Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A randomised controlled trial of post-operative rehabilitation after surgical decompression of the lumbar spine

  • SSE Clinical Science Award 2007
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Spinal decompression is the most common type of spinal surgery carried out in the older patient, and is being performed with increasing frequency. Physiotherapy (rehabilitation) is often prescribed after surgery, although its benefits compared with no formal rehabilitation have yet to be demonstrated in randomised control trials. The aim of this randomised controlled trial was to examine the effects on outcome up to 2 years after spinal decompression surgery of two types of postoperative physiotherapy compared with no postoperative therapy (self-management). Hundred and fifty-nine patients (100 men, 59 women; 65 ± 11 years) undergoing decompression surgery for spinal stenosis/herniated disc were randomised to one of the following programmes beginning 2 months post-op: recommended to “keep active” (CONTROL; n = 54); physiotherapy, spine stabilisation exercises (PT-StabEx; n = 56); physiotherapy, mixed techniques (PT-Mixed; n = 49). Both PT programmes involved 2 × 30 min sessions/week for up to 12 weeks, with home exercises. Pain intensity (0–10 graphic rating scale, for back and leg pain separately) and self-rated disability (Roland Morris) were assessed before surgery, before and after the rehabilitation phase (approx. 2 and 5 months post-op), and at 12 and 24 months after the operation. ‘Intention to treat’ analyses were used. At 24 months, 151 patients returned questionnaires (effective return rate, excluding 4 deaths, 97%). Significant reductions in leg and back pain and self-rated disability were recorded after surgery (P < 0.05). Pain showed no further changes in any group up to 24 months later, whereas disability declined further during the “rehabilitation” phase (P < 0.05) then stabilised, but with no significant group differences. 12 weeks of post-operative physiotherapy did not influence the course of change in pain or disability up to 24 months after decompression surgery. Advising patients to keep active by carrying out the type of physical activities that they most enjoy appears to be just as good as administering a supervised rehabilitation program, and at no cost to the health-care provider.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Aalto TJ, Malmivaara A, Kovacs F, Herno A, Alen M, Salmi L, Kroger H, Andrade J, Jimenez R, Tapaninaho A, Turunen V, Savolainen S, Airaksinen O (2006) Preoperative predictors for postoperative clinical outcome in lumbar spinal stenosis: systematic review. Spine 31:E648–663

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Adams N, Poole H, Richardson C (2006) Psychological approaches to chronic pain management: part 1. J Clin Nurs 15:290–300

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Altman DG (1980) Statistics of ethics in medical research III How large a sample? Br Med J (Clin Res) 281:1336–1338

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Amundsen T, Weber H, Lilleas F, Nordal HJ, Abdelnoor M, Magnaes B (1995) Lumbar spinal stenosis. Clinical and radiologic features. Spine 20:1178–1186

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Amundsen T, Weber H, Nordal HJ, Magnaes B, Abdelnoor M, Lilleas F (2000) Lumbar spinal stenosis: conservative or surgical management? A prospective 10-year study. Spine 25:1424–1435

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Baumgartner H (1993) Clinical aspects of spinal stenosis. Orthopade 22:211–213

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Benoist M (2002) The natural history of lumbar degenerative spinal stenosis. Joint Bone Spine 69:450–457

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Bombardier C, Hayden J, Beaton DE (2001) Minimal clinically important difference. Low back pain outcome measures. Pain 28:431–438

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Ciol MA, Deyo RA, Howell E, Kreif S (1996) An assessment of surgery for spinal stenosis: time trends, geographic variations, complications, and reoperations. J Am Geriatr Soc 44:285–290

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. CIPS - Collegium Internationale Psychiatriae Scalarum (Hrsg) (1986) Internationale Skalen für die Psychiatrie, 3 edn. Beltz, Weinheim

    Google Scholar 

  11. Exner V, Keel P (2000) Erfassung der Behinderung bei Patienten mit chronischen Rückenschmerzen. Schmerz 14:392–400

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Fergusson D, Aaron SD, Guyatt G, Hebert P (2002) Post-randomisation exclusions: the intention to treat principle and excluding patients from analysis. BMJ 325:652–654

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Ferreira PH, Ferreira ML, Maher CG, Herbert RD, Refshauge K (2006) Specific stabilisation exercise for spinal and pelvic pain: a systematic review. Aust J Physiother 52:79–88

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Fritz JM, Erhard RE, Delitto A, Welch WC, Nowakowski PE (1997) Preliminary results of the use of a two-stage treadmill test as a clinical diagnostic tool in the differential diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis. J Spinal Disord 10:410–416

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Frndak PA, Berasi CC (1991) Rehabilitation concerns following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Sports Med 12:338–346

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Gibson JN, Waddell G (2005) Surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 19(4):CD001352

    Google Scholar 

  17. Goh KJ, Khalifa W, Anslow P, Cadoux-Hudson T, Donaghy M (2004) The clinical syndrome associated with lumbar spinal stenosis. Eur Neurol 52:242–249

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Greenough CG, Fraser RD (1991) Comparison of eight psychometric instruments in unselected patients with back pain. Spine 16:1068–1074

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Haig AJ, Geisser ME, Michel B, Theisen-Goodvich M, Yamakawa K, Lamphiear R, Legatski K, Smith C, Sacksteder J (2006) The spine team assessment for chronic back pain disability. Part 1 basic protocol and performance in 500 patients. Disabil Rehabil 28:1071–1078

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Herno A, Airaksinen O, Saari T, Luukkonen M (1996) Lumbar spinal stenosis: a matched-pair study of operated and non-operated patients. Br J Neurosurg 10:461–465

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Herno A, Airaksinen O, Saari T, Pitkänen M, Manninen H, Suomalainen O (1999) Computed tomography findings 4 years after surgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 24:2234–2239

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Herno A, Partanen K, Talaslahti T, Kaukanen E, Turunen V, Suomalainen O, Airaksinen O (1999) Long-term clinical and magnetic resonance imaging follow-up assessment of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis after laminectomy. Spine 24:1533–1537

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Hollis S, Campbell F (1999) What is meant by intention to treat analysis? Survey of published randomised controlled trials. BMJ 319:670–674

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Johnsson KE, Redlund-Johnell I, Uden A, Willner S (1989) Preoperative and postoperative instability in lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 14:591–593

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Johnsson KE, Rosen I, Uden A (1992) The natural course of lumbar spinal stenosis. Clin Orthop Relat Res:82–86

  26. Jordan K, Dunn KM, Lewis M, Croft P (2006) A minimal clinically important difference was derived for the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire for low back pain. J Clin Epidemiol 59:45–52

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Katz JN, Lipson SJ, Chang LC, Levine SA, Fossel AH, Liang MH (1996) Seven- to 10-year outcome of decompressive surgery for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 21:92–98

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Kirkwood B (1988) Essentials of medical statistics. Blackwell Science, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  29. Koes BW, Bouter LM, Van der Heijden GJMG (1995) Methodological quality of randomized clinical trials on treatment efficacy in low back pain. Spine 20:228–235

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Main CJ (1983) The modified somatic perception questionnaire (MSPQ). J Psychosom Res 27:503–514

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Main CJ, Waddell G (1984) The detection of psychological abnormality in chronic low back pain using four simple scales. Curr Concepts Pain 2:10–15

    Google Scholar 

  32. Mannion AF, Elfering A, Staerkle R, Junge A, Grob D, Semmer NK, Jacobshagen N, Dvorak J, Boos N (2005) Outcome assessment in low back pain: how low can you go? Eur Spine J 14:1014–1026

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Mannion AF, Junge A, Dvorak J, Porchet F, Müntener M, Grob D (2005) Does how well you do depend on how well you think you’ll do? A prospective study of expectations in patients undergoing spinal decompression surgery. Eur Spine J 14(Suppl 1):S17

    Google Scholar 

  34. Mannion AF, Knecht K, Balaban G, Dvorak J, Grob D (2004) A new skin-surface device for measuring the curvature, and global and segmental ranges of motion of the spine: reliability of measurements and comparison with data reviewed from the literature. Eur Spine J 13:122–136

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Mayer T, McMahon MJ, Gatchel RJ, Sparks B, Wright A, Pegues P (1998) Socioeconomic outcomes of combined spine surgery and functional restoration in workers’ compensation spinal disorders with matched controls. Spine 23:598–606

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Mayer TG, Smith SS, Keeley J, Mooney V (1985) Quantification of lumbar function. Part 2. Sagittal plane trunk strength in chronic low-back pain patients. Spine 10:765–772

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. McGregor AH, Hughes SP (2002) The evaluation of the surgical management of nerve root compression in patients with low back pain: part 2: patient expectations and satisfaction. Spine 27:1471–1476; discussion 1476–1477

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. McGregor AH, Hughes SPF (2002) The evaluation of the surgical management of nerve root compression in patients with low back pain. Part 1. The assessment of outcome. Spine 27:1465–1470

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG (2001) The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. Lancet 357:1191–1194

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Mooney V (1988) The failed back—an orthopaedic view. Int Disabil Stud 10:32–36

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Moseley GL (2006) Do training diaries affect and reflect adherence to home programs? Arthritis Rheum 55:662–664

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Nachemson AL, La Rocca H (1987) Editorial. Spine 12:427–430

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Niggemeyer O, Strauss JM, Schulitz KP (1997) Comparison of surgical procedures for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: a meta-analysis of the literature from 1975 to 1995. Eur Spine J 6:423–429

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. O’Sullivan PB, Phyty GD, Twomey LT, Allison GT (1997) Evaluation of specific stabilizing exercise in the treatment of chronic low back pain with radiologic diagnosis of spondylolysis or spondylolisthesis. Spine 22:2959–2967

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Ostelo RWJG, de Vet HCW, Waddell G, Kerckhoffs MR, Leffers P, van Tulder M (2003) Rehabilitation following first-time lumbar disc surgery. Spine 28:209–218

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Panjabi MM (1992) The stabilizing system of the spine. Part II. Neutral zone and instability hypothesis. J Spinal Disord 5:390–397

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Perneger TV (1998) What’s wrong with Bonferroni adjustments. BMJ 316:1236–1238

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Quint U, Wilke HJ, Löer F, Claes L (1998) Laminectomy and functional impairment of the lumbar spine: the importance of muscle forces in flexible and rigid instrumented stabilization—a biomechanical study in vitro. Spine 7:229–238

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Rackwitz B, de Bie R, Limm H, von Garnier K, Ewert T, Stucki G (2006) Segmental stabilizing exercises and low back pain. What is the evidence? A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Clin Rehabil 20:553–567

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Richardson C, Jull G, Hodges P, Hides J (1999) Therapeutic exercise for spinal segmental stabilization in low back pain. Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh

    Google Scholar 

  51. Richardson CA, Jull GA (1995) Muscle control-pain control. What exercises would you prescribe? Man Ther 1:2–10

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Roland M, Morris R (1983) A study of the natural history of back pain. Part 1 Development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low-back pain. Spine 8:141–144

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Smeets RJ, Wade D, Hidding A, Van Leeuwen PJ, Vlaeyen JW, Knottnerus JA (2006) The association of physical deconditioning and chronic low back pain: a hypothesis-oriented systematic review. Disabil Rehabil 28:673–693

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Solomonow M, Zhou BH, Harris M, Lu Y, Baratta RV (1998) The ligamento-muscular stabilizing system of the spine. Spine 23:2552–2562

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Spengler DM (1987) Degenerative stenosis of the lumbar spine (current concepts review). J Bone Joint Surg 69A:305–308

    Google Scholar 

  56. Steffen R, Nolte LP, Pingel TH (1994) Importance of the back muscles in rehabilitation of postoperative segmental lumbar instability—a biomechanical analysis. Rehabilitation (Stuttg) 33:164–170

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Truumees E (2005) Spinal stenosis: pathophysiology, clinical and radiologic classification. Instr Course Lect 54:287–302

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Turner JA, Ersek M, Herron L, Deyo R (1992) Surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. Attempted meta-analysis of the literature. Spine 17:1–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Waddell G, Newton M, Henderson I, Somerville D, Main CJ (1993) A fear-avoidance beliefs questionnaire (FABQ) and the role of fear-avoidance beliefs in chronic low back pain and disability. Pain 52:157–168

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Wilke HJ, Wolf S, Claes LE, Arand M, Wiesend A (1995) Stability increase of the lumbar spine with different muscle groups. A biomechanical in vitro study. Spine 20:192–198

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Yamashita K, Hayashi J, Ohzono K, Hiroshima K (2003) Correlation of patient satisfaction with symptom severity and walking ability after surgical treatment for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 28:2477–2481

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (Grant no. 32–57123.99) and the Schulthess Klinik Research Funds. We are especially grateful to Renata Heusser, Gordana Balaban and Katrin Knecht for their valuable assistance in managing the study and collecting the data. We also thank Astrid Junge for her help in planning the questionnaires, Maja Husistein and her team for doing the randomisation, Friedrich Bremerich for his medical advice and assistance, Sonja Keller for her help at the start of the study, Arnaldo Benini, Thomas Egloff and Jileli Rhiati for encouraging their patients to participate, and all the physiotherapists who treated the patients and carefully documented their work. We thank Gordon Adam for his assistance in preparing the figures for the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Schulthess Klinik, Lengghalde 2, 8008, Zürich, Switzerland

    Anne F. Mannion, Raymond Denzler, Jiri Dvorak & Dieter Grob

  2. Department of Anatomy, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland

    Markus Müntener

Authors
  1. Anne F. Mannion
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Raymond Denzler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jiri Dvorak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Markus Müntener
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Dieter Grob
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anne F. Mannion.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mannion, A.F., Denzler, R., Dvorak, J. et al. A randomised controlled trial of post-operative rehabilitation after surgical decompression of the lumbar spine. Eur Spine J 16, 1101–1117 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-007-0399-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-007-0399-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation