Outcome evaluation of the operative management of lumbar disc herniation causing sciatica

Lumbar Disc Herniation—the Significance of Symptom Duration for the Indication for Surgery

BACKGROUND

Lumbar disc surgery is among the more common spinal procedures. In this paper, we report the current treatment recommendations for patients with symptomatic disc herniation.

METHODS

This review is based on pertinent publications retrieved by a selective literature search in PubMed using the terms [timing] AND [lumbar disc herniation], supplemented by other relevant articles and guidelines.

RESULTS

Symptoms resolve in 60% to 80% of patients with herniated discs in 6-12 weeks, and in 80% to 90% over the long term (≥ 1 year). According to the guidelines, 6-12 weeks of conservative treatment are recommended in the absence of significant neu - rologic deficits. Early surgery is indicated in case of worsening pain or new onset of neurologic deficits. Lumbar disc herniation associated bladder or bowel dysfunction (cauda equina syndrome) is considered an absolute surgical emergency that requires immediate decompression (within 24 to 48 hours). Patients with severe motor deficits (MRC ≤ 3/5) benefit from early intervention and should be offered surgery within three days, if possible, for the best chance of recovery. The degree of weakness and the duration of symptoms have been identified as risk factors for incomplete recovery. Early surgery can be considered in patients with mild paresis (MRC 4/5) in case of functional impairment (e.g., quadriceps paresis).

CONCLUSION

Longer symptom duration and lower motor scores are associated with worse outcome and a lower chance of neurologic recovery. The recovery rate for motor deficits ranges from 33% to 75%, depending on the timing and modality of treatment as well as the motor score.

Risk factors for prolonged length of stay after first single-level lumbar microdiscectomy

OBJECTIVE

The objective is to identify risk factors that potentially prolong the hospital stay in patients after undergoing first single-level open lumbar microdiscectomy.

METHODS

A retrospective single-centre study was conducted. Demographic data, medical records, intraoperative course, and imaging studies were analysed. The outcome measure was defined by the number of days stayed after the operation. A prolonged length of stay (LOS) stay was defined as a minimum of one additional day beyond the median hospital stay in our patient collective. Bivariate analysis and multiple stepwise regression were used to identify independent factors related to the prolonged hospital stay.

RESULTS

Two hundred consecutive patients who underwent first lumbar microdiscectomy between 2018 and 2022 at our clinic were included in this study. Statistical analysis of factors potentially prolonging postoperative hospital stay was done for a total of 24 factors, seven of them were significantly related to prolonged LOS in bivariate analysis. Sex (p = 0.002, median 5 vs. 4 days for females vs. males) and age (rs = 0.35, p ≤ 0.001, N = 200) were identified among the examined demographic factors. Regarding preoperative physical status, preoperative immobility reached statistical significance (p ≤ 0.001, median 5 vs. 4 days). Diabetes mellitus (p = 0.043, median 5 vs. 4 days), anticoagulation and/or antiplatelet agents (p = 0.045, median 5 vs. 4 days), and postoperative narcotic consumption (p ≤ 0.001, median 5 vs. 4 days) as comorbidities were associated with a prolonged hospital stay. Performance of nucleotomy (p = 0.023, median 5 vs. 4 days) was a significant intraoperative factor. After linear stepwise multivariable regression, only preoperative immobility (p ≤ 0.001) was identified as independent risk factors for prolonged length of postoperative hospital stay.

CONCLUSION

Our study identified preoperative immobility as a significant predictor of prolonged hospital stay, highlighting its value in preoperative assessments and as a tool to pinpoint at-risk patients. Prospective clinical trials with detailed assessment of mobility, including grading, need to be done to verify our results.

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.

Emerging Issues Questioning the Current Treatment Strategies for Lumbar Disc Herniation

Lumbar disc herniation is among the common phenotypes of degenerative lumbar spine diseases, significantly affecting patients' quality of life. The practice pattern is diverse. Choosing conservative measures or surgical treatments is still controversial in some areas. For those who have failed conservative treatment, surgery with or without instrumentation is recommended, causing significant expenditures and frustrating complications, that should not be ignored. In the article, we performed a literature review and summarized the evidence by subheadings to unravel the cons of surgical intervention for lumbar disc herniation. There are tetrad critical issues about surgical treatment of lumbar disc herniation, i.e., favorable natural history, insufficient evidence in a recommendation of fusion surgery for patients, metallosis, and implant removal. Firstly, accumulating evidence reveals immune privilege and auto-immunity hallmarks of human lumbar discs within the closed niche. Progenitor cells within human discs further expand the capacity with the endogenous repair. Clinical watchful follow-up studies with repeated diagnostic imaging reveal spontaneous resolution for lumbar disc herniation, even calcified tissues. Secondly, emerging evidence indicates long-term complications of lumbar fusion, such as adjacent segment disease, pseudarthrosis, implant failure, and sagittal spinal imbalance, which get increasing attention. Thirdly, systemic and local reactions (metallosis) for metal instrumentation have been noted with long-term health concerns and toxicity. Fourthly, the indications and timing for spinal implant removal have not reached a consensus. Other challenging issues include postoperative lumbar stiffness. The review provided evidence from a negative perspective for surgeons and patients who attempt to choose surgical treatment. Collectively, the emerging underlying evidence questions the benefits of traditional surgery for patients with lumbar disc herniation. Therefore, the long-term effects of surgery should be closely observed. Surgical decisions should be made prudently for each patient.

Percutaneous intradiscal injection of radiopaque gelified ethanol: short- and long-term functional outcome and complication rate in a consecutive series of patients with lumbar disc herniation

Lumbar disc herniation (LDH) is a common cause of low back pain (LBP) and/or radicular pain (RP). Over the years, different therapies have been proposed to treat symptomatic LDH, including different minimally invasive techniques and open surgical methods. Recently, percutaneous intradiscal injection of radiopaque gelified ethanol (RGE) DiscoGel^® has emerged as an effective therapeutic option in patients with LDH. Nevertheless, only few studies addressed the reliability of this technique. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of this procedure. We analysed surgical and outcome data of patients with small or medium LDH treated by DiscoGel between 2012 to 2015. Outcome variables included pain relief, the limitation on physical activity and severity of depression status. Overall, complication rate was defined as the occurrence of any perioperative adverse events. A total of 94 consecutive patients were enrolled in the study. Pain relief was achieved in 90.6% and 88.8% of patients at 1- and 4-year follow-up, respectively. At the last follow-up, at least a satisfactory result was achieved in 92.5% of patients. Similar results were obtained in the limitation on physical activity. Depression status did not significantly change after treatment. There was no mortality, and no patients experienced permanent sequelae. In well-selected patients, DiscoGel has proved effective in maintaining excellent functional results in terms of pain relief and limitation on physical activity while minimizing the overall rate of complications related to these kinds of surgical procedures.

Timing of Surgery in Tubular Microdiscectomy for Lumbar Disc Herniation and Its Effect on Functional Impairment Outcomes

Objective

While it has been established that surgery for lumbar disc herniation, excluding emergent indications, should only be performed after weeks of conservative treatment, it has also been established that late surgery is associated with poorer outscomes in terms of leg pain. However, nothing is known concerning the timinig and functional outcome. We quantify the association of time to surgery (TTS) with functional impairment outcome and identify a maximum TTS cutoff.

Methods

A consecutive series of patients who underwent tubular microdiscectomy for lumbar disc herniation was included. A reduction of ≥ 30% in the Oswestry Disability Index from baseline to 12 months was defined as the minimum clinically important difference (MCID). TTS was defined as time of symptom onset to surgery in weeks. The maximum TTS cutoffs were derived both quantitatively by an area under the curve (AUC) analysis, as well as qualitatively based on cutoff-specific MCID rates.

Results

Inclusion was met by 372 patients, among which 327 (87.9%) achieved MCID. MCID achievement was associated with lower TTS (hazard ratio, 0.725; 95% confidence interval, 0.557–0.944; p = 0.014). The optimum maximum TTS based on AUC was 21.5 weeks. The qualitative analysis showed a continuous drop of MCID rates with increasing TTS, with values > 80% until week 14.

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that longer TTS is associated with a poorer patient-reported outcome in terms of functional impairment, and that—depending on the calculation method and according to the literature—a maximum TTS of between 14 to 22 weeks should likely be aimed for.

Predictors of Treatment Success Following Limited Discectomy With Annular Closure for Lumbar Disc Herniation

Background

Previous studies have demonstrated bone-anchored annular closure to significantly reduce reherniation and reoperation rates after lumbar discectomy in patients with large annular defects. It is important to identify the prognostic factors that may be associated with successful treatment. This study aimed to identify predictors of treatment success in patients with lumbar disc herniation treated with limited microdiscectomy supplemented by a bone-anchored annular closure device (ACD).

Methods

This study was a retrospective analysis of 133 consecutive patients with lumbar disc herniation treated with the ACD. Treatment success was defined as ≥24% improvement in visual analog scale (VAS) for back pain, ≥39% improvement in VAS leg pain, and ≥33% in the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), with the raw ODI score ≤48. Success was calculated at 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. Potentially predictive outcomes included patient characteristics, operative data, and imaging outcomes, such as disc, facet, and end plate morphology. Logistic regression was used to determine the significant predictive factors for treatment success.

Results

After 3, 6, and 12 months, 97 of 131 (74%), 104 of 129 (81%), and 112 of 126 (89%) patients, respectively, achieved the success criteria. At 3 months follow-up, a higher proportion of younger (17-40 years) versus older (41-65 years) patients met the success criteria (P = .025). On the basis of logistic regression, the following factors were significantly associated with treatment success at 1 or more of the follow-up time points: sex (male), lower body mass index, higher baseline pain and ODI scores, lower grade preoperative disc degeneration, and the absence of a postoperative complication. The rates of index-level recurrent herniation and reoperation were 1.5% and 3.0%, respectively.

Conclusions

This real-world evidence supports a promising benefit-risk profile for augmenting limited microdiscectomy with a bone-anchored ACD and provides some insights into the patient populations that may have a greater chance of realizing significant improvements in pain and function.

Level of Evidence

2 (Cohort study).

Quality of Life in Patients Undergoing Spine Surgery: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

STUDY DESIGN

Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE

Despite the increasing importance of tracking clinical outcomes using valid patient-reported outcome measures, most providers do not routinely obtain baseline preoperative health-related quality of life (HRQoL) data in patients undergoing spine surgery, precluding objective outcomes analysis in individual practices. We conducted a meta-analysis of pre- and postoperative HRQoL data obtained from the most commonly published instruments to use as reference values.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and an institutional registry for studies reporting EQ-5D, SF-6D, and Short Form-36 Physical Component Summary scores in patients undergoing surgery for degenerative cervical and lumbar spinal conditions published between 2000 and 2014. Observational data was pooled meta-analytically using an inverse variance-weighted, random-effects model, and statistical comparisons were performed.

RESULTS

Ninety-nine articles were included in the final analysis. Baseline HRQoL scores varied by diagnosis for each of the 3 instruments. On average, postoperative HRQoL scores significantly improved following surgical intervention for each diagnosis using each instrument. There were statistically significant differences in baseline utility values between the EQ-5D and SF-6D instruments for all lumbar diagnoses.

CONCLUSIONS

The pooled HRQoL values presented in this study may be used by practitioners who would otherwise be precluded from quantifying their surgical outcomes due to a lack of baseline data. The results highlight differences in HRQoL between different degenerative spinal diagnoses, as well as the discrepancy between 2 common utility-based instruments. These findings emphasize the need to be cognizant of the specific instruments used when comparing the results of outcome studies.

Entertaining accurate treatment expectations while suffering from chronic pain: an exploration of treatment expectations and the relationship with patient- provider communication

BACKGROUND

Accurate patient expectations are important to optimise treatment success, especially for complex conditions such as chronic pain. Communication may be the key to managing patient expectations. This study aimed to explore whether health care provider communication influences patient expectations and which communication aspects are most important.

METHODS

We conducted secondary analyses on data that had been collected between September and November 2012. 2603 patients suffering from chronic pain were invited to complete a survey.

RESULTS

Although 69.9% of patients achieved or surpassed their treatment goal, 30.2% of patients were unsatisfied. Even though overall health care provider communication and shared decision making were unrelated to patient expectations, several affective communication aspects were related. These aspects were attentive listening, taking enough time, building patient's trust in the physician's competence and giving patients the feeling that the physician is doing all he or she can (p's < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Even though treatment goals are not always explicitly discussed, patients still form expectations regarding treatment outcomes. Affective communication may be more important for managing patient expectations than sharing information. Building a good therapeutic relationship by showing affective communication may be important to increase the accuracy of patient expectations.

Physical prognostic factors predicting outcome following lumbar discectomy surgery: systematic review and narrative synthesis

BACKGROUND

Success rates for lumbar discectomy are estimated as 78-95% patients at 1-2 years post-surgery, supporting its effectiveness. However, ongoing pain and disability is an issue for some patients, and recurrence contributing to reoperation is reported. It is important to identify prognostic factors predicting outcome to inform decision-making for surgery and rehabilitation following surgery. The objective was to determine whether pre-operative physical factors are associated with post-operative outcomes in adult patients [≥16 years old] undergoing lumbar discectomy or microdiscectomy.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted according to a registered protocol [PROSPERO CRD42015024168]. Key electronic databases were searched [PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PEDro and ZETOC] using pre-defined terms [e.g. radicular pain] to 31/3/2017; with additional searching of journals, reference lists and unpublished literature. Prospective cohort studies with ≥1-year follow-up, evaluating candidate physical prognostic factors [e.g. leg pain intensity and straight leg raise test], in adult patients undergoing lumbar discectomy/microdiscectomy were included. Two reviewers independently searched information sources, evaluated studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias [QUIPS]. GRADE determined the overall quality of evidence.

RESULTS

1189 title and abstracts and 45 full texts were assessed, to include 6 studies; 1 low and 5 high risk of bias. Meta-analysis was not possible [risk of bias, clinical heterogeneity]. A narrative synthesis was performed. There is low level evidence that higher severity of pre-operative leg pain predicts better Core Outcome Measures Index at 12 months and better post-operative leg pain at 2 and 7 years. There is very low level evidence that a lower pre-operative EQ-5D predicts better EQ-5D at 2 years. Low level evidence supports duration of leg pain pre-operatively not being associated with outcome, and very low-quality evidence supports other factors [pre-operative ODI, duration back pain, severity back pain, ipsilateral SLR and forward bend] not being associated with outcome [range of outcome measures used].

CONCLUSION

An adequately powered low risk of bias prospective observational study is required to further investigate candidate physical prognostic factors owing to existing low/very-low level of evidence.

Does surgical timing influence functional recovery after lumbar discectomy? A systematic review

BACKGROUND

The impact of the duration of preoperative symptoms on outcomes after lumbar discectomy has not been sufficiently answered in a single study but is a potentially important clinical variable.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

A systematic review was performed to answer two questions: (1) Does symptomatic duration before surgery influence functional recovery after lumbar discectomy? (2) What is the time point for intervention beyond which the extent of postoperative recovery might be compromised?

METHODS

The systematic review began with a query of PubMed using a structured algorithm comprised of medical subject heading terms. This was supplemented by a keyword search in PubMed along with queries of Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science and searches of reference lists as well as the tables of contents of relevant journals. Eligible studies were those that evaluated aspects of recovery after elective discectomy and stratified duration of symptoms before surgery. Included papers were abstracted by two authors and determinations regarding the period of symptom duration and its impact on outcome were recorded. Eleven studies met all inclusion criteria. No prospectively randomized trials addressed our study questions.

RESULTS

Nine of 11 studies, four of which were prospective, maintained that longer symptom duration adversely impacted postsurgical recovery. There were substantial differences among the critical periods of symptom duration reported by individual studies, which ranged from 2 to 12 months. A preponderance of studies (five of nine) reported that surgical interventions could be performed at periods of 6 months or greater without impacting recovery.

CONCLUSIONS

Longer symptom duration had an adverse impact on results in most studies after lumbar discectomy. A possible point beyond which outcomes may be compromised is 6 months after symptom onset. Limitations in the literature surveyed, however, prevent firm conclusions.

Optimal duration of conservative management prior to surgery for cervical and lumbar radiculopathy: a literature review

Study Design Literature review. Objective Since the 1970s, spine surgeons have commonly required 6 weeks of failed conservative treatment prior to considering surgical intervention for various spinal pathologies. It is unclear, however, if this standard has been validated in the literature. The authors review the natural history, outcomes, and cost-effectiveness studies relating to the current standard of 6 weeks of nonoperative care prior to surgery for patients with spinal pathologies. Methods A systematic Medline search from 1953 to 2013 was performed to identify natural history, outcomes, and cost-effectiveness studies relating to the optimal period of conservative management prior to surgical intervention for both cervical and lumbar radiculopathy. Demographic information, operative indications, and clinical outcomes are reviewed for each study. Results A total of 5,719 studies were identified; of these, 13 studies were selected for inclusion. Natural history studies demonstrated that 88% of patients with cervical radiculopathy and 70% of patients with lumbar radiculopathy showed improvement within 4 weeks following onset of symptoms. Outcomes and cost-effectiveness studies supported surgical intervention within 8 weeks of symptom onset for both cervical and lumbar radiculopathy. Conclusions There are limited studies supporting any optimal duration of conservative treatment prior to surgery for cervical and lumbar radiculopathy. Therefore, evidence-based conclusions cannot be made. Based on the available literature, we suggest that an optimal timing for surgery following cervical radiculopathy is within 8 weeks of onset of symptoms. A shorter period of 4 weeks may be appropriate based on natural history studies. Additionally, we found that optimal timing for surgery following lumbar radiculopathy is between 4 and 8 weeks. A prospective study is needed to explicitly identify the optimal duration of conservative therapy prior to surgery so that costs may be reduced and patient outcomes improved.

The timing of surgery in lumbar disc prolapse: A systematic review

Herniation of nucleus pulposus leading to leg pain is the commonest indication for lumbar spine surgery. However, there is no consensus when to stop conservative treatment and when to consider for surgery. A systematic review of literature was done to find a consensus on the issue of when should surgery be performed for herniation of nucleus pulposus in lumbar spine was conducted. Electronic database searches of Medline, Embase and Pubmed Central were performed to find articles relating to optimum time to operate in patients with herniation of nucleus pulposus in lumbar spine, published between January 1975 and 10 December 2012. The studies were independently screened by two reviewers. Disagreements between reviewers were settled at a consensus meeting. A scoring system based on research design, number of patients at final followup, percentage of patients at final followup, duration of followup, journal impact factor and annual citation index was devised to give weightage to Categorize (A, B or C) each of the articles. Twenty one studies fulfilled the criteria. Six studies were of retrospective design, 13 studies were of Prospective design and two studies were randomized controlled trials. The studies were categorized as: Two articles in category A (highest level of evidence), 12 articles in category B (moderate level of evidence) while seven articles in Category C (poor level of evidence). Category A studies conclude that duration of sciatica prior to surgery made no difference to the outcome of surgery in patients with herniation of nucleus pulposus in the lumbar spine. Ten out of 12 studies in Category B revealed that longer duration of sciatica before surgery leads to poor results while 2 studies conclude that duration of sciatica makes no difference to outcome. In category C, five studies conclude that longer duration of sciatica before surgery leads to poor outcome while two studies find no difference in outcome with regards to duration of sciatica. A qualitative and quantitative analysis was performed which favoured the consensus that longer duration of sciatica leads to poorer outcome. A systematic and critical review of literature revealed that long duration of preoperative leg pain lead to poor outcome for herniation of nucleus pulposus. Only a broad time frame (2-12 months) could be derived from the review of literature due to lack of high quality studies and variable and contrasting results of the existing studies. While surgery performed within six months was most commonly found to lead to good outcome of surgery, further studies are needed to prove this more conclusively. At this stage it is felt that time alone should not be the basis of recommending surgery and multiple other variables should be considered in a shared decision making process between the surgeon and the patient.

The effect of waiting time on pain intensity after elective surgical lumbar discectomy

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Waitlists are commonly used in Canada to manage access to surgical procedures such as elective surgical lumbar discectomy (ESLD). The timing of enrollment onto the waitlist is important as this is a proxy measure for the concordance of preferences for surgery between a patient and surgeon. After enrollment, the waiting time to actual surgery extends the duration of preoperative symptoms, which possibly affects the outcome of ESLD. Waiting time also specifically reflects the delay in service delivery imposed by the limited capacity of the health-care system.

PURPOSE

To determine if a system-imposed delay in treatment, that is, longer waiting time, for ESLD is associated with a higher odds of experiencing residual postoperative pain.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Ambidirectional cohort study with 2-year retrospective and 3-year prospective components, conducted at a major tertiary care center serving a metropolitan area in Canada.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Patients aged 16 years or older with sciatica because of herniated lumbar disc, confirmed on advanced imaging, were recruited at the time of waitlist enrollment for ESLD. Patients with significant comorbidity or emergency indications for surgery were excluded. Of 391 participants, 291 had complete follow-up information at 6 months postoperatively.

OUTCOME MEASURE

Intensity of the predominant symptom (worse of either back or leg pain) was assessed on the 11-point numerical rating scale at waitlist enrollment and 6 months postoperatively. Pain scores were highly skewed and therefore categorized into four ordinal levels defined by quartiles.

METHODS

For the primary analysis, time to surgery from waitlist enrollment was dichotomized based on a predetermined clinically meaningful cut-point of 12 weeks. Ordinal logistic regression was used to compare the odds of experiencing higher pain intensity between wait groups. Control of confounders was achieved using both propensity scores and conventional multivariable modeling.

RESULTS

In unadjusted analyses, long-wait patients were 80% more likely than short-wait patients to experience higher ordinal pain intensity at 6 months; unadjusted proportional odds ratio (POR)=1.8 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-2.8). The association held after controlling for all imbalances in measured confounders, with long-wait patients still being 70% more likely to report worse pain; adjusted POR=1.7 (95% CI, 1.0-2.8).

CONCLUSIONS

A waiting time of 12 weeks or more after waitlist enrollment for ESLD is associated with a modest likelihood of experiencing worse pain at 6 months postoperatively. This result was not because of differences in measured confounders. Future studies are encouraged to identify other, as-of-yet unmeasured, variables that might be associated with both longer waiting times and worse outcomes among ESLD patients. Until then, in jurisdictions where highly constrained access to ESLD is managed through waitlists, the expected waiting time for the operation could be an informative deciding criterion for patients with otherwise unresolved preferences for operative treatment.

Preoperative education for lumbar radiculopathy: A survey of US spine surgeons

Background

We sought to determine current utilization, importance, content, and delivery methods of preoperative education by spine surgeons in the United States for patients with lumbar radiculopathy.

Methods

An online cross-sectional survey was used to study a random sample of spine surgeons in the United States. The Spinal Surgery Education Questionnaire (SSEQ) was developed based on previous related surveys and assessed for face and content validity by an expert panel. The SSEQ captured information on demographics, content, delivery methods, utilization, and importance of preoperative education as rated by surgeons. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the current utilization, importance, content, and delivery methods of preoperative education by spine surgeons in the United States for patients with lumbar radiculopathy.

Results

Of 200 surgeons, 89 (45% response rate) responded to the online survey. The majority (64.2%) provide preoperative education informally during the course of clinical consultation versus a formal preoperative education session. The mean time from the decision to undergo surgery to the date of surgery was 33.65 days. The highest rated educational topics are surgical procedure (96.3%), complications (96.3%), outcomes/expectations (93.8%), anatomy (92.6%), amount of postoperative pain expected (90.1%), and hospital stay (90.1%). Surgeons estimated spending approximately 20% of the preoperative education time specifically addressing pain. Seventy-five percent of the surgeons personally provide the education, and nearly all surgeons (96.3%) use verbal communication with the use of a spine model.

Conclusions

Spine surgeons believe that preoperative education is important and use a predominantly biomedical approach in preparing patients for surgery. Larger studies are needed to validate these findings.

Duration of symptoms resulting from lumbar disc herniation: effect on treatment outcomes: analysis of the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT)

BACKGROUND

The purpose of the present study was to determine if the duration of symptoms affects outcomes following the treatment of intervertebral lumbar disc herniation.

METHODS

An as-treated analysis was performed on patients enrolled in the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) for the treatment of intervertebral lumbar disc herniation. Randomized and observational cohorts were combined. A comparison was made between patients who had had symptoms for six months or less (n = 927) and those who had had symptoms for more than six months (n = 265). Primary and secondary outcomes were measured at baseline and at regular follow-up intervals up to four years. The treatment effect for each outcome measure was determined at each follow-up period for the duration of symptoms for both groups.

RESULTS

At all follow-up intervals, the primary outcome measures were significantly worse in patients who had had symptoms for more than six months prior to treatment, regardless of whether the treatment was operative or nonoperative. When the values at the time of the four-year follow-up were compared with the baseline values, patients in the operative treatment group who had had symptoms for six months or less had a greater increase in the bodily pain domain of the Short Form-36 (SF-36) (mean change, 48.3 compared with 41.9; p < 0.001), a greater increase in the physical function domain of the SF-36 (mean change, 47.7 compared with 41.2; p < 0.001), and a greater decrease in the Oswestry Disability Index score (mean change, -41.1 compared with -34.6; p < 0.001) as compared with those who had had symptoms for more than six months (with higher scores indicating less severe symptoms on the SF-36 and indicating more severe symptoms on the Oswestry Disability Index). When the values at the time of the four-year follow-up were compared with the baseline values, patients in the nonoperative treatment group who had had symptoms for six months or less had a greater increase in the bodily pain domain of the SF-36 (mean change, 31.8 compared with 21.4; p < 0.001), a greater increase in the physical function domain of the SF-36 (mean change, 29.5 compared with 22.6; p = 0.015), and a greater decrease in the Oswestry Disability Index score (mean change, -24.9 compared with -18.5; p = 0.006) as compared with those who had had symptoms for more than six months. Differences in treatment effect between the two groups related to the duration of symptoms were not significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Increased symptom duration due to lumbar disc herniation is related to worse outcomes following both operative and nonoperative treatment. The relative increased benefit of surgery compared with nonoperative treatment was not dependent on the duration of the symptoms.