Literature DB >> 12756629

Pain 5 years after instrumented and non-instrumented posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion.

Thomas Andersen1, Finn B Christensen, Ebbe S Hansen, Cody Bünger.   

Abstract

Pain drawings have been used in spine surgery for diagnostic use and psychological evaluation of fusion candidates; they have rarely been used to evaluate pain status after spinal fusion. This study is a 5-year follow-up on a randomised clinical trial assigning patients to posterolateral spinal fusion with or without pedicle screw instrumentation. Patients were mailed a pain drawing and questionnaires including questions regarding work, social status, smoking status, the Dallas Pain Questionnaire (DPQ), and the Low Back Pain Rating Scale (LBPRS). Pain drawings were scored using a visual inspection method and a surface-based point scoring and evaluated for the presence of donor site pain. Pain drawings from 109 patients (87% of the initially included patients), 56 men and 53 women, mean age at follow-up 51 years, were analysed. Fifty-three patients had undergone an instrumented fusion and 56 a non-instrumented fusion. Some presence of low back pain was marked by 79% and leg pain by 69%. Sixty-two percent of the pain drawings were classified as "organic" and 38% as "non-organic". There was no difference between the instrumented and the uninstrumented group. DPQ and LBPRS scores were higher in the non-organic group ( P=0.007). Using the point scoring, no difference between the instrumented and the uninstrumented group was seen. The results of the point scoring were found to correlate with the DPQ and LBPRS scores ( P=0.001). Working patients (39%) had significantly better scores than the rest. Ten percent of the patients had donor site pain. Twenty percent of spinal fusion patients are totally pain free at 5-year follow-up. Ten percent still experience donor site pain. In general, instrumentation does not affect the amount and localisation of pain 5 years after lumbar spinal fusion surgery. The pain drawing seems to be a valuable tool when following spinal fusion patients, but its use as prognostic marker in connection with fusion surgery needs further investigation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12756629      PMCID: PMC3467782          DOI: 10.1007/s00586-003-0547-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Spine J        ISSN: 0940-6719            Impact factor:   3.134


  38 in total

1.  Instrumented and noninstrumented posterolateral fusion in adult spondylolisthesis--a prospective randomized study: part 2.

Authors:  H Möller; R Hedlund
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2000-07-01       Impact factor: 3.468

2.  Surgery versus conservative management in adult isthmic spondylolisthesis--a prospective randomized study: part 1.

Authors:  H Möller; R Hedlund
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2000-07-01       Impact factor: 3.468

3.  Nonorganic pain drawings are associated with low psychological scores on the preoperative SF-36 questionnaire in patients with chronic low back pain.

Authors:  B Dahl; P M Gehrchen; T Kiaer; P Blyme; E Tøndevold; T Bendix
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Smoking as a predictor of negative outcome in lumbar spinal fusion.

Authors:  T Andersen; F B Christensen; M Laursen; K Høy; E S Hansen; C Bünger
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2001-12-01       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  2001 Volvo Award Winner in Clinical Studies: Lumbar fusion versus nonsurgical treatment for chronic low back pain: a multicenter randomized controlled trial from the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group.

Authors:  P Fritzell; O Hägg; P Wessberg; A Nordwall
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2001-12-01       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  Relation between pain location and disc pathology: a study of pain drawings and CT/discography.

Authors:  D D Ohnmeiss; H Vanharanta; J Ekholm
Journal:  Clin J Pain       Date:  1999-09       Impact factor: 3.442

7.  Chronic low back pain and fusion: a comparison of three surgical techniques: a prospective multicenter randomized study from the Swedish lumbar spine study group.

Authors:  Peter Fritzell; Olle Hägg; Per Wessberg; Anders Nordwall
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2002-06-01       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  Associations between patient report of symptoms and anatomic impairment visible on lumbar magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  P F Beattie; S P Meyers; P Stratford; R W Millard; G M Hollenberg
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2000-04-01       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  Changes in MMPI profiles after low-back surgery.

Authors:  L D Herron; H C Pheasant
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1982 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  Long-term functional outcome of pedicle screw instrumentation as a support for posterolateral spinal fusion: randomized clinical study with a 5-year follow-up.

Authors:  Finn Bjarke Christensen; Ebbe Stender Hansen; Malene Laursen; Karsten Thomsen; Cody E Bünger
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2002-06-15       Impact factor: 3.468

View more
  8 in total

1.  Post-discectomy syndrome treated with lumbar interbody fusion.

Authors:  Thomas Niemeyer; Henry Halm; Lars Hackenberg; Ulf Liljenqvist; Albert Schulze Bövingloh
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2006-04-19       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 2.  A systematic review with meta-analysis of posterior interbody fusion versus posterolateral fusion in lumbar spondylolisthesis.

Authors:  Xiaoyang Liu; Yipeng Wang; Guixing Qiu; Xisheng Weng; Bin Yu
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-06-30       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 3.  Surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylosis.

Authors:  J N A Gibson; G Waddell
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2005-10-19

4.  Results after anterior-posterior lumbar spinal fusion: 2-5 years follow-up.

Authors:  Thomas Niemeyer; Albert Schulze Bövingloh; Henry Halm; Ulf Liljenqvist
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2004-07-27       Impact factor: 3.075

5.  Degenerative spondylolisthesis: does fusion method influence outcome? Four-year results of the spine patient outcomes research trial.

Authors:  William A Abdu; Jon D Lurie; Kevin F Spratt; Anna N A Tosteson; Wenyan Zhao; Tor D Tosteson; Harry Herkowitz; Michael Longely; Scott D Boden; Sanford Emery; James N Weinstein
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2009-10-01       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  Persistent pain in patients following scoliosis surgery.

Authors:  G T C Wong; V M Y Yuen; B F M Chow; M G Irwin
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2007-04-05       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  Comparison between posterior dynamic stabilization and posterior lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of degenerative disc disease: a prospective cohort study.

Authors:  Haodong Fei; Jiang Xu; Shouguo Wang; Yue Xie; Feng Ji; Yongyi Xu
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2015-06-02       Impact factor: 2.359

8.  Dynamic stabilization for challenging lumbar degenerative diseases of the spine: a review of the literature.

Authors:  Tuncay Kaner; Ali Fahir Ozer
Journal:  Adv Orthop       Date:  2013-04-15
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.