Is NICE guidance for identifying lumbar nerve root compression misguided?

Accelerometry-based physical activity, disability and quality of life before and after lumbar decompression surgery from a physiotherapeutic perspective: An observational cohort study

BACKGROUND

The effect of lumbar decompression on physical activity (PA) measures (measured as number of steps/day and as moderate to vigorous PA (MVPA)) is poorly understood. The aim of the current study was to compare PA in patients before and after lumbar decompression and to determine the association between change in steps/day and MVPA with change in disability, health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and pain.

METHODS

Patients undergoing lumbar decompression surgery were recruited. Steps/day and MVPA MVPA were recorded with an accelerometer. Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), HRQOL (Short Form 36 questionnaire (SF-36)) and pain levels (visual analogue scale (VAS)) were collected prior to surgery and six and twelve weeks postoperatively. Steps/day were compared to the lower bound of steps/day in healthy persons (7,000 steps per day), and the relationship between changes in steps/day, MVPA, ODI, SF-36, and VAS were calculated.

RESULTS

Twenty-six patients aged 37 to 75 years met inclusion criteria and were included in the study. Lumbar decompressions were performed for stenosis and/or disc herniation. Preoperatively, patients took an average 5,073±2,621 (mean±standard deviation) steps/day. At 6 weeks postoperatively, patients took 6,131±2,343 steps/day. At 12 weeks postoperatively, patients took 5,683±2,128 steps/day. Postoperative MVPA minutes per week increased compared to preoperative MVPA (preoperative: 94.6±122.9; 6 weeks: 173.9±181.9; 12 weeks: 145.7±132.8). From preoperative to 12 weeks postoperative, change in steps correlated with MVPA (R=0.775; P<0.001), but not with ODI (R=0.069; P=0.739), SF-36 (R=0.138; P=0.371), VAS in the back (R=0.230; P=0.259) or VAS in the leg (R=-0.123; P=0.550).

CONCLUSIONS

During the first 12 postoperative weeks, daily steps did not reach the lower bound of normal step activity of 7,000 steps/day, however postoperative steps/day were higher than before surgery. Steps/day and MVPA appear to be independent of ODI and SF-36 and represent additional outcome parameters in patients undergoing lumbar decompression surgery and should be considered e.g., by physiotherapists especially from 6 to 12 weeks postoperatively.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2, prospective cohort study.

Stratified versus usual care for the management of primary care patients with sciatica: the SCOPiC RCT

BACKGROUND

Sciatica has a substantial impact on patients and society. Current care is 'stepped', comprising an initial period of simple measures of advice and analgesia, for most patients, commonly followed by physiotherapy, and then by more intensive interventions if symptoms fail to resolve. No study has yet tested a model of stratified care in which patients are subgrouped and matched to different care pathways based on their prognosis and clinical characteristics.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives were to investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a stratified care model compared with usual, non-stratified care.

DESIGN

This was a two-parallel group, multicentre, pragmatic, 1 : 1 randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

Participants were recruited from primary care (42 general practices) in North Staffordshire, North Shropshire/Wales and Cheshire in the UK.

PARTICIPANTS

Eligible patients were aged ≥ 18 years, had suspected sciatica, had access to a mobile phone/landline, were not pregnant, were not receiving treatment for the same problem and had not had previous spinal surgery.

INTERVENTIONS

In stratified care, a combination of prognostic and clinical criteria associated with referral to spinal specialist services was used to allocate patients to one of three groups for matched care pathways. Group 1 received advice and up to two sessions of physiotherapy, group 2 received up to six sessions of physiotherapy, and group 3 was fast-tracked to magnetic resonance imaging and spinal specialist opinion. Usual care was based on the stepped-care approach without the use of any stratification tools/algorithms. Patients were randomised using a remote web-based randomisation service.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was time to first resolution of sciatica symptoms (six point ordinal scale, collected via text messages). Secondary outcomes (at 4 and 12 months) included pain, function, psychological health, days lost from work, work productivity, satisfaction with care and health-care use. A cost-utility analysis was undertaken over 12 months. A qualitative study explored patients' and clinicians' views of the fast-track care pathway to a spinal specialist.

RESULTS

A total of 476 patients were randomised (238 in each arm). For the primary outcome, the overall response rate was 89.3% (88.3% and 90.3% in the stratified and usual care arms, respectively). Relief from symptoms was slightly faster (2 weeks median difference) in the stratified care arm, but this difference was not statistically significant (hazard ratio 1.14, 95% confidence interval 0.89 to 1.46; p = 0.288). On average, participants in both arms reported good improvement from baseline, on most outcomes, over time. Following the assessment at the research clinic, most participants in the usual care arm were referred to physiotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

The stratified care model tested in this trial was not more clinically effective than usual care, and was not likely to be a cost-effective option. The fast-track pathway was felt to be acceptable to both patients and clinicians; however, clinicians expressed reluctance to consider invasive procedures if symptoms were of short duration.

LIMITATIONS

Participants in the usual care arm, on average, reported good outcomes, making it challenging to demonstrate superiority of stratified care. The performance of the algorithm used to allocate patients to treatment pathways may have influenced results.

FUTURE WORK

Other approaches to stratified care may provide superior outcomes for sciatica.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN75449581.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 49. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Severity of foraminal lumbar stenosis and the relation to clinical symptoms and response to periradicular infiltration-introduction of the "melting sign"

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Nerve root compression causing symptomatic radiculopathy can occur within the intervertebral foramen. Sagittal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) sequences are reliable in detection of nerve root contact to intraforaminal disc material, but a clinically relevant classification of degree of contact is lacking.

PURPOSE

This study aimed to investigate a potential relation of amount of contact between intraforaminal disc material and nerve root to clinical findings and response after periradicular corticosteroid infiltration.

STUDY DESIGN

A post hoc analysis of a prospective cohort was carried out.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Patients who underwent computed tomography (CT)-guided periradicular corticosteroid infiltration (L1-L5) at our institution (January 2014 to May 2016) were included.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The medical records and radiographic imaging were reviewed.

METHODS

T2-weighted MRI of the lumbar spine of patients with single-level symptomatic radiculopathy with (responders, n=28) or without (non-responders, n=14) pain relief after periradicular infiltration with corticosteroids were measured and compared by two independent readers to determine the amount of intraforaminal nerve root contact with the intervertebral disc ("melting" of the T2-hypointense signal). Pain relief was defined with a pain level decrease of >50% on a visual analogue scale and lack of pain relief with a pain level decrease of <25%, respectively. The amount of T2-hypointensity melting of disc and nerve root was categorized to 0%, 1%-25%, and over 25%.

RESULTS

Reader one identified 0% T2-melting in none of the responders, 1%-25% melting in 13 patients (46.4%), 26%-50% in 15 of the 28 patients (53.6%) with pain relief after periradicular corticosteroid infiltration (responders), with a mean amount of T2-melting of 5.9±2.1 mm, whereas the non-responder group had 0% T2-melting in 2 patients (14.3%), 1%-25% T2-melting in 11 patients (78.6%), and 26%-50% in 1 patient (7.1%), with a mean amount of T2-melting of 2.6±1.9 mm (p<.05). Reader two identified 0% T2-melting in none, 1%-25% T2-melting in 15 (53.6%) patients, and 26%-50% in 13 of the 28 responders (46.4%), with mean amount of 6.3±1.9 mm. In the non-responder group 0% T2-melting was seen in 3 patients (21.4%), 1%-25% T2-melting in 10 patients (71.4%), and 26%-50% in 1 patient (7.1%), with a mean amount of T2-melting of 2.7±1.9 mm (p<.05). None of the MRI showed T2-melting in over 50% of the circumference of the intraforaminal nerve root. A T2-melting of >25% had a high specificity of 93% but a sensitivity of 50%, thus a positive likelihood ratio of 7.5, to identify those with a pain relief of more than 50% after infiltration.

CONCLUSION

The amount of T2-melting of disc material and nerve root on sagittal MRI (>25%) predicts the amount of pain relief by periradicular infiltration in patients with intraforaminal nerve root irritation.

Diagnostic triage for low back pain: a practical approach for primary care

Diagnostic triage is an essential guideline recommendation for low back pain (LBP), which is the most frequent musculoskeletal condition that general practitioners encounter in Australia. Clinical diagnosis of LBP - informed by a focused history and clinical examination - is the key initial step for GPs, and determines subsequent diagnostic workup and allied health and medical specialist referral. The goal of diagnostic triage of LBP is to exclude non-spinal causes and to allocate patients to one of three broad categories: specific spinal pathology (< 1% of cases), radicular syndrome (∼ 5-10% of cases) or non-specific LBP (NSLBP), which represents 90-95% of cases and is diagnosed by exclusion of the first two categories. For specific spinal pathologies (eg, vertebral fracture, malignancy, infection, axial spondyloarthritis or cauda equina syndrome), a clinical assessment may reveal the key alerting features. For radicular syndrome, clinical features distinguish three subsets of nerve root involvement: radicular pain, radiculopathy and spinal stenosis. Differential diagnosis of back-related leg pain is complex and clinical manifestations are highly variable. However, distinctive clusters of characteristic history cues and positive clinical examination signs, particularly from neurological examination, guide differential diagnosis within this triage category. A diagnosis of NSLBP presumes exclusion of specific pathologies and nerve root involvement. A biopsychosocial model of care underpins NSLBP; this includes managing pain intensity and considering risk for disability, which directs matched pathways of care. Back pain is a symptom and not a diagnosis. Careful diagnostic differentiation is required and, in primary care, diagnostic triage of LBP is the anchor for a diagnosis.

A valid model for predicting responsible nerve roots in lumbar degenerative disease with diagnostic doubt

Objective

To construct and validate a model to predict responsible nerve roots in lumbar degenerative disease with diagnostic doubt (DD).

Methods

From January 2009-January 2013, 163 patients with DD were assigned to the construction (n = 106) or validation sample (n = 57) according to different admission times to hospital. Outcome was assessed according to the Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) recovery rate as excellent, good, fair, and poor. The first two results were considered as effective clinical outcome (ECO). Baseline patient and clinical characteristics were considered as secondary variables. A multivariate logistic regression model was used to construct a model with the ECO as a dependent variable and other factors as explanatory variables. The odds ratios (ORs) of each risk factor were adjusted and transformed into a scoring system. Area under the curve (AUC) was calculated and validated in both internal and external samples. Moreover, calibration plot and predictive ability of this scoring system were also tested for further validation.

Results

Patients with DD with ECOs in both construction and validation models were around 76 % (76.4 and 75.5 % respectively). Risk factors: more preoperative visual analog pain scale (VAS) score (OR = 1.56, p < 0.01), stenosis levels of L4/5 or L5/S1 (OR = 1.44, p = 0.04), stenosis locations with neuroforamen (OR = 1.95, p = 0.01), neurological deficit (OR = 1.62, p = 0.01), and more VAS improvement of selective nerve route block (SNRB) (OR = 3.42, p = 0.02). Validation: the internal area under the curve (AUC) was 0.85, and the external AUC was 0.72, with a good calibration plot of prediction accuracy. Besides, the predictive ability of ECOs was not different from the actual results (p = 0.532).

Conclusions

We have constructed and validated a predictive model for confirming responsible nerve roots in patients with DD. The associated risk factors were preoperative VAS score, stenosis levels of L4/5 or L5/S1, stenosis locations with neuroforamen, neurological deficit, and VAS improvement of SNRB. A tool such as this is beneficial in the preoperative counseling of patients, shared surgical decision making, and ultimately improving safety in spine surgery.

The value of lumbar dorsal root ganglion blocks in predicting the response to decompressive surgery in patients with diagnostic doubt

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Pain as a consequence of nerve root compression may not be easy to diagnose. Degenerative changes causing nerve root compression on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are common but not necessarily symptomatic while the distribution of pain attributable to a particular nerve root is variable. Selective dorsal root ganglion blocks (DRGBs) have been used in these situations to aid the diagnostic process, although their use remains controversial.

PURPOSE

We sought to investigate the positive predictive value of DRGBs in predicting response to decompressive surgery on a particular nerve root in a patient cohort with diagnostic uncertainty after clinical examination and MRI.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

This was a retrospective review of prospectively collected data on 100 consecutive patients.

METHODS

One hundred consecutive patients who underwent diagnostic DRGB under the senior author were identified retrospectively. Clinical records were reviewed for the reason for diagnostic uncertainty, level assessed, whether the DRGB reproduced pain typical for the patient's symptoms, whether there was anatomically appropriate sensory and motor disturbance, whether good pain relief was achieved, and whether they had good response to surgery.

RESULTS

Of 100 patients recruited, four were removed from analysis owing to inadequate surgical decompression proven on postoperative MRI. Of the remaining 96 patients, 74 achieved immediate relief in their symptoms after DRGB. Fifty-one patients underwent surgical decompression after a successful root block; 41 patients achieved a good result from this surgery, and 10 did not. Nine patients who had no relief in their symptoms from DRGB still underwent surgery to decompress the same nerve root; six patients had relief of their symptoms from surgery, two did not respond, and one was lost to follow-up. The most common reason for diagnostic uncertainty was multilevel disease (74%) followed by patients with atypical pain (23%). The most common level assessed was the L5 nerve root. The positive predictive value was found to be 80.4%, the negative predictive value was 22.2%, with a sensitivity of 85.4% and a specificity of 16.7%.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with diagnostic doubt, a positive DRGB is a good predictor of a positive outcome after surgery to decompress that nerve root. However, the negative predictive value is poor. This result could almost certainly be improved if there was a better definition of what constitutes a positive, and more importantly a negative, DRGB result. In the meantime, DRGBs are a useful adjunct in predicting the outcome of decompressive surgery in people with pain as a consequence of potential lumbosacral nerve root compression.