Search

Purpose: As more patients undergo lumbar spine surgery, novel interventions may improve physical and mental health outcomes. Few studies summarize the benefit of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) among lumbar spine surgery patients. This study collects randomized control trial data to investigate the influence of CBT on patient reported outcomes among lumbar spine surgery patients. Methods: Our study used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and a medical library expert assisted in searching PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar. We calculated standardized mean differences (SMD) to evaluate the effect size of CBT versus control groups with a sensitivity analysis. Results: Our meta-analysis included seven studies with a total of 531 patients. The majority of included studies evaluated lumbar fusion, with preoperative CBT performed by physiotherapists. The largest effects were observed for overall quality of life (SMD = 0.55 [95% CI 0.05, 1.05], p < 0.001, I2 = 86.7%) and psychological outcomes (SMD = 0.61 [95% CI 0.28, 0.94], p < 0.001, I2 = 89.7%) though disability and pain outcomes also favored CBT intervention. Included studies demonstrated low overall bias but large heterogeneity. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated negligible study design differences and revealed moderators including CBT session frequency and final follow-up duration (p < 0.001). Conclusion: Compared to usual care or alternative therapy control arms, CBT delivered the most improvement with overall quality of life and psychological outcomes. Among appropriately selected patients, CBT could improve perioperative disability, pain, quality of life, and psychological health following lumbar spine surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To determine whether there is an association between preoperative 10-Item Patient Activation Measure (PAM-10) scores and clinical outcomes following MIS LD. Methods: Patients undergoing a primary MIS LD were retrospectively reviewed and stratified according to their preoperative PAM-10 scores: "low PAM," "moderate PAM," and "high PAM." Preoperative PAM score cohorts were tested for improvements in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), 12-Item Short-Form Physical Component Score (SF-12 PCS), and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) back and leg pain using multivariate linear regression. Results: Eighty-nine patients were included: 29 had a low PAM score, 32 had a moderate PAM score, and 28 had a high PAM score. Cohorts experienced similar preoperative VAS back pain, VAS leg pain, ODI, and SF-12 PCS. Patients with low PAM scores experienced a trend of higher pain scores throughout 6 months with VAS back pain being significant at 3 months and VAS leg pain being significant at 6-week and 3-month follow-up. Patients with lower PAM scores experienced a worse improvement in ODI at 6-week, 3-month, and 6-month timepoints. Lastly, patients with lower PAM scores demonstrated less improvement in SF-12 PCS at 3-month and 6-month follow-up. Conclusions: Lower preoperative PAM scores were associated with worse improvement in clinical outcomes following MIS LD. Patients with lower PAM scores had diminished improvement in long-term patient-reported outcomes including ODI, SF-12, and VAS back and leg pain. Our investigation suggests that preoperative PAM assessments may be an effective tool to predict postoperative outcomes following MIS LD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To evaluate specific demographic and perioperative variables associated with higher inpatient pain scores following minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF).Methods: Patients who underwent a single-level, primary MIS TLIF were retrospectively reviewed. Perioperative outcomes were collected, and postoperative inpatient VAS pain scores were measured. Both bivariate and stepwise multivariate Poisson regressions with robust error variance were used to assess risk factors for average inpatient pain score ≥ 5.0. A final backward stepwise regression model was created using age, gender, smoking status, diabetes status, insurance status, BMI, comorbidity burden, pedicle screw laterality, operative time, and estimated blood loss.Results: A total of 255 patients undergoing primary, single-level MIS TLIF were included. Age less than 50 years, workers' compensation insurance, preoperative VAS pain score ≥ 7, and operative duration ≥ 110 min were associated with greater postoperative pain. However, other variables such as gender, BMI, smoking status, comorbidity burden, diabetes status, and pedicle screw laterality were not associated with increased postoperative pain.Conclusion: The results of this study suggest that younger age, workers' compensation, elevated preoperative pain scores, and longer operative times are independently associated with greater inpatient pain following TLIF. Surgeons can use this information to better assess which patients may require additional pain control following TLIF. Patient expectations of postoperative outcomes in regard to pain and recovery may also be better managed. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material. (paragraph). Then process the ppt slide as graphical image. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors of the Letter to the Editor regarding our study titled "The influence of cognitive-behavioral therapy on lumbar spine surgery outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis" are kindly thanked for their insight in elucidating several important considerations to our manuscript. In general, when choosing between a fixed-effects model and random effects model, prior researchers have argued the decision should be based on whether intervention effects are identical - with preference given to a random-effects model when this assumption is unlikely [[3]]. Response to the Letter to the Editor of X. Zhou et al. concerning "the influence of cognitive behavioral therapy on lumbar spine surgery outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis" by Parish JM, et al. (Eur Spine J [2021]; 30(5):1365-1379). [Extracted from the article]