Interventions to Modify Psychological Processes in Patients Undergoing Spine Surgery: A Systematic Review.

Abstract

ObjectivesAmong patients undergoing elective spine surgery, psychological processes such as kinesiophobia and pain catastrophizing are associated with postoperative disability and poor quality of life. These represent risk factors which could be modified to improve surgical outcomes. We reviewed perioperative interventions to modify psychological processes and their effects on psychological and surgery-related outcomes.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases for studies examining any interventions for modifying psychological processes in adult patients undergoing spine surgery. Two reviewers screened studies for eligibility, extracted data in duplicate, and performed risk of bias assessments. Outcomes included pain, disability, quality of life, kinesiophobia, self-efficacy, and pain catastrophizing.Results368 titles and abstracts were retrieved, of which 27 studies underwent full-text screening. We included 12 studies which reported on 1263 patients. Eight were randomized controlled trials. Interventions included preoperative and postoperative cognitive behavioural therapy, cognitive-behavioural-based physical therapy, a web-based interactive platform, an information booklet, and music therapy. The psychological and surgery-related outcomes of interventions were variable, with some studies reporting significant benefits and others reporting no differences between groups. The greatest potential benefits were found in studies of post-operative cognitive-behavioural-based physical therapy. Risk of bias among studies was high due primarily to lack of blinding and limited standardization of interventions.ConclusionsSeveral interventions to potentially modify psychological processes in patients undergoing spine surgery have been reported. Post-operative cognitive-behavioural-based physical therapy might be associated with improved outcomes, but confidence is limited by inconsistency, risk of bias, and limited long-term follow-up.