James M Parrish1, Nathaniel W Jenkins1, Manasi S Parrish2, Elliot D K Cha1, Conor P Lynch1, Dustin H Massel3, Nadia M Hrynewycz1, Shruthi Mohan1, Cara E Geoghegan1, Caroline N Jadczak1, Jennifer Westrick4, Rebecca Van Horn2, Kern Singh5. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, 1611 W. Harrison St. Suite #300, Chicago, IL, 60612, USA. 2. Department of Psychiatry, Road Home Program, Rush University Medical Center, 325 S. Paulina St. Suite 200, Chicago, IL, 60612, USA. 3. Department of Orthopaedics, Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami, 900 NW 17th Street, Miami, FL, 33136, USA. 4. Department of Library and Information Science, Rush University Medical Center Library, 600 S. Paulina St. Suite 571, Chicago, IL, 60612, USA. 5. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, 1611 W. Harrison St. Suite #300, Chicago, IL, 60612, USA. kern.singh@rushortho.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: As more patients undergo lumbar spine surgery, novel interventions may improve physical and mental health outcomes. Few studies summarize the benefit of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) among lumbar spine surgery patients. This study collects randomized control trial data to investigate the influence of CBT on patient reported outcomes among lumbar spine surgery patients. METHODS: Our study used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and a medical library expert assisted in searching PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar. We calculated standardized mean differences (SMD) to evaluate the effect size of CBT versus control groups with a sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: Our meta-analysis included seven studies with a total of 531 patients. The majority of included studies evaluated lumbar fusion, with preoperative CBT performed by physiotherapists. The largest effects were observed for overall quality of life (SMD = 0.55 [95% CI 0.05, 1.05], p < 0.001, I2 = 86.7%) and psychological outcomes (SMD = 0.61 [95% CI 0.28, 0.94], p < 0.001, I2 = 89.7%) though disability and pain outcomes also favored CBT intervention. Included studies demonstrated low overall bias but large heterogeneity. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated negligible study design differences and revealed moderators including CBT session frequency and final follow-up duration (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Compared to usual care or alternative therapy control arms, CBT delivered the most improvement with overall quality of life and psychological outcomes. Among appropriately selected patients, CBT could improve perioperative disability, pain, quality of life, and psychological health following lumbar spine surgery.
PURPOSE: As more patients undergo lumbar spine surgery, novel interventions may improve physical and mental health outcomes. Few studies summarize the benefit of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) among lumbar spine surgery patients. This study collects randomized control trial data to investigate the influence of CBT on patient reported outcomes among lumbar spine surgery patients. METHODS: Our study used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and a medical library expert assisted in searching PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar. We calculated standardized mean differences (SMD) to evaluate the effect size of CBT versus control groups with a sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: Our meta-analysis included seven studies with a total of 531 patients. The majority of included studies evaluated lumbar fusion, with preoperative CBT performed by physiotherapists. The largest effects were observed for overall quality of life (SMD = 0.55 [95% CI 0.05, 1.05], p < 0.001, I2 = 86.7%) and psychological outcomes (SMD = 0.61 [95% CI 0.28, 0.94], p < 0.001, I2 = 89.7%) though disability and pain outcomes also favored CBT intervention. Included studies demonstrated low overall bias but large heterogeneity. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated negligible study design differences and revealed moderators including CBT session frequency and final follow-up duration (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Compared to usual care or alternative therapy control arms, CBT delivered the most improvement with overall quality of life and psychological outcomes. Among appropriately selected patients, CBT could improve perioperative disability, pain, quality of life, and psychological health following lumbar spine surgery.
Authors: Jon D Lurie; Tor D Tosteson; Anna Tosteson; William A Abdu; Wenyan Zhao; Tamara S Morgan; James N Weinstein Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2015-01-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Kristin R Archer; Clinton J Devin; Susan W Vanston; Tatsuki Koyama; Sharon E Phillips; Shannon L Mathis; Steven Z George; Matthew J McGirt; Dan M Spengler; Oran S Aaronson; Joseph S Cheng; Stephen T Wegener Journal: J Pain Date: 2015-10-23 Impact factor: 5.820
Authors: Rob J E M Smeets; Johan W S Vlaeyen; Alita Hidding; Arnold D M Kester; Geert J M G van der Heijden; Antonia C M van Geel; J André Knottnerus Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2006-01-20 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Basma Mohamed; Ramani Ramachandran; Ferenc Rabai; Catherine C Price; Adam Polifka; Daniel Hoh; Christoph N Seubert Journal: J Neurosurg Anesthesiol Date: 2021-08-05 Impact factor: 3.956