Time to return to work after elective lumbar spine surgery

Prospects of returning to work after lumbar spine surgery for patients considering disability pension: a nationwide study based on data from the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery

OBJECTIVES

To assess the odds for not returning to work (non-RTW) 1 year after treatment among patients who had applied for or were planning to apply for disability pension (DP-applicant) prior to an operation for degenerative disorders of the lumbar spine.

METHODS

This population-based cohort study from the Norwegian Registry for Spine surgery included 26 688 cases operated for degenerative disorders of the lumbar spine from 2009 to 2020. The primary outcome was RTW (yes/no). Secondary patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were the Oswestry Disability Index, Numeric Rating Scales for back and leg pain, EuroQoL five-dimension and the Global Perceived Effect Scale. Logistic regression analysis was used to investigate associations between being a DP-applicant prior to surgery (exposure), possible confounders (modifiers) at baseline and RTW 12 months after surgery (outcome).

RESULTS

The RTW ratio for DP-applicants was 23.1% (having applied: 26.5%, planning to apply 21.1%), compared with 78.6% among non-applicants. All secondary PROMs were more favourable among non-applicants. After adjusting for all significant confounders (low expectations and pessimism related to working capability, not feeling wanted by the employer and physically demanding work), DP-applicants with under 12 months preoperative sick leave had 3.8 (95% CI 1.8 to 8.0) higher odds than non-applicants for non-RTW 12 months after surgery. The subgroup having applied for disability pension had the strongest impact on this association.

CONCLUSION

Less than a quarter of the DP-applicants returned to work 12 months after surgery. This association remained strong, also when adjusted for the confounders as well as other covariates related RTW.

Negative Chronotropic Cardiovascular Changes in Lumbar Spine Surgery: A Potential Spinal-Cardiac Reflex?

Cardiovascular changes following lumbar spine surgery in a prone position are exceedingly rare. Over the past 20 years, a total of six cases have been published where patients experienced varying degrees of bradycardia, hypotension, and asystole, which could be attributed to intraoperative dural manipulation. As such, there is emerging evidence for a potential neural-mediated spinal-cardiac reflex. The authors report their experience of negative chronotropy during an elective lumbar spine surgery that coincided with dural manipulation and review the available literature. A 34-year-old male presented with a long-standing history of lower back pain recently deteriorating to bilaterally radiating leg pain, with restricted left leg raise, and numbness at the left L5 dermatomal territory. The patient was an athletic police officer with no comorbidities or past medical history. Magnetic resonance imaging lumbosacral spine revealed spinal stenosis most pronounced at L4/L5 and disc bulges at L3/L4 and L5/S1. The patient opted for lumbar decompression surgery. After an unremarkable comprehensive preoperative workup, including cardiac evaluation (electrocardiogram, echocardiogram), the patient was induced general anesthesia in a prone position. A lumbar incision was made from L2 to S1. When the left L4 nerve root was retracted while removing the prolapsed disc at L4/L5, the anesthetist cautioned the surgeon of bradycardia (34 beats per minute [bpm]), and the surgery was immediately stopped. The heart rate improved to 60 bpm within 30 seconds. When the root was later retracted again, a second episode of bradycardia occurred for 4 minutes with heart rate declining to 48 bpm. The surgery was stopped, and after 4 minutes, the anesthetist administered 600 µg of atropine. The heart rate then rose to 73 bpm within 1 minute. Other potential causes for bradycardia were excluded. The total blood loss was estimated to be 100 mL. He remains well at his 6-month follow-up and has returned to work as normal. Akin to previously published cases, each episode of bradycardia coincided with dural manipulation, which may indicate a possible reflex between the spinal dura mater and the cardiovascular system. Such a rare adverse event may occur even in seemingly healthy, young individuals, and anesthetists should caution the operating surgeon of bradycardias to exclude operative manipulation of the dura as the cause. While this phenomenon is only reported in a handful of lumbar spine surgery cases, it provides evidence for a potential spinal-cardiac physiological reflex in the lumbar spine that may be neural mediated and should be investigated further.

Cost consequence analysis of waiting for lumbar disc herniation surgery

The economic repercussions of waiting for lumbar disc surgery have not been well studied. The primary goal of this study was to perform a cost-consequence analysis of patients receiving early vs late surgery for symptomatic disc herniation from a societal perspective. Secondarily, we compared patient factors and patient-reported outcomes. This is a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from the CSORN registry. A cost-consequence analysis was performed where direct and indirect costs were compared, and different outcomes were listed separately. Comparisons were made on an observational cohort of patients receiving surgery less than 60 days after consent (short wait) or 60 days or more after consent (long wait). This study included 493 patients with surgery between January 2015 and October 2021 with 272 patients (55.2%) in the short wait group and 221 patients (44.8%) classified as long wait. There was no difference in proportions of patients who returned to work at 3 and 12-months. Time from surgery to return to work was similar between both groups (34.0 vs 34.9 days, p = 0.804). Time from consent to return to work was longer in the longer wait group corresponding to an additional $11,753.10 mean indirect cost per patient. The short wait group showed increased healthcare usage at 3 months with more emergency department visits (52.6% vs 25.0%, p < 0.032), more physiotherapy (84.6% vs 72.0%, p < 0.001) and more MRI (65.2% vs 41.4%, p < 0.043). This corresponded to an additional direct cost of $518.21 per patient. Secondarily, the short wait group had higher baseline NRS leg, ODI, and lower EQ5D and PCS. The long wait group had more patients with symptoms over 2 years duration (57.6% vs 34.1%, p < 0.001). A higher proportion of patients reached MCID in terms of NRS leg pain at 3-month follow up in the short wait group (84.0% vs 75.9%, p < 0.040). This cost-consequence analysis of an observational cohort showed decreased costs associated with early surgery of $11,234.89 per patient when compared to late surgery for lumbar disc herniation. The early surgery group had more severe symptoms with higher healthcare utilization. This is counterbalanced by the additional productivity loss in the long wait group, which likely have a more chronic disease. From a societal economic perspective, early surgery seems beneficial and should be promoted.

A cost-utility analysis between decompression only and fusion surgery for elderly patients with lumbar spinal stenosis and sagittal imbalance

Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) and sagittal imbalance are relatively common in elderly patients. Although the goals of surgery include both functional and radiological improvements, the criteria of correction may be too strict for elderly patients. If the main symptom of patients is not forward-stooping but neurogenic claudication or pain, lumbar decompression without adding fusion procedure may be a surgical option. We performed cost-utility analysis between lumbar decompression and lumbar fusion surgery for those patients. Elderly patients (age > 60 years) who underwent 1-2 levels lumbar fusion surgery (F-group, n = 31) or decompression surgery (D-group, n = 40) for LSS with sagittal imbalance (C7 sagittal vertical axis, C7-SVA > 40 mm) with follow-up ≥ 2 years were included. Clinical outcomes (Euro-Quality of Life-5 Dimensions, EQ-5D; Oswestry Disability Index, ODI; numerical rating score of pain on the back and leg, NRS-B and NRS-L) and radiological parameters (C7-SVA; lumbar lordosis, LL; the difference between pelvic incidence and lumbar lordosis, PI-LL; pelvic tilt, PT) were assessed. The quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and incremental cost-effective ratio (ICER) were calculated from a utility score of EQ-5D. Postoperatively, both groups attained clinical and radiological improvement in all parameters, but NRS-L was more improved in the F-group (p = 0.048). ICER of F-group over D-group was 49,833 US dollars/QALY. Cost-effective lumbar decompression may be a recommendable surgical option for certain elderly patients, despite less improvement of leg pain than with fusion surgery.

Preoperative Resilience and Early Postoperative Outcomes following Lumbar Spinal Fusion

BACKGROUND

Previous studies identified a correlation between preoperative resilience scores and patient reported outcome measures in several surgical subspecialities. No previous studies, to our knowledge, have analyzed preoperative resilience and patient reported outcomes in lumbar spinal fusion.

METHODS

Patients undergoing lumbar spinal fusion completed the brief resilience scale preoperatively, in addition to measures of disability (Oswestry Disability index (ODI)), quality of life (PROMIS global physical and mental health scales and EuroQOL5], and leg and back pain (VAS) at pre- and 3-months postoperatively. The 3-month follow-up was selected due to the association with return to work. Multiple linear regression evaluated relationships between resilience and postoperative changes in outcomes measures, controlling for baseline values and body mass index, age, number of levels fused, and severity of comorbidities.

RESULTS

Ninety-five participants (mean age = 58 years, 56% male) completed the BRS preoperatively and outcome measures before and 3-months after lumbar fusion. On average, participants reported significant postoperative improvements on all outcome measures (p<.001). Higher preoperative resilience scores related to greater postoperative improvements in back and leg pain, global mental and physical health and EuroQol scores (p<0.05), after controlling for baseline values and other covariates. Resilience scores did not significantly correlate with postoperative changes in ODI (p>0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative resilience is associated with improvement in pain, physical and mental health quality of life during the early postoperative period following lumbar spinal fusion. Additional research is needed to determine if improvements are maintained beyond this interval and whether resilience can be modified to optimize outcomes.