OBJECTIVES: Improvement in pain is a major expectation of patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Among 422 patients, the goal of this prospective study was to measure 2-year postoperative pain and to determine whether this outcome varied according to patient and clinical characteristics, including amount of pain relief expected preoperatively. Before surgery patients completed valid questionnaires that addressed clinical characteristics and expectations for pain improvement. Two years after surgery patients reported how much pain improvement they actually received. RESULTS: The mean age was 56 years old and 55% were men. Two years after surgery 11% of patients reported no improvement in pain, 28% reported a little to moderate improvement, 44% reported a lot of improvement, and 17% reported complete improvement. In multivariable analysis, patients reported less pain improvement if, before surgery, they expected greater pain improvement (odds ratio [OR] 1.4), had a positive screen for depression (OR 1.7), were having revision surgery (OR 1.6), had surgery at L4 or L5 (OR 2.5), had a degenerative diagnosis (OR 1.6), and if, after surgery, they had another surgery (OR 2.8) and greater back (OR 1.3) and leg (OR 1.1) pain (all variables P≤0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Pain is not uncommon after lumbar surgery and is associated with a network of clinical, surgical, and psychological variables. This study provides evidence that patients' expectations about pain are an independent variable in this network. Because expectations are potentially modifiable this study supports addressing pain-related expectations with patients before surgery through discussions with surgeons and through formal preoperative patient education.
OBJECTIVES: Improvement in pain is a major expectation of patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Among 422 patients, the goal of this prospective study was to measure 2-year postoperative pain and to determine whether this outcome varied according to patient and clinical characteristics, including amount of pain relief expected preoperatively. Before surgery patients completed valid questionnaires that addressed clinical characteristics and expectations for pain improvement. Two years after surgery patients reported how much pain improvement they actually received. RESULTS: The mean age was 56 years old and 55% were men. Two years after surgery 11% of patients reported no improvement in pain, 28% reported a little to moderate improvement, 44% reported a lot of improvement, and 17% reported complete improvement. In multivariable analysis, patients reported less pain improvement if, before surgery, they expected greater pain improvement (odds ratio [OR] 1.4), had a positive screen for depression (OR 1.7), were having revision surgery (OR 1.6), had surgery at L4 or L5 (OR 2.5), had a degenerative diagnosis (OR 1.6), and if, after surgery, they had another surgery (OR 2.8) and greater back (OR 1.3) and leg (OR 1.1) pain (all variables P≤0.05). CONCLUSIONS:Pain is not uncommon after lumbar surgery and is associated with a network of clinical, surgical, and psychological variables. This study provides evidence that patients' expectations about pain are an independent variable in this network. Because expectations are potentially modifiable this study supports addressing pain-related expectations with patients before surgery through discussions with surgeons and through formal preoperative patient education.
Authors: Katarina Rönnberg; Bengt Lind; Björn Zoëga; Klas Halldin; Martin Gellerstedt; Helena Brisby Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2007-01-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Carol A Mancuso; Roland Duculan; Frank P Cammisa; Andrew A Sama; Alexander P Hughes; Darren R Lebl; Federico P Girardi Journal: Spine J Date: 2016-04-18 Impact factor: 4.166
Authors: Steven J Atlas; Robert B Keller; Yen A Wu; Richard A Deyo; Daniel E Singer Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2005-04-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Scott L Parker; Stephen K Mendenhall; Saniya S Godil; Priya Sivasubramanian; Kevin Cahill; John Ziewacz; Matthew J McGirt Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Rogelio A Coronado; Amee L Seitz; Erica Pelote; Kristin R Archer; Nitin B Jain Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Emanuele M Giusti; Giada Pietrabissa; Gian Mauro Manzoni; Roberto Cattivelli; Enrico Molinari; Hester R Trompetter; Karlein M G Schreurs; Gianluca Castelnuovo Journal: Front Psychol Date: 2017-10-31
Authors: R Gal; D Oostinga; H Wessels; J J Verlaan; R Charest-Morin; C G Fisher; H M Verkooijen; A L Versteeg Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2020-12-09 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Samantha M Meints; Robert R Edwards; Christopher Gilligan; Kristin L Schreiber Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2020-05-20 Impact factor: 6.558
Authors: Marie-Jacqueline Reisener; Alexander P Hughes; Paul Schadler; Alexa Forman; Oliver C Sax; Jennifer Shue; Frank P Cammisa; Andrew A Sama; Federico P Girardi; Carol A Mancuso Journal: Asian Spine J Date: 2020-08-20
Authors: Richard L Witkam; Erkan Kurt; Robert van Dongen; Inge Arnts; Monique A H Steegers; Kris C P Vissers; Dylan J H A Henssen; Yvonne Engels Journal: Neuromodulation Date: 2020-09-23