Purpose and background

Pain related distress is associated with poor low back pain outcomes, and is challenging for practitioners to address. This study investigated osteopaths' beliefs about the relationship between chronic pain (CP) and distress (D). The research aimed to explore how patient's distress is understood and managed by osteopath educator clinicians with an interest in the field.

Aims. Closed suction subfascial drainage is widely used after instrumented posterior spinal fusion in patients with a spinal deformity. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of this wound drainage on the outcomes in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). This was a further analysis of a randomized, multicentre clinical trial reporting on patients after posterior spinal fusion using segmental pedicle screw instrumentation. In this study the incidence of deep surgical site infection (SSI) and chronic postoperative pain at two years’ follow-up are reported. Methods. We conducted a randomized, multicentre clinical trial on adolescents undergoing posterior spinal fusion for AIS using segmental pedicle screw instrumentation. A total of 90 consecutive patients were randomized into a ‘drain’ or ‘no drain’ group at the time of wound closure, using the sealed envelope technique (1:1). The primary outcomes in the initial study were the change in the level of haemoglobin in the blood postoperatively and total blood loss. A secondary outcome was the opioid consumption immediately after surgery. The aim of this further study was to report the rate of deep SSI and persistent postoperative pain, at two years' follow-up. Results. As previously reported, the mean 48-hour opioid consumption was significantly higher in the no drain group (2.0 mg/kg (SD 0.8) vs 1.4 mg/kg (SD 0.7); p = 0.005). There were no delayed deep SSIs. At two years’ follow-up, the mean Scoliosis Research Society 24-item questionnaire (SRS-24) total score did not differ between the groups (4.11 (SD 0.47) vs 4.16 (SD 0.33); p = 0.910). The mean SRS-24 pain score was 4.28 (SD 0.48) in the no drain group compared with 4.33 (SD 0.66) in the drain group (p = 0.245). Seven patients (19%) in the no drain group and six in the drain group (14%) reported moderate to severe pain (numerical rating scale ≥ 4) at two years’ follow-up (p = 0.484). The general self-image domain score was significantly higher in the no drain group compared with the drain group (4.02 (SD 0.74) vs 4.59 (SD 0.54); p < 0.001). Conclusion. The main finding in this study was that more severe pain immediately after surgery did not result in a higher incidence of chronic pain in the no drain group compared with the drain group. Back pain and health-related quality of life at two years’ follow-up did not differ between the groups. The patient-reported self-image domain was significantly better in the no drain group compared with the drain group. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(10):1176–1181

Background

A proportion of patients with low back pain fail to respond to conventional medicine, physical therapy or surgery. Neurophysiological changes occur in chronic pain and research shows that Mindfulness and ‘3^rd wave’ Cognitive Behavioural Therapy can help patients with long-term musculoskeletal conditions to live more actively, despite pain. This paper describes the development of the three year ‘OsteoMAP’ project (Osteopathy, Mindfulness and Acceptance Programme) to expand the scope of primary care by integrating these psycho-educational interventions into osteopathic practice.

Background. Patients with low back-related leg pain (LBLP) can present with neuropathic pain; it is not known but is often assumed that neuropathic pain persists over time. This research aimed to identify cases with neuropathic pain that persisted at short, intermediate and longer-term time points, in LBLP patients consulting in primary care. 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 neuropathic pain) at baseline, 4-months, 12-months and 3-years. S-LANSS scores and percentages of patients with score of ≥12 are described at each time-point. Multiple imputation was used to account for missing data. Results. At baseline, 48.3% (293/606) of patients presented with neuropathic pain, 25.0% (94/376) at 4-months, 22.6% (79/349) at 12-months and 21.6% (58/268) at 3-years. A small proportion (6.6%) scored ≥ 12 at all four time-points. Those who scored ≥ 12 at baseline and 4-months reported higher disability (RMDQ (0–23) 15.2) and depression scores (HADS (0–21) 8.6), and lower pain self-efficacy (PSEQ (0–60) 27.2), compared to those with neuropathic pain at one other time-point at most. Conclusion. Few LBLP patients in primary care present with long-term persistent neuropathic pain. Patients with neuropathic pain at baseline and short-term follow-up present with greater morbidity in terms of disability, depression and lower confidence to manage their pain. This is important because these patients may benefit the most from early intervention using neuropathic pain medication. These findings will inform research investigating potential prognostic indicators of persistent neuropathic pain. Conflicts of interest: None. Sources of funding: Support for SA Harrisson, a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Clinical Doctoral Fellow and NE Foster, an NIHR Senior Investigator, was provided by an NIHR Research Professorship awarded to NE Foster (NIHR-RP-011-015). K Konstantinou is supported by a Higher Education Funding Council for England/ NIHR Senior Clinical Lectureship. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health

Purpose and Background:

Despite the rise of back pain disability, objective mechanical assessment is generally lacking. Quantification of intervertebral kinematics using fluoroscopy provides objective measurement, but its use in clinical practice has not been assessed. This study reviewed cases referred to one UK site for lumbar spine quantitative fluoroscopic (QF) examinations and compared the reasons for referral with the findings reported.

Background

Emerging research has indicated that ‘significant others’ (spouses/relatives) may have important influences on continued work participation for individuals with chronic non-specific musculoskeletal pain (CMP). In order to expand on this novel area of research, data from studies conducted in The Netherlands and the UK were assimilated.

Background and study purpose. Low mood and distress are commonly reported with by people with persistent musculoskeletal pain and may be mislabelled as ‘depression’. In order to understand how pain-related distress is conceptualised and managed in primary care consultations, we explored understanding of pain-related distress and depression from the perspectives of people with persistent musculoskeletal pain and general practitioners (GPs). Method and results. Semi-structured interviews with 21 GPs and 21 people with persistent musculoskeletal pain were conducted. The majority of people with pain had back pain (15/21). Data were analysed thematically using constant comparison techniques. Participants described challenges distinguishing between distress and depression in the context of persistent pain but described strategies to make this distinction. Some people with pain described how acceptance of their situation was key, involving optimism about the future and creation of a new identity. Some GPs expressed ‘therapeutic nihilism’, with uncertainty about the cause of pain and thus how to manage people with both pain and distress, whilst GPs who could identify and build on optimism with patients described how this could help the patient to move forwards. Conclusion. This study offers a model for the primary care consultation with patients presenting with pain-related distress. GPs should recognize the impact of pain on the patient, support the person in acceptance of the pain, explore how the person feels about the future, encourage optimism, and support self-management strategies. Conflicts of Interest: No conflict of interests. Sources of funding: This study was funded by Versus Arthritis – grant number: 22454; Carolyn A Chew-Graham is part-funded by NIHR Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) West Midlands

Background. FORECAST is a prospective longitudinal cohort study exploring mechanism-based prognostic factors for pain persistence in sciatica. Here, we share an update on this largest deeply-phenotyped primary care sciatica cohort. Methods/results. Our cohort includes 180 people with sciatica (score >4 on Stynes’ Sum Score), aged 18–85, within 3 months of symptom onset. Psychosocial factors, self-reported sensory profiling, clinical examination, quantitative sensory testing (QST), biological samples (blood and skin samples), and Magnetic Resonance Neurography of lumbar nerve roots were collected at baseline. Pain persistence was determined at three and twelve months with the Sciatica Bothersomeness Index (SBI) and a numeric pain rating scale (NRS) as primary outcomes. Recruitment nears completion, with 160 participants enrolled to date. 127 and 96 participants have completed 3 and 12 months follow-up respectively. Overall, 56% of our cohort are female, with a mean age (SD) of 54.14yrs (16.57). Ethnicity data approximates local populations. SBI at baseline was (median [IQR]) 13[10-17], and interim longitudinal data shows stepwise improvement at 3 and 12 months. Baseline ‘average’ pain intensity was 5.56 (2.15) for leg pain, and 4.14(2.82) for low back pain (LBP). Overall, pain scores decreased at 3 and 12 months, with greater reductions in leg pain than LBP at 12 months. However, around 55–80% and 40–65% of people reported persistent pain at 3 and 12 months respectively. Conclusion. Leg pain severity was moderate and higher than LBP at baseline. All primary outcome measures demonstrate improvement over time, however 40–65% of patients report persistent pain at 12 months. Conflicts of interest. LR: Paid facilitation of post-graduate courses internationally. SK, MT, FP, KM, WS, CP, CR, SC: No conflicts of interest. GC: Editor in Chief of Health Psychology Review. Director of board of directors, MentalCHealth Care setting NoordWestVlaanderen. JF: Copyright holder of ODI (Oswestry Disability Index). Served on a data monitoring committee for a clinical trial of 2 different surgical approaches to cervical disc herniation (FORVAD). Member of HTA Prioritisation Committee B: Inside hospital Care from 2015-February 2019. Member of HTA Interventional Procedures Panel from 2010–2015. Trustee and board member of 3 spine related charities – Back to Back; British Scoliosis Research Foundation and BackCare. Expert instructed by both claimant and defendant solicitors in negligence and person injury cases. GB: Paid consultancy (RNA-seq) with Ivy Farm and Coding.bio. ABS: Paid post-graduate lecturing internationally. Co-chair NeupSig sciatica working group (unpaid). Sources of funding. This project is funded by UKRI and Versus Arthritis as part of the UKRI Strategic Priorities Fund (SPF) Advanced Pain Discovery Platform (APDP), a co-funded initiative by UKRI (MRC, BBSRC, ESRC), Versus Arthritis, the Medical Research Foundation and Eli Lilly and Company Ltd (Grant MR/W027003/1). Additional funding has been received from the back to back charity to expand longitudinal components of the study. LR has received support with PhD fees from the CSP charitable trust. ABS is supported by a Wellcome Trust Clinical Career Development Fellowship. (222101/Z/20/Z). WS is partly funded through the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and King's College London. FP is funded by a Dorothy Hodgkin Career Development Fellowship in Chemistry in association with Somerville College. GB is supported by the Wellcome Trust (223149/Z/21/Z) and Diabetes UK (19/0005984). GC and KRM are partly funded by UKRI and Versus Arthritis as part of the Advanced Pain Discovery Platform (APDP) PAINSTORM (MR/W002388/1). The UKRI and Versus Arhthritis (APDP) are the major funders of FORECAST. All other funders provided either some people support, or funded projects with legacy data that we reuse

Background and study purpose. Low back pain with no identified underlying cause is categorised as primary musculoskeletal pain by the International Association for the Study of Pain. In April 2021, the National Institute for Care and Excellence (NICE) published updated guidance for the management of primary chronic pain conditions in England. As part of the De-STRESS pain study, we explored the perspectives of GPs on the updated guideline and impact upon clinical practice. Methods and results. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 21 GPs in England. Data were analysed using thematic analysis and constant comparison techniques. GPs agreed with the recommendations restricting pharmacological options for pain management and reflected that they now had an expert reference to back-up their decision-making and could use the guidance in potentially difficult conversations with patients. Frustration was expressed by GPs about the lack of alternative options to medication, as the non-pharmacological recommendations were difficult to implement, had lengthy waiting lists, or were unavailable in their locality. Conclusion. Although GPs discussed benefits of the updated NICE guideline in potentially reducing prescriptions of ineffective and potentially harmful medications, frustration about the lack of alternative strategies added to the difficulties encountered in managing people with persistent back pain in primary care. Conflicts of interest: No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: This study was funded by Versus Arthritis – grant number 22454; Carolyn A Chew-Graham is part-funded by NIHR Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) West Midlands

Background and purpose. Trajectories of change over time can illustrate the course of pain. Back pain trajectories have previously been identified among adults. Understanding different patterns of back pain among adolescents could shed light on how persistent back pain develops. We aimed to identify and compare trajectories of back pain among adolescents in the general population. Methods and results. This prospective cohort study followed 1,336 adolescents (initially aged 11 years) every three months for three years, using self-completion questionnaires. Latent class growth analysis was used to cluster subjects into distinct trajectories of back pain. Six clusters were identified. Most subjects (78%) had very low likelihood of back pain throughout follow-up. The second largest cluster (10%) had relatively low and falling probability of back pain. Two clusters (4% each) showed increasing probability of back pain. One cluster had a peak likelihood of pain around age 13 (2%). The smallest cluster (1%) had very high probability of back pain throughout follow-up. The more painful trajectories had significantly fewer males, higher levels of depression and somatization, and lower life satisfaction at baseline, but differed little in physical activity or BMI. Conclusions. Over a fifth of adolescents had trajectories indicating back pain, but a minority had persistent pain problems. Poorer baseline psychological status and female gender were linked with more frequently experienced pain. Trajectories indicating rising or persistent pain might be illustrating the beginning of a long-term pain problem. Headache, facial pain and stomach pain trajectories were also identified in this sample; findings were similar to back pain

Background. Improving primary care management of musculoskeletal (MSK) pain is a priority. A pilot cluster RCT tested prognostic stratified care for patients with common MSK pain presentations, including low back pain, in 8 UK general practices (4 stratified care; 4 usual care) with 524 patients. GPs in stratified care practices were asked to use i) the Keele STarT MSK tool for risk-stratification and ii) matched treatment options for patients at low-, medium- and high-risk of persistent pain. A linked qualitative process evaluation explored patients' and GPs' views and experiences of stratified care. Methods. Individual ‘stimulated-recall’ interviews with patients and GPs in the stratified care arm (n=10 patients; 10 GPs), prompted by consultation-recordings. Data were analysed thematically and mapped onto the COM-B behaviour change model; exploring the Opportunity, Capability and Motivation GPs and patients had to engage with stratified care. Results. Patients reported positive views that stratified care enabled a more ‘structured’ consultation. GPs identified difficulties integrating the STarT MSK tool in their consultation timeframe (Opportunity), but found this easier as it became more familiar. Both groups saw the tool as having added-value, but identified ‘cumbersome’ items which made it more difficult to use (Capability). GPs reported the matched treatment options aided their clinical decision-making, identified several that were not available to them (e.g. pain-management clinics) and suggested additional options (e.g. GP-management of psychosocial issues (Motivation). Conclusion. Changes to the STarT MSK tool and matched treatment options, targeting the COM-B model constructs, were identified and have been implemented in the current main trial. Conflicts of interest statement: No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: This paper presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Programme Grants for Applied Research scheme (grant number: RP-PG-1211-20010). The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. Nadine Foster is a NIHR Senior Investigator and was supported through an NIHR Research Professorship (NIHR-RP-011-015). Trial registration: ISRCTN15366334

Aims. The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy of repeat epidural steroid injections as a form of treatment for patients with insufficiently controlled or recurrent radicular pain due to a lumbar or cervical disc herniation. Patients and Methods. A cohort of 102 patients was prospectively followed, after an epidural steroid injection for radicular symptoms due to lumbar disc herniation, in 57 patients, and cervical disc herniation, in 45 patients. Those patients with persistent pain who requested a second injection were prospectively followed for one year. Radicular and local pain were assessed on a visual analogue scale (VAS), functional outcome with the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) or the Neck Pain and Disability Index (NPAD), as well as health-related quality of life (HRQoL) using the 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey questionnaire (SF-12). Results. A second injection was performed in 17 patients (29.8%) with lumbar herniation and seven (15.6%) with cervical herniation at a mean of 65.3 days . (sd. 46.5) and 47 days . (sd. 37.2), respectively, after the initial injection. All but one patient, who underwent lumbar microdiscectomy, responded satisfactorily with a mean VAS for leg pain of 8.8 mm . (sd. 10.3) and a mean VAS for arm pain of 6.3 mm . (. sd. 9) one year after the second injection, respectively. Similarly, functional outcome and HRQoL were improved significantly from the baseline scores: mean ODI, 12.3 (. sd. 12.4; p < 0.001); mean NPAD, 19.3 (. sd. 24.3; p = 0.041); mean SF-12 physical component summary (PCS) in lumbar herniation, 46.8 (. sd. 7.7; p < 0.001); mean SF-12 PCS in cervical herniation, 43 (. sd. 6.8; p = 0.103). Conclusion. Repeat steroid injections are a justifiable form of treatment in symptomatic patients with lumbar or cervical disc herniation whose symptoms are not satisfactorily relieved after the first injection. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:1364–71

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

Purpose and background. A review of secondary healthcare provision for civilians suffering persistent pain and living in the British Forces Germany (BFG) community was carried out in order to better inform referral from primary care. This population consists mostly of British nationals each with differing linguistic skills and cultural backgrounds. Patients may be referred to Evangelisches Krankenhaus Bielefeld (EvKB) in Germany or to Guys and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust (GSTT) in the UK. It was considered important to identify potential language or cultural-related barriers to improve decision making when considering where best to refer for a pain management programme (PMP). Methods. Clinical visits undertaken at GSTT and EvKB involved observation of clinical activities, collection of documentation and informal staff discussions. Data were organised into common themes and categorised to provide information for written reflective accounts on each visit. Results. The PMP at EvKB is medical doctor-led, supported by integrated psychologists. English language skills of individual staff members appear varied. Patients stay in shared rooms on a medical ward environment. Group based pain education here is provided in German only. Access to the GSTT PMP requires competent English language skills. It is psychologist-led and delivered by an interdisciplinary team. Patients reside in individual living accommodation and attend group therapy sessions. Conclusion. To reduce risk of increasing anxiety, cultural differences related to language, medical hierarchy and privacy should be considered before referring non-German speakers with complex psychosocial needs to EvKB. Given the complexity of pain, non-native speakers may misunderstand translations of cultural nuances used in pain education. No conflicts of interest. Funding was received by the primary author from SSAFA Forces Help for dissertation tuition fees. This work formed part of a project submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of MSc Clinical Management of Pain at the University of Edinburgh

Aims

Implant-related postoperative spondylodiscitis (IPOS) is a severe complication in spine surgery and is associated with high morbidity and mortality. With growing knowledge in the field of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), equivalent investigations towards the management of implant-related infections of the spine are indispensable. To our knowledge, this study provides the largest description of cases of IPOS to date.

Aims

The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of the level of upper instrumented vertebra (UIV) in frail patients undergoing surgery for adult spine deformity (ASD).

Aims

The aim of this study was to reassess the rate of neurological, psoas-related, and abdominal complications associated with L4-L5 lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) undertaken using a standardized preoperative assessment and surgical technique.

Aims

The escalating demand for medical resources to address spinal diseases as society ages is an issue that requires careful evaluation. However, few studies have examined trends in spinal surgery, especially unscheduled hospitalizations or surgeries performed after hours, through large databases. Our study aimed to determine national trends in the number of spine surgeries in Japan. We also aimed to identify trends in after-hours surgeries and unscheduled hospitalizations and their impact on complications and costs.

We reviewed 15 consecutive patients, 11 women and four men, with a mean age of 48.7 years (37.3 to 62.6), who between July 2004 and August 2007 had undergone percutaneous sacroiliac fusion using hollow modular anchorage screws filled with demineralised bone matrix. Each patient was carefully assessed to exclude other conditions and underwent pre-operative CT and MR scans. The diagnosis of symptomatic sacroiliac disease was confirmed by an injection of local anaesthetic and steroid under image intensifier control. The short form-36 questionnaire and Majeed’s scoring system were used for pre- and post-operative functional evaluation. Post-operative radiological evaluation was performed using plain radiographs. Intra-operative blood loss was minimal and there were no post-operative clinical or radiological complications. The mean follow-up was for 17 months (9 to 39). The mean short form-36 scores improved from 37 (23 to 51) to 80 (67 to 92) for physical function and from 53 (34 to 73) to 86 (70 to 98) for general health (p = 0.037). The mean Majeed’s score improved from 37 (18 to 54) pre-operatively to 79 (63 to 96) post-operatively (p = 0.014). There were 13 good to excellent results. The remaining two patients improved in short form-36 from a mean of 29 (26 to 35) to 48 (44 to 52). Their persistent pain was probably due to concurrent lumbar pathology. We conclude that percutaneous hollow modular anchorage screws are a satisfactory method of achieving sacroiliac fusion

Introduction. Yellow flags are psychosocial indicators which are associated with a greater likelihood of progression to persistent pain and disability and are referred to as obstacles to recovery. It is not known how effective clinicians are in detecting them. Our objective was to determine if clinicians were able to detect them in secondary care. Methods. 111 new referrals in a specialist spine clinic completed the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and a range of other validated questionnaires including the yellow flag questionnaire adapted from the psychosocial flags framework. Clinicians blinded to the patient data completed a standardized form to determine which and how many yellow flags they had identified. Results. The average number of yellow flags per patient was 5 (range: 0–9). Clinician sensitivity in detecting yellow flags was poor, identifying only 2 on average. The most common yellow flag reported by patients was fear of movement or injury (88%), and this was also the yellow flag most frequently missed by clinicians, being identified correctly in only 45% of patients. The most commonly misidentified was patient uncertainty, in 28% of patients. Patients who reported more yellow flags were more likely to score higher on their ODI (p<0.01), Modified somatic perception score (p<0.01) and Modified Zung Depression Index (p<0.01). They also had poorer Low Back Outcome Scores (LBOS) (p<0.01). Conclusion. Clinician sensitivity in detecting yellow flags is poor. Improved identification of obstacles to recovery may improve outcomes. Clinicians may improve detection of these obstacles by having a simple set of questions completed by the patient