Thomas Barz

Identification of prognostic factors for chronicity in patients with low back pain: a review of screening instruments

Low back pain (LBP) is currently the most prevalent and costly musculoskeletal problem in modern societies. Screening instruments for the identification of prognostic factors in LBP may help to identify patients with an unfavourable outcome. In this systematic review screening instruments published between 1970 and 2007 were identified by a literature search. Nine different instruments were analysed and their different items grouped into ten structures. Finally, the predictive effectiveness of these structures was examined for the dependent variables including “work status“, “functional limitation”, and “pain“. The strongest predictors for “work status” were psychosocial and occupational structures, whereas for “functional limitation” and “pain” psychological structures were dominating. Psychological and occupational factors show a high reliability for the prognosis of patients with LBP. Screening instruments for the identification of prognostic factors in patients with LBP should include these factors as a minimum core set.RésuméLa lombalgie (LBP) est un problème important notamment sur le poste des dépenses dans nos sociétés modernes. Sur le plan évolutif, il est primordial de pouvoir dépister des facteurs pronostics négatifs de ces patients. entre 1970 et 2007, un certain nombre d’éléments permettant cette analyse ont été identifiés dans la littérature. Ces instruments d’analyse nous semblent importants de façon à déterminer la limitation fonctionnelle, les possibilités de travail et la douleur. l’élément de prévision le plus important pour la poursuite d’un emploi est psychosocial, de ce fait l’élément important pour apprécier le pronostic de limitation fonctionnelle ou de douleur est plutôt psychologique. les facteurs psychologiques et sociaux permettent de faire le pronostic des lombalgies, il s’agit d’un tronc commun des éléments de dépistage, devant inclure tous ces facteurs.

Nerve Root Sedimentation Sign : Evaluation of a New Radiological Sign in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

Study Design. Retrospective case-referent study. Objective. To assess whether the new sedimentation sign discriminates between nonspecific low back pain (LBP) and symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). Summary of Background Data. In the diagnosis of LSS, radiologic findings do not always correlate with clinical symptoms, and additional diagnostic signs are needed. In patients without LSS, we observe the sedimentation of lumbar nerve roots to the dorsal part of the dural sac on supine magnetic resonance image scans. In patients with symptomatic and morphologic central LSS, this sedimentation is rarely seen. We named this phenomenon “sedimentation sign” and defined the absence of sedimenting nerve roots as positive sedimentation sign for the diagnosis of LSS. Methods. This study included 200 patients. Patients in the LSS group (n = 100) showed claudication with or without LBP and leg pain, a cross-sectional area <80 mm2, and a walking distance <200 m; patients in the LBP group (n = 100) had LBP, no leg pain, no claudication, a cross-sectional area of the dural sac >120 mm2, and a walking distance >1000 m. The frequency of a positive sedimentation sign was compared between the 2 groups, and intraobserver and interobserver reliability were assessed in a random subsample (n = 20). Results. A positive sedimentation sign was identified in 94 patients in the LSS group (94%; 95% confidence interval, 90%–99%) but none in the LBP group (0%; 95% confidence interval, 0%–4%). Reliability was kappa = 1.0 (intraobserver) and kappa = 0.93 (interobserver), respectively. There was no difference in the detection of the sign between segmental levels L1–L5 in the LSS group. Conclusion. A positive sedimentation sign exclusively and reliably occurs in patients with LSS, suggesting its usefulness in clinical practice. Future accuracy studies will address its sensitivity and specificity. If they confirm the signs high specificity, a positive sedimentation sign can rule in LSS, and, with a high sensitivity, a negative sedimentation sign can rule out LSS.

The international spine registry SPINE TANGO: status quo and first results

With an official life time of over 5 years, Spine Tango can meanwhile be considered the first international spine registry. In this paper we present an overview of frequency statistics of Spine Tango for demonstrating the genesis of questionnaire development and the constantly increasing activity in the registry. Results from two exemplar studies serve for showing concepts of data analysis applied to a spine registry. Between 2002 and 2006, about 6,000 datasets were submitted by 25 centres. Descriptive analyses were performed for demographic, surgical and follow-up data of three generations of the Spine Tango surgery and follow-up forms. The two exemplar studies used multiple linear regression models to identify potential predictor variables for the occurrence of dura lesions in posterior spinal fusion, and to evaluate which covariates influenced the length of hospital stay. Over the study period there was a rise in median patient age from 52.3 to 58.6 years in the Spine Tango data pool and an increasing percentage of degenerative diseases as main pathology from 59.9 to 71.4%. Posterior decompression was the most frequent surgical measure. About one-third of all patients had documented follow-ups. The complication rate remained below 10%. The exemplar studies identified ‘‘centre of intervention’’ and ‘‘number of segments of fusion’’ as predictors of the occurrence of dura lesions in posterior spinal fusion surgery. Length of hospital stay among patients with posterior fusion was significantly influenced by ‘‘centre of intervention’’, ‘‘surgeon credentials’’, ‘‘number of segments of fusion’’, ‘‘age group’’ and ‘‘sex’’. Data analysis from Spine Tango is possible but complicated by the incompatibility of questionnaire generations 1 and 2 with the more recent generation 3. Although descriptive and also analytic studies at evidence level 2++ can be performed, findings cannot yet be generalised to any specific country or patient population. Current limitations of Spine Tango include the low number and short duration of follow-ups and the lack of sufficiently detailed patient data on subgroup levels. Although the number of participants is steadily growing, no country is yet represented with a sufficient number of hospitals. Nevertheless, the benefits of the project for the whole spine community become increasingly visible.

Differences across health care systems in outcome and cost-utility of surgical and conservative treatment of chronic low back pain: a study protocol

BackgroundThere is little evidence on differences across health care systems in choice and outcome of the treatment of chronic low back pain (CLBP) with spinal surgery and conservative treatment as the main options. At least six randomised controlled trials comparing these two options have been performed; they show conflicting results without clear-cut evidence for superior effectiveness of any of the evaluated interventions and could not address whether treatment effect varied across patient subgroups. Cost-utility analyses display inconsistent results when comparing surgical and conservative treatment of CLBP. Due to its higher feasibility, we chose to conduct a prospective observational cohort study.MethodsThis study aims to examine if1. Differences across health care systems result in different treatment outcomes of surgical and conservative treatment of CLBP2. Patient characteristics (work-related, psychological factors, etc.) and co-interventions (physiotherapy, cognitive behavioural therapy, return-to-work programs, etc.) modify the outcome of treatment for CLBP3. Cost-utility in terms of quality-adjusted life years differs between surgical and conservative treatment of CLBP.This study will recruit 1000 patients from orthopaedic spine units, rehabilitation centres, and pain clinics in Switzerland and New Zealand. Effectiveness will be measured by the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) at baseline and after six months. The change in ODI will be the primary endpoint of this study.Multiple linear regression models will be used, with the change in ODI from baseline to six months as the dependent variable and the type of health care system, type of treatment, patient characteristics, and co-interventions as independent variables. Interactions will be incorporated between type of treatment and different co-interventions and patient characteristics. Cost-utility will be measured with an index based on EQol-5D in combination with cost data.ConclusionThis study will provide evidence if differences across health care systems in the outcome of treatment of CLBP exist. It will classify patients with CLBP into different clinical subgroups and help to identify specific target groups who might benefit from specific surgical or conservative interventions. Furthermore, cost-utility differences will be identified for different groups of patients with CLBP. Main results of this study should be replicated in future studies on CLBP.

Development of a screening tool predicting the transition from acute to chronic low back pain for patients in a GP setting: protocol of a multinational prospective cohort study

BackgroundLow back pain (LBP) is by far the most prevalent and costly musculoskeletal problem in our society today. Following the recommendations of the Multinational Musculoskeletal Inception Cohort Study (MMICS) Statement, our study aims to define outcome assessment tools for patients with acute LBP and the time point at which chronic LBP becomes manifest and to identify patient characteristics which increase the risk of chronicity.MethodsPatients with acute LBP will be recruited from clinics of general practitioners (GPs) in New Zealand (NZ) and Switzerland (CH). They will be assessed by postal survey at baseline and at 3, 6, 12 weeks and 6 months follow-up. Primary outcome will be disability as measured by the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI); key secondary endpoints will be general health as measured by the acute SF-12 and pain as measured on the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). A subgroup analysis of different assessment instruments and baseline characteristics will be performed using multiple linear regression models.This study aims to examine1. Which biomedical, psychological, social, and occupational outcome assessment tools are identifiers for the transition from acute to chronic LBP and at which time point this transition becomes manifest2. Which psychosocial and occupational baseline characteristics like work status and period of work absenteeism influence the course from acute to chronic LBP3. Differences in outcome assessment tools and baseline characteristics of patients in NZ compared with CH.DiscussionThis study will develop a screening tool for patients with acute LBP to be used in GP clinics to access the risk of developing chronic LBP. In addition, biomedical, psychological, social, and occupational patient characteristics which influence the course from acute to chronic LBP will be identified. Furthermore, an appropriate time point for follow-ups will be given to detect this transition. The generalizability of our findings will be enhanced by the international perspective of this study.Trial registration[Clinical Trial Registration Number, ACTRN12608000520336]

ISSLS Prize Winner: Consensus on the Clinical Diagnosis of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Results of an International Delphi Study.

Study Design. Delphi. Objective. The aim of this study was to obtain an expert consensus on which history factors are most important in the clinical diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). Summary of Background Data. LSS is a poorly defined clinical syndrome. Criteria for defining LSS are needed and should be informed by the experience of expert clinicians. Methods. Phase 1 (Delphi Items): 20 members of the International Taskforce on the Diagnosis and Management of LSS confirmed a list of 14 history items. An online survey was developed that permits specialists to express the logical order in which they consider the items, and the level of certainty ascertained from the questions. Phase 2 (Delphi Study) Round 1: Survey distributed to members of the International Society for the Study of the Lumbar Spine. Round 2: Meeting of 9 members of Taskforce where consensus was reached on a final list of 10 items. Round 3: Final survey was distributed internationally. Phase 3: Final Taskforce consensus meeting. Results. A total of 279 clinicians from 29 different countries, with a mean of 19 (±SD: 12) years in practice participated. The six top items were “leg or buttock pain while walking,” “flex forward to relieve symptoms,” “feel relief when using a shopping cart or bicycle,” “motor or sensory disturbance while walking,” “normal and symmetric foot pulses,” “lower extremity weakness,” and “low back pain.” Significant change in certainty ceased after six questions at 80% (P < .05). Conclusion. This is the first study to reach an international consensus on the clinical diagnosis of LSS, and suggests that within six questions clinicians are 80% certain of diagnosis. We propose a consensus-based set of “seven history items” that can act as a pragmatic criterion for defining LSS in both clinical and research settings, which in the long term may lead to more cost-effective treatment, improved health care utilization, and enhanced patient outcomes. Level of Evidence: 2

Who is likely to develop persistent low back pain? A longitudinal analysis of prognostic occupational factors

OBJECTIVE Occupational low back pain (LBP) is considered to be the most expensive form of work disability, with the socioeconomic costs of persistent LBP exceeding the costs of acute and subacute LBP by far. This makes the early identification of patients at risk of developing persistent LBP essential, especially in working populations. The aim of the study was to evaluate both risk factors (for the development of persistent LBP) and protective factors (preventing the development of persistent LBP) in the same cohort. PARTICIPANTS An inception cohort of 315 patients with acute to subacute or with recurrent LBP was recruited from 14 health practitioners (twelve general practitioners and two physiotherapists) across New Zealand. METHODS Patients with persistent LBP at six-month follow-up were compared to patients with non-persistent LBP looking at occupational, psychological, biomedical and demographic/lifestyle predictors at baseline using multiple logistic regression analyses. All significant variables from the different domains were combined into a one predictor model. RESULTS A final two-predictor model with an overall predictive value of 78% included social support at work (OR 0.67; 95%CI 0.45 to 0.99) and somatization (OR 1.08; 95%CI 1.01 to 1.15). CONCLUSIONS Social support at work should be considered as a resource preventing the development of persistent LBP whereas somatization should be considered as a risk factor for the development of persistent LBP. Further studies are needed to determine if addressing these factors in workplace interventions for patients suffering from acute, subacute or recurrent LBP prevents subsequent development of persistent LBP.

Consensus on the Clinical Diagnosis of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Results of an International Delphi Study

Study Design. Delphi. Objective. The aim of this study was to obtain an expert consensus on which history factors are most important in the clinical diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). Summary of Background Data. LSS is a poorly defined clinical syndrome. Criteria for defining LSS are needed and should be informed by the experience of expert clinicians. Methods. Phase 1 (Delphi Items): 20 members of the International Taskforce on the Diagnosis and Management of LSS confirmed a list of 14 history items. An online survey was developed that permits specialists to express the logical order in which they consider the items, and the level of certainty ascertained from the questions. Phase 2 (Delphi Study) Round 1: Survey distributed to members of the International Society for the Study of the Lumbar Spine. Round 2: Meeting of 9 members of Taskforce where consensus was reached on a final list of 10 items. Round 3: Final survey was distributed internationally. Phase 3: Final Taskforce consensus meeting. Results. A total of 279 clinicians from 29 different countries, with a mean of 19 (±SD: 12) years in practice participated. The six top items were “leg or buttock pain while walking,” “flex forward to relieve symptoms,” “feel relief when using a shopping cart or bicycle,” “motor or sensory disturbance while walking,” “normal and symmetric foot pulses,” “lower extremity weakness,” and “low back pain.” Significant change in certainty ceased after six questions at 80% (P < .05). Conclusion. This is the first study to reach an international consensus on the clinical diagnosis of LSS, and suggests that within six questions clinicians are 80% certain of diagnosis. We propose a consensus-based set of “seven history items” that can act as a pragmatic criterion for defining LSS in both clinical and research settings, which in the long term may lead to more cost-effective treatment, improved health care utilization, and enhanced patient outcomes. Level of Evidence: 2

Clinical validity of the nerve root sedimentation sign in patients with suspected lumbar spinal stenosis

BACKGROUND CONTEXT The nerve root sedimentation sign in transverse magnetic resonance imaging has been shown to discriminate well between selected patients with and without lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS), but the performance of this new test, when used in a broader patient population, is not yet known. PURPOSE To evaluate the clinical performance of the nerve root sedimentation sign in detecting central LSS above L5 and to determine its potential significance for treatment decisions. STUDY DESIGN Retrospective cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE One hundred eighteen consecutive patients with suspected LSS (52% women, median age 62 years) with a median follow-up of 24 months. OUTCOME MEASURES Oswestry disability index (ODI) and back and leg pain relief. METHODS We performed a clinical test validation study to assess the clinical performance of the sign by measuring its association with health outcomes. Subjects were patients referred to our orthopedic spine unit from 2004 to 2007 before the sign had been described. Based on clinical and radiological diagnostics, patients had been treated with decompression surgery or nonsurgical treatment. Changes in the ODI and pain from baseline to 24-month follow-up were compared between sedimentation sign positives and negatives in both treatment groups. RESULTS Sixty-nine patients underwent surgery. Average baseline ODI in the surgical group was 54.7%, and the sign was positive in 39 patients (mean ODI improvement 29.0 points) and negative in 30 (ODI improvement 28.4), with no statistically significant difference in ODI and pain improvement between groups. In the 49 patients of the nonsurgical group, mean baseline ODI was 42.4%; the sign was positive in 18 (ODI improvement 0.6) and negative in 31 (ODI improvement 17.7). A positive sign was associated with a smaller ODI and back pain improvement than negative signs (both p<.01 on t test). CONCLUSIONS In patients commonly treated with decompression surgery, the sedimentation sign does not appear to predict surgical outcome. In nonsurgically treated patients, a positive sign is associated with more limited improvement. In these cases, surgery might be effective, but this needs investigation in prospective randomized trials (Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry, number ACTRN12610000567022).

Depression Impacts the Course of Recovery in Patients with Acute Low-Back Pain

Little is known about the course of recovery of acute low back pain (LBP) patients as a function of depression. In a prospective study, 286 acute LBP patients were assessed at baseline and followed up over 6 months. Recovery was defined as improvement in the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Repeated-measures analysis of covariance was employed with ODI as repeated factor, age, sex, and body mass index as covariates, depression and all other potential prognostic factors as between-subject factors. Of study participants, 18% were classified as depressive (>33 points on the Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale). Of 286 participants, 135 were lost to follow-up. In the longitudinal sample of 151 patients the course of recovery was slower in depressive patients. Depression was associated with LBP especially after 6 weeks and should therefore be included in screening instruments for acute LBP patients to identify those at risk of delayed recovery at an early stage.