Cervical fusion for treatment of degenerative conditions: development of appropriate use criteria

Evidence-Based Medicine and Observational Studies

Evidence-based medicine drives medical decision-making in the modern era, which has historically favored randomized control trials. Despite their notoriety, randomized control trials have multiple disadvantages when applied to spinal surgery. Observational studies are popular in spinal surgery literature and are seen in various forms, such as retrospective studies and prospective cohort studies. For researchers, learners, and practicing spine surgeons, this paper describes options for study design when applied to spinal surgery.

The Positive Side Effect of Anterior Cervical Decompression and Fusion on Axial Neck Pain

STUDY DESIGN

Observational Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to comprehensively assess the outcomes of anterior cervical spine surgery in patients who have undergone surgical intervention for radiculopathy or myelopathy, with a specific focus on the surgery's impact on axial neck pain.

METHODS

Data from an institutional spine surgery registry were analyzed for patients who underwent anterior cervical spine surgery between January 2016 and March 2022. Patient demographics, clinical variables, and outcome measures, including the Neck Disability Index (NDI), numeric rating scales for neck and arm pain (NRS-Neck and NRS-Arm), and 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) scores, were collected. Statistical analysis included paired t-tests, chi-squared tests, and multivariate linear regression.

RESULTS

Of 257 patients, 156 met the inclusion criteria. Patients showed significant improvement in NDI, NRS-Neck, NRS-Arm, SF-36 (Physical and Mental components), and all changes exceeded the minimum clinically important difference. Multivariate regression revealed that lower preoperative physical and mental component scores and higher preoperative NRS-Neck predicted worse NDI scores at follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

This study underscores that anterior cervical fusion not only effectively alleviates arm pain and disability but also has a positive impact on axial neck pain, which may not be the primary target of surgery. Our findings emphasize the potential benefits of surgical intervention when neck pain coexists with neurologic compression. This contribution adds to the growing body of evidence emphasizing the importance of precise diagnosis and patient selection. Future research, ideally focusing on patients with isolated neck pain, should further explore alternative surgical approaches to enhance treatment options.

Is neck pain treatable with surgery?

INTRODUCTION

Neck pain is one of the most common complaints in clinical practice and can be caused by a wide variety of conditions. While cervical spine surgery is a well-accepted option for radicular pain and myelopathy, surgery for isolated neck pain is controversial. The identification of the source of pain is challenging and subtle, and misdiagnosis can lead to inappropriate treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a thorough literature review to discuss and compare different causes of neck pain. We then supplemented the literature with our senior author's expert analysis of treating cervical spine pathology.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides an in-depth discussion of neck pain and its various presentations, as well as providing insight into treatment strategies and diagnostic pearls that may prevent mistreatment of cervical spine pathology.

How well can the clinician appraise the patient's perception of the severity and impact of their back problem?

PURPOSE

A main concern of patients with back problems is pain and its impact on function and quality of life. These are subjective phenomena, and should be probed during the clinical consultation so that the physician can ascertain the extent of the problem. This study evaluated the agreement between clinicians' and patients' independent ratings of patient status on the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI).

METHODS

This was an analysis of the data from 5 spine specialists and 108 patients, in two centres. Prior to the consultation, the patient completed the COMI. After the consultation, the clinician (blind to the patient's version) also completed a COMI. Concordance was assessed by % agreement, Kappa values, Bland-Altman plots, Spearman rank, Intraclass Correlation Coefficients and comparisons of mean values, as appropriate.

RESULTS

Agreement regarding the "main problem" (back pain, leg/buttock pain, sensory disturbances, other) was 83%, Kappa = 0.70 (95%CI 0.58-0.81). Moderate/strong correlations were found between the doctors' and patients' COMI-item ratings (0.48-0.74; p < 0.0001), although compared with the patients' ratings the doctors systematically underestimated absolute values for leg pain (p = 0.002) and dissatisfaction with symptom state (p = 0.002), and overestimated how much the patient's function was impaired (p = 0.029).

CONCLUSION

The doctors were able to ascertain the location of the main problem and the multidimensional outcome score with good accuracy, but some individual domains were systematically underestimated (pain, symptom-specific well-being) or overestimated (impairment of function). More detailed/direct questioning on these domains during the consultation might deliver a better appreciation of the impact of the back problem on the patient's daily life.