Does Workers' Compensation Status Affect Outcomes after Lumbar Spine Surgery? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Russo F
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8201180 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jun
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Does Workers' Compensation Status Affect Outcomes after Lumbar Spine Surgery? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Russo Fabrizio F De Salvatore Sergio S Ambrosio Luca L Vadalà Gianluca G Fontana Luca L Papalia Rocco R Rantanen Jorma J Iavicoli Sergio S Denaro Vincenzo V
International journal of environmental research and public health 20210607 11
Low back pain (LBP) is currently the leading cause of disability worldwide and the most common reason for workers' compensation (WC) claims. Studies have demonstrated that receiving WC is associated with a negative prognosis following treatment for a vast range of health conditions. However, the impact of WC on outcomes after spine surgery is still controversial. The aim of this meta-analysis was to systematically review the literature and analyze the impact of compensation status on outcomes af ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionPrevious reviews have demonstrated that patient outcomes following orthopaedic surgery are strongly influenced by the presence of Workers' Compensation. However, the variability in the reviews' methodology may have inflated the estimated strength of this association. The main objective of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the influence of Workers' Compensation on the outcomes of orthopaedic surgical procedures.MethodsWe conducted a systematic search of the literature published in this area from 1992-2012, with no language restrictions. The following databases were used MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL, Google Scholar, LILACS and Pubmed. We also hand-searched the reference sections of all selected papers. We included all prospective studies evaluating the effect of compensation status on outcomes in adult patients who had undergone surgery due to orthopaedic conditions or diseases. Outcomes of interest included disease specific, region specific and/or overall quality of life scales/questionnaires and surgeons' personal judgment of the results. We used an assessment tool to appraise the quality of all included studies. We used Review Manager to create forest plots to summarize study data and funnel plots for the assessment of publication bias.ResultsTwenty studies met our eligibility criteria. The overall risk ratio for experiencing an unsatisfactory result after orthopaedic surgery for patients with compensation compared to non-compensated patients is 2.08 (95% CI 1.54-2.82). A similar association was shown for continuous data extracted from the studies using assessment scales or questionnaires (Standard Mean Difference = -0.70 95% CI -0.97- -0.43).ConclusionsAmong patients who undergo orthopaedic surgical procedures, those receiving Workers' Compensation experience a two-fold greater risk of a negative outcome. Our findings show a considerably lower estimate of risk compared to previous reviews that include retrospective data. Further research is warranted to determine the etiological explanation for the influence of compensation status on patient outcomes. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42012002121.
| S-EPMC3515555 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundNo study to our knowledge has explored physical therapy utilization following lumbar spine surgery in a workers' compensation setting.ObjectivesDescribe physical therapy utilization and costs, and return-to-work status in patients following lumbar spine surgery under a workers' compensation claim.MethodsUsing data from the New South Wales (NSW) State Insurance Regulatory Authority (Australia), we audited physical therapy billing codes for patients who received lumbar spine surgery from 2010 to 2017. We summarised, by fusion versus decompression, the number of physical therapy sessions patients received up to 12 months post-operatively, total cost of physical therapy and time to initiation of physical therapy. Number of physical therapy sessions and physical therapy utilization at 12 months were summarised by return-to-work status at 12 months.ResultsWe included 3524 patients (1220 had fusion; 2304 decompression). On average, patients received 22 ± 22 physical therapy sessions to 12 months post-operatively (mean cost=AU$1902, US$1217); 24% were receiving physical therapy at 12 months. Most had 9-24 (31%) or 25-50 sessions (25%); 11% had > 50 sessions, whereas 11% had no physical therapy. Patients who had fusion (compared to decompression) had more physical therapy and incurred higher physical therapy costs. Time post-surgery to initiate physical therapy increased from 2010 to 2017. Patients with > 50 sessions and still having physical therapy by 12 months were least likely to be working.ConclusionsFor most patients, physical therapy utilization following lumbar spine surgery aligns with the best available evidence. However, some patients may be receiving too much physical therapy or initiating physical therapy too early.
| S-EPMC8971828 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundUnderstanding how much physiotherapy people receive before lumbar spine surgery could give insight into what people and clinicians consider an adequate trial of non-operative management. The aim of this study was to investigate physiotherapy utilisation and costs before lumbar spine surgery under a workers' compensation claim in New South Wales (NSW), Australia.MethodsUsing data from the NSW State Insurance Regulatory Authority, we audited physiotherapy billing codes used before surgery for people who received lumbar spine surgery from 2010 to 2018. We summarised, separately for fusion and decompression, the time from initiation of physiotherapy to surgery, number of physiotherapy sessions people received before surgery, total cost of physiotherapy before surgery, and time from injury date to initiation of physiotherapy. All analyses were descriptive.ResultsWe included 3070 people (800 had fusion, 2270 decompression). Mean age (standard deviation, SD) was similar between those who received fusion and decompression [42.9 (10.4) vs. 41.9 (11.6)]. Compared to people who had fusion, those who had decompression were more likely to not have any physiotherapy before surgery (28.4% vs. 15.4%), received physiotherapy for a shorter duration before surgery [median (interquartile range, IQR): 5 (3 to 11) vs. 15 (4-26) months], were less likely to have physiotherapy for ≥2 years before surgery (5.6% vs. 27.5%), had fewer physiotherapy sessions before surgery [mean (SD): 16 (21) vs. 28 (35) sessions], were less likely to have > 50 physiotherapy sessions before surgery (6.8% vs. 18.1%), and had lower total physiotherapy-related costs [mean (IQR): $1265 ($0-1808) vs. $2357 ($453-2947)]. Time from injury date to first physiotherapy session was similar between people who had fusion and decompression [median (IQR): 23 (9-66) vs.19 (7-53) days].ConclusionsThere is variation in physiotherapy utilisation and costs before lumbar spine surgery for people funded by NSW Workers' Compensation. Some people may not be receiving an adequate trial of physiotherapy before surgery, particularly before decompression surgery. Others may be receiving an excessive amount of physiotherapy before surgery, particularly before fusion.
| S-EPMC7937209 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceComorbid depression is common among patients with degenerative lumbar spine disease. Although a well-researched topic, the evidence of the role of depression in spine surgery outcomes remains inconclusive.ObjectiveTo investigate the association between preoperative depression and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) after lumbar spine surgery.Data sourcesA systematic search of PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Embase, Scopus, PsychInfo, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov was performed from database inception to September 14, 2023.Study selectionIncluded studies involved adults undergoing lumbar spine surgery and compared PROMs in patients with vs those without depression. Studies evaluating the correlation between preoperative depression and disease severity were also included.Data extraction and synthesisAll data were independently extracted by 2 authors and independently verified by a third author. Study quality was assessed using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to synthesize data, and I2 was used to assess heterogeneity. Metaregression was performed to identify factors explaining the heterogeneity.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the standardized mean difference (SMD) of change from preoperative baseline to postoperative follow-up in PROMs of disability, pain, and physical function for patients with vs without depression. Secondary outcomes were preoperative and postoperative differences in absolute disease severity for these 2 patient populations.ResultsOf the 8459 articles identified, 44 were included in the analysis. These studies involved 21 452 patients with a mean (SD) age of 57 (8) years and included 11 747 females (55%). Among these studies, the median (range) follow-up duration was 12 (6-120) months. The pooled estimates of disability, pain, and physical function showed that patients with depression experienced a greater magnitude of improvement compared with patients without depression, but this difference was not significant (SMD, 0.04 [95% CI, -0.02 to 0.10]; I2 = 75%; P = .21). Nonetheless, patients with depression presented with worse preoperative disease severity in disability, pain, and physical function (SMD, -0.52 [95% CI, -0.62 to -0.41]; I2 = 89%; P < .001), which remained worse postoperatively (SMD, -0.52 [95% CI, -0.75 to -0.28]; I2 = 98%; P < .001). There was no significant correlation between depression severity and the primary outcome. A multivariable metaregression analysis suggested that age, sex (male to female ratio), percentage of comorbidities, and follow-up attrition were significant sources of variance.Conclusions and relevanceResults of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggested that, although patients with depression had worse disease severity both before and after surgery compared with patients without depression, they had significant potential for recovery in disability, pain, and physical function. Further investigations are needed to examine the association between spine-related disability and depression as well as the role of perioperative mental health treatments.
| S-EPMC10818221 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundElective lumbar spine surgery is increasingly being implemented to treat patients with specific low back pain. However, approximately 30% of patients continue to have long-term pain and disability after surgery.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to systematically review the literature on the effectiveness of pre-surgical rehabilitation (prehab) alone or in combination with usual care versus usual care on patient-oriented outcomes and health-related costs following elective lumbar spine surgery.Data sourcesElectronic databases from MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, and AMED were systematically searched from their inception to November 2022.Study selectionRandomized controlled trials that examined adult (age >18 years) prehab programs and evaluated one or more outcomes of interest were included in this review.Data extractionIn pairs, six reviewers independently conducted a risk-of-bias assessment and extracted outcome data from included studies, in accordance with the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR). A meta-analysis was conducted when trials were homogeneous.Data synthesisA total of eight trials (n = 739 participants), reported in 13 different manuscripts, were eligible for inclusion. Exercise prehab interventions are superior to usual care for disability at 3-month (MD: -2.56, 95% CI -4.98 to -0.15), back pain at 6-month (MD: -6.65, 95% CI -13.25 to -0.05), and health-related costs (MD: €2572.8, 95% CI: €1963.0 to €3182.5). CBT prehab interventions seem to be superior to usual care for back pain at 3-month (MD: -7.3, 95% CI: -14.5 to -0.05). Individual trials showed that education prehab interventions may be superior to usual for back pain at 1-month post-operative (MD: 12.3, 95% CI: 0.9 to 23.7).LimitationsOverall, the inclusion of heterogeneous trials (e.g., diagnosis, types of surgery, dosage, content, and duration of interventions) with small sample sizes leads to inconclusive and very low certainty of effect estimates.ConclusionThe present systematic review has brought to light the dearth of high-quality evidence in support of prehab interventions for patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery. Given the uncertainty surrounding the results obtained from low-quality randomized controlled trials, it is currently not feasible to provide recommendations for clinical practice.
| S-EPMC11915239 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Retrospective review of a prospectively collected multi-institutional database.In the present analysis, we investigate the impact of incidental durotomy on outcome in patients undergoing surgery for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis.Surgery for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis has several potential complications, one of the most common of which is incidental durotomy. The effect of incidental durotomy on outcome, however, remains uncertain.Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial cohort participants with a confirmed diagnosis of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis undergoing standard first-time open decompressive laminectomy, with or without fusion, were followed from baseline at 6 weeks, at 3, 6, 12 months, and yearly thereafter, at 13 spine clinics in 11 US states. Patient data from this prospectively gathered database were reviewed. As of May 2009, the mean (standard deviation [SD]) follow-up among all analyzed degenerative spondylolisthesis patients was 46.6 months (SD = 13.1) (no durotomy: 46.7 vs. had durotomy: 45.2, P = 0.49). The median (range) follow-up time among all analyzed degenerative spondylolisthesis patients was 47.6 months (SD = 2.5-84).A 10.5% incidence of durotomy was detected among the 389 patients undergoing surgery. No significant differences were observed with or without durotomy in age, race, the prevalence of smoking, diabetes and hypertension, decompression level, number of levels, or whether a fusion was performed. There were no differences in incidence of nerve root injury, postoperative mortality, additional surgeries, 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) scores of body pain or physical function, or Oswestry Disability Index at 1, 2, 3, and 4 years.Incidental durotomy during first-time surgery for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis does not appear to impact outcome in affected patients.
| S-EPMC3279597 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe role of rehabilitation after surgery in patients with low back pain is well recognized. The aim of this systematic review is to summarize and update the existing evidence according to the type of clinical condition and rehabilitation approach.MethodsThis systematic review included RCTs on the effectiveness of rehabilitation after surgery for lumbar disc herniation, spinal stenosis, and spondylolisthesis. We searched the literature for randomized controlled trials indexed in MEDLINE, Embase, CINHAL, CENTRAL, Scopus, PEDro, and Web of Science databases, up to April 15, 2023. We used Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool to assess each study. We conducted a quantitative synthesis when population, intervention, control, and outcome were sufficiently homogeneous; otherwise, we conducted a qualitative analysis.ResultsForty-five studies (3.036 subjects) were included and analyzed according to the population considered: lumbar stenosis (1 trial), spondylolisthesis (3 trials), and disc herniation (41 trials). Regarding lumbar stenosis, a supervised active exercise program appears to improve outcomes related to pain, disability, and quality of life both in the short- and mid-term (1 study, n = 60). Concerning spondylolisthesis, kinesiophobia is reduced in the home exercises group compared to usual care, at 3-months follow-up (3 studies, n = 98). For disk herniation, supervised exercises are better than non-supervised exercises to reduce pain (MD -1.14; 95% CIs -1.65, -0.62; 5 trials, n = 250) and disability (SMD -0.70; 95% CIs -1.14, -0.26; 4 trials, n = 175). Supervised exercises are better than advice in reducing pain (SMD -0.91; 95% CIs -1.61, -0.21; 5 trials, n = 341) and disability (SMD -0.80; 95% CIs -1.59, -0.01; 4 trials, n = 261), in the short-term. Supervised exercises are equal to no treatment in reducing pain and disability, at 3 and 6 months after intervention (2 trials, n = 166). These results are supported by a very low to low quality of evidence.ConclusionsOur research suggests that supervised exercise may be effective in improving patient's pain and disability after lumbar surgery, but RCTs regarding lumbar spinal stenosis and lumbar spondylolisthesis are still scarce, with significant heterogeneity of proposed interventions.
| S-EPMC10578022 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTransforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) is the treatment of choice for lumbar spinal stenosis and spondylolisthesis. The procedure can be performed through a traditional open approach (O-TLIF) or through minimally invasive techniques (MI-TLIF). Spinal surgeries in obese patients can pose risks, including increased rates of infection and thromboembolic events.Questions/purposesWe sought to systematically review the literature on the differences between MI-TLIF and O-TLIF in the obese patient in terms of complication rate, functional outcomes, blood loss, and length of hospital stay.MethodsWe used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to systematically search PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library for studies published through February 2019 and identified those comparing the outcomes of O-TLIF and MI-TLIF in obese patients. The primary outcome was complication rate (total, infections, dural tears); secondary outcomes were blood loss, length of hospital stay, and functional scores. Two authors independently reviewed the studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and data were pooled using the Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model.ResultsIn the sample of 430 patients, the average age was 53.5 years, there were 153 men and 203 women, and the average body mass index was 33.6. Complications were significantly higher in O-TLIF than in MI-TLIF (OR = 0.420 [95% CI: 0.199, 0.887]; I 2 = 45.20%). No difference was detected between the two groups for visual analog scale back pain scores and Oswestry Disability Index scores between the pre-operative and last follow-up visits (SMD = -0.034 [95% CI -0.695, 0.627]; I 2 = 62.14% and SMD = 0.617 [95% CI: -1.082, 2.316]; I 2 = 25%, respectively). Blood loss was significantly lower in MI-TLIF compared to O-TLIF (SMD = -426.736 [95% CI: -490.720, -362.752]; I 2 = 70.53%), as was the duration of hospital stay (SMD = -1.079 [95% CI: -1.591, -0.208]; I 2 = 84.3%).ConclusionMI-TLIF has equivalent efficacy to O-TLIF in obese patients at long-term follow-up. In addition, complication rate, blood loss, and length of hospital stay were lower in MI-TLIF than in O-TLIF.
| S-EPMC7253546 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background/Objectives: Supervised rehabilitation has been reported to improve motor and functional outcomes after lumbar spine surgery. However, the effects of supervised rehabilitation on psychosocial and participation-related outcomes are still debated. This study aimed to systematically review the effects of supervised rehabilitation on psychosocial and participation-related outcomes in patients after lumbar spine surgery. Methods: A systematic literature search was carried out using PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro, CENTRAL, and Google Scholar databases from inception to March 2024. Randomized controlled trials investigating the effects of supervised rehabilitation on psychosocial and participation-related outcomes after lumbar spine surgery were included. Methodological quality was assessed through the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials. Pooled effects were reported as the standardized mean difference (SMD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI95) or reported qualitatively in the presence of clinical heterogeneity. The certainty of the evidence was rated through the GRADE approach. Results: Fifteen studies (1297 patients) were included. Very low evidence supported supervised rehabilitation to improve quality of life at 1 year (SMD: -0.28; CI95 from -0.49 to -0.07, I2 = 32%), while low evidence supported supervised rehabilitation to enhance self-efficacy at 6 months (SMD: -1.13; CI95 from -1.54 to -0.72) and 1 year (SMD -1.03, CI95 from -1.43 to -0.63). No effects of supervised rehabilitation were found on quality of life at 6 months or in terms of fear-avoidance belief, catastrophizing, anxiety, depression, and return to work at 6 months and 1 year (very low to low evidence certainty). Conclusions: Supervised rehabilitation improved quality of life and self-efficacy in patients after lumbar spine surgery. However, the certainty of the evidence ranged from very low to low, and further studies are needed.
| S-EPMC11642663 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionDuring lumbar decompressive spine surgery, the epidural space is easily accessible. This intraoperative situation allows surgeons to apply an epidural bolus of analgesia at the end of the surgical procedure. In literature, several papers about the methods and effectiveness of delivering local analgesia during lumbar decompressive spine surgery have been published.Research questionThis systematic review and meta-analysis aims to summaries the current literature on the effectiveness and safety of intraoperative epidural analgesia in lumbar decompressive surgery, delivered as a bolus.Material and methodA systematic search was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. Inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials or comparative cohort studies of patients aged 18 years or older who underwent decompressive lumbar spine surgery. Nonsteroidal epidural analgesia had to be administered as a bolus, intraoperatively, as an adjunct to standard analgesia therapy. Primary outcome measures were reduction in postoperative pain scores, analgesics consumption and length of hospital stay. Secondary outcomes were adverse events.ResultsEight studies evaluating the effectiveness of intraoperative epidural analgesia were included. Seven studies reported statistically significant reductions in postoperative VAS-pain scores. Six studies reported a statistically significant decrease in postoperative analgesics consumption. Four studies reported on the length of hospital stay, with no statistically significant difference between study groups.Discussion and conclusionThis systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that additional intraoperative epidural nonsteroidal analgesia, delivered as a bolus, can reduce postoperative pain and postoperative analgesics consumption in patients undergoing decompressive spinal surgery. Further well-powered research is needed to bolster the evidence.
| S-EPMC9562248 | biostudies-literature