Search

BACKGROUND: Currently, evidence regarding fear avoidance beliefs as potential predictors for lumbar surgery outcomes seems insufficient and strong conclusions are not yet available. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aimed to evaluate the predictive value of preoperative fear avoidance beliefs for postoperative pain intensity, functional status, and health-related quality of life following surgery for lumbar degenerative disease. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and best evidence synthesis. METHODS: An extensive search was performed in PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and the Cochrane library for articles published up until October 2021. Two independent reviewers performed the screening, data extraction, and quality assessment, with a third independent reviewer consulting to resolve any disagreement. Observational studies that included patients undergoing surgery for lumbar degenerative disease, as well as evaluated fear avoidance beliefs (i.e., pain-related fear, pain catastrophizing, pain anxiety) in relation to a surgical outcome measure (i.e., pain intensity, functional status and health-related quality of life) were included in the review. The CHARMS- and QUIPS-tools were used for data extraction and quality assessment, respectively. A best evidence synthesis was performed resulting in conclusions regarding strong, moderate, conflicting, and limited levels of evidence. RESULTS: A total of 24 studies (n = 17,881) were included in this review. Following best evidence synthesis, 3 included studies reported no significant predictive value of preoperative pain-related fear for postoperative pain intensity resulting in moderate evidence for this relationship. Moderate evidence was also found indicating no significant predictive value of preoperative pain-related fear for postoperative functional status, as 6 out of 8 relevant studies reported this result. Only one study reported on the predictive value of preoperative pain catastrophizing for postoperative heal

Pain neuroscience education (PNE) and motivational interviewing (MI) have been widely implemented and tested in the field of chronic pain management, and both strategies have been shown to be effective in the short term (small effect sizes) for the management of chronic pain. PNE uses contemporary pain science to educate patients about the biopsychosocial nature of the chronicity of their pain experience. The goal of PNE is to optimize patients' pain beliefs/perceptions to facilitate the acquisition of adaptive pain coping strategies. MI, on the other hand, is a patient-centered communication style for eliciting and enhancing motivation for behavior change by shifting the patient away from a state of indecision or uncertainty. Conceptually, PNE and MI appear to be complementary interventions, with complementary rather than overlapping effects; MI primarily improves cognitive and behavioral awareness and, potentially, adherence to treatment principles, whereas PNE potentially increases pain knowledge/beliefs, awareness, and willingness to explore psychological factors that are potentially associated with pain. Therefore, combining PNE with MI might lead to improved outcomes with larger and longer-lasting effect sizes. The combined use of PNE and MI in patients having chronic pain is introduced here, along with a description of how clinicians might be able to integrate PNE and MI in the treatment of patients experiencing chronic pain. Clinical trials are needed to examine whether combining PNE with MI is superior to PNE or MI alone for improving pain and quality of life in patients having chronic pain.