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. This is a population-based study from the Norwegian Registry for Spine surgery (NORspine). We included 26,723 consecutive cases operated for lumbar spinal stenosis or lumbar disc herniation from January 2007 to December 2018. The primary outcome was the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), presented as the proportions reaching a patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS; defined as an ODI raw score ≤ 22) and ODI raw and change scores at 12-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes were the Global Perceived Effect scale, the numerical rating scale for pain, the EuroQoL five-dimensions health questionnaire, occurrence of perioperative complications and wound infections, and working capability. Binary logistic regression analysis was conducted to examine how the number of previous operations influenced the odds of not reaching a PASS.Aims
Methods
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. This was a comparative study using prospectively collected data from the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery. A total of 4,750 consecutive patients who underwent surgery for degenerative cervical radiculopathy and were followed for 12 months were included. Case-mix adjustment between those managed in public and private hospitals was performed using propensity score matching. The primary outcome measure was the change in the Neck Disability Index (NDI) between baseline and 12 months postoperatively. A mean difference in improvement of the NDI score between public and private hospitals of ≤ 15 points was considered equivalent. Secondary outcome measures were a numerical rating scale for neck and arm pain and the EuroQol five-dimension three-level health questionnaire. The duration of surgery, length of hospital stay, and complications were also recorded.Aims
Methods
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. We retrieved data from the Swedish spine register about 3,291 patients who underwent primary surgery for a lumbar disc prolapse between January 2007 and December 2008. These patients were followed until December 2020 to record all additional lumbar spine operations and the reason for them.Aims
Methods
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
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
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:
