Thomas Andersen

Older people are at increased risk of non-union after spinal fusion, but little is known about the factors determining the quality of the fusion mass in this patient group. The aim of this study was to investigate fusion mass bone quality after uninstrumented spinal fusion and to evaluate if it could be improved by additional direct current (DC) electrical stimulation. A multicenter RCT compared 40 and 100 μA DC stimulation with a control group of uninstrumented posterolateral fusion in patients older than 60 years. This report comprised 80 patients who underwent DEXA scanning at the 1 year follow-up. The study population consisted of 29 men with a mean age of 72 years (range 62–85) and 51 women with a mean age of 72 years (range 61–84). All patients underwent DEXA scanning of their fusion mass. Fusion rate was assessed at the 2 year follow-up using thin slice CT scanning. DC electrical stimulation did not improve fusion mass bone quality. Smokers had lower fusion mass BMD (0.447 g/cm²) compared to non-smokers (0.517 g/cm²) (P = 0.086). Women had lower fusion mass BMD (0.460 g/cm²) compared to men (0.552 g/cm²) (P = 0.057). Using linear regression, fusion mass bone quality, measured as BMD, was significantly influenced by gender, age of the patient, bone density of the remaining part of the lumbar spine, amount of bone graft applied and smoking. Fusion rates in this cohort was 34% in the control group and 33 and 43% in the 40 and 100 μA groups, respectively (not significant). Patients classified as fused after 2 years had significant higher fusion mass BMD at 1 year (0.592 vs. 0.466 g/cm², P = 0.0001). Fusion mass bone quality in older patients depends on several factors. Special attention should be given to women with manifest or borderline osteoporosis. Furthermore, bone graft materials with inductive potential might be considered for this patient population.

An increasing number of lumbar fusions are performed using allograft to avoid donor-site pain. In elderly patients, fusion potential is reduced and the patient may need supplementary stability to achieve a solid fusion if allograft is used. We investigated the effect of instrumentation in lumbar spinal fusion performed with fresh frozen allograft in elderly patients. 94 patients, mean age 70 (60-88) years, who underwent posterolateral spinal fusion either non-instrumented (51 patients) or instrumented (43 patients) were followed for 2-7 years. Functional outcome was assessed with the Dallas pain questionnaire (DPQ), the low back pain rating scale pain index (LBPRS), and SF-36. Fusion was assessed using plain radiographs. Instrumented patients had statistically significantly better outcome scores in 6 of 7 parameters. Fusion rate was higher in the instrumented group (81% vs. 68%, p = 0.1). Solid fusion was associated with a better functional outcome at follow-up (significant in 2 of 7 parameters). 15 patients (6 in the non-instrumented group and 9 in the instrumented group) had repeated lumbar surgery after their initial fusion procedure. Functional outcome was poorer in the group with additional spine surgeries (significant in 4 of 7 parameters). Superior outcomes after lumbar spinal fusion in elderly patients can be achieved by use of instrumentation in selected patients. Outcome was better in patients in which a solid fusion was obtained. Instrumentation was associated with a larger number of additional surgeries, which resulted in a lesser degree of improvement. Instrumentation should not be discarded just because of the age of the patient.

Introduction Few studies have investigated the long-term effect of posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion on functional outcome. Aim To investigate the long-term result after posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion with and without pedicle screw instrumentation. Methods Questionnaire survey of 129 patients originally randomised to posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion with or without pedicle screw instrumentation. Follow-up included Dallas Pain Questionnaire (DPQ), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), SF-36 and a question regarding willingness to undergo the procedure again knowing the result as global outcome parameter. Results Follow-up was 83% of the original study population (107 patients). Average follow-up time was 12 years (range 11–13 years). DPQ-scores were significantly lower than preoperatively in both groups (P < 0.005) and no drift towards the preoperative level was seen. No difference between the two groups were observed (instrumented vs. non-instrumented): DPQ Daily Activity mean 37.0 versus 32.0, ODI mean 33.4 versus 30.6, SF-36 PCS mean 38.8 versus 39.8, SF-36 MCS mean 49.0 versus 53.3. About 71% in both groups were answered positively to the global outcome question. Patients who had retired due to low back pain had poorer outcome than patients retired for other reasons, best outcome was seen in patients still at work (P = 0.01 or less in all questionnaires, except SF-36 MCS P = 0.08). Discussion Improvement in functional outcome is preserved for 10 or more years after posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion. No difference between instrumented fusion and non-instrumented fusion was observed. Patients who have to retired due to low back pain have the smallest improvement.

Several studies have suggested that psychosocial distress is an important predictor of negative outcome in lumbar spine surgery. Ozguler et al. [Spine 27:1783–1789, 2002, 18] described a classification tool for low back pain patients using the Dallas Pain Questionnaire (DPQ) which included a measure of distress. We wanted to evaluate the ability of this classification tool to predict the outcome in spinal fusion patients. Five hundred and sixty-six patients (239 men, 327 women; mean age 46, range 18–81) operated between 1992 and 2002, with a complete DPQ preoperatively and after a minimum of 1-year follow-up, were included. They were classified preoperatively and at follow-up into four groups: group 1 (slight disability), group 2 (intermediate disability), group 3 (major disability) and group 4 (major disability and emotional distress). Using logistic regression, seven predictor variables were investigated: age (−39 years/40–59 years/60+ years), Gender (male/female), Indication (spondylolisthesis/primary degeneration/secondary degeneration), Work status (working/without work or on sick leave/retired or pensioned), Duration of pain (less than 1 year/1–2 years/more than 2 years), Presence of radiating pain (yes/no) and disability/distress [intermediate disability (group 1–2)/major disability (group 3)/major disability and distress (group 4)]. The outcome variable was disability at follow-up (low = group1 + 2/high = group 3 + 4). Preoperative classification was group 1, 1%; group 2, 14%; group 3, 37%; group 4, 48%. Variables found to predict high disability at follow-up were secondary degeneration Odds Ratio (OR) 1.61 (P=0.020), being retired/pensioned OR 3.48 (PP=0.011), belonging to group 3 OR 2.69 (P=0.003) or belonging to group 4 OR 5.53 (P<0.0005). The classification based on the DPQ were able to identify lumbar spinal fusion patients with a considerable amount of psychological distress in their symptomatology. Furthermore, the presence of distress, as determined by this classification, was a highly significant risk factor for inferior outcome.

Pain drawings have been used in spine surgery for diagnostic use and psychological evaluation of fusion candidates; they have rarely been used to evaluate pain status after spinal fusion. This study is a 5-year follow-up on a randomised clinical trial assigning patients to posterolateral spinal fusion with or without pedicle screw instrumentation. Patients were mailed a pain drawing and questionnaires including questions regarding work, social status, smoking status, the Dallas Pain Questionnaire (DPQ), and the Low Back Pain Rating Scale (LBPRS). Pain drawings were scored using a visual inspection method and a surface-based point scoring and evaluated for the presence of donor site pain. Pain drawings from 109 patients (87% of the initially included patients), 56 men and 53 women, mean age at follow-up 51 years, were analysed. Fifty-three patients had undergone an instrumented fusion and 56 a non-instrumented fusion. Some presence of low back pain was marked by 79% and leg pain by 69%. Sixty-two percent of the pain drawings were classified as "organic" and 38% as "non-organic". There was no difference between the instrumented and the uninstrumented group. DPQ and LBPRS scores were higher in the non-organic group (P=0.007). Using the point scoring, no difference between the instrumented and the uninstrumented group was seen. The results of the point scoring were found to correlate with the DPQ and LBPRS scores (P=0.001). Working patients (39%) had significantly better scores than the rest. Ten percent of the patients had donor site pain. Twenty percent of spinal fusion patients are totally pain free at 5-year follow-up. Ten percent still experience donor site pain. In general, instrumentation does not affect the amount and localisation of pain 5 years after lumbar spinal fusion surgery. The pain drawing seems to be a valuable tool when following spinal fusion patients, but its use as prognostic marker in connection with fusion surgery needs further investigation.

A review of the smoking habits in 426 patients who had been followed prospectively for 2 years after a lumbar spinal fusion procedure was conducted. To analyze the effect of pre- and postoperative smoking on clinical and functional outcome after lumbar spinal fusion. Several animal models have shown a negative effect of nicotine on spinal fusion. At this writing, the clinical effect of nicotine on spinal fusion has not been fully clarified. The study comprised 426 patients who underwent lumbar spinal fusion between 1993 and 1997. These patients received a mailed questionnaire regarding their tobacco consumption before and after their surgery. All other data, including preoperative clinical and functional status, were collected prospectively during a 2-year follow-up period. To assess functional outcome, the Dallas Pain Questionnaire was used. The questionnaire was answered by 396 patients (93%). Of these patients, 54.5% (20% more than the background population) were smokers before the operation. Smoking of more than 10 cigarettes daily before the operation and attempted fusion at two or more levels increased the risk of nonunion: odds ratio, 2.01 (P < 0.016) and odds ratio, 3.03 (P < 0.001), respectively. Smoking cessation increased fusion rates to near those of nonsmokers. Smoking had no influence on functional outcome, as assessed by the Dallas Pain Questionnaire, but preoperative smoking predicted a negative answer to the question “Would you undergo the same treatment again, now that you know the result?” (odds ratio, 1.65;P < 0.054). Smoking was shown to have a negative effect on fusion and overall patient satisfaction, but no measurable influence on the functional outcome as assessed by the Dallas Pain Questionnaire.