Search

Background Context: Decompression surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is the most common spinal procedure in the elderly. To avoid persisting low back pain, adding arthrodesis has been recommended, especially if there is a coexisting degenerative spondylolisthesis. However, this strategy remains controversial, resulting in practice-based variation., Purpose: The present study aimed to evaluate in a pragmatic study if surgical selection criteria and variation in use of arthrodesis in three Scandinavian countries can be linked to variation in treatment effectiveness., Study Design: This is an observational study based on a combined cohort from the national spine registries of Norway, Sweden, and Denmark., Patient Sample: Patients aged 50 and older operated during 2011-2013 for LSS were included., Outcome Measures: Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs): Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) (primary outcome), Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) for leg pain and back pain, and health-related quality of life (Euro-Qol-5D) were reported. Analysis included case-mix adjustment. In addition, we report differences in hospital stay., Methods: Analyses of baseline data were done by analysis of variance (ANOVA), chi-square, or logistic regression tests. The comparisons of the mean changes of PROMs at 1-year follow-up between the countries were done by ANOVA (crude) and analysis of covariance (case-mix adjustment)., Results: Out of 14,223 included patients, 10,890 (77%) responded at 1-year follow-up. Apart from fewer smokers in Sweden and higher comorbidity rate in Norway, baseline characteristics were similar. The rate of additional fusion surgery (patients without or with spondylolisthesis) was 11% (4%, 47%) in Norway, 21% (9%, 56%) in Sweden, and 28% (15%, 88%) in Denmark. At 1-year follow-up, the mean improvement for ODI (95% confidence interval) was 18 (17-18) in Norway, 17 (17-18) in Sweden, and 18 (17-19) in Denmark. Patients operated with arthrodesis had prolonged hospital stay., Conclusions: Real-life data from three national spine registers showed similar indications for decompression surgery but significant differences in the use of concomitant arthrodesis in Scandinavia. Additional arthrodesis was not associated with better treatment effectiveness., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background Context: Current literature suggests that in the long-term, fusion of the lumbar spine in chronic low back pain (CLBP) does not result in an outcome clearly better than structured conservative treatment modes., Purpose: This study aimed to assess the long-term outcome of lumbar fusion in CLBP, and also to assess methodological problems in long-term randomized controlled trials (RCTs)., Study Design: A prospective randomized study was carried out., Patient Sample: A total of 294 patients (144 women and 150 men) with CLBP of at least 2 years' duration were randomized to lumbar fusion or non-specific physiotherapy. The mean follow-up time was 12.8 years (range 9-22). The follow up rate was 85%; exclusion of deceased patients resulted in a follow-up rate of 92%., Outcome Measures: Global Assessment (GA) of back pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analogue scale (VAS) for back and leg pain, Zung depression scale were determined. Work status, pain medication, and pain frequency were also documented., Methods: Standardized outcome questionnaires were obtained before treatment and at long-term follow-up. To optimize control for group changers, four models of data analysis were used according to (1) intention to treat (ITT), (2) "as treated" (AT), (3) per protocol (PP), and (4) if the conservative group automatically classify group changers as unchanged or worse in GA (GCAC). The initial study was sponsored by Acromed (US$50,000-US$100,000)., Results: Except for the ITT model, the GA, the primary outcome measure, was significantly better for fusion. The proportion of patients much better or better in the fusion group was 66%, 65%, and 65% in the AT, PP, and GCAC models, respectively. In the conservative group, the same proportions were 31%, 37%, and 22%, respectively. However, the ODI, VAS back pain, work status, pain medication, and pain frequency were similar between the two groups., Conclusions: One can conclude that from the patient's perspective, reflected by the GA, lumbar fusion surgery is a valid treatment option in CLBP. On the other hand, secondary outcome measures such as ODI and work status, best analyzed by the PP model, indicated that substantial disability remained at long-term after fusion as well as after conservative treatment. The lack of objective outcome measures in CLBP and the cross-over problem transforms an RCT to an observational study, that is, Level 2 evidence. The discrepancy between the primary and secondary outcome measures prevents a strong conclusion on whether to recommend fusion in non-specific low back pain., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)