Appropriateness criteria for surgery improve clinical outcomes in patients with low back pain and/or sciatica.

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, controlled, observational outcome study using clinical, radiographic, and patient/physician-based questionnaire data, with patient outcomes at 12 months follow-up. OBJECTIVE: To validate appropriateness criteria for low back surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Most surgical treatment failures are attributed to poor patient selection, but no widely accepted consensus exists on detailed indications for appropriate surgery. METHODS: Appropriateness criteria for low back surgery have been developed by a multispecialty panel using the RAND appropriateness method. Based on panel criteria, a prospective study compared outcomes of patients appropriately and inappropriately treated at a single institution with 12 months follow-up assessment. Included were patients with low back pain and/or sciatica referred to the neurosurgical department. Information about symptoms, neurologic signs, the health-related quality of life (SF-36), disability status (Roland-Morris), and pain intensity (VAS) was assessed at baseline, at 6 months, and at 12 months follow-up. The appropriateness criteria were administered prospectively to each clinical situation and outside of the clinical setting, with the surgeon and patients blinded to the results of the panel decision. The patients were further stratified into 2 groups: appropriate treatment group (ATG) and inappropriate treatment group (ITG). RESULTS: Overall, 398 patients completed all forms at 12 months. Treatment was considered appropriate for 365 participants and inappropriate for 33 participants. The mean improvement in the SF-36 physical component score at 12 months was significantly higher in the ATG (mean: 12.3 points) than in the ITG (mean: 6.8 points) (P = 0.01), as well as the mean improvement in the SF-36 mental component score (ATG mean: 5.0 points; ITG mean: -0.5 points) (P = 0.02). Improvement was also significantly higher in the ATG for the mean VAS back pain (ATG mean: 2.3 points; ITG mean: 0.8 points; P = 0.02) and Roland-Morris disability score (ATG mean: 7.7 points; ITG mean: 4.2 points; P = 0.004). The ATG also had a higher improvement in mean VAS for sciatica (4.0 points) than the ITG (2.8 points), but the difference was not significant (P = 0.08). The SF-36 General Health score declined in both groups after 12 months, however, the decline was worse in the ITG (mean decline: 8.2 points) than in the ATG (mean decline: 1.2 points) (P = 0.04). Overall, in comparison to ITG patients, ATG patients had significantly higher improvement at 12 months, both statistically and clinically. CONCLUSION: In comparison to previously reported literature, our study is the first to assess the utility of appropriateness criteria for low back surgery at 1-year follow-up with multiple outcome dimensions. Our results confirm the hypothesis that application of appropriateness criteria can significantly improve patient outcomes.

Functional multidisciplinary rehabilitation versus outpatient physiotherapy for non specific low back pain: randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: In recent decades the treatment of non-specific low back pain has turned to active modalities, some of which were based on cognitive-behavioural principles. Non-randomised studies clearly favour functional multidisciplinary rehabilitation over outpatient physiotherapy. However, systematic reviews and meta-analysis provide contradictory evidence regarding the effects on return to work and functional status. The aim of the present randomised study was to compare long-term functional and work status after 3-week functional multidisciplinary rehabilitation or 18 supervised outpatient physiotherapy sessions. METHODS: 109 patients with non-specific low back pain were randomised to either a 3-week functional multidisciplinary rehabilitation programme, including physical and ergonomic training, psychological pain management, back school and information, or 18 sessions of active outpatient physiotherapy over 9 weeks. Primary outcomes were functional disability (Oswestry) and work status. Secondary outcomes were lifting capacity (Spinal Function Sort and PILE test), lumbar range-of-motion (modified-modified Schöber and fingertip-to-floor tests), trunk muscle endurance (Shirado and Biering-Sörensen tests) and aerobic capacity (modified Bruce test). RESULTS: Oswestry disability index was improved to a significantly greater extent after functional multidisciplinary rehabilitation compared to outpatient physiotherapy at follow-up of 9 weeks (P = 0.012), 9 months (P = 0.023) and 12 months (P = 0.011). Work status was significantly improved after functional multidisciplinary rehabilitation only (P = 0.012), resulting in a significant difference compared to outpatient physiotherapy at 12 months' follow-up (P = 0.012). Secondary outcome results were more contrasted. CONCLUSIONS: Functional multidisciplinary rehabilitation was better than outpatient physiotherapy in improving functional and work status. From an economic point of view, these results should be backed up by a cost-effectiveness study.

Traitement des problèmes de dos et place de travail

Das Ziel des vorliegenden Forschungsprojekts besteht darin, die Arbeitsfähigkeit von Arbeitnehmern zu verbessern, die wegen unspezifischer Nacken- und/oder Kreuzschmerzen bei der Arbeit fehlen. Zu diesem Zweck haben wir ein Interventionsmodell entwickelt, das die modernen Ansätze der Rehabilitation bei Rückenerkrankungen mit den Erkenntnissen und Vorgehensweisen der Arbeitswissenschaften erweitert [Autoren S. 939] Le but du présent projet de recherche est d'améliorer la capacité de travail d'employés en arrêt à la suite de lombalgies et/ou de cervicalgies non spécifiques. C'est dans cette perspective que nous avons développé un modèle d'intervention fondé sur les principes de la réhabilitation des affections rachidiennes et les mesures professionnelles en relation avec l'ergonomie à la place de travail [auteurs p. 939]

Impact of enhanced compliance initiatives on the efficacy of rosuvastatin in reducing low density lipoprotein cholesterol levels in patients with primary hypercholesterolaemia.

The effectiveness of lipid-lowering medication critically depends on the patients' compliance and the efficacy of the prescribed drug. The primary objective of this multicentre study was to compare the efficacy of rosuvastatin with or without access to compliance initiatives, in bringing patients to the Joint European Task Force's (1998) recommended low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level goal (LDL-C, <3.0 mmol/L) at week 24. Secondary objectives were comparison of the number and percentage of patients achieving European goals (1998, 2003) for LDL-C and other lipid parameters. Patients with primary hypercholesterolaemia and a 10-year coronary heart disease risk of >20% received open label rosuvastatin treatment for 24 weeks with or without access to compliance enhancement tools. The initial daily dosage of 10 mg could be doubled at week 12. Compliance tools included: a) a starter pack for subjects containing a videotape, an educational leaflet, a passport/goal diary and details of the helpline and/or website; b) regular personalised letters to provide message reinforcement; c) a toll-free helpline and a website. The majority of patients (67%) achieved the 1998 European goal for LDL-C at week 24. 31% required an increase in dosage of rosuvastatin to 20 mg at week 12. Compliance enhancement tools did not increase the number of patients achieving either the 1998 or the 2003 European target for plasma lipids. Rosuvastatin was well tolerated during this study. The safety profile was comparable with other drugs of the same class. 63 patients in the 10 mg group and 58 in the 10 mg Plus group discontinued treatment. The main reasons for discontinuation were adverse events (39 patients in the 10 mg group; 35 patients in the 10 mg Plus group) and loss to follow-up (13 patients in the 10 mg group; 9 patients in the 10 mg Plus group). The two most frequently reported adverse events were myalgia (34 patients, 3% respectively) and back pain (23 patients, 2% respectively). The overall rate of temporary or permanent study discontinuation due to adverse events was 9% (n = 101) in patients receiving 10 mg rosuvastatin and 3% (n = 9) in patients titrated up to 20 mg rosuvastatin. Rosuvastatin was effective in lowering LDL-C values in patients with hypercholesterolaemia to the 1998 European target at week 24. However, compliance enhancement tools did not increase the number of patients achieving any European targets for plasma lipids.

Problems of allometric scaling analysis: examples from mammalian reproductive biology.

Biological scaling analyses employing the widely used bivariate allometric model are beset by at least four interacting problems: (1) choice of an appropriate best-fit line with due attention to the influence of outliers; (2) objective recognition of divergent subsets in the data (allometric grades); (3) potential restrictions on statistical independence resulting from phylogenetic inertia; and (4) the need for extreme caution in inferring causation from correlation. A new non-parametric line-fitting technique has been developed that eliminates requirements for normality of distribution, greatly reduces the influence of outliers and permits objective recognition of grade shifts in substantial datasets. This technique is applied in scaling analyses of mammalian gestation periods and of neonatal body mass in primates. These analyses feed into a re-examination, conducted with partial correlation analysis, of the maternal energy hypothesis relating to mammalian brain evolution, which suggests links between body size and brain size in neonates and adults, gestation period and basal metabolic rate. Much has been made of the potential problem of phylogenetic inertia as a confounding factor in scaling analyses. However, this problem may be less severe than suspected earlier because nested analyses of variance conducted on residual variation (rather than on raw values) reveals that there is considerable variance at low taxonomic levels. In fact, limited divergence in body size between closely related species is one of the prime examples of phylogenetic inertia. One common approach to eliminating perceived problems of phylogenetic inertia in allometric analyses has been calculation of 'independent contrast values'. It is demonstrated that the reasoning behind this approach is flawed in several ways. Calculation of contrast values for closely related species of similar body size is, in fact, highly questionable, particularly when there are major deviations from the best-fit line for the scaling relationship under scrutiny.