Are degenerative spondylolisthesis and further slippage postoperatively really issues in spinal stenosis surgery?

Background and aims Opinions diverge concerning the prognostic importance of preoperative degenerative spondylolisthesis in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis, as well as the significance of further slippage post-operatively following decompression alone. However, a slip is only one among several factors related to the topic, e.g. duration and intensity of back and leg pain, pre-operative walking ability, number of levels operated and not least the experience of the surgeon. Our aim was to take all of the above-mentioned factors into consideration when analysing the patients' clinical outcome, reported as Change in back pain, Change in leg pain, Overall satisfaction and Change in walking ability, with special emphasis on the possible importance of pre- and/or post-operative degenerative spondylolisthesis. Methods We studied 200 consecutive patients, mean follow-up time 81 months (range 62-108). Before treatment and on the follow-up occasion all patients answered the SF-36 questionnaire and assessed their back and leg pain on a visual analogue scale (VAS). At follow-up the patients were asked about possible changes in back and leg pain (completely free, much better, somewhat better, unchanged, somewhat worse, much worse) and whether they were; satisfied with the outcome, in doubt or not satisfied. Before treatment and at follow-up the presence or not of degenerative spondylolisthesis was determined in the lateral view on a plain X-ray or MRI. By use of a microsurgical technique decompression was achieved in all patients by bilateral laminotomy not sparing the midline ligaments, irrespective of a degenerative spondylolisthesis or not. Eight surgeons with different surgical experience performed the operations. Four separate multivariate analyses were conducted, one for each clinical outcome. The Lasso method was used for variable selection and multiple imputation was applied to handle missing values. Results At follow-up 78.5% of the patients were completely satisfied with the outcome. Minimal clinical important difference (MCID) was achieved for 69% of the patients. Before surgery 28 patients were able to walk more than 1 km compared to 111 at follow-up. The reoperation rate at 6.8 years was 12% further decompressions and 2.5% fusions at the index level. Post-operative slippage was equally common in patients with and without a preoperative slip (around 30%). There were no notable differences in outcome in patients with and without a preoperative slip and no effect of further slippage at the index or another level post-operatively. Nor could the statistical analysis show any of the other covariates (age, gender, duration and intensity of back and leg pain, pre-operative walking ability or number of levels operated) to be of statistically significant importance for predicting the outcome. In the univariate statistical analysis differences were found between the patients of individual surgeons regarding satisfaction, pain improvement, and reoperation rates in favour of surgical experience, which were, however, not statistically significant in the multivariate analysis. Conclusions None of the covariates, including pre-operative spondylolisthesis and further slippage post-operatively, were statistically significant for predicting the clinical outcome. Implication Our results provide no evidence for adding fusion to the decompression.

Superior outcomes following cervical fusion vs. multimodal rehabilitation in a subgroup of randomized Whiplash-Associated-Disorders (WAD) patients indicating somatic pain origin-Comparison of outcome assessments made by four examiners from different disciplines.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Whiplash-Associated Disorders (WAD) are characterized by great variability in long-term symptoms. Patients with central neck and movement-induced stabbing pain participated in a randomized study comparing cervical fusion and multimodal rehabilitation. As reported in our previous paper, more patients treated by cervical fusion than by rehabilitation experienced pain relief. Although patient reported outcome measures are a core component of outcome evaluation, independent examiner has been recommended. Because of the heterogeneity of WAD complaints the patients in our study were examined at baseline and follow-up by four experts representing neurology, orthopedics, psychology and physical medicine. The aim was to compare the professional assessments of change both regarding the possible impact of the different examiners' perspectives on individual patient's outcome, and also on the analysis of possible outcome differences between the treatment groups. METHODS: WAD patients with long-term neck pain as the predominant symptom after a traffic accident were eligible. The neck pain origin should be in the midline and perceived as dull and aching, with sudden movement inducing midline stabbing pain. Of the 1,052 patients in contact with our team, 49 were eligible. The overall treatment effect was evaluated on a global outcome transitional scale. The criteria for the scale categories were defined by each expert's professional perspective on change in the whiplash complaints. Statistical methods that take account of the non-metric properties of ordered categorical data were used. Observed inter-expert disagreement was evaluated by the Svensson method that identifies and measures systematic group-related disagreement separately from disagreement caused by individual variation. Possible differences in the distributions of assessments on the expert-specific outcome scales between the treatment groups were analyzed by the Kruskal-Wallis test. RESULTS: The per-protocol evaluation showed that a majority of the 18 patients who underwent fusion surgery were assessed as somewhat or much better, ranging from 67% to 78% depending on the expert. Corresponding proportions of improvement in the 17 patients treated by multimodal rehabilitation ranged from 29% to 53%. The statistical analyses confirmed better outcomes in the patients treated by fusion surgery, with p-values ranging from 0.003 to 0.04. The experts' assessments of intra-patient change disagreed more or less for all patients. The analyses of the paired comparisons confirmed that these disagreements could most probably be explained by the different profession-specific operational definitions of the outcome scales rather than by individual variations in data. CONCLUSIONS: The multi-dimensional complexity of WAD-related complaints was comprehensively demonstrated by the inter-disciplinary disagreements in assessing intra-patient outcomes. The superiority of positive treatment effects in patients who underwent cervical fusion compared with multimodal rehabilitation was evident to all experts. IMPLICATIONS: The results strengthen our previous opinion that neck pain in this subgroup of WAD patients has a somatic origin. More than one examiner is recommended for multi-dimensional outcome assessments.

Clinical outcome following anterior arthrodesis in patients with presumed sacroiliac joint pain.

BACKGROUND: It has been reported that in 13-32% of patients with chronic low back pain, the pain may originate in the sacroiliac (SI) joints. When treatment of these patients with analgesics and physiotherapy has failed, a surgical solution may be discussed. Results of such surgery are often based on small series, retrospective analyses or studies using a minimal invasive technique, frequently sponsored by manufacturers. PURPOSE: To report the clinical outcome concerning pain, function and quality of life following anterior arthrodesis in patients presumed to have SI joint pain using validated questionnaires pre- and post-operatively. An additional aim was to describe the symptoms of the patients included and the preoperative investigations performed. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Over a 6 year period we treated 55 patients, all women, with a mean age of 45 years (range 28-65) and a mean pelvic pain duration of 9.1 years (range 2-30). The pain started in connection with minor trauma in seven patients, pregnancy in 20 and unspecified in 28. All patients had undergone long periods of treatment including physiotherapy, manipulation, needling, pelvic belt, massage and chiropractic without success, and 15 had been operated for various spinal diagnoses without improvement. The patients underwent thorough neurological investigation, plain X-ray and MRI of the spine and plain X-ray of the pelvis. They were investigated by seven clinical tests aimed at indicating pain from the SI joints. In addition, all patients underwent a percutaneous mechanical provocation test and extra-articular local anaesthetic blocks against the posterior part of the SI joints. Before surgery all patients answered the generic Short-Form-36 (SF-36) questionnaire, the disease specific Balanced Inventory for Spinal Disorders (BIS) questionnaire and rated their level of pelvic and leg pain (VAS, 0-100). At follow-up at a mean of 2 years 49 patients completed the same questionnaires (89%). RESULTS: At follow-up 26 patients reported a lower level of pelvic pain than before surgery, 16 the same level and six a higher level. Applying Svensson's method RPpelvic pain=0.3976, with 95% CI (0.2211, 0.5740) revealed a statistically significant systematic improvement in pelvic pain. At follow-up 28 patients reported a higher quality of life and 26 reported sleeping better than pre-operatively. In most patients the character of the pelvic pain was dull and aching, often accompanied by a stabbing component in connection with sudden movements. Referred pain down the leg/s even to the feet and toes was noted by half of the patients and 29 experienced frequency of micturition. CONCLUSIONS: It is apparent that in some patients the SI joints may cause long-term pain that can be treated by arthrodesis. We speculate that continued pain despite a healed arthrodesis may be due to persistent pain from adjacent ligaments. The next step should be a prospective randomized study comparing posterior fusion and ligament resection with non-surgical treatment. IMPLICATIONS: Anterior arthrodesis can apparently relieve pain in some patients with presumed SI joint pain. The problem is how to identify these patients within the low back pain group.

Symptoms and signs possibly indicating segmental, discogenic pain. A fusion study with 18 years of follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Only two out of the five existing randomized studies have reported better results from fusion surgery for chronic low back pain (CLBP) compared to conservative treatment. In these studies the back symptoms of the patients were described simply as "chronic low back pain". One possible reason for the modest results of surgery is the lack of a description of specified symptoms that might be related to a painful segment/disc, and patient selection may therefore be more or less a matter of chance. Previous prospective studies including facet joint injections and discography and eventually MRI have failed to identify patients with a painful segment/disc that will benefit from fusion surgery. PURPOSE: Our purpose was to analyse in detail the pre-operative symptoms and signs presented by patients who showed substantial relief from their back pain following spinal fusion surgery with the aim of possibly finding a pain pattern indicating segmental, discogenic pain. METHODS: We analysed 40 consecutive patients, mean age 41 years, with a history of disabling low back pain for a mean of 7.7 years. Before surgery the patients completed a detailed questionnaire concerning various aspects of their back pain, and findings at clinical examination were thoroughly noted. Monosegmental posterior lumbar interbody fusion without internal fixation was performed using microsurgical technique. Outcome was assessed at 1, 2 and 4 years after surgery and finally at 18 years, using self-reporting measures and assessment by an independent examiner. Assessment at 18 years applied the Balanced Inventory for Spinal Disorders Questionnaire and the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire. RESULTS: According to the independent observer's assessment at two years 27 of the 40 patients were much improved. Analysis of the pre-operative depiction of the back symptoms of this group revealed a rather uniform pattern, the most important being: dominating back pain originating in the midline of the spine, with a dull, aching character and stabbing pain in the same area provoked by sudden movements. Most patients in this group also had diffuse pain radiation of various extension down one or both legs and often bladder dysfunction with frequency. At clinical examination, localized interspinal tenderness was observed within the spinal area in question and the patient's back pain was provoked by pressure in that area and by tapping a neighbouring spinous process. At 18 years after surgery 19 patients assessed themselves as much improved. At that time 5 of them had pension due to age, 7 early pension, one worked full time and six patients part time. Eleven patients were re-operated due to defect bony healing. CONCLUSIONS: The results may suggest that the use of a detailed symptom analysis and clinical examination may make it possible to select a subgroup of patients within the CLBP group likely to have better outcome following fusion surgery. IMPLICATIONS: The next step would be to execute prospective studies and if our findings concerning back pain details and signs among CLPB patients can be confirmed this can provide for more accurate selection of patients suitable for fusion surgery.

A small group Whiplash-Associated-Disorders (WAD) patients with central neck pain and movement induced stabbing pain, the painful segment determined by mechanical provocation: Fusion surgery was superior to multimodal rehabilitation in a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: The majority of patients suffering from a whiplash injury will recover, but some will have symptoms (Whiplash Associated Disorders, WAD) for years despite conservative treatment. Some of these patients perceive neck pain that might come from a motion segment, possibly the disc. In comprehensive reviews no evidence has been found that fusion operations have a positive treatment effect on neck pain in WAD patients. PURPOSE: Our aim was to evaluate the possibility of (a) selecting a subgroup of chronic WAD patients based on specified symptoms possibly indicating segmental pain, and (b) treating said segmental pain through fusion operation based on non-radiological segment localization. The hypothesis was that fusion operation in this selected subgroup of chronic WAD patients could alleviate perceived neck pain. METHODS: Eligible patients for the study had a traffic accident as the origin for their neck pain, and no previous neck symptoms. Neck pain should be the predominant symptom and the pain origin reported to be in the midline, being dull, aching in character and at sudden movements combined by a stabbing pain in the same area. Forty-nine patients with these specified symptoms were identified among a large number of chronic WAD patients. Those selected had pronounced symptoms for a median of around 50 months and had previously been investigated and fully treated within the ordinary healthcare system without success. No neurological abnormalities were to be found at clinical examination and no specific changes to be seen on X-ray and MRI. The patients were randomized to either cervical fusion operation or multimodal rehabilitation. By using a mechanical provocation test the level/s to be fused were identified. In all but one patient the surgery was performed anteriorly using microsurgical technique and a right-sided Smith-Pedersen approach and plate fixation. The multimodal rehabilitation at the Clinic of Medical Rehabilitation, Karolinska Hospital, Stockholm, included outpatient treatment for four days a week for six weeks and included treatment by physician, physiotherapists, occupational therapist, psychologists, social-service worker and nurses. Perceived change in neck pain was assessed using the Balanced Inventory for Spinal Disorders questionnaire at the 2-year-follow-up. RESULTS: Mean age of the patients was 38 and 40 years (surgery and rehabilitation groups, respectively), the most common type of accident being rear-end collision. At clinical examination muscle tenderness was not an outstanding sign. In most patients the mid-cervical region appeared to be the painful area but one patient localized the pain to C1. At follow-up 67% of the patients in the surgery group and 23% in the rehabilitation group assessed improvements in the ITT analysis. Corresponding proportions in the per protocol analysis were 83% and 12%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The results support the supposition that among patients with central neck pain for long periods of time following a whiplash injury there are some in whom the neck pain emanates from a motion segment, probably the disc, a situation suitable for fusion surgery. IMPLICATIONS: Thorough individual symptom evaluation in patients with chronic WAD may identify patients who will benefit from cervical fusion surgery.

Private and Non-Private Disc Herniation Patients: Do they Differ?

OBJECTIVES: In the 2006 yearly report from the Swedish National Register for Lumbar Spine Surgery it was claimed that international studies show obvious differences between private and non-private patients with regard to results from back surgery. Therefore our aim was to reveal such possible differences by comparing the two categories of patients at a private clinic. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The material comprises 1184 patients operated on for lumbar disc herniation during the period of 1987 to 2007. Basic pre-operative data were obtained from the medical records and follow-up was performed by a questionnaire around 5 years post-operatively. RESULTS: Small but statistically significant differences between private and non-private patients were seen pre-operatively regarding the proportions of a/ men and women in the samples, b/ those with physically demanding jobs, c/ those on sick leave and d/ those with lumbar pain. Over the years the admitted private patients had a decreasing mean duration of symptoms which was not seen in the non-private patients. No apparent differences (n.s.) were seen between the two categories of patients pre-operatively regarding age, presence and level of leg pain or the proportion who smoked. Post-operative improvement in leg and lumbar pain was very similar in private and non-private patients as was satisfaction with the results and the proportion of patients returning to work. CONCLUSION: Despite small pre-operative differences concerning some variables and a significant difference in symptom duration between private and non-private disc herniation patients, the final clinical results were very similar.

Reliability of the balanced inventory for spinal disorders, a questionnaire for evaluation of outcomes in patients with various spinal disorders.

STUDY DESIGN: An intrapatient reliability study of the previously validated 18-item questionnaire, the Balanced Inventory for Spinal disorders (BIS), in patients referred for planned spinal surgery. Statistical evaluation of the test-retest assessments was performed by a rank-based method that allows for separate analyses of the systematic and individual components of an observed disagreement. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the intrapatient reliability and the art of disagreement, when present, in assessing the extent to which pain affects perceived physical health, social life, mental health, and quality of life according to the BIS. For comparative reasons corresponding items in Short-Form-36 (SF-36) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were also evaluated. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The questionnaires were filled in by 101 patients the evening before going to the clinic for planned spinal surgery and the following evening at the clinic. RESULTS: The percentage agreement in test-retest assessments of the items varied from 52% to 84%. The important items of pain, physical activities, social life, overall mental health, and quality of life showed high levels of reliability. An intrapatient disagreement of more than 1 category was seen in 4 items of mental health and in physical health, only. The observed individual variability and the significant systematic decrease on the second occasion could be explained by the fact that the patients were at the hospital on the retest occasion. The variation in percentage agreements found, and the different reasons for disagreement in items speak against that memory alone could have caused the retest assessments. CONCLUSION: The comprehensive evaluation of test-retest reliability showed that the test-retest assessments on the BIS could be regarded as reliable, and the measures of reliability of the BIS items were on the same levels as for corresponding items of the SF-36 and the ODI questionnaires.

The Balanced Inventory for Spinal Disorders: the validity of a disease specific questionnaire for evaluation of outcomes in patients with various spinal disorders.

STUDY DESIGN: A prospective validation study. OBJECTIVE: To validate the Balanced Inventory for Spinal Disorders (BIS), a questionnaire concerning the extent to which pain affects perceived physical health, social life, mental health, and quality of life. The operational definitions of the items and the verbal descriptive scales were compared with corresponding items in the Short-Form 36 (SF-36), European Quality of Life Scale (EQ), and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: In validation studies, scales that intend to measure the same variable are compared. METHODS: The SF-36, EQ, ODI, and the BIS were filled in by 101 patients before surgical treatment. The comparisons were analyzed by statistical methods that take account of the nonmetric properties of ordered categorical data to obtain reliable results. The level of order-consistency between BIS and comparing items, when present, was calculated. The Spearman rank-order correlation coefficient was also calculated. RESULTS: In the paired comparisons between the BIS pain scales and the other pain scales about 80% units more pairs were ordered than disordered, and the disorder was explained by the discriminating ability of the BIS back and leg pain items. The BIS and ODI items of limitation in walking were comparable, and the assessments of social limitations on the questionnaires were consistent; the disordered pairs being explained by different coverage of activities in the items. The assessments of physical and mental health on BIS were disordered, with the responses in SF-36 in favor of the BIS type of scale categories. The few items and response categories in the EQ did not discriminate the assessments. CONCLUSION: The BIS assessments can be regarded as being a valid disease-specific questionnaire that provides interpretable information regarding the impact of back end leg pain on well-defined physical, social and mental aspects, and on the quality of life.