Letter to the editor: Re: Chou R, Loeser JD, Owens DK, et al. Interventional therapies, surgery and interdisciplinary rehabilitation for low back pain: an evidence-based clinical practice guideline from the American Pain Society. Spine 2009;34:1066–77

One-year outcomes of surgical versus nonsurgical treatments for discogenic back pain: a community-based prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

The clinical entity "discogenic back pain" remains controversial at fundamental levels, including its pathophysiology, diagnostic criteria, and optimal treatment. This is true despite availability of four randomized trials comparing the efficacy of surgical and nonsurgical treatments. One trial showed benefit for lumbar fusion compared with unstructured nonoperative care, and three others showed roughly similar results for lumbar surgery and structured rehabilitation.

PURPOSE

To compare outcomes of community-based surgical and nonsurgical treatments for patients with chronic back pain attributed to degeneration at one or two lumbar disc levels.

DESIGN

Prospective observational cohort study.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Patients presenting with axial back pain to academic and private practice orthopedic surgeons and neurosurgeons in a large metropolitan area.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Roland-Morris back disability score (primary outcome), current rating of overall pain severity on a numerical scale, back and leg pain bothersomeness measures, the physical function scale of the short-form 36 version 2 questionnaire, use of medications for pain, work status, emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and further surgery.

METHODS

Patients receiving spine surgery within 6 months of enrollment were designated as the "surgical treatment" group and the remainder as "nonsurgical treatment." Outcomes were assessed at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after enrollment.

RESULTS

We enrolled 495 patients with discogenic back pain presenting for initial surgical consultation in offices of 16 surgeons. Eighty-six patients (17%) had surgery within 6 months of enrollment. Surgery consisted of instrumented fusion (79%), disc replacement (12%), laminectomy, or discectomy (9%). Surgical patients reported more severe pain and physical disability at baseline and were more likely to have had prior surgery. Adjusting for baseline differences among groups, surgery showed a limited benefit over nonsurgical treatment of 5.4 points on the modified (23-point) Roland disability questionnaire (primary outcome) 1 year after enrollment. Using a composite definition of success incorporating 30% improvement in the Roland score, 30% improvement in pain, no opioid pain medication use, and working (if relevant), the 1-year success rate was 33% for surgery and 15% for nonsurgical treatment. The rate of reoperation was 11% in the surgical group; the rate of surgery after treatment designation in the nonsurgical group was 6% at 12 months after enrollment.

CONCLUSIONS

The surgical group showed greater improvement at 1 year compared with the nonsurgical group, although the composite success rate for both treatment groups was only fair. The results should be interpreted cautiously because outcomes are short term, and treatment was not randomly assigned. Only 5% of nonsurgical patients received cognitive behavior therapy. Nonsurgical treatment that patients received was variable and mostly not compliant with major guidelines.

Guideline warfare over interventional therapies for low back pain: can we raise the level of discourse?

As guidelines proliferate and are used to inform efforts to improve the quality and efficiency of care, disputes over guideline recommendations are likely to become more common and contentious. It is appropriate for guidelines to come under close scrutiny, given their important clinical and policy implications, and critiques that point out missing evidence, improper methods, or errors in interpretation can be valuable. But for critiques to be valid, they should be based on accurate information and a sound scientific basis. A 2009 guideline sponsored by the American Pain Society (APS) on the use of invasive tests and interventional procedures found insufficient evidence to make recommendations for most interventional procedures. It was subsequently the subject of lengthy critiques by the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) that sought to challenge the methods used to develop the APS guideline, point out alleged errors in the evidence review commissioned to inform the guideline, and question the integrity of the APS guideline process. We show that the ASIPP critiques contain numerous errors and fail to adhere to scientific standards for reviewing evidence, and provide suggestions on how future disputes regarding guidelines might be addressed in a more constructive manner.

PERSPECTIVE

In order to best serve patients and clinicians, debates over guidelines should be based on accurate information, adhere to current methodological standards, acknowledge important deficiencies in the evidence when they are present, and handle conflicts of interest in a vigorous and transparent manner.