Chronic non-specific low back pain - sub-groups or a single mechanism?

Copyright 2008 Wand and O'Connell; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.Background: Low back pain is a substantial health problem and has subsequently attracted a considerable amount of research. Clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of a variety of interventions for chronic non-specific low back pain indicate limited effectiveness for most commonly applied interventions and approaches. Discussion: Many clinicians challenge the results of clinical trials as they feel that this lack of effectiveness is at odds with their clinical experience of managing patients with back pain. A common explanation for this discrepancy is the perceived heterogeneity of patients with chronic non-specific low back pain. It is felt that the effects of treatment may be diluted by the application of a single intervention to a complex, heterogeneous group with diverse treatment needs. This argument presupposes that current treatment is effective when applied to the correct patient. An alternative perspective is that the clinical trials are correct and current treatments have limited efficacy. Preoccupation with sub-grouping may stifle engagement with this view and it is important that the sub-grouping paradigm is closely examined. This paper argues that there are numerous problems with the sub-grouping approach and that it may not be an important reason for the disappointing results of clinical trials. We propose instead that current treatment may be ineffective because it has been misdirected. Recent evidence that demonstrates changes within the brain in chronic low back pain sufferers raises the possibility that persistent back pain may be a problem of cortical reorganisation and degeneration. This perspective offers interesting insights into the chronic low back pain experience and suggests alternative models of intervention. Summary: The disappointing results of clinical research are commonly explained by the failure of researchers to adequately attend to sub-grouping of the chronic non-specific low back pain population. Alternatively, current approaches may be ineffective and clinicians and researchers may need to radically rethink the nature of the problem and how it should best be managed

Development of the "Core Yellow Flags Index" (CYFI) as a brief instrument for the assessment of key psychological factors in patients undergoing spine surgery

Background: Depression, anxiety, catastrophising, and fear-avoidance beliefs are key "yellow flags" (YFs) that predict a poor outcome in back patients. Most surgeons acknowledge the importance of YFs but have difficulty assessing them due to the complexity of the instruments used for their measurement and time constraints during consultations. We performed a secondary analysis of existing questionnaire data to develop a brief tool to enable the systematic evaluation of YFs and then tested it in clinical practice. Methods: The following questionnaire datasets were available from a total of 932 secondary/tertiary care patients (61 ± 16 years; 51% female): pain catastrophising (N = 347); ZUNG depression (N = 453); Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (anxiety subscale) (N = 308); fear-avoidance beliefs (N = 761). The single item that best represented the full-scale score was identified, to form the 4-item "Core Yellow Flags Index" (CYFI). 2422 patients (64 ± 16 years; 54% female) completed CYFI and a Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) before lumbar spine surgery, and a COMI 3 and 12 months later (FU). Results: The item-total correlation for each item with its full-length questionnaire was: 0.77 (catastrophising), 0.67 (depression), 0.69 (anxiety), 0.68 (fear-avoidance beliefs). Cronbach's α for the CYFI was 0.79. Structural equation modelling showed CYFI uniquely explained variance (p < 0.001) in COMI at both the 3- and 12-month FUs (β = 0.11 (women), 0.24 (men); and β = 0.13 (women), β = 0.14 (men), respectively). Conclusion: The 4-item CYFI proved to be a simple, practicable tool for routinely assessing key psychological attributes in spine surgery patients and made a relevant contribution in predicting postoperative outcome. CYFI's items were similar to those in the "STarT Back screening tool" used in primary care to triage patients into treatment pathways, further substantiating its validity. Wider use of CYFI may help improve the accuracy of predictive models derived using spine registry data. Keywords: Core Yellow Flags Index (CYFI); Outcome; Registry data; SPINE surgery; Yellow flags

Adult degenerative scoliosis: comparison of patient-rated outcome after three different surgical treatments

L

Posterior vertebral column resection in early onset spinal deformities

PURPOSE: Early onset spinal deformities (EOSD) can be life-threatening in very young children. In the growing spine, surgical intervention is often unavoidable and should be carried out as soon as possible. A deformed section of the spine not only affects the development of the remaining healthy spine, but also that of the chest wall (which influences pulmonary function), the extremities and body balance. Posterior vertebral column resection (PVCR) represents an effective surgical solution to address such problems. However, reports in the literature concerning PVCR are mostly limited to its use in adolescents or adults. The purpose of this study was to illustrate our experience with PVCR in EOSD and to describe the surgical technique with respect to the unique anatomy of young children. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four children [mean age 3.7 (range 2.5-5.2) years] with severe spinal deformity underwent PVCR through a single approach. Multimodal intraoperative monitoring was used in all cases. Surgery included one stage posterior circumferential resection of one vertebral body along with the adjoining intervertebral discs and removal of all posterior elements. A transpedicular screw-rod system was used for correction and stabilisation. Fusion was strictly limited to the resection site, allowing for later conversion into a growing rod construct at the remaining spine, if necessary. Relevant data were extracted retrospectively from patient charts and long spine radiographs. RESULTS: The mean operation time was 500 (range 463-541) min, with an estimated blood loss of 762 (range 600-1,050) ml. Mean follow-up time was 6.3 (range 3.5-12.4) years. After PVCR, the mean Cobb angle for scoliosis was reduced from 69° (range 50-99°) to 29° (5-44°) and the sagittal curvature (kyphosis) from 126° (87-151°) to 61° (47-75°). The mean correction of scoliosis was 57 % (18-92°) and of kyphosis, 51 % (44-62°). There were no spinal cord-related complications. In three patients, spinal instrumentation for growth guidance (fusion less growing rod technique) was applied. Two patients had complications: one patient had a complication of anesthesia, halo pin failure, and revision surgery with extension of the instrumentation cranially due to loss of correction; the second patient had a postoperative infection, which required plastic reconstructive measures. CONCLUSION: PVCR appears to be an effective technique to treat severe EOSD. There are important differences in its use in young children when compared with older patients. In patients with EOSD, additional surgical procedures are often necessary during growth, and hence non-fusion instrumentation beyond the vertebral resection site is advantageous, as it permits spinal growth and the later addition of fusion

Validity of a single-item measure to assess leg or back pain as the predominant symptom in patients with degenerative disorders of the lumbar spine

L

A novel use of the Spine Tango registry to evaluate selection bias in patient recruitment into clinical studies: an analysis of patients participating in the Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Outcome Study (LSOS)

PURPOSE Patients enrolled in clinical studies typically represent a sub-set of all who are eligible, and selection bias may compromise the generalizability of the findings. Using Registry data, we evaluated whether surgical patients recruited by one of the referring centres into the Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Outcome Study (LSOS; a large-scale, multicentre prospective observational study to determine the probability of clinical benefit after surgery) differed in any significant way from those who were eligible but not enrolled. METHODS Data were extracted for all patients with lumbar spinal stenosis registered in our in-house database (interfaced to Eurospine's Spine Tango Registry) from 2011 to 2013. Patient records and imaging were evaluated in relation to the admission criteria for LSOS to identify those who would have been eligible for participation but were not enrolled (non-LSOS). The Tango surgery data and Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) data at baseline and 3 and 12 months after surgery were analysed to evaluate the factors associated with LSOS enrolment or not. RESULTS 514 potentially eligible patients were identified, of which 94 (18%) were enrolled into LSOS (range 2-48% for the 6 spine surgeons involved in recruiting patients) and 420 (82%) were not; the vast majority of the latter were due to non-referral to the study by the surgeon, with only 5% actually refusing participation. There was no significant difference in gender, age, BMI, smoking status, or ASA score between the two groups (p ≥ 0.18). Baseline COMI was significantly (p = 0.002) worse in the non-LSOS group (7.4 ± 1.9) than the LSOS group (6.7 ± 1.9). There were no significant group differences in any Tango surgery parameters (additional spine patholothegies, operation time, blood loss, complications, etc.) although significantly more patients in the non-LSOS group had a fusion procedure (38 vs 18% in LSOS; p = 0.0004). Postoperatively, neither the COMI nor its subdomain scores differed significantly between the groups (p > 0.05). Multiple logistic regression revealed that worse baseline COMI (p = 0.021), surgeon (p = 0.003), and having fusion (p = 0.014) predicted non-enrolment in LSOS. CONCLUSION A high proportion of eligible patients were not enrolled in the study. Non-enrolment was explained in part by the specific surgeon, worse baseline COMI status, and having a fusion. The findings may reflect a tendency of the referring surgeon not to overburden more disabled patients and those undergoing more extensive surgery with the commitments of a study. Beyond these factors, non-enrolment appeared to be somewhat arbitrary, and was likely related to surgeon forgetfulness, time constraints, and administrative errors. Researchers should be aware of potential selection bias in their clinical studies, measure it (where possible) and discuss its implications for the interpretation of the study's findings