Abstract

Background: Spinal fusions (cervical and lumbar) are widely practised procedures to address problems related to pain. A large proportion of women suffer from back pain during pregnancy and often after the event. Neck pain is a less common problem. Surgeons who perform the fusions claim between to 60% to 90% success as far as relief of pain and return to the workforce is concerned. The evidence to this optimism in Australia is very sparse.

Method: This present study was conducted to analyse the problem in 1700 consecutive patients who had spinal surgery. In 318 incidents the outcome was clear. Others could not be followed due to privacy and legal issues. The statistical analysis was conducted.

Results: These indicated that the outcome of treated and untreated patients was the same. There was no particular benefit in the lumbar spinal fusion surgery. There was some improvement following micro-discectomy and cervical surgery.

Conclusion: There is no difference between surgical and non-surgical management of their problem. Cervical fusion and micro-discectomy have better outcomes. This conclusion has been reached by other workers as well. It is necessary for the stakeholders to take a serious view of these findings.

Keywords: Spinal Fusions; Cervical; Lumbar

References

1. Sidney Siegel. “The X2 test for Independent sample - Non parametric Statistics for the behavioral sciences”. Pub Mcgraw-Hill Kogakusha, LTD 104-106.
2. Sidney Siegel. “The Mann-Whitney U test - Non parametric Statistics for the behavioral sciences”. Pub Mc Graw-Hill Kogakusha, LTD 116-119.
3. AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Disease and Injury Causation, Second Edition.
4. Alpesh A Patel., et al. “Evidence for an Inherited Predisposition to lumbar Disc Disease”. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery American 3 (2011): 225-229.
5. Battie MC., et al. “Similarities in degenerative findings on magnetic resonance images of the lumbar spines of identical twins”. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery American 77 (1995): 1662-1670.
6. Matsui H., et al. “Familial pre dispossession for lumbar degenerative disc disease. A Case-control study”. Spine 23 (1998): 1029-1034.
7. Battie MC and Videman T. “Lumbar disc degenerating: epidemiology and genetics”. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery American 2 (2006): 3-9.
8. Battie MC., et al. “The Twin Spine Study: contributions to a changing view of disc degeneration”. The Spine Journal 1 (2009): 47-59.
9. Ian A Harris., et al. “Naylor Spine Surgery Outcomes In A Workers’ Compenpsaton Cohort First” (2012).
10. Pooria Sarrami., et al. “Spine surgery outcome in patients who sought compensation after a motor vehicle accident: a retrospective cohort study”. BMC Surgery 76 (2016).
11. Mhamad Faour., et al. “Surgical and Functional Outcomes After Multilevel Cervical Fusion for Degenerative Disc Disease Compared with Fusion for Radiculapathy”. Spine9 (2017): 700-706.
12. Alan H Daniels., et al. “Spine Surgery Out comes in Workers’ Compensation Patients”. Journal of the American Acamedy of Orthopaedic Surgeons10 (2017): e225-e234.
13. Courtney A Wilson., et al. “A systematic review of preoperative predictors for postoperative clinical outcomes following lumbar discectomy”. The Spine Journal11 (2016): 1413-1422.
14. Ehsan Tabaraee., et al. “The Impact of Worker’s Compensation Claims on Outcomes and Costs Following an Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion”. Spine12 (2015): 948-953.
15. Gerald M. “Quan and Peter Wilde Spine surgery outcomes in a workers’ compensation cohort”. ANZ journal of Surgery1-2 (2013): 96-96.
16. Gibson JN Alastair., et al. “The Cochrane Review of Surgery for Lumbar Disc Prolapse and Degenerative Lumbar Spondylosis”. Spine17 (1999): 1820.
17. Franklin Gary M., et al. “Outcome of Lumbar Fusion in Washington State Workers’ Compensation”. Spine (1994).
18. Van Tulder MW., et al. “Outcome of invasive treatment modalities on back pain and sciatica: an evidence-based review”. The Spine Journal 15 (2006): S82-S92.
19. Fairbank J., et al. The MRC spine stabilisation trial: a randomized controlled trial to compare surgical stabilisation of the lumbar spine with an intensive rehabilitation programme for patients with chronic low back pain”. British Medical Journal 330 (2005): 1233-1239.
20. Jellema P., et al. “Should treatment of (sub) acute low back pain be aimed at psychosocial prognostic factors? Should treatment of (sub) acute low back pain be aimed at psychosocial prognostic factors? Cluster-randomised clinical trial in general practice”. British Medical Journal 331 (2005): 84-90.
21. Koes BW., et al. “Clinical guidelines for the management of low back pain in primary care: An International Comparison”. Spine 26 (2001): 2504-2513.