Clinical decision making in spinal fusion for chronic low back pain. Results of a nationwide survey among spine surgeons
- PMID: 22189352
- PMCID: PMC3278483
- DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000391
Clinical decision making in spinal fusion for chronic low back pain. Results of a nationwide survey among spine surgeons
Abstract
Objectives To assess the use of prognostic patient factors and predictive tests in clinical decision making for spinal fusion in patients with chronic low back pain. Design and setting Nationwide survey among spine surgeons in the Netherlands. Participants Surgeon members of the Dutch Spine Society were questioned on their surgical treatment strategy for chronic low back pain. Primary and secondary outcome measures The surgeons' opinion on the use of prognostic patient factors and predictive tests for patient selection were addressed on Likert scales, and the degree of uniformity was assessed. In addition, the influence of surgeon-specific factors, such as clinical experience and training, on decision making was determined. Results The comments from 62 surgeons (70% response rate) were analysed. Forty-four surgeons (71%) had extensive clinical experience. There was a statistically significant lack of uniformity of opinion in seven of the 11 items on prognostic factors and eight of the 11 items on predictive tests, respectively. Imaging was valued much higher than predictive tests, psychological screening or patient preferences (all p<0.01). Apart from the use of discography and long multisegment fusions, differences in training or clinical experience did not appear to be of significant influence on treatment strategy. Conclusions The present survey showed a lack of consensus among spine surgeons on the appreciation and use of predictive tests. Prognostic patient factors were not consistently incorporated in their treatment strategy either. Clinical decision making for spinal fusion to treat chronic low back pain does not have a uniform evidence base in practice. Future research should focus on identifying subgroups of patients for whom spinal fusion is an effective treatment, as only a reliable prediction of surgical outcome, combined with the implementation of individual patient factors, may enable the instalment of consensus guidelines for surgical decision making in patients with chronic low back pain.
Conflict of interest statement
Figures


Similar articles
-
Decision making in surgical treatment of chronic low back pain: the performance of prognostic tests to select patients for lumbar spinal fusion.Acta Orthop Suppl. 2013 Feb;84(349):1-35. doi: 10.3109/17453674.2012.753565. Acta Orthop Suppl. 2013. PMID: 23427903
-
Correlative analysis of reliability and validity of plain radiology, MOS short-form health survey and surgical examination in making decision for treatment of chronic low back pain patients.Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2004 Sep;14(3):135-41. doi: 10.1007/s00590-004-0164-z. Epub 2004 Jul 24. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2004. PMID: 27517178 English.
-
Lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis: factors associated with the decision to fuse.Spine J. 2021 May;21(5):821-828. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2020.11.010. Epub 2020 Nov 26. Spine J. 2021. PMID: 33248271
-
[Controversies about instrumented surgery and pain relief in degenerative lumbar spine pain. Results of scientific evidence].Neurocirugia (Astur). 2007 Oct;18(5):406-13. Neurocirugia (Astur). 2007. PMID: 18008014 Review. Spanish.
-
Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 6: discography for patient selection.J Neurosurg Spine. 2014 Jul;21(1):37-41. doi: 10.3171/2014.4.SPINE14269. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014. PMID: 24980583 Review.
Cited by
-
Evaluation of current surgeon practice for patients undergoing lumbar spinal fusion surgery in the United Kingdom.World J Orthop. 2015 Jul 18;6(6):483-90. doi: 10.5312/wjo.v6.i6.483. eCollection 2015 Jul 18. World J Orthop. 2015. PMID: 26191495 Free PMC article.
-
The Recent Trend in Diagnosis and Treatment of Chronic Low Back Pain.Spine Surg Relat Res. 2017 Dec 20;1(1):1-6. doi: 10.22603/ssrr.1.2016-0022. eCollection 2017. Spine Surg Relat Res. 2017. PMID: 31440605 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Two-year results of a double-blind multicenter randomized controlled non-inferiority trial of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) versus silicon nitride spinal fusion cages in patients with symptomatic degenerative lumbar disc disorders.J Spine Surg. 2020 Sep;6(3):523-540. doi: 10.21037/jss-20-588. J Spine Surg. 2020. PMID: 33102889 Free PMC article.
-
A systematic review of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF).Eur Spine J. 2023 Jun;32(6):1911-1926. doi: 10.1007/s00586-023-07567-x. Epub 2023 Apr 18. Eur Spine J. 2023. PMID: 37071155
-
Applications of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Spine MRI.Bioengineering (Basel). 2024 Sep 5;11(9):894. doi: 10.3390/bioengineering11090894. Bioengineering (Basel). 2024. PMID: 39329636 Free PMC article. Review.
References
-
- Walker BF. The prevalence of low back pain: a systematic review of the literature from 1966 to 1998. J Spinal Disord 2000;13:205–17 - PubMed
-
- Cherkin DC, Deyo RA, Loeser JD, et al. An international comparison of back surgery rates. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1994;19:1201–6 - PubMed
-
- Slobbe LCJ, Kommer GJ, Smit JM, et al. Kosten van ziekten in Nederland 2003. RIVM rapport 270751010. Bilthoven: RIVM, 2006
-
- Krismer M. Fusion of the lumbar spine. A consideration of the indications. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2002;84:783–94 - PubMed
-
- Turner JA, Ersek M, Herron L, et al. Patient outcomes after lumbar spinal fusions. JAMA 1992;268:907–11 - PubMed
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources