functioning, three for pain intensity, and five for HRQoL. Evidence on their measurement properties in nsLBP was synthesized in three systematic reviews using COSMIN methodology. Researchers, clinicians, and patients (n = 208) were invited in a Delphi survey to seek consensus on which instruments to endorse as core. Consensus was a-priori set at 67% of participants agreeing on endorsing an instrument. Two Delphi rounds were run (response rates = 44% and 41%). Agreement was reached on endorsing the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI 2.1a) for physical functioning, the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) for pain intensity, but not on other instruments. Several participants demanded to have free of charge core instruments. Taking these results into account, the steering committee formulated the following recommendations: ODI 2.1a or 24-item Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire for physical functioning, NRS for pain intensity, Short-Form 12 or 10-item PROMIS Global Health for HRQoL. Conclusion. A core outcome measurement set is available for clinical trials in patients with nsLBP. High quality clinimetric studies directly comparing recommended and not recommended instruments are required. Conflict of interest: None. Source of funding: EUROSPINE, The Spine Society of Europe

Purpose & Background. The STarT Back risk-stratification approach uses the STarT Back Tool to categorise patients with low back pain (LBP) at low, medium or high-risk of persistent disabling pain, in order to match treatments. The MATCH trial (NCT02286141) evaluated the effect of implementing an adaptation of this approach in a United States healthcare setting. Methods. This was a pragmatic cluster randomised trial with a pre-intervention baseline period. Six primary care clinics were pair-randomised, three to an intensive stratified care quality improvement intervention and three as controls. LBP patients were invited to provide outcomes two weeks after their primary care visit, and two and six months later. Primary outcomes were physical function (RMDQ) and pain (0–10 NRS), and secondary outcomes including healthcare use and treatments provided received. Analysis was intention-to-treat. Results. Patient outcomes were obtained from intervention (n=690) and control (n=864) clinics. At six months between-group differences in adjusted mean change scores did not significantly favour stratified care for RMDQ; 0.50 (95%CI −0.55, 1.55) or pain NRS 0.13 (95%CI −0.37, 0.63). There were no significant between group differences in any secondary patient outcome. Process data showed that the STarT Back tool was used with 47% of LBP patients in the intervention clinics but there was no differences in the treatments provided. Conclusions. Implementation of a LBP stratified care approach in this United States healthcare setting showed moderate use of the STarT Back tool, but no change in treatments received by patients, and no benefits on patient outcomes. Conflicts of interest: None. Sources of funding: Funding for this trial was provided by the Patient Centered Care Research Institute (“Evaluation of a Patient-Centered Risk Stratification Method for Improving Primary Care for Back Pain”: Contract #398) and by the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health/NIH (“Implementing Evidence-Based Treatments for Persistent Back Pain into Primary Care”: Grant #R21AT0007326). Martin Levine, Diane Piekara, and Pam Rock received support to participate in the quality improvement activities from Group Health. Nadine Foster and Jonathan Hill were supported through an NIHR Research Professorship (NIHR-RP-011-015) to Nadine Foster. Nadine Foster is an NIHR Senior Investigator. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Patient Centered Care Research Institute, NIH, NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health

Aims

Lumbar disc prolapse is a frequent indication for surgery. The few available long-term follow-up studies focus mainly on repeated surgery for recurrent disease. The aim of this study was to analyze all reasons for additional surgery for patients operated on for a primary lumbar disc prolapse.

Aims

The number of patients undergoing surgery for degenerative cervical radiculopathy has increased. In many countries, public hospitals have limited capacity. This has resulted in long waiting times for elective treatment and a need for supplementary private healthcare. It is uncertain whether the management of patients and the outcome of treatment are equivalent in public and private hospitals. The aim of this study was to compare the management and patient-reported outcomes among patients who underwent surgery for degenerative cervical radiculopathy in public and private hospitals in Norway, and to assess whether the effectiveness of the treatment was equivalent.

Introduction. Percutaneous radiofrequency lesioning of the lateral branches of the sacroiliac joint has become a recognised method of treating chronic pain arising from this joint. Due to the large and varied innervation from the S1-3 lateral branches success has been achieved with large lesions that has a high chance of covering these nerves. Such lesions require specialised and expensive equipment and the NIMBUS needle is a large 17G electrode with expandable tines at the tip. It is compatible with all standard radiofrequency probes and it produces a large lesion at the tip. It has been in use in the USA in over 100 cases and we describe its use in the UK. Methods. Patients were identified as having sacroiliac joint pain by clinical assessment and positive pain response to local anaesthetic sacroiliac joint lateral branch blocks. Under fluoroscopic control, the needle is inserted at the lateral edge of the sacral S1-3 posterior foramen. Three lesions at the lateral edge of the foramen are made at 80°C for 90s. A further lesion is made at the L5 dorsal ramus. Results. 4 patients achieved very good pain relief >50% reduction in pain scores on the NRS scale at 6 weeks follow up. No complications were noted and there were no technical difficulties. Conclusion. Lesioning with the NIMBUS needle is feasible and allows clinicians a method of treating chronic sacroiliac joint pain using existing radiofrequency equipment. Further large, long term studies are warranted to establish clinical efficacy

The aim of this study was to determine whether obesity affects pain, surgical and functional outcomes following lumbar spinal fusion for low back pain (LBP).

A systematic literature review and meta-analysis was made of those studies that compared the outcome of lumbar spinal fusion for LBP in obese and non-obese patients. A total of 17 studies were included in the meta-analysis. There was no difference in the pain and functional outcomes. Lumbar spinal fusion in the obese patient resulted in a statistically significantly greater intra-operative blood loss (weighted mean difference: 54.04 ml; 95% confidence interval (CI) 15.08 to 93.00; n = 112; p = 0.007) more complications (odds ratio: 1.91; 95% CI 1.68 to 2.18; n = 43858; p < 0.001) and longer duration of surgery (25.75 mins; 95% CI 15.61 to 35.90; n = 258; p < 0.001). Obese patients have greater intra-operative blood loss, more complications and longer duration of surgery but pain and functional outcome are similar to non-obese patients. Based on these results, obesity is not a contraindication to lumbar spinal fusion.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1395–1404.