» Articles » PMID: 24581321

Description and Design Considerations of a Randomized Clinical Trial Investigating the Effect of a Multidisciplinary Cognitive-behavioural Intervention for Patients Undergoing Lumbar Spinal Fusion Surgery

Overview
Publisher Biomed Central
Specialties Orthopedics
Physiology
Date 2014 Mar 4
PMID 24581321
Citations 10
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: The ideal rehabilitation strategy following lumbar spinal fusion surgery has not yet been established. This paper is a study protocol, describing the rationale behind and the details of a cognitive-behavioural rehabilitation intervention for lumbar spinal fusion patients based on the best available evidence. Predictors of poor outcome following spine surgery have been identified to provide targets for the intervention, and the components of the intervention were structured in accordance with the cognitive-behavioural model. The study aims to compare the clinical and economical effectiveness of a cognitive-behavioural rehabilitation strategy to that of usual care for patients undergoing lumbar spinal fusion surgery.

Methods/design: The study is a randomized clinical trial including 96 patients scheduled for lumbar spinal fusion surgery due to degenerative disease or spondylolisthesis. Patients were recruited in the period October 2011 to July 2013, and the follow-up period is one year from date of surgery. Patients are allocated on a 1:2 ratio (control: intervention) to either treatment as usual (control group), which implies surgery and the standard postoperative rehabilitation, or in addition to this, a patient education focusing on pain behaviour and pain coping (intervention group). It takes place in a hospital setting, and consists of six group-based sessions, managed by a multidisciplinary team of health professionals.The primary outcomes are disability (Oswestry Disability Index) and sick leave, while secondary outcomes include coping (Coping Strategies Questionnaire), fear-avoidance belief (Fear Avoidance Belief Questionnaire), pain (Low Back Pain Rating Scale, pain index), mobility during hospitalization (Cumulated Ambulation Score), generic health-related quality of life (EQ-5D) and resource use. Outcomes are measured using self report questionnaires, medical records and national registers.

Discussion: It is expected that the intervention can provide better functional outcome, less pain and earlier return to work after lumbar spinal fusion surgery. By combining knowledge and evidence from different knowledge areas, the project aims to provide new knowledge that can create greater consistency in patient treatment. We expect that the results can make a significant contribution to development of guidelines for good rehabilitation of patients undergoing lumbar spinal fusion.

Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN42281022.

Citing Articles

Knowledge, attitude, and practice toward cervical spondylosis among the healthy general population.

Li S, Liu T, Yang Q, Zhao Y, Chen X, Pan S BMC Public Health. 2025; 25(1):1014.

PMID: 40087662 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-025-22051-5.


Post-discharge care interventions to support patient recovery after elective degenerative spine surgery: a systematic review.

Lorenzen M, Wickstrom L, Andersen M, Carreon L, Clemensen J, Frandsen T Eur Spine J. 2024; 34(3):1042-1054.

PMID: 39702775 DOI: 10.1007/s00586-024-08622-x.


The influence of psychological interventions on surgical outcomes: a systematic review.

Lanini I, Amass T, Calabrisotto C, Fabbri S, Falsini S, Adembri C J Anesth Analg Crit Care. 2023; 2(1):31.

PMID: 37386591 PMC: 10245433. DOI: 10.1186/s44158-022-00057-4.


[Effects of preoperative neurobiological education on postoperative outcome : A systematic review].

von Korn K, Weiss T, von Piekartz H Schmerz. 2022; 36(6):406-421.

PMID: 34985533 PMC: 9674714. DOI: 10.1007/s00482-021-00608-8.


Effects of psychological interventions on anxiety and pain in patients undergoing major elective abdominal surgery: a systematic review.

Villa G, Lanini I, Amass T, Bocciero V, Calabrisotto C, Chelazzi C Perioper Med (Lond). 2020; 9(1):38.

PMID: 33292558 PMC: 7722323. DOI: 10.1186/s13741-020-00169-x.


References
1.
Walsh D, Radcliffe J . Pain beliefs and perceived physical disability of patients with chronic low back pain. Pain. 2002; 97(1-2):23-31. DOI: 10.1016/s0304-3959(01)00426-2. View

2.
Goossens M, Rutten-van Molken M, Vlaeyen J, van der Linden S . The cost diary: a method to measure direct and indirect costs in cost-effectiveness research. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000; 53(7):688-95. DOI: 10.1016/s0895-4356(99)00177-8. View

3.
Pincus T, Vogel S, Burton A, Santos R, Field A . Fear avoidance and prognosis in back pain: a systematic review and synthesis of current evidence. Arthritis Rheum. 2006; 54(12):3999-4010. DOI: 10.1002/art.22273. View

4.
Papaioannou M, Skapinakis P, Damigos D, Mavreas V, Broumas G, Palgimesi A . The role of catastrophizing in the prediction of postoperative pain. Pain Med. 2009; 10(8):1452-9. DOI: 10.1111/j.1526-4637.2009.00730.x. View

5.
Celestin J, Edwards R, Jamison R . Pretreatment psychosocial variables as predictors of outcomes following lumbar surgery and spinal cord stimulation: a systematic review and literature synthesis. Pain Med. 2009; 10(4):639-53. DOI: 10.1111/j.1526-4637.2009.00632.x. View