Cargando…

Surgery with disc prosthesis versus rehabilitation in patients with low back pain and degenerative disc: two year follow-up of randomised study

Objective To compare the efficacy of surgery with disc prosthesis versus non-surgical treatment for patients with chronic low back pain. Design A prospective randomised multicentre study. Setting Five university hospitals in Norway. Participants 173 patients with a history of low back pain for at le...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hellum, Christian, Johnsen, Lars Gunnar, Storheim, Kjersti, Nygaard, Øystein P, Brox, Jens Ivar, Rossvoll, Ivar, Rø, Magne, Sandvik, Leiv, Grundnes, Oliver
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3100911/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21596740
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d2786
_version_ 1782204226802286592
author Hellum, Christian
Johnsen, Lars Gunnar
Storheim, Kjersti
Nygaard, Øystein P
Brox, Jens Ivar
Rossvoll, Ivar
Rø, Magne
Sandvik, Leiv
Grundnes, Oliver
author_facet Hellum, Christian
Johnsen, Lars Gunnar
Storheim, Kjersti
Nygaard, Øystein P
Brox, Jens Ivar
Rossvoll, Ivar
Rø, Magne
Sandvik, Leiv
Grundnes, Oliver
author_sort Hellum, Christian
collection PubMed
description Objective To compare the efficacy of surgery with disc prosthesis versus non-surgical treatment for patients with chronic low back pain. Design A prospective randomised multicentre study. Setting Five university hospitals in Norway. Participants 173 patients with a history of low back pain for at least one year, Oswestry disability index of at least 30 points, and degenerative changes in one or two lower lumbar spine levels (86 patients randomised to surgery). Patients were treated from April 2004 to September 2007. Interventions Surgery with disc prosthesis or outpatient multidisciplinary rehabilitation for 12-15 days. Main outcome measures The primary outcome measure was the score on the Oswestry disability index after two years. Secondary outcome measures were low back pain, satisfaction with life (SF-36 and EuroQol EQ-5D), Hopkins symptom check list (HSCL-25), fear avoidance beliefs (FABQ), self efficacy beliefs for pain, work status, and patients’ satisfaction and drug use. A blinded independent observer evaluated scores on the back performance scale and Prolo scale at two year follow-up. Results The study was powered to detect a difference of 10 points on the Oswestry disability index between the groups at two years. At two years there was a mean difference of −8.4 points (95% confidence interval −13.2 to −3.6) in favour of surgery. In the analysis of prespecified secondary outcomes, there were significant differences in favour of surgery for low back pain (mean difference −12.2, −21.3 to −3.1), patients’ satisfaction (63% (n=46) v 39% (n=26)), SF-36 physical component score (mean difference 5.8, 2.5 to 9.1), self efficacy for pain (mean difference 1.0, 0.2 to 1.9), and the Prolo scale (mean difference 0.9, 0.1 to 1.6). There were no significant differences in return to work, SF-36 mental component score, EQ-5D, fear avoidance beliefs, Hopkins symptom check list, drug use, and the back performance scale. One serious complication of leg amputation occurred during surgical revision of a polyethylene dislodgement. The drop-out rate was 20% (34) and the crossover rate was 6% (5). Conclusions Surgical intervention with disc prosthesis for chronic low back pain resulted in a significantly greater improvement in the Oswestry score compared with rehabilitation, but this improvement did not clearly exceed the prespecified minimally important clinical difference between groups of 10 points, and the data are consistent with a wide range of differences between the groups, including values well below 10 points. The potential risks of surgery and the substantial amount of improvement experienced by a sizeable proportion of the rehabilitation group also have to be incorporated into overall decision making. Trial registration NCT 00394732.
format Text
id pubmed-3100911
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2011
publisher BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-31009112011-06-01 Surgery with disc prosthesis versus rehabilitation in patients with low back pain and degenerative disc: two year follow-up of randomised study Hellum, Christian Johnsen, Lars Gunnar Storheim, Kjersti Nygaard, Øystein P Brox, Jens Ivar Rossvoll, Ivar Rø, Magne Sandvik, Leiv Grundnes, Oliver BMJ Research Objective To compare the efficacy of surgery with disc prosthesis versus non-surgical treatment for patients with chronic low back pain. Design A prospective randomised multicentre study. Setting Five university hospitals in Norway. Participants 173 patients with a history of low back pain for at least one year, Oswestry disability index of at least 30 points, and degenerative changes in one or two lower lumbar spine levels (86 patients randomised to surgery). Patients were treated from April 2004 to September 2007. Interventions Surgery with disc prosthesis or outpatient multidisciplinary rehabilitation for 12-15 days. Main outcome measures The primary outcome measure was the score on the Oswestry disability index after two years. Secondary outcome measures were low back pain, satisfaction with life (SF-36 and EuroQol EQ-5D), Hopkins symptom check list (HSCL-25), fear avoidance beliefs (FABQ), self efficacy beliefs for pain, work status, and patients’ satisfaction and drug use. A blinded independent observer evaluated scores on the back performance scale and Prolo scale at two year follow-up. Results The study was powered to detect a difference of 10 points on the Oswestry disability index between the groups at two years. At two years there was a mean difference of −8.4 points (95% confidence interval −13.2 to −3.6) in favour of surgery. In the analysis of prespecified secondary outcomes, there were significant differences in favour of surgery for low back pain (mean difference −12.2, −21.3 to −3.1), patients’ satisfaction (63% (n=46) v 39% (n=26)), SF-36 physical component score (mean difference 5.8, 2.5 to 9.1), self efficacy for pain (mean difference 1.0, 0.2 to 1.9), and the Prolo scale (mean difference 0.9, 0.1 to 1.6). There were no significant differences in return to work, SF-36 mental component score, EQ-5D, fear avoidance beliefs, Hopkins symptom check list, drug use, and the back performance scale. One serious complication of leg amputation occurred during surgical revision of a polyethylene dislodgement. The drop-out rate was 20% (34) and the crossover rate was 6% (5). Conclusions Surgical intervention with disc prosthesis for chronic low back pain resulted in a significantly greater improvement in the Oswestry score compared with rehabilitation, but this improvement did not clearly exceed the prespecified minimally important clinical difference between groups of 10 points, and the data are consistent with a wide range of differences between the groups, including values well below 10 points. The potential risks of surgery and the substantial amount of improvement experienced by a sizeable proportion of the rehabilitation group also have to be incorporated into overall decision making. Trial registration NCT 00394732. BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. 2011-05-19 /pmc/articles/PMC3100911/ /pubmed/21596740 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d2786 Text en © Hellum et al 2011 This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial License, which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non commercial and is otherwise in compliance with the license. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/ and http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/legalcode.
spellingShingle Research
Hellum, Christian
Johnsen, Lars Gunnar
Storheim, Kjersti
Nygaard, Øystein P
Brox, Jens Ivar
Rossvoll, Ivar
Rø, Magne
Sandvik, Leiv
Grundnes, Oliver
Surgery with disc prosthesis versus rehabilitation in patients with low back pain and degenerative disc: two year follow-up of randomised study
title Surgery with disc prosthesis versus rehabilitation in patients with low back pain and degenerative disc: two year follow-up of randomised study
title_full Surgery with disc prosthesis versus rehabilitation in patients with low back pain and degenerative disc: two year follow-up of randomised study
title_fullStr Surgery with disc prosthesis versus rehabilitation in patients with low back pain and degenerative disc: two year follow-up of randomised study
title_full_unstemmed Surgery with disc prosthesis versus rehabilitation in patients with low back pain and degenerative disc: two year follow-up of randomised study
title_short Surgery with disc prosthesis versus rehabilitation in patients with low back pain and degenerative disc: two year follow-up of randomised study
title_sort surgery with disc prosthesis versus rehabilitation in patients with low back pain and degenerative disc: two year follow-up of randomised study
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3100911/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21596740
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d2786
work_keys_str_mv AT hellumchristian surgerywithdiscprosthesisversusrehabilitationinpatientswithlowbackpainanddegenerativedisctwoyearfollowupofrandomisedstudy
AT johnsenlarsgunnar surgerywithdiscprosthesisversusrehabilitationinpatientswithlowbackpainanddegenerativedisctwoyearfollowupofrandomisedstudy
AT storheimkjersti surgerywithdiscprosthesisversusrehabilitationinpatientswithlowbackpainanddegenerativedisctwoyearfollowupofrandomisedstudy
AT nygaardøysteinp surgerywithdiscprosthesisversusrehabilitationinpatientswithlowbackpainanddegenerativedisctwoyearfollowupofrandomisedstudy
AT broxjensivar surgerywithdiscprosthesisversusrehabilitationinpatientswithlowbackpainanddegenerativedisctwoyearfollowupofrandomisedstudy
AT rossvollivar surgerywithdiscprosthesisversusrehabilitationinpatientswithlowbackpainanddegenerativedisctwoyearfollowupofrandomisedstudy
AT rømagne surgerywithdiscprosthesisversusrehabilitationinpatientswithlowbackpainanddegenerativedisctwoyearfollowupofrandomisedstudy
AT sandvikleiv surgerywithdiscprosthesisversusrehabilitationinpatientswithlowbackpainanddegenerativedisctwoyearfollowupofrandomisedstudy
AT grundnesoliver surgerywithdiscprosthesisversusrehabilitationinpatientswithlowbackpainanddegenerativedisctwoyearfollowupofrandomisedstudy