Search

The ideal rehabilitation strategy following lumbar spinal fusion surgery has not yet been established. This paper is a study protocol, describing the rationale behind and the details of a cognitive-behavioural rehabilitation intervention for lumbar spinal fusion patients based on the best available evidence. Predictors of poor outcome following spine surgery have been identified to provide targets for the intervention, and the components of the intervention were structured in accordance with the cognitive-behavioural model. The study aims to compare the clinical and economical effectiveness of a cognitive-behavioural rehabilitation strategy to that of usual care for patients undergoing lumbar spinal fusion surgery. The study is a randomized clinical trial including 96 patients scheduled for lumbar spinal fusion surgery due to degenerative disease or spondylolisthesis. Patients were recruited in the period October 2011 to July 2013, and the follow-up period is one year from date of surgery. Patients are allocated on a 1:2 ratio (control: intervention) to either treatment as usual (control group), which implies surgery and the standard postoperative rehabilitation, or in addition to this, a patient education focusing on pain behaviour and pain coping (intervention group). It takes place in a hospital setting, and consists of six group-based sessions, managed by a multidisciplinary team of health professionals. The primary outcomes are disability (Oswestry Disability Index) and sick leave, while secondary outcomes include coping (Coping Strategies Questionnaire), fear-avoidance belief (Fear Avoidance Belief Questionnaire), pain (Low Back Pain Rating Scale, pain index), mobility during hospitalization (Cumulated Ambulation Score), generic health-related quality of life (EQ-5D) and resource use. Outcomes are measured using self report questionnaires, medical records and national registers. It is expected that the intervention can provide better functional outcome, less pain and earlier return to work after lumbar spinal fusion surgery. By combining knowledge and evidence from different knowledge areas, the project aims to provide new knowledge that can create greater consistency in patient treatment. We expect that the results can make a significant contribution to development of guidelines for good rehabilitation of patients undergoing lumbar spinal fusion. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN42281022 .

Lumbar decompression surgery (LDS) and total hip arthroplasty (THA) are frequently performed in the elderly population, but very little is known about their subsequent physical capacity and participation in leisure activities. Despite similar demographics and comorbidities, it is questionable whether LDS patients achieve equally high levels of physical capacity and quality of life postoperatively as do THA patients. The aim was to compare the physical activity level, participation in leisure activities and related quality of life 1 year after an LDS and THA procedure.Data from 95 THA patients and 83 LDS patients were gathered from questionnaires on self-reported physical activity level, leisure activities and quality of life.LDS and THA patients reported equally moderate levels of physical activity. The median score was 42.3 METs/day (IQR 37.9; 47.7) for the LDS group and 41.0 METs/day (IQR 38.5; 48.5) for the THA group (p = 0.79). Weekly time consumption for leisure activities in the LDS group was a median of 420 min/week (IQR 210; 660) compared to a median of 480 min/week (IQR 240; 870) in the THA group (p = 0.16). Regarding quality of life, LDS patients reported significantly worse Euroqol Five Dimensions scores with a median value of 0.740 (IQR 0.68; 0.82) compared to THA patients' median of 0.824 (IQR 0.72; 1.0), p0.001.Despite being equally physically active and engaged in leisure activities, LDS patients did not achieve a quality of life comparable to that of THA patients 1 year postoperatively.

Background:Medial tibial stress syndrome (MTSS) is a common diagnosis. Several studies have demonstrated that excessive static navicular drop (ND) is related to the diagnosis. However, no studies have yet investigated ND and the velocity of ND during dynamic conditions. The aim of this study was to evaluate ND characteristics in patients with MTSS in dynamic and static conditions.Methods:In a case-control study, 14 patients diagnosed as having MTSS were included from an orthopedic outpatient clinic. A control group consisting of 14 healthy participants was matched regarding age, sex, and typical sporting activity. Navicular drop was evaluated during treadmill walking by a two-dimensional video analysis. Static foot posture, static ND, dynamic ND (dND), and velocity of dND were compared.Results:The two groups were comparable in relation to age, sex, height, weight, and foot size. No significant difference was found in static foot posture. Static ND showed a mean difference of 1.7 mm between the groups (P= .08). During treadmill walking, patients with MTSS had, on average, a 1.5-mm-larger dND (P=.004) and a 2.4-mm/sec-larger mean velocity of dND (P= .03).Conclusions:Patients with MTSS display a larger ND and a higher ND velocity during treadmill walking. Increased ND velocity may be important to this condition. Future studies should include velocity of dND to investigate the mechanisms of dND in relation to overuse injuries. (J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 102(3): 205–212, 2012)

Study design A multicenter randomized clinical trial including 82 patients. Objective To examine the effect of early initiation of rehabilitation after instrumented lumbar spinal fusion. Summary of background data Lumbar spinal fusion has been performed for more than 70 years. Yet, few studies have examined patients' subsequent rehabilitation. Group-based rehabilitation is both efficient and cost-effective in rehabilitation of lumbar spinal fusion patients. Methods Patients with degenerative disc diseases undergoing instrumented lumbar spinal fusion were randomly assigned to initiate their rehabilitation 6 weeks (6-wk group) or 12 weeks after lumbar spinal fusion (12-wk group). Both groups received the same group-based rehabilitation. Primary outcome was the Oswestry Disability Index. Secondary outcome was the Dallas Pain Questionnaire, the Low Back Pain Rating Scale, and absence from work. Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare the groups in terms of differences from baseline to 6 months and 1-year follow-up. Results are presented in median with 25th and 75th percentiles. Results According to the Oswestry Disability Index, at 1-year follow-up, the 6-week-group had a median reduction of -6 (-19; 4) compared with -20 (-30;-7) in the 12-week group (P, 0.05). The Dallas Pain Questionnaire showed overall the same tendency, and within daily activities were significantly reduced in favor of the 12-week group (P, 0.05). For back pain, the 6-week group had a median reduction of -2.2 (-3.0; -0.7) similar with -3.3 (-4.7; -1.7) in the 12-week group (P, 0.05). The results at 6 months of follow-up were similar. No difference was found according to return to work 1 year postsurgery. Conclusion Early start of rehabilitation (6 wk vs. 12 wk) after lumbar spinal fusion resulted in inferior outcomes. The improvements in the 12-week group were 4 times better than that in the 6-week group, indicating that the start-up time of rehabilitation is an important contributing factor for the overall outcome.

Although lumbar spinal fusion has been performed for more than 70 years, few studies have examined rehabilitation strategies for spinal fusion patients, and there is only sparse information about the patient’s activity level after surgery. The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) is a standardized semi-structured interview, developed to identify patients’ problems in relation to activities of daily living (ADL). The COPM has neither been examined in a randomised clinical study nor employed in relation to lumbar spinal fusion patients. We aimed to examine whether or not the use of the semi-structured interview COPM during in-hospital rehabilitation could: (1) identify more ADL-related problems of importance to the patients after discharge from the hospital, (2) enhance the patients’ ADL performance after discharge from hospital Eighty-seven patients undergoing a lumbar spinal fusion caused by degenerative diseases were randomly assigned to either use of the COPM or to standard treatment. Use of the COPM during hospitalization helped in identifying more ADL problems encountered by patients during the first 3 months post-discharge period as COPM served to identify more treatment goals and plans of action. Use of the COPM had no impact on the patients’ ADL performance, and the difference is so small that COPM may be of little clinical consequence.

Study design Randomized controlled trial. Objective To analyze long-term adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) after lumbar fusion on magnetic resonance imaging and compare randomization groups with and without anterior column support. Summary of background data ASD can be a long-term complication after fusion. The prevalence and the cause of ASD are not well documented, but ASD are one of the main arguments for introducing the use of motion-preserving techniques as an alternative to fusion. Anterior lumbar interbody fusion combined with posterolateral lumbar fusion (ALIF+PLF) has been proved superior to posterolateral fusion alone regarding outcome and cost-effectiveness. Methods Between 1996 and 1999, 148 patients with severe chronic low back pain were randomly selected for ALIF+PLF or for PLF alone. Ninety-five patients participated. ASD was examined on magnetic resonance imaging with regard to disc degeneration, disc herniation, stenosis, and endplate changes. Disc heights on radiographs taken at index surgery and at long-term follow-up were compared. Outcome was assessed by validated questionnaires. Results The follow-up rate was 76%. ASD was similar between randomization groups. In the total cohort, endplate changes were seen in 26% of the participants and correlated significantly with the presence of disc degeneration and disc herniation. Disc degeneration and dorsal disc herniation were the parameters registered most frequently and were significantly more pronounced at the first adjacent level than at the second and the third adjacent levels. Patients without disc height reduction over time were significantly younger than patients with disc height reduction. Disc degeneration and stenosis correlated significantly with outcome at the first adjacent level. Conclusion The cause of the superior outcome in the group with anterior support is still unclear. Compared with the findings reported in the literature, the prevalence of ASD is likely to be in concordance with the expected changes in a nonoperated symptomatic population and therefore not accelerated by fusion.

We read the article entitled “Alendronate treatment improves bone–pedicle screw interface fixation in posterior lateral spine fusion: an experimental study in a porcine model” by Qingyun Xue et al. with great interest [1]. The purpose of the research was to investigate whether alendronate treatment improves bone–pedicle screw interface fixation in posterior lateral spine fusion. We would like to thank the authors for their innovative and encouraging paper, but we have some concerns about the safety profile of alendronate. The authors advocated wider use of alendronate based on the properties of bisphosphonates for reduction of bone remodelling by inhibition of osteoclastic activity. Normal bone remodelling is linked to new bone formation by the so-called coupling phenomenon. The most effective approach to prevent implant loosening would be to have a positive balance between bone formation and resorption in the active bone-remodelling time period. Alendronate treatment could protect the bone structure from extra resorption while maintaining the bone volume around the screw surface. In fact, prolonged suppression of bone remodelling with alendronate may be associated with a new form of insufficiency fracture of femur [2]. The fracture rate is higher in long-term use than during the first year of therapy, suggesting possible adverse effects on bone [3]. Alendronate inhibits bone resorption by suppressing activity of osteoclasts, and inducing them to undergo apoptosis. While this leads to an increase in bone mineral density (BMD) of patients with osteoporosis, treatment with alendronate has been shown to reduce bone turnover. In humans prolonged administration of bisphosphonates can lead to development of osteopetrosis or marble bone disease [4]. Keeping the above-mentioned facts in mind, authors must warn the orthopaedic community about liberal use of alendronate.

Background context Pain drawings have been used extensively in spine surgery. It has been associated with inferior outcome after disc and stenosis surgery. Results regarding the predictive value in fusion surgery have been conflicting. Purpose To evaluate the predictive value of pain drawings in relation to outcome after lumbar spinal fusion. To investigate if there are differences between spondylolisthesis patients and patients with degenerative disease as well as between patients with or without radicular pain. Study design Prospective clinical cohort with a minimum of 1-year follow-up. Patient sample One hundred thirty-five patients undergoing lumbar spinal fusion. Fifty-seven men and 78 women, mean age 44 years (range 21–59 years). Outcome measures Dallas Pain Questionnaire (DPQ), Low Back Pain Rating Scale (LBPRS) pain index and patient satisfaction. Minimal clinical important difference was defined for the LBPRS score. Methods Pain drawings were classified, using the visual inspection method, as organic or nonorganic and correlated to outcomes. Multivariate adjustment for several possible confounding variables was done using logistic regression analysis. Results Thirty-three percent of the drawings were classified as nonorganic. Nonorganic drawings were associated with significantly higher DPQ and LBPRS scores preoperatively and at follow-up. Differences between organic and nonorganic drawings were larger in spondylolisthesis patients than in patients with degenerative disorders. Nonorganic pain drawings were associated with poorer outcome in patients with low back pain and radicular symptoms, however, not in patients without radicular symptoms. A nonorganic pain drawing predicted negative patient satisfaction with odds ratio (OR) 3.01 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.14–8.55, p=.027) but had no significant predictive value with respect to improvement in the LBPRS pain index OR 1.92 (95% CI: 0.82–4.47, p=.132). Conclusions A nonorganic pain drawing was a significant risk factor for inferior outcome after spinal fusion surgery. The predictive value did not allow for patient selection.

Study design Randomized, controlled, multi-center trial. Objective To investigate the effect of direct current (DC) electrical stimulation on functional and clinical outcome after lumbar spinal fusion in patients older than 60 years. Summary of background data Older patients have increased complication rates after spinal fusion surgery. Treatments which have the possibility of enhancing functional outcome and fusion rates without lengthening the procedure could prove beneficial. DC-stimulation of spinal fusion has proven effective in increasing fusion rates in younger and "high risk" patients, but functional outcome measures have not been reported. Methods A randomized, clinical trial comprising 5 orthopedic centers. The study included a total of 107 patients randomized to uninstrumented posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion with or without DC-stimulation. Functional outcome was assessed using Dallas Pain Questionnaire, SF-36, Low Back Pain Rating Scale pain index, and walking distance. Results Follow-up after 1 year was 95/107 (89%). DC-stimulated patients had significant better outcome in 3 of 4 categories in the Dallas Pain Questionnaire, better SF-36 scores (not significantly), but no difference in pain scores were observed. Median walking distance at latest follow-up was better in the stimulated group (not significant). Walking distance was significantly associated with functional outcome. There was no difference in any of the functional outcome scores between patients who experienced a perioperative complication and those without complications. Conclusion The achievement of a good functional outcome was heavily dependent on the obtained walking distance. DC-stimulated patients tended to have better functional outcome as compared to controls. No negative effects of perioperative complications could be observed on the short-term functional outcome.

Paraspinal muscle damage is inevitable during conventional posterior lumbar fusion surgery. Minimal invasive surgery is postulated to result in less muscle damage and better outcome. The aim of this study was to monitor metabolic changes of the paraspinal muscle and to evaluate paraspinal muscle damage during surgery using microdialysis (MD). The basic interstitial metabolisms of the paraspinal muscle and the deltoid muscle were monitored using the MD technique in eight patients, who underwent posterior lumbar fusion surgery (six male and two female, median age 57.7 years, range 37-74) and eight healthy individuals for different positions (five male and three female, age 24.1 +/- 0.8 years). Concentrations of glucose, glycerol, and lactate pyruvate ratio (L/P) in both tissues were compared. In the healthy group, the glucose and glycerol concentrations and L/P were unchanged in the paraspinal muscle when the body position changed from prone to supine. The glucose concentration and L/P were stable in the paraspinal muscle during the surgery. Glycerol concentrations increased significantly to 243.0 +/- 144.1 microM in the paraspinal muscle and 118.9 +/- 79.8 microM in the deltoid muscle in the surgery group. Mean glycerol concentration difference (GCD) between the paraspinal muscle and the deltoid tissue was 124.1 microM (P = 0.003, with 95% confidence interval 83.4-164.9 microM). The key metabolism of paraspinal muscle can be monitored by MD during the conventional posterior lumbar fusion surgery. The glycerol concentration in the paraspinal muscle is markedly increased compared with the deltoid muscle during the surgery. It is proposed that GCD can be used to evaluate surgery related paraspinal muscle damage. Changing body position did not affect the paraspinal muscle metabolism in the healthy subjects.

Udgivelsesdato: 2009-Jun OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to investigate the interchangeability of the EuroQol 5D (EQ-5D) and the Short Form 6D (SF-6D) in individuals with long-lasting low back pain to guide the optimal choice of instrument and to inform decision-makers about any between-measure discrepancy, which require careful interpretation of the results of cost-utility evaluations. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted across 275 individuals who had spinal surgery on indication of chronic low back pain. EQ-5D and SF-6D were mailed to respondents for self-completion. Statistical analysis of between-measure agreement (using English weights) was based on Bland and Altman's limits of agreement and a series of linear regressions. RESULTS: A moderate mean difference of 0.085 (SD 0.241) was found, but because it masked more severe bidirectional variation, the expected variation between observations of EQ-5D and SF-6D in future studies was estimated at 0.546. The EQ-5D's N3 term alone explained a factor of 0.79 of the variation in between-measure differences, while the explanatory value of adding variables of age, sex, diagnosis, previous surgery, and occupational status was basically zero. A final model including only dummy variables for the N3 term and five identified framing effects explained a factor of 0.86 of the variation in between-measure differences. CONCLUSIONS: Although the EQ-5D and the SF-6D are both psychometrically valid for generic outcome assessment in long-lasting low back pain, it appears that they cannot generally be used interchangeably for measurement of preference values. Sensitivity analysis examining the impact of between-measure discrepancy thus remains a necessary condition for the interpretation of the results of cost-utility evaluations.

INTRODUCTION: Few studies have investigated the long-term effect of posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion on functional outcome. AIM: To investigate the long-term result after posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion with and without pedicle screw instrumentation. METHODS: Questionnaire survey of 129 patients originally randomised to posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion with or without pedicle screw instrumentation. Follow-up included Dallas Pain Questionnaire (DPQ), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), SF-36 and a question regarding willingness to undergo the procedure again knowing the result as global outcome parameter. RESULTS: Follow-up was 83% of the original study population (107 patients). Average follow-up time was 12 years (range 11-13 years). DPQ-scores were significantly lower than preoperatively in both groups (P < 0.005) and no drift towards the preoperative level was seen. No difference between the two groups were observed (instrumented vs. non-instrumented): DPQ Daily Activity mean 37.0 versus 32.0, ODI mean 33.4 versus 30.6, SF-36 PCS mean 38.8 versus 39.8, SF-36 MCS mean 49.0 versus 53.3. About 71% in both groups were answered positively to the global outcome question. Patients who had retired due to low back pain had poorer outcome than patients retired for other reasons, best outcome was seen in patients still at work (P = 0.01 or less in all questionnaires, except SF-36 MCS P = 0.08). DISCUSSION: Improvement in functional outcome is preserved for 10 or more years after posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion. No difference between instrumented fusion and non-instrumented fusion was observed. Patients who have to retired due to low back pain have the smallest improvement. Udgivelsesdato: Feb

Up to one third of patients undergoing lumbar spinal fusion show no improvement after the procedure and thus, despite evidence from RCTs, there might be a rationale for observational studies clarifying indications. Similarly, selection of the right patients for the right procedure could have significant impact on cost-effectiveness, which in some countries, in turn, affects whether procedures are to be available through the National Health Service. The aim of this study was to investigate determinants of cost-effectiveness in lumbar spinal fusion. An observational cohort study with 2-year follow-up was conducted: 695 patients who underwent lumbar spinal fusion from 1996 to 2002 were included and followed for 2 years. Patients had a localized segmental pathology and were diagnosed with MRI-verified isthmic spondylolisthesis (26%) or disc degeneration (74%). The surgical techniques were non-instrumented posterolateral fusion (14%), instrumented posterolateral fusion (54%), and circumferential fusion (32%). Societal costs and improvement in functional disability (Dallas Pain Questionnaire) were transformed into a net benefit measure. Classical linear regression of the net benefit was conducted using predictors of age, sex, diagnosis, duration of pain, smoking habits, occupational status, severity of disability, emotional distress, surgical technique, and number of levels fused. The main results were that two determinants were found to negatively influence net benefit: smoking and diagnosis, whereas two others were found to be positively associated with the net benefit: severe disability and emotional distress. In conclusion, predicting net benefit reverses the picture usually seen in studies predicting clinical outcomes, because the response variable is based on improvement over time rather than end-point measures alone. Smoking habits, diagnosis, pre-operative disability, and pre-operative emotional distress were found to be significantly associated with the net benefit of spinal fusion.

Udgivelsesdato: 2007-May Although cost-effectiveness is becoming the foremost evaluative criterion within health service management of spine surgery, scientific knowledge about cost-patterns and cost-effectiveness is limited. The aims of this study were (1) to establish an activity-based method for costing at the patient-level, (2) to investigate the correlation between costs and effects, (3) to investigate the influence of selected patient characteristics on cost-effectiveness and, (4) to investigate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of (a) posterior instrumentation and (b) intervertebral anterior support in lumbar spinal fusion. We hypothesized a positive correlation between costs and effects, that determinants of effects would also determine cost-effectiveness, and that posterolateral instrumentation and anterior intervertebral support are cost-effective adjuncts in posterolateral lumbar fusion. A cohort of 136 consecutive patients with chronic low back pain, who were surgically treated from January 2001 through January 2003, was followed until 2 years postoperatively. Operations took place at University Hospital of Aarhus and all patients had either (1) non-instrumented posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion, (2) instrumented posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion, or (3) instrumented posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion + anterior intervertebral support. Analysis of costs was performed at the patient-level, from an administrator's perspective, by means of Activity-Based-Costing. Clinical effects were measured by means of the Dallas Pain Questionnaire and the Low Back Pain Rating Scale at baseline and 2 years postoperatively. Regression models were used to reveal determinants for costs and effects. Costs and effects were analyzed as a net-benefit measure to reveal determinants for cost-effectiveness, and finally, adjusted analysis (for non-random allocation of patients) was performed in order to reveal the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of (a) posterior instrumentation and (b) anterior support. The costs of non-instrumented posterolateral spinal fusion were estimated at DKK 88,285(95% CI 81,369;95,546), instrumented posterolateral spinal fusion at DKK 94,396(95% CI 89,865;99,574) and instrumented posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion + anterior intervertebral support at DKK 120,759(95% CI 111,981;133,738). The net-benefit of the regimens was significantly affected by smoking and functional disability in psychosocial life areas. Multi-level fusion and surgical technique significantly affected the net-benefit as well. Surprisingly, no correlation was found between treatment costs and treatment effects. Incremental analysis suggested that the probability of posterior instrumentation being cost-effective was limited, whereas the probability of anterior intervertebral support being cost-effective escalates as willingness-to-pay per effect unit increases. This study reveals useful and hitherto unknown information both about cost-patterns at the patient-level and determinants of cost-effectiveness. The overall conclusion of the present investigation is a recommendation to focus further on determinants of cost-effectiveness. For example, patient characteristics that are modifiable at a relatively low expense may have greater influence on cost-effectiveness than the surgical technique itself--at least from an administrator's perspective.

STUDY DESIGN: An experimental animal study with randomized, paired control design was conducted using a porcine model.OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of alendronate treatment and the significance of different amounts of bone graft on posterior lateral spine fusion.SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Treatment with bisphosphonates inhibits osteoclast-induced bone resorption and increases bone quality and density. It has been widely used clinically for treatment of osteoporosis. Bisphosphonates have been reported to elongate the callus remodeling process during fracture healing. Bisphosphonate treatment may modify bone graft healing and the remodeling process in spine fusion. The bone resorption phase exists during the healing process. Extensive bone graft resorption could reduce the basis for new bone formation, which could be an important factor for failure of spine fusion. Furthermore, different amounts of initially applied bone graft may influence spine fusion rate and bone graft incorporation process.METHODS: Twenty-two pigs were included in the study. Eleven pigs in the treatment group received alendronate 10 mg/day p.o. for 3 months after surgery. The other 11 pigs received no bisphosphonate and served as control group. Posterior lateral fusion with the CD Horizon system was performed on the lumbar spine using different amounts of autograft (4 g on one side and 8 g on the other side) in all animals. The fusion was evaluated using radiograph, CT scan, and histomorphometry at 3 months after operation.RESULTS: There was no statistical difference in either fusion rate or fusion mass volume between the two groups. The fusion rate based on radiograph was 75% on the 8-g autograft side and 45% on the 4-g side (P < 0.05). The mean volume of fusion mass was 2.36 cm3 on the 4-g side and 3.29 cm3 on the 8-g side (P < 0.01). No difference was found in either trabecular bone volume or fusion rate between treatment and control groups using histologic evaluation.The treatment group showed a higher fibrous tissue volume(P < 0.05), higher proportion of woven bone structure(P < 0.001), and lower bone marrow volume (P = 0.088) in the fusion mass. Different amounts of bone graft did not change the tissue composition of the fusion mass.CONCLUSIONS: Alendronate treatment in this study decreased fusion mass remodeling without inhibiting fusion rate. Increased amounts of autologous bone graft could improve the fusion rate in this experimental spine fusion study.

This study investigated the healing potential of allograft from bisphosphonate-treated animals in anterior lumbar spine interbody fusion. Three levels of anterior lumbar interbody fusion with Brantigan cages were performed in two groups of five landrace pigs. Empty Brantigan cages or cages filled with either autograft or allograft were located randomly at different levels. The allograft materials for the treatment group were taken from the pigs that had been fed with alendronate, 10 mg daily for 3 months. The histological fusion rate was 2/5 in alendronate-treated allograft and 3/5 in non-treated allograft. The mean bone volume was 39% and 37.2% in alendronate-treated or non-treated allograft (NS), respectively. No statistical difference was found between the same grafted cage comparing two groups. The histological fusion rate was 7/10 in all autograft cage levels and 5/10 in combined allograft cage levels. No fusion was found at all in empty cage levels. With the numbers available, no statistically significant difference was found in histological fusion between autograft and allograft applications. There was a significant difference of mean bone volume between autograft (49.2%) and empty cage (27.5%) (P

Pain drawings have been used in spine surgery for diagnostic use and psychological evaluation of fusion candidates; they have rarely been used to evaluate pain status after spinal fusion. This study is a 5-year follow-up on a randomised clinical trial assigning patients to posterolateral spinal fusion with or without pedicle screw instrumentation. Patients were mailed a pain drawing and questionnaires including questions regarding work, social status, smoking status, the Dallas Pain Questionnaire (DPQ), and the Low Back Pain Rating Scale (LBPRS). Pain drawings were scored using a visual inspection method and a surface-based point scoring and evaluated for the presence of donor site pain. Pain drawings from 109 patients (87% of the initially included patients), 56 men and 53 women, mean age at follow-up 51 years, were analysed. Fifty-three patients had undergone an instrumented fusion and 56 a non-instrumented fusion. Some presence of low back pain was marked by 79% and leg pain by 69%. Sixty-two percent of the pain drawings were classified as "organic" and 38% as "non-organic". There was no difference between the instrumented and the uninstrumented group. DPQ and LBPRS scores were higher in the non-organic group ( P=0.007). Using the point scoring, no difference between the instrumented and the uninstrumented group was seen. The results of the point scoring were found to correlate with the DPQ and LBPRS scores ( P=0.001). Working patients (39%) had significantly better scores than the rest. Ten percent of the patients had donor site pain. Twenty percent of spinal fusion patients are totally pain free at 5-year follow-up. Ten percent still experience donor site pain. In general, instrumentation does not affect the amount and localisation of pain 5 years after lumbar spinal fusion surgery. The pain drawing seems to be a valuable tool when following spinal fusion patients, but its use as prognostic marker in connection with fusion surgery needs further investigation.

The aim of the current study was to examine the correlation between lumbar lordosis, spinal fusion, and functional outcome in patients suffering from severe low back pain, treated by posterolateral spinal fusion with or without pedicle screw instrumentation. One hundred thirty patients were randomly allocated to posterolateral lumbar fusion with or without Cotrel-Dubousset instrumentation. Functional outcome was assessed preoperatively, and 1 and 2 years postoperatively. Lordosis angles of the lumbar spine and fusion rates were assessed at the 1- and 2-year follow-up. No difference in lordosis angle was found between the two groups at any time. Lordosis was unchanged at 2 years compared with preoperative status in both groups. In the instrumented group, nonunion (23%) was followed by a decrease in lordosis at follow-up (p < 0.05). However, in the noninstrumented group, nonunion (14%) resulted in increased lordosis (p < 0.05). No correlation was found between functional outcome and lordosis angle. The current study showed no correlation between functional outcome and lordosis angle either before or after posterolateral spinal fusion. Use of instrumentation did not influence lumbar spinal alignment compared with noninstrumented fusions. The sagittal alignment was stable both 1 and 2 years after solid fusion. The failure mode of instrumented fusions was a reduced degree of lordosis in contrast to an increased degree of lordosis in patients with noninstrumented fusion.

This paper describes a surgical treatment protocol for extradural osseous spinal metastases that combines survival estimates with surgical classification. Surgery in patients with spinal metastases has a high postoperative morbidity and a 50% mortality rate at 6 months postsurgery according to most studies; however, a subgroup of 15% may expect long-term survival. Obviously, the gains from surgery must counterbalance the risk to the patient. With modern surgical techniques and spinal reconstruction, pain relief in up to 80% of patients and a regain of ambulatory function of 80% can be expected. To facilitate good clinical practice, the use of the Tokuhashi score is a reliable tool for estimating life expectancy. The Tokuhashi score enables the surgeon to minimize surgery in critically ill patients with an estimated survival of less than 3 months. In patients with a life expectancy of 3 to 6 months, posterior tumor removal and stabilization are recommended for all surgical stages. In patients with a long life expectancy, however, combined classification provides a basis for patient selection for major reconstructive procedures such as total en bloc resection and total vertebrectomies. The treatment of spinal metastases should be centralized in spinal units that have mastered a total range of surgical procedures. To maintain sufficient surgical and oncologic skills, a population base of more than 2 million people is necessary.

The study presented here is a pilot study in five patients with unstable thoracolumbar spine fractures treated with transpedicular OP-1 transplantation, short segment instrumentation and posterolateral fusion. Recombinant bone morphogenetic protein-7 in combination with a collagen carrier, also referred to as OP-1, has demonstrated ability to induce healing in long-bone segmental defects in dogs, rabbits and monkeys and to induce successful posterolateral spinal fusion in dogs without need for autogenous bone graft. Furthermore OP-1 has been demonstrated to be effective as a bone graft substitute when performing the PLIF maneuver in a sheep model. Five patients with single-level unstable burst fracture and no neurological impairment were treated with intracorporal OP-1 transplantation, posterior fixation (USS) and posterolateral fusion. One patient with osteomalacia and an L2 burst fracture had an additional intracorporal transplantation performed proximal to the instrumented segment, i.e. OP-1 into T 12 and autogenous bone into T 11. Follow-up time was 12-18 months. On serial radiographs, Cobb and kyphotic angles, as well as anterior, middle and posterior column heights, were measured. Serial CT scans were performed to determine the bone mineral density at fracture level. In one case, radiographic and CT evaluation after 3 and 6 months showed severe resorption at the site of transplantation, but after 12 months, new bone had started to fill in at the area of resorption. In all cases there was loss of correction with regard to anterior and middle column height and sagittal balance at the latest follow-up. These preliminary results regarding OP-1 as a bone graft substitute and stimulator of new bone formation have been disappointing, as the OP-1 device in this study was not capable of inducing an early sufficient structural bone support. There are indications to suggest that OP-1 application to a fracture site in humans might result in detrimental enhanced bone resorption as a primary event.

BACKGROUND: Catastrophic thinking and fear-avoidance belief are negatively influencing severe acute pain following surgery causing delayed ambulation and discharge. We aimed to examine if a preoperative intervention of cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) could influence the early postsurgical outcome following lumbar spinal fusion surgery (LSF).METHODS: Ninety patients undergoing LSF due to degenerative spinal disorders were randomly allocated to either the CBT group or the control group. Both groups received surgery and postoperative rehabilitation. In addition, the CBT group received a preoperative intervention focussed on pain coping using a CBT approach. Primary outcome was back pain during the first week (0-10 scale). Secondary outcomes were mobility, analgesic consumption, and length of hospitalisation. Data were retrieved using self-report questionnaires, assessments made by physical therapists and from medical records.RESULTS: No difference between the groups' self-reported back pain (p = 0.76) was detected. Independent mobility was reached by a significantly larger number of patients in the CBT group than the control group during the first three postoperative days. Analgesic consumption tended to be lower in the CBT group, whereas length of hospitalisation was unaffected by the CBT intervention.CONCLUSION: Participation in a preoperative CBT intervention appeared to facilitate mobility in the acute postoperative phase, despite equally high levels of self-reported acute postsurgical pain in the two groups, and a slightly lower intake of rescue analgesics in the CBT group. This may reflect an overall improved ability to cope with pain following participation in the preoperative CBT intervention.TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was approved by the Danish Protection Agency (2011-41-5899) and the Ethics Committee of the Central Denmark Region (M-20110047). The trial was registered in Current Controlled Trials ( ISRCTN42281022 ).