Lumbar spine fusion surgery versus best conservative care for patients with severe, persistent low back pain.

IF 2.8 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS
Eniola S Bada, Adrian C Gardner, Sashin Ahuja, David J Beard, Peter Window, Nadine E Foster, David J Beard, Sashin Ahuja, Loretta Davies, Nadine Foster, Ashley Cole, Steven Blackburn, James Greenwood, Almas Khan, Jenny Donovan, Julia Wade, Cathy Price, Adrian Gardner, Naffis Anjarwalla, Sue Jowett, Michael Reddington, Ines Rombach, Stephen Tatton
{"title":"Lumbar spine fusion surgery versus best conservative care for patients with severe, persistent low back pain.","authors":"Eniola S Bada, Adrian C Gardner, Sashin Ahuja, David J Beard, Peter Window, Nadine E Foster, David J Beard, Sashin Ahuja, Loretta Davies, Nadine Foster, Ashley Cole, Steven Blackburn, James Greenwood, Almas Khan, Jenny Donovan, Julia Wade, Cathy Price, Adrian Gardner, Naffis Anjarwalla, Sue Jowett, Michael Reddington, Ines Rombach, Stephen Tatton","doi":"10.1302/2633-1462.57.BJO-2023-0147.R1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>People with severe, persistent low back pain (LBP) may be offered lumbar spine fusion surgery if they have had insufficient benefit from recommended non-surgical treatments. However, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) 2016 guidelines recommended not offering spinal fusion surgery for adults with LBP, except as part of a randomized clinical trial. This survey aims to describe UK clinicians' views about the suitability of patients for such a future trial, along with their views regarding equipoise for randomizing patients in a future clinical trial comparing lumbar spine fusion surgery to best conservative care (BCC; the FORENSIC-UK trial).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An online cross-sectional survey was piloted by the multidisciplinary research team, then shared with clinical professional groups in the UK who are involved in the management of adults with severe, persistent LBP. The survey had seven sections that covered the demographic details of the clinician, five hypothetical case vignettes of patients with varying presentations, a series of questions regarding the preferred management, and whether or not each clinician would be willing to recruit the example patients into future clinical trials.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 72 respondents, with a response rate of 9.0%. They comprised 39 orthopaedic spine surgeons, 17 neurosurgeons, one pain specialist, and 15 allied health professionals. Most respondents (n = 61,84.7%) chose conservative care as their first-choice management option for all five case vignettes. Over 50% of respondents reported willingness to randomize three of the five cases to either surgery or BCC, indicating a willingness to participate in the future randomized trial. From the respondents, transforaminal interbody fusion was the preferred approach for spinal fusion (n = 19, 36.4%), and the preferred method of BCC was a combined programme of physical and psychological therapy (n = 35, 48.5%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This survey demonstrates that there is uncertainty about the role of lumbar spine fusion surgery and BCC for a range of example patients with severe, persistent LBP in the UK.</p>","PeriodicalId":34103,"journal":{"name":"Bone & Joint Open","volume":"5 7","pages":"612-620"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11258515/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bone & Joint Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1302/2633-1462.57.BJO-2023-0147.R1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aims: People with severe, persistent low back pain (LBP) may be offered lumbar spine fusion surgery if they have had insufficient benefit from recommended non-surgical treatments. However, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) 2016 guidelines recommended not offering spinal fusion surgery for adults with LBP, except as part of a randomized clinical trial. This survey aims to describe UK clinicians' views about the suitability of patients for such a future trial, along with their views regarding equipoise for randomizing patients in a future clinical trial comparing lumbar spine fusion surgery to best conservative care (BCC; the FORENSIC-UK trial).

Methods: An online cross-sectional survey was piloted by the multidisciplinary research team, then shared with clinical professional groups in the UK who are involved in the management of adults with severe, persistent LBP. The survey had seven sections that covered the demographic details of the clinician, five hypothetical case vignettes of patients with varying presentations, a series of questions regarding the preferred management, and whether or not each clinician would be willing to recruit the example patients into future clinical trials.

Results: There were 72 respondents, with a response rate of 9.0%. They comprised 39 orthopaedic spine surgeons, 17 neurosurgeons, one pain specialist, and 15 allied health professionals. Most respondents (n = 61,84.7%) chose conservative care as their first-choice management option for all five case vignettes. Over 50% of respondents reported willingness to randomize three of the five cases to either surgery or BCC, indicating a willingness to participate in the future randomized trial. From the respondents, transforaminal interbody fusion was the preferred approach for spinal fusion (n = 19, 36.4%), and the preferred method of BCC was a combined programme of physical and psychological therapy (n = 35, 48.5%).

Conclusion: This survey demonstrates that there is uncertainty about the role of lumbar spine fusion surgery and BCC for a range of example patients with severe, persistent LBP in the UK.

腰椎融合手术与最佳保守疗法对严重、持续性腰痛患者的治疗效果对比。
目的:患有严重、持续性腰背痛(LBP)的患者如果从推荐的非手术疗法中获益不足,可接受腰椎融合手术治疗。然而,英国国家健康与护理优化研究所(NICE)2016年指南建议,除非作为随机临床试验的一部分,否则不对成人腰背痛患者实施脊柱融合手术。本调查旨在描述英国临床医生对患者是否适合参加未来此类试验的看法,以及他们对在未来比较腰椎融合手术与最佳保守治疗(BCC;FORENSIC-UK 试验)的临床试验中随机抽取患者的等效性的看法:方法:多学科研究小组先在网上进行横断面调查,然后与英国参与严重、顽固性腰椎间盘突出症成人患者治疗的临床专业团体分享。调查共分七个部分,包括临床医生的详细人口统计学资料、五个不同表现的假定病例、一系列有关首选治疗方法的问题,以及每位临床医生是否愿意在未来的临床试验中招募该例患者:共有 72 位受访者,回复率为 9.0%。其中包括 39 名脊柱矫形外科医生、17 名神经外科医生、1 名疼痛专家和 15 名专职医疗人员。大多数受访者(n = 61,84.7%)都选择保守治疗作为所有五个病例案例的首选治疗方案。超过 50% 的受访者表示愿意将五个病例中的三个随机分配给手术或 BCC,这表明他们愿意参与未来的随机试验。在受访者中,经椎间孔椎间融合术是首选的脊柱融合方法(19 人,占 36.4%),而 BCC 的首选方法是物理和心理治疗相结合的方案(35 人,占 48.5%):这项调查表明,在英国,腰椎融合手术和BCC对一系列患有严重、顽固性腰痛的患者的作用并不确定。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Bone & Joint Open
Bone & Joint Open ORTHOPEDICS-
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信