Predictors of poor outcome following lumbar spinal fusion surgery: a prospective observational study to derive two clinical prediction rules using British Spine Registry data.

PURPOSE: Lumbar spinal fusion surgery (LSFS) is common for lumbar degenerative disorders. The objective was to develop clinical prediction rules to identify which patients are likely to have a favourable outcome to inform decisions regarding surgery and rehabilitation. METHODS: A prospective observational study recruited 600 (derivation) and 600 (internal validation) consecutive adult patients undergoing LSFS for degenerative lumbar disorder through the British Spine Registry. Definition of good outcome (6 weeks, 12 months) was reduction in pain intensity (Numerical Rating Scale, 0-10) and disability (Oswestry Disability Index, ODI 0-50) > 1.7 and 14.3, respectively. Linear and logistic regression models were fitted and regression coefficients, Odds ratios and 95% CIs reported. RESULTS: Lower BMI, higher ODI and higher leg pain pre-operatively were predictive of good disability outcome, higher back pain was predictive of good back pain outcome, and no previous surgery and higher leg pain were predictive of good leg pain outcome; all at 6 weeks. Working and higher leg pain were predictive of good ODI and leg pain outcomes, higher back pain was predictive of good back pain outcome, and higher leg pain was predictive of good leg pain outcome at 12 months. Model performance demonstrated reasonable to good calibration and adequate/very good discrimination. CONCLUSIONS: BMI, ODI, leg and back pain and previous surgery are important considerations pre-operatively to inform decisions for surgery. Pre-operative leg and back pain and work status are important considerations to inform decisions for management following surgery. Findings may inform clinical decision making regarding LSFS and associated rehabilitation.

Outcomes of surgical intervention for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: a comparative analysis of different surgical fixation techniques.

Background: Debate regarding effectiveness of surgical modalities contributes to a lack of consensus of decision making for surgical interventions. Furthermore, data regarding cost effectiveness, surgical operative time, resources, patient hospital stay and recovery is limited, particularly in the medium term for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. The objective was to compare clinical outcomes following different fixation interventions treating degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Methods: A retrospective cohort study using the British Spine Registry (BSR) of 1,838 patients aged ≥18 years. Five hundred and five patients undergoing posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and 1,333 undergoing transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) with 6 months follow-up, were compared. Demographics, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) [back and leg], quality of life, complications and cost effectiveness were analysed. Results: NRS (back and leg) demonstrated a statistically significant difference favouring TLIF at 6 months (P=0.04) and (P<0.05) respectively. There was no difference in ODI improvement at 6 months between PLIF and TLIF (P=0.620), but there was a statistically significant difference in ODI scores preoperatively between PLIF and TLIF (P<0.001). EQ-5D-5L-Health VAS (P=0.136) and EQ-5D-5L (P=0.655) did not show a statistically significant difference in improvement between PLIF and TLIF. Dural tear was the most common complication and was higher in the PLIF group (5.7%) but not statistically significant. Estimated blood loss was greater for PLIF (P=0.041). Implant cost (P<0.001) was higher for TLIF whereas theatre time was higher for PLIF (P=0.031). Conclusions: Both PLIF and TLIF result in clinically significant improvements in ODI, NRS back pain and NRS leg pain, with superiority of TLIF for improvements in back and leg pain. Surgeons appeared to use ODI preoperatively to decide intervention with comparable improvements for both approaches. Average theatre time and blood loss volume was higher for PLIF. Factors like implant costs and costs of consumables were higher for TLIF. Costs merit further evaluation.

Immediate patient perceptions following lumbar spinal fusion surgery: semi-structured multi-centre interviews exploring the patient journey and experiences of lumbar fusion surgery (FuJourn).

PURPOSE: To understand the patient journey to Lumbar Spinal Fusion Surgery (LSFS) and patients' experiences of surgery. METHODS: Qualitative study using interpretive phenomenological analysis. Adult participants following LSFS were recruited from 4 UK clinical sites using purposive sampling to ensure representation of key features (e.g. age). Semi-structured interviews informed by a piloted topic guide developed from the literature were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Framework analysis for individual interviews and then across participants (deductive and inductive) identified emerging themes. Trustworthiness of data analyses was enhanced using multiple strategies (e.g. attention to negative cases). RESULTS: Four emerging themes from n = 31 patients' narratives were identified: decision for surgery, coping strategies, barriers to recovery and recovery after surgery. Decision for surgery and recovery after surgery themes are distinguished by the point of surgery. However, barriers to recovery and coping strategies are key to the whole patient journey encompassing long journeys to surgery and their initial journey after surgery. The themes of coping strategies and barriers to recovery were inter-related and perceived by participants as parallel concepts. The 4 multifactorial themes interacted with each other and shaped the process of an individual patient's recovery. Factors such as sporadic interventions prior to surgery, time-consuming wait for diagnosis and surgery and lack of information regarding recovery strongly influenced perceptions of outcome. CONCLUSION: Patient driven data enables insights to inform research regarding surgery/rehabilitation through depth of understanding of the patient journey. Awareness of factors important to patients is important; ensuring that patient-driven data informs research and patient care.

Prediction of walking ability following posterior decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis.

PURPOSE: Following surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) up to 40% of people report persistent walking disability. This study aimed to identify pre-operative factors that are predictive of walking ability post-surgery for LSS. METHODS: An observational cohort study was conducted using data from the British Spine Registry (2017-2018) of adults (≥ 50 years) with LSS, who underwent ≤ 2 level posterior lumbar decompression. Patients receiving fixation or who had previous lumbar surgery were excluded. Walking ability was assessed by a single item on the Oswestry Disability Index and dichotomised into poor/good outcome. Multivariable regression models were performed. RESULTS: 14,485 patients were identified. Pre-operatively 30% patients reported poor walking ability, this decreased to 8% at 12 months follow-up. Predictors associated with poor walking ability at 12 months were: increasing age (≥ 75 years OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.07, 2.18), BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2 (OR 1.52, 95% CI 1.00, 2.30), severity of leg pain (OR 1.10, CI 95% 1.01, 1.21), disability (OR 1.01, 95% CI 1.01, 1.02) and quality of life (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.56, 0.89). Pre-operative maximum walking distance (OR 1.10, 95% CI 1.05, 1.25) and higher education (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80, 0.96) were associated with reduced risk of poor walking ability at 12 months; p < 0.05. Depression, fear of movement and symptom duration were not associated with risk of poor outcome. CONCLUSION: Older age, obesity, greater pre-operative pain and disability and lower quality of life are associated with risk of poor walking ability post-operatively. Greater pre-operative walking and higher education are associated with reduced risk of poor walking ability post-operatively. Patients should be counselled on their risk of poor outcome and considered for rehabilitation so that walking and surgical outcomes may be optimised.

Patient journey following lumbar spinal fusion surgery (FuJourn): A multicentre exploration of the immediate post-operative period using qualitative patient diaries.

The aim of this study was to capture and understand the immediate recovery journey of patients following lumbar spinal fusion surgery and explore the interacting constructs that shape their journey. A qualitative study using Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) approach. A purposive sample of 43 adult patients (≥16 years) undergoing ≤4 level instrumented fusion for back and/or leg pain of degenerative cause, were recruited pre-surgery from 4 UK spinal surgery centres. Patients completed a weekly diary expressed in their own words for the first 4 weeks following surgery to capture their life as lived. Diary content was based on previous research findings and recorded progress, recovery, motivation, symptoms, medications, healthcare appointments, rehabilitation, positive/negative thoughts, and significant moments; comparing to the previous week. To maximise completion and data quality, diaries could be completed in paper form, word document, as online survey or as audio recording. Strategies to enhance diary adherence included a weekly prompt. A framework analysis for individual diaries and then across participants (deductive and inductive components) captured emergent themes. Trustworthiness was enhanced by strategies including reflexivity, attention to negative cases and use of critical co-investigators. Twenty-eight participants (15 female; n = 18 (64.3%) aged 45-64) contributed weekly diaries (12 withdrew post-surgery, 3 did not follow through with surgery). Adherence with diaries was 89.8%. Participants provided diverse and vivid descriptions of recovery experiences. Three distinct recovery trajectories were identified: meaningful recovery (engagement in physical and functional activities to return to functionality/mobility); progressive recovery (small but meaningful improvement in physical ability with increasing confidence); and disruptive recovery (limited purpose for meaningful recovery). Important interacting constructs shaped participants' recovery including their pain experience and self-efficacy. This is the first account of immediate recovery trajectories from patients' perspectives. Recognition of a patient's trajectory may inform patient-centred recovery, follow-up and rehabilitation to improve patient outcomes.