Patient journey following lumbar spinal fusion surgery (LSFS): protocol for a multicentre qualitative analysis of the patient rehabilitation experience (FuJourn)

INTRODUCTION: There has been a 65% increase in lumbar spinal fusion surgery (LSFS) worldwide over the last 13 years, with costs of £26 million to the UK National Health Service annually. Patient dissatisfaction with outcome and persistent pain and disability incurs further costs. Three trials provide low-quality evidence for the role of physiotherapy. Our UK surveys investigating physiotherapy/surgeon practice concluded rehabilitation should be tailored to the individual patient owing to considerable clinical heterogeneity. This study will explore the perceptions of patients who undergo LSFS to inform precision rehabilitation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A qualitative study, using interpretive phenomenological analysis, will recruit a purposive sample (n=40) to ensure patterns of similarity and difference in their journeys can be explored. In-depth semistructured interviews will be undertaken following discharge from hospital and at 12 months postsurgery. Patients' preoperative and postoperative experiences, underlying attitudes and beliefs towards the surgical intervention, facilitators and barriers to recovery, adherence to advice and physiotherapy, experiences of rehabilitation and return to normal function/activity/work will be explored. A 12-month patient diary will provide real time access to patient data, capturing a weekly record of life as lived, including symptoms, medication, experiences of stages of recovery, rehabilitation adherence, healthcare professional appointments, attitudes, their feelings and experiences throughout their journey. Data will be analysed in a number of stages in accordance with interpretive phenomenological analysis, supported using NVivo software. Analysis of the first interviews and patient diaries will afford a rich density of data to build an overall understanding of the patients' lived experiences, informing the 12-month interview. Strategies (eg, reflexivity) will ensure trustworthiness. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has ethical approval (IRAS 223283). Findings will ensure that patient-driven data inform precision rehabilitation by understanding the patient journey. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and conferences

Development and validation of two clinical prediction models to inform clinical decision-making for lumbar spinal fusion surgery for degenerative disorders and rehabilitation following surgery: protocol for a prospective observational study

INTRODUCTION: Potential predictors of poor outcome will be measured at baseline: (1) preoperatively to develop a clinical prediction model to predict which patients are likely to have favourable outcome following lumbar spinal fusion surgery (LSFS) and (2) postoperatively to predict which patients are likely to have favourable long-term outcomes (to inform rehabilitation). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Prospective observational study with a defined episode inception of the point of surgery. Electronic data will be collected through the British Spine Registry and will include patient-reported outcome measures (eg, Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire) and data items (eg, smoking status). Consecutive patients (≥18 years) undergoing LSFS for back and/or leg pain of degenerative cause will be recruited. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: LSFS for spinal fracture, inflammatory disease, malignancy, infection, deformity and revision surgery. 1000 participants will be recruited (n=600 prediction model development, n=400 internal validation derived model; planning 10 events per candidate prognostic factor). The outcome being predicted is an individual's absolute risk of poor outcome (disability and pain) at 6 weeks (objective 1) and 12 months postsurgery (objective 2). Disability and pain will be measured using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and severity of pain in the previous week with a Numerical Rating Scale (NRS 0-10), respectively. Good outcome is defined as a change of 1.7 on the NRS for pain, and a change of 14.3 on the ODI. Both linear and logistic (to dichotomise outcome into low and high risk) multivariable regression models will be fitted and mean differences or ORs for each candidate predictive factor reported. Internal validation of the derived model will use a further set of British Spine Registry data. External validation will be geographical using two spinal registries in The Netherlands and Switzerland. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval (University of Birmingham ERN_17-0446A). Dissemination through peer-reviewed journals and conferences

Clinical course of pain and disability following primary lumbar discectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To conduct a meta-analysis to describe clinical course of pain and disability in adult patients post-lumbar discectomy (PROSPERO: CRD42015020806). METHODS: Sensitive topic-based search strategy designed for individual databases was conducted. Patients (>n16 years) following first-time lumbar discectomy for sciatica/radiculopathy with no complications, investigated in inception (point of surgery) prospective cohort studies, were included. Studies including revision surgery or not published in English were excluded. Two reviewers independently searched information sources, assessed eligibility at title/abstract and full-text stages, extracted data, assessed risk of bias (modified QUIPs) and assessed GRADE. Authors were contacted to request raw data where data/variance data were missing. Meta-analyses evaluated outcomes at all available time points using the variance-weighted mean in random-effect meta-analyses. Means and 95% CIs were plotted over time for measurements reported on outcomes of leg pain, back pain and disability. RESULTS: A total of 87 studies (nn=n31,034) at risk of bias (49 moderate, 38 high) were included. Clinically relevant improvements immediately following surgery (>nMCID) for leg pain (0-10, mean before surgery 7.04, 50 studies, nn=n14,910 participants) and disability were identified (0-100, mean before surgery 53.33, 48 studies, nn=n15,037). Back pain also improved (0-10, mean before surgery 4.72, 53 studies, nn=n14,877). Improvement in all outcomes was maintained (to 7 years). Meta-regression analyses to assess the relationship between outcome data and a priori potential covariates found preoperative back pain and disability predictive for outcome. CONCLUSION: Moderate-level evidence supports clinically relevant immediate improvement in leg pain and disability following lumbar discectomy with accompanying improvements in back pain. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material