Would loss to follow-up bias the outcome evaluation of patients operated for degenerative disorders of the lumbar spine?: A study of responding and non-responding cohort participants from a clinical spine surgery registry

Loss to follow-up may bias the outcome assessments of clinical registries. In this study, we wanted to determine whether outcomes were different in responding and non-responding patients who were included in a clinical spine surgery registry, at two years of follow-up. In addition, we wanted to identify risk factors for failure to respond. 633 patients who were operated for degenerative disorders of the lumbar spine were followed for 2 years using a local clinical spine registry. Those who did not attend the clinic and those who did not answer a postal questionnaire—for whom 2 years of outcome data were missing—and who would be lost to follow-up according to the standard procedures of the registry protocols, were defined as non-respondents. They were traced and interviewed by telephone. Outcome measures were: improvement in health-related quality of life (EQ-5D), leg pain, and back pain; and also general state of health, employment status, and perceived benefits of the operation. We found no statistically significant differences in outcome between respondents (78% of the patients) and nonrespondents (22%). Receipt of postal questionnaires (not being summoned for a follow-up visit) was the strongest risk factor for failure to respond. Forgetfulness appeared to be an important cause. Older patients and those who had complications were more likely to respond. Interpretation A loss to follow-up of 22% would not bias conclusions about overall treatment effects and, importantly, there were no indications of worse outcomes in non-respondents

Long-term results after Boston brace treatment in late-onset juvenile and adolescent idiopathic scoliosis

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>It is recommended that research in patients with idiopathic scoliosis should focus on short- and long-term patient-centred outcome. The aim of the present study was to evaluate outcome in patients with late-onset juvenile or adolescent idiopathic scoliosis 16 years or more after Boston brace treatment.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>272 (78%) of 360 patients, 251 (92%) women, responded to follow-up examination at a mean of 24.7 (range 16 - 32) years after Boston brace treatment. Fifty-eight (21%) patients had late-onset juvenile and 214 had adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. All patients had clinical and radiological examination and answered a standardised questionnaire including work status, demographics, General Function Score (GFS) (100 - worst possible) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) (100 - worst possible), EuroQol (EQ-5D) (1 - best possible), EQ-VAS (100 - best possible), and Scoliosis Research Society - 22 (SRS - 22) (5 - best possible).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The mean age at follow-up was 40.4 (31-48) years. The prebrace major curve was in average 33.2 (20 - 57)°. At weaning and at the last follow-up the corresponding values were 28.3 (1 - 58)° and 32.5 (7 - 80)°, respectively. Curve development was similar in patients with late-onset juvenile and adolescent start. The prebrace curve increased > 5° in 31% and decreased > 5° in 26%. Twenty-five patients had surgery. Those who did not attend follow-up (n = 88) had a lower mean curve at weaning: 25.4 (6-53)°. Work status was 76% full-time and 10% part-time. Eighty-seven percent had delivered a baby, 50% had pain in pregnancy. The mean (SD) GFS was 7.4 (10.8), ODI 9.3 (11.0), EQ-5D 0.82 (0.2), EQ-VAS 77.6 (17.8), SRS-22: pain 4.1 (0.8), mental health 4.1 (0.6), self-image 3.7 (0.7), function 4.0 (0.6), satisfaction with treatment 3.7 (1.0). Surgical patients had significantly reduced scores for SRS-physical function and self-image, and patients with curves ≥ 45° had reduced self-image.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Long-term results were satisfactory in most braced patients and similar in late-onset juvenile and idiopathic adolescent scoliosis.</p

Cost effectiveness of disc prosthesis versus lumbar fusion in patients with chronic low back pain: randomized controlled trial with 2-year follow-up

This randomized controlled health economic study assesses the cost-effectiveness of the concept of total disc replacement (TDR) (Charité/Prodisc/Maverick) when compared with the concept of instrumented lumbar fusion (FUS) [posterior lumbar fusion (PLF) /posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF)]. Social and healthcare perspectives after 2 years are reported. In all, 152 patients were randomized to either TDR (n = 80) or lumbar FUS (n = 72). Cost to society (total mean cost/patient, Swedish kronor = SEK, standard deviation) for TDR was SEK 599,560 (400,272), and for lumbar FUS SEK 685,919 (422,903) (ns). The difference was not significant: SEK 86,359 (−45,605 to 214,332). TDR was significantly less costly from a healthcare perspective, SEK 22,996 (1,202 to 43,055). Number of days on sick leave among those who returned to work was 185 (146) in the TDR group, and 252 (189) in the FUS group (ns). Using EQ-5D, the total gain in quality adjusted life years (QALYs) over 2 years was 0.41 units for TDR and 0.40 units for FUS (ns). Based on EQ-5D, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of using TDR instead of FUS was difficult to analyze due to the “non-difference” in treatment outcome, which is why cost/QALY was not meaningful to define. Using cost-effectiveness probabilistic analysis, the net benefit (with CI) was found to be SEK 91,359 (−73,643 to 249,114) (ns). We used the currency of 2006 where 1 EURO = 9.26 SEK and 1 USD = 7.38 SEK. It was not possible to state whether TDR or FUS is more cost-effective after 2 years. Since disc replacement and lumbar fusion are based on different conceptual approaches, it is important to follow these results over time

How to increase earthquake and home fire preparedness: the fix-it intervention

Published, evaluated community intervention studies concerning natural hazard preparedness are rare. Most lack a rigorous methodology, thereby hampering the development of evidence-based interventions. This paper describes the rationale and methodology of a cross-cultural, longitudinal intervention study on earthquake and home fire preparedness, termed fix-it. The aim is to evaluate whether and how the intervention brings about behaviour change in the targeted communities in two coastal cities with high seismic risk: Seattle, USA and Izmir, Turkey. Participants are adult residents of these cities. The intervention group attends a 6-h workshop, which focuses on securing items in the household. The control group does not attend the workshop. All participants complete baseline and post-intervention, as well as 3- and 12-month follow-up assessments. The primary outcome measure is an observational measure of nine preparedness items for earthquake and fire in participants’ homes. This is evaluated alongside participants’ self-reports concerning their preparedness levels. Secondary outcomes are changes in levels of self-efficacy, perceived outcome, trust, corruption, empowerment, anxiety and social cohesion. Results from the first of the studies, conducted in Seattle in September 2015, indicate that while the fix-it intervention is effective, in the longer term, multi-hazard preparedness is increased by the mere act of going into people’s homes to observe their preparedness levels along with assessing self-reported preparedness and sociopsychological orientation towards natural hazards. This protocol and study aim to augment the empirical literature on natural hazard preparedness, informing national and international policy on delivery of evidence-based community interventions to promote multi-hazard preparedness in households

Function after spinal treatment, exercise and rehabilitation (FASTER): improving the functional outcome of spinal surgery

Background: The life-time incidence of low back pain is high and diagnoses of spinal stenosis and disc prolapse are increasing. Consequently, there is a steady rise in surgical interventions for these conditions. Current evidence suggests that while the success of surgery is incomplete, it is superior to conservative interventions. A recent survey indicates that there are large differences in the type and intensity of rehabilitation, if any, provided after spinal surgery as well as in the restrictions and advice given to patients in the post-operative period. This trial will test the hypothesis that functional outcome following two common spinal operations can be improved by a programme of post-operative rehabilitation that combines professional support and advice with graded active exercise and/or an educational booklet based on evidence-based messages and advice.Methods/Design: The study design is a multi-centre, factorial, randomised controlled trial with patients stratified by surgeon and operative procedure. The trial will compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a rehabilitation programme and an education booklet for the postoperative management of patients undergoing discectomy or lateral nerve root decompression, each compared with "usual care" using a 2 x 2 factorial design. The trial will create 4 sub-groups; rehabilitation-only, booklet-only, rehabilitation-plus-booklet, and usual care only. The trial aims to recruit 344 patients, which equates to 86 patients in each of the four sub-groups. All patients will be assessed for functional ability (through the Oswestry Disability Index - a disease specific functional questionnaire), pain (using visual analogue scales), and satisfaction pre-operatively and then at 6 weeks, 3, 6 and 9 months and 1 year post-operatively. This will be complemented by a formal analysis of cost-effectiveness.Discussion: This trial will determine whether the outcome of spinal surgery can be enhanced by either a postoperative rehabilitation programme or an evidence-based advice booklet or a combination of the two and as such will contribute to our knowledge on how to manage spinal surgery patients in the post-operative period

Specific treatment of problems of the spine (STOPS): design of a randomised controlled trial comparing specific physiotherapy versus advice for people with subacute low back disorders

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Low back disorders are a common and costly cause of pain and activity limitation in adults. Few treatment options have demonstrated clinically meaningful benefits apart from advice which is recommended in all international guidelines. Clinical heterogeneity of participants in clinical trials is hypothesised as reducing the likelihood of demonstrating treatment effects, and sampling of more homogenous subgroups is recommended. We propose five subgroups that allow the delivery of specific physiotherapy treatment targeting the pathoanatomical, neurophysiological and psychosocial components of low back disorders. The aim of this article is to describe the methodology of a randomised controlled trial comparing specific physiotherapy treatment to advice for people classified into five subacute low back disorder subgroups.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>A multi-centre parallel group randomised controlled trial is proposed. A minimum of 250 participants with subacute (6 weeks to 6 months) low back pain and/or referred leg pain will be classified into one of five subgroups and then randomly allocated to receive either physiotherapy advice (2 sessions over 10 weeks) or specific physiotherapy treatment (10 sessions over 10 weeks) tailored according to the subgroup of the participant. Outcomes will be assessed at 5 weeks, 10 weeks, 6 months and 12 months following randomisation. Primary outcomes will be activity limitation measured with a modified Oswestry Disability Index as well as leg and back pain intensity measured on separate 0-10 Numerical Rating Scales. Secondary outcomes will include a 7-point global rating of change scale, satisfaction with physiotherapy treatment, satisfaction with treatment results, the Sciatica Frequency and Bothersomeness Scale, quality of life (EuroQol-5D), interference with work, and psychosocial risk factors (Orebro Musculoskeletal Pain Questionnaire). Adverse events and co-interventions will also be measured. Data will be analysed according to intention to treat principles, using linear mixed models for continuous outcomes, Mann Whitney U tests for ordinal outcomes, and Chi-square, risk ratios and risk differences for dichotomous outcomes.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This trial will determine the difference in outcomes between specific physiotherapy treatment tailored to each of the five subgroups versus advice which is recommended in guidelines as a suitable treatment for most people with a low back disorder.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register (ANZCTR): <a href="http://www.anzctr.org.au/ACTRN12609000834257.aspx">ACTRN12609000834257</a>.</p