Purpose and background. Lumbar spinal fusion (LSF) is frequently and increasingly used in lumbar degenerative disorders despite conflicting results and recommendations. Further understanding of patient outcomes after LSF is required to inform decisions regarding surgery and to improve post-surgery management. The objective was to evaluate the course of pain and disability in patients with degenerative disorders of the lumbar spine (spinal stenosis, spondylolisthesis, disc herniation, discogenic low back pain) after first-time LSF. Methods and results. A systematic review and meta-analysis of pain and disability outcomes in prospective cohort studies after first time LSF for degenerative disorders. Two independent researchers searched key databases, determined study eligibility, extracted data and assessed risk of bias (modified Quality in Prognostic Studies tool). A third reviewer mediated at each stage. N weighted pooled estimates were calculated. Twenty-five articles (n=1,777 participants) were included. 17 studies were at unclear risk of bias and 8 at high risk. Back pain (12 studies) decreased modestly and irregularly at follow-up intervals. The n weighted mean VAS back pain decreased from 65.4 (±3.3) pre-surgery to 22.2 (±3.1) at 23 months, but then 45.0 (±not reported; 2 studies at risk of bias) at 42 months. In contrast, leg pain (12 studies) improved substantially short and long-term. Disability (20 studies) improved steadily over time with the exception of the 42-months and 48-months intervals. Conclusion. The overall improvement of leg pain and disability after first-time LSF in degenerative disorders is promising in contrast to back pain outcomes. Further research is needed to analyse outcomes in patients of different diagnostic subgroups. Conflicts of interest. None. Sources of funding. None

Background and study purpose. A recent systematic review with meta-analysis of eight randomised controlled trials concluded that Cognitive Functional Therapy (CFT) for low back pain might be effective in reducing disability, pain and fear-avoidance beliefs. However, the descriptions of a CFT intervention are not always clear. This study aimed to rate the replicability of the CFT interventions and control groups in the systematic review. Methods. Two reviewers independently extracted data from the study articles, protocols and appendices into Microsoft Excel using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist. This checklist has 12 items to describe the ‘why’, ‘what’, ‘who’, ‘how’, ‘where’, ‘when and how much’, ‘tailoring’, ‘modifications’, and ‘how well’ for each intervention. We rated the replicability of the CFT interventions and control groups as ‘reported’, ‘partially reported’ and ‘not reported’ and resolved discrepancies by consensus. Results. No studies reported 100% of the TIDieR items; the mean ‘reported’ rating was 54% (range 33–67%) for the CFT interventions and 35% (range 8–67%) for controls. The six most replicable items were the same for both CFT and control groups. These were ‘brief name’ (CFT=100%; control=100%), ‘why’ (CFT=100%; control=50%), ‘how’ (CFT=100%; control=50%), ‘what procedures’ (CFT=88%; control=63%), ‘where’ (CFT=88%; control=75%) and ‘planned adherence’ (CFT=75%; control=38%). Items that were not sufficiently ‘reported’ for either CFT or control groups included ‘when and how much’, ‘tailoring’ and ‘adherence’. Conclusion. Incomplete descriptions of CFT interventions mean that clinicians and patients cannot implement those that have demonstrated effectiveness, and poor descriptions of control groups prevent researchers from replicating them in future studies. Conflict of interest. No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding. No funding obtained

Background. Specifically designed control interventions can account for expectation effects in clinical trials. For the interpretation of efficacy trials of physical, psychological, and self-management interventions for people living with pain, the design, conduct, and reporting of control interventions is crucial. Objectives. To establish a quality standard in the field, core recommendations are presented alongside additional considerations and a reporting checklist for control interventions. Methods. Three Delphi rounds with 64 experts in placebo research and/or non-pharmacological clinical trials were conducted. The panel was presented with a systematic review and meta-analysis of control and blinding methods. A draft guidance document included 63 consensus items (≥80% agreement) and was discussed with patient partners. Finally, the draft guidance and results from stakeholder interviews were discussed at consensus meetings with Delphi participants and patient representatives. Results. Forty-four experts completed the process. When treatment efficacy or mechanisms are to be studied, the advocated principle is to design control interventions as similar as possible to the tested intervention, apart from the components that the study examines. Structured reasoning in the planning phase, early engagement with stakeholders, feasibility work, and piloting will enhance the quality and acceptability of control interventions. With participant blinding being a primary objective, blinding effectiveness should be routinely assessed and reported. Transparent and detailed reporting will improve interpretability and repeatability of clinical trials. Conclusion. This guideline provides the much-needed standards to enhance the quality of efficacy clinical trials in physical, psychological, and self-management intervention research, ultimately improving patient care. Study registration: . https://osf.io/jmyhq/. Conflict of interest: The authors declare no competing interests. Sources of Funding: Alain and Sheila Diamond Charitable Trust PhD Studentship

Aims

To systematically evaluate whether bracing can effectively achieve curve regression in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS), and to identify any predictors of curve regression after bracing.

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.

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

Aims

The aim of this study was to use diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) to investigate changes in diffusion metrics in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) up to five years after decompressive surgery. We correlated these changes with clinical outcomes as scored by the Modified Japanese Orthopedic Association (mJOA) method, Neck Disability Index (NDI), and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS).

Aims

The aim of this study was to systematically compare the safety and accuracy of robot-assisted (RA) technique with conventional freehand with/without fluoroscopy-assisted (CT) pedicle screw insertion for spine disease.