Background and study purpose. Low back pain with no identified underlying cause is categorised as primary musculoskeletal pain by the International Association for the Study of Pain. In April 2021, the National Institute for Care and Excellence (NICE) published updated guidance for the management of primary chronic pain conditions in England. As part of the De-STRESS pain study, we explored the perspectives of GPs on the updated guideline and impact upon clinical practice. Methods and results. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 21 GPs in England. Data were analysed using thematic analysis and constant comparison techniques. GPs agreed with the recommendations restricting pharmacological options for pain management and reflected that they now had an expert reference to back-up their decision-making and could use the guidance in potentially difficult conversations with patients. Frustration was expressed by GPs about the lack of alternative options to medication, as the non-pharmacological recommendations were difficult to implement, had lengthy waiting lists, or were unavailable in their locality. Conclusion. Although GPs discussed benefits of the updated NICE guideline in potentially reducing prescriptions of ineffective and potentially harmful medications, frustration about the lack of alternative strategies added to the difficulties encountered in managing people with persistent back pain in primary care. Conflicts of interest: No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: This study was funded by Versus Arthritis – grant number 22454; Carolyn A Chew-Graham is part-funded by NIHR Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) West Midlands

Background and study purpose. Low mood and distress are commonly reported with by people with persistent musculoskeletal pain and may be mislabelled as ‘depression’. In order to understand how pain-related distress is conceptualised and managed in primary care consultations, we explored understanding of pain-related distress and depression from the perspectives of people with persistent musculoskeletal pain and general practitioners (GPs). Method and results. Semi-structured interviews with 21 GPs and 21 people with persistent musculoskeletal pain were conducted. The majority of people with pain had back pain (15/21). Data were analysed thematically using constant comparison techniques. Participants described challenges distinguishing between distress and depression in the context of persistent pain but described strategies to make this distinction. Some people with pain described how acceptance of their situation was key, involving optimism about the future and creation of a new identity. Some GPs expressed ‘therapeutic nihilism’, with uncertainty about the cause of pain and thus how to manage people with both pain and distress, whilst GPs who could identify and build on optimism with patients described how this could help the patient to move forwards. Conclusion. This study offers a model for the primary care consultation with patients presenting with pain-related distress. GPs should recognize the impact of pain on the patient, support the person in acceptance of the pain, explore how the person feels about the future, encourage optimism, and support self-management strategies. Conflicts of Interest: No conflict of interests. Sources of funding: This study was funded by Versus Arthritis – grant number: 22454; Carolyn A Chew-Graham is part-funded by NIHR Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) West Midlands

Aims. To identify the incidence and risk factors for five-year same-site recurrent disc herniation (sRDH) after primary single-level lumbar discectomy. Secondary outcome was the incidence and risk factors for five-year sRDH reoperation. Methods. A retrospective study was conducted using prospectively collected data and patient-reported outcome measures, including the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), between 2008 and 2019. Postoperative sRDH was identified from clinical notes and the centre’s MRI database, with all imaging providers in the region checked for missing events. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate five-year sRDH incidence. Cox proportional hazards model was used to identify independent variables predictive of sRDH, with any variable not significant at the p < 0.1 level removed. Hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results. Complete baseline data capture was available for 733 of 754 (97.2%) consecutive patients. Median follow-up time for censored patients was 2.2 years (interquartile range (IQR) 1.0 to 5.0). sRDH occurred in 63 patients at a median 0.8 years (IQR 0.5 to 1.7) after surgery. The five-year Kaplan-Meier estimate for sRDH was 12.1% (95% CI 9.5 to 15.4), sRDH reoperation was 7.5% (95% CI 5.5 to 10.2), and any-procedure reoperation was 14.1% (95% CI 11.1 to 17.5). Current smoker (HR 2.12 (95% CI 1.26 to 3.56)) and higher preoperative ODI (HR 1.02 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.03)) were independent risk factors associated with sRDH. Current smoker (HR 2.15 (95% CI 1.12 to 4.09)) was an independent risk factor for sRDH reoperation. Conclusion. This is one of the largest series to date which has identified current smoker and higher preoperative disability as independent risk factors for sRDH. Current smoker was an independent risk factor for sRDH reoperation. These findings are important for spinal surgeons and rehabilitation specialists in risk assessment, consenting patients, and perioperative management. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(3):315–322

Background. Internet delivered interventions may provide a route to rapid support for behavioural self-management for low back pain (LBP) that could be widely applied within primary care. Although evidence is emerging that more complex technologies (mobile apps linked to digital wristbands) can have some impact on LBP-related disability, there is a need to determine the effectiveness of highly accessible, web-based support for self-management for LBP. Methods and results. We conducted a multi-centre pragmatic randomised controlled trial, testing ‘SupportBack’, an accessible internet intervention developed specifically for primary care. We aimed to determine the effectiveness of the SupportBack interventions in reducing LBP-related physical disability in primary care patients. Participants were randomised to 1 of 3 arms: 1) Usual care + internet intervention + physiotherapy telephone support, 2) Usual care + internet intervention, 3) Usual care alone. Utilising a repeated measures design, the primary outcome for the trial was disability over 12 months using the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) at 6 weeks, 3, 6 and 12 months. Results: 826 were randomised, with follow-up rates: 6 weeks = 83%; 3 months = 72%; 6 months = 70%; 12 months = 79%. Analysis is ongoing, comparing each intervention arm versus usual care alone. The key results will be presented at the conference. Conclusion. We believe this to be the largest trial of it's kind internationally. The trial will extend knowledge regarding the effectiveness of highly accessible internet interventions to support self-management and activity in people with LBP consulting in primary care. Conflicts of interest: No conflicts of interest. Source of funding: NIHR HTA Project number 16/111/78

Purpose and background of the study. Self-management and behaviour change is at the core of back pain management. Despite the high-rate of recurrence and healthcare utilisation, clinical guidelines do not include guidance for clinicians on return consultations. This project aimed to identify primary care clinicians’ reported practices and experiences of delivering self-management advice for people returning with persistent low back pain (LBP), to inform future delivery of self-management care. Methods and Results. In this qualitative study involving 27 primary care clinicians, four focus groups and two semi-structure interviews were conducted online. GPs (n=5) and physiotherapists working in primary care roles (First contact practitioners n=7, community and interface roles n=7, and mixed roles n=8) in England and Scotland shared their experience of delivering self-management advice to people returning with persistent LBP. Video recordings were transcribed verbatim and analysed with reflexive thematic analysis. Clinicians unanimously shared their frustrations identifying the challenges involved in supporting people who return with LBP. Helpful strategies to support self-management in return consultations were identified by clinicians in addition to service and system-level changes vital to optimise care. Patient-factors affecting delivery of care, lack of defined responsibility and challenges in meeting patients’ expectations illustrated the tensions that exist in return consultations. Conclusion. This novel study provides insight into the experiences and practices of the frontline primary care workforce seeing patients return with persistent or recurrent LBP. It identifies the tensions that exist between services, professional roles and between clinicians and patients regarding self-management. Important practice implications have been identified to improve information-sharing, agenda-setting, and exploring expectations. No conflicts of interest.  . Source of funding. Lisa Osborn-Jenkins is funded by University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust (UHS) Research & Development PhD Fellowship [GRT0723]

Aims. This study, using a surgeon-maintained database, aimed to explore the risk factors for surgery-related complications in patients undergoing primary cervical spine surgery for degenerative diseases. Methods. We studied 5,015 patients with degenerative cervical diseases who underwent primary cervical spine surgery from 2012 to 2018. We investigated the effects of diseases, surgical procedures, and patient demographics on surgery-related complications. As subcategories, the presence of cervical kyphosis ≥ 10°, the presence of ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL) with a canal-occupying ratio ≥ 50%, and foraminotomy were selected. The surgery-related complications examined were postoperative upper limb palsy (ULP) with a manual muscle test (MMT) grade of 0 to 2 or a reduction of two grade or more in the MMT, neurological deficit except ULP, dural tear, dural leakage, surgical-site infection (SSI), and postoperative haematoma. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed. Results. The significant risk factors (p < 0.050) for ULP were OPLL (odds ratio (OR) 1.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.29 to 2.75), foraminotomy (OR 5.38, 95% CI 3.28 to 8.82), old age (per ten years, OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.36), anterior spinal fusion (OR 2.85, 95% CI 1.53 to 5.34), and the number of operated levels (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.40). OPLL was also a risk factor for neurological deficit except ULP (OR 5.84, 95% CI 2.80 to 12.8), dural tear (OR 1.94, 95% CI 1.11 to 3.39), and dural leakage (OR 3.15, 95% CI 1.48 to 6.68). Among OPLL patients, dural tear and dural leakage were frequently observed in those with a canal-occupying ratio ≥ 50%. Cervical rheumatoid arthritis (RA) was a risk factor for SSI (OR 10.1, 95% CI 2.66 to 38.4). Conclusion. The high risk of ULP, neurological deficit except ULP, dural tear, and dural leak should be acknowledged by clinicians and OPLL patients, especially in those patients with a canal-occupying ratio ≥ 50%. Foraminotomy and RA were dominant risk factors for ULP and SSI, respectively. An awareness of these risks may help surgeons to avoid surgery-related complications in these conditions. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(1):157–163

Introduction. Primary cilia are singular structures containing a microtubule-based axoneme which are believed to not only be mechanosensitive but also to co-ordinate many cell functions via signalling pathways including Hedgehog and Wnt. Primary cilia have previously been described on cells of mouse intervertebral discs (IVDs), but not in bovine or human IVDs. Our aim was to examine primary cilia in these species. Methods. Nucleus pulposus cells were obtained from cows with no overt disc degeneration and patients following spine surgery (for herniations and/or degenerative disc disease) and cultured until confluent before maintaining with or without serum for 24h. Primary cilia were visualised with antibodies to the axoneme (acetylated α-tubulin and Arl13b) and/or the basal body (pericentrin) using fluorescent secondary antibodies and ≥200 cells per sample were counted. Results. Primary cilia were detected in the majority of disc cells (81.2±4.1% and 54.8±28.7% with and without serum depletion, respectively, in bovine and 78.9±0.3% and 89.8±7.4% in human cells). Some cilia demonstrated abnormalities, such as bulbous tips or breaks in the axonome. Conclusion. This is the first report of primary cilia being present on human and bovine IVD cells. There remain many other aspects to be investigated, for example, their length has been shown to alter in osteoarthritic chondrocytes. If this, or the incidence of abnormalities, differs in cells from normal and abnormal discs, it could suggest new pathways of disc degeneration, as these organelles are key to so many cell functions. Conflicts of interest: None. Supported by the Orthopaedic Institute Ltd

Background. Medication prescribing patterns for patients with neuropathic low back-related leg pain (LBLP) in primary care are unknown. Purpose. To estimate the proportion of patients prescribed pain medications, describe baseline characteristics of patients prescribed neuropathic pain (NP) medication and estimate the proportion of LBLP patients with refractory NP. Methods. General practice electronic medical and prescribing records of a large (n=609), prospective, primary-care cohort of LBLP patients were analysed. Cases of NP were identified using the self-report version of the NP scale, Leeds Assessment for Neurological Symptoms and Signs (score of ≥12 indicates possible NP) (n=293). Patients with leg pain intensity ≥ 5 (mean of three 0–10 NRSs) or <30% reduction in disability (RMDQ 0–23) at 4-months compared to baseline and who were prescribed ≥ 2 NP medications were considered to have refractory NP. Results. 82% (223/273) of patients with NP were prescribed at least one pain medication; 29% (80/273) of patients were prescribed one first-line NP medication (for example Amitriptyline). Patients who were prescribed NP medication(s) had higher leg pain intensity and disability. There was evidence that patients improved with (61%, 41/67) and without (75%, 76/102) having been prescribed NP medication. Few patients (4%, 7/169) met the criteria for refractory NP suggesting that the scale of the problem in primary care is limited. Conclusion. Patients with NP were commonly prescribed pain medication, under a third were prescribed NP medication and many patients improved without such medication. Future research is needed to determine the effectiveness of NP medication. No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: Sarah Harrisson is a Clinical Doctoral Fellow funded through a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Research Professorship awarded to Nadine Foster (NIHR-RP-011-015). Nadine Foster is a NIHR Senior Investigator. Kika Konstantinou is supported by a Higher Education Funding Council for England/ National Institute for Health Research Senior Clinical Lectureship. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s), not necessarily those of the NHS, NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. This work relates to an Education and Continued Professional Development (level 2) award by the Musculoskeletal Association of Chartered Physiotherapists to Sarah Harrisson (June 2016)

Aims. The aim of this study was to explore risk factors for complications associated with dural tear (DT), including the types of DT, and the intra- and postoperative management of DT. Patients and Methods. Between 2012 and 2017, 12 171 patients with degenerative lumbar diseases underwent primary lumbar spine surgery. We investigated five categories of potential predictors: patient factors (sex, age, body mass index, and primary disease), surgical factors (surgical procedures, operative time, and estimated blood loss), types of DT (inaccessible for suturing/clipping and the presence of cauda equina/nerve root herniation), repair techniques (suturing, clipping, fibrin glue, polyethylene glycol (PEG) hydrogel, and polyglycolic acid sheet), and postoperative management (drainage duration). Postoperative complications were evaluated in terms of dural leak, prolonged bed rest, headache, nausea/vomiting, delayed wound healing, postoperative neurological deficit, surgical site infection (SSI), and reoperation for DT. We performed multivariable regression analyses to evaluate the predictors of postoperative complications associated with DT. Results. In total, 429/12 171 patients (3.5%) had a DT. Multivariable analysis revealed that PEG hydrogel significantly reduced the incidence of dural leak and prolonged bed rest, and that patients treated with sealants (fibrin glue and PEG hydrogel) significantly less frequently suffered from headache. A longer drainage duration significantly increased the incidence of headache, nausea/vomiting, and delayed wound healing. Headache and nausea/vomiting were significantly more prevalent in younger female patients. Postoperative neurological deficit and reoperation for DT significantly depended on the presence of cauda equina/nerve root herniation. A longer operative time was the sole independent risk factor for SSI and was also a risk factor for dural leak, prolonged bed rest, and nausea/vomiting. Conclusion. Sealants, particularly PEG hydrogel, may be useful in reducing symptoms related to cerebrospinal fluid leakage, whereas prolonged drainage may be unnecessary. Younger female patients should be carefully treated when DT occurs. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:1115–1121

Background. Advances in surgical and anesthetic technique have resulted in a reducing length of stay for lumbar decompression, with the first day case procedure published in the literature in 1980. Current evidence suggests day case surgery is associated with improved patient satisfaction, faster recovery, reduced infection rates and financial savings. Following the introduction of a locally agreed day case protocol for lumbar microdiscectomy, we reviewed our 30-day postoperative complication rates. Aims. To review postoperative complication rates for patients who underwent day case primary lumbar microdiscectomy. Methods. We studied all patients that met a locally agreed day case protocol for lumbar microdiscectomy and were operated upon between 1. st. March 2013 and 31. st. December 2015. Results. 134 patients underwent primary day case microdiscectomy (70 males, 64 females). The cohort had a mean age of 41 years (16–82). 96% (n=129) were single level procedures, 93% were unilateral (n=125). 81% (n=109) took place at either L4/L5 or L5/S1. All patients were discharged on the same day as admission and operation. 3% (n=4) of patients re-presented to hospital within 30 days of which 75% (n=3) were reviewed and discharged from the emergency department within 4 hours, following a satisfactory clinical review. One patient required an inpatient stay for a washout of a superficial postoperative infection. Conclusion. This study demonstrates that with adherence to robust listing and discharge protocols, day case lumbar microdiscectomy can be safely performed. Our 30-day postoperative complication rate of under 1% is comparable to that of traditional inpatient primary lumbar microdiscectomy. No conflicts of interest. No funding obtained

Purpose and background. Back pain guidelines endorse giving advice to enable people to self-manage and continue normal activities. Little is known however, about the content of advice that clinicians give and this project aimed to identify the advice given by physiotherapists to patients with back pain at their initial consultation. Patients and methods. Twenty-five audio-recordings of patients with back pain and physiotherapists in a primary care outpatient department were collected, transcribed, coded and thematically analysed using a Framework approach to identify the content of advice given. Results. The mean duration of consultation was 38 minutes 59 seconds (range 26:21–53:16). Advice was given in 88% (n=22/25) consultations and 96% included additional exercise instruction. Cognitive reassurance was evident, focussing on getting people confident to ‘move your back’ despite pain and encouraging active lifestyle changes. Beyond reassurance and discussion to enhance confidence, the key topics of advice given were: activity promotion; postural changes; practical self-help advice regarding ways to sit; pain-management advice including medication and the use of heat. Gaps were identified in the completeness of the advice given and there was a lack of specificity, especially relating to the frequency of recommended tasks and activities. Conclusion. Advice and reassurance are integral to enabling people to self-manage their back pain. Despite its importance, little is known about the advice offered by clinicians. This novel, observational study identifies the topics of advice given by clinicians in back pain consultations and recognises the need for guidance to be patient-centred and specific. No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: The data were collected as part of Lisa Roberts's Arthritis Research UK academic fellowship [17830]. Lisa Roberts currently holds an NIHR senior clinical lectureship (round 3)

Background and Purpose. Healthcare for sciatica is usually ‘stepped’ with initial advice and analgesia, then physiotherapy, then more invasive interventions if symptoms continue. The SCOPiC trial tested a stratified care algorithm combining prognostic and clinical characteristics to allocate patients into one of three groups, with matched care pathways, and compared the effectiveness of stratified care (SC) with non-stratified, usual care (UC). Methods. Pragmatic two-parallel arm RCT with 476 adults recruited from 42 GP practices and randomised (1:1) to either SC or UC (238 per arm). In SC, participants in group 1 were offered up to 2 advice/treatment sessions with a physiotherapist, group 2 were offered up to 6 physiotherapy sessions, and group 3 was ‘fast-tracked’ to MRI and spinal specialist opinion. Primary outcome was time to first resolution of sciatica symptoms (6-point ordinal scale) collected via text messages. Secondary outcomes (4 and 12 months) included leg and back pain intensity, physical function, psychological status, time-off-work, satisfaction with care. Primary analysis was by intention to treat. Results. Primary outcome data were obtained from 89.3% (88.3% SC, 90.3% UC). Survival analysis showed a small but not statistically significant difference in time to resolution of symptoms (SC reached resolution 2 weeks earlier than UC; HR 1.14 (95% CI 0.89, 1.46)). There were no significant between-arm differences in secondary outcomes. Conclusion. The SC model, tested in this trial was not more effective than UC. On average, patients in both arms made similar good improvements over time, on most outcomes. No conflicts of interest. Funding: This report presents independent research commissioned by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) (NIHR HTA project number 12/201/09). NEF is a Senior NIHR Investigator and was supported through an NIHR Research Professorship (NIHR-RP-011-015). KK was supported by a HEFCE Senior Clinical Lectureship award. The views and opinions expressed by authors in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NHS, the NIHR, MRC, CCF, NETSCC, the Health Technology Assessment programme or the Department of Health

The outcome of surgery for recurrent lumbar disc herniation is debatable. Some studies show results that are comparable with those of primary discectomy, whereas others report worse outcomes. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcome of revision lumbar discectomy with that of primary discectomy in the same cohort of patients who had both the primary and the recurrent herniation at the same level and side. A retrospective analysis of prospectively gathered data was undertaken in 30 patients who had undergone both primary and revision surgery for late recurrent lumbar disc herniation. The outcome measures used were visual analogue scales for lower limb (VAL) and back (VAB) pain and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). There was a significant improvement in the mean VAL and ODI scores (both p < 0.001) after primary discectomy. Revision surgery also resulted in improvements in the mean VAL (p < 0.001), VAB (p = 0.030) and ODI scores (p < 0.001). The changes were similar in the two groups (all p > 0.05). Revision discectomy can give results that are as good as those seen after primary surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:90–4

Background. Sciatica is common and associated with significant impacts for the individual, health care and society. The SCOPiC randomised controlled trial (RCT) is investigating whether stratified primary care for sciatica is more effective and cost-effective than usual, non-stratified primary care. Stratified care involves subgrouping patients to one of three groups based on a combination of prognostic and clinical indicators. Patients in one of these groups are ‘fast-tracked’ with an MRI scan to spinal specialist opinion. Our aim was to understand the perspectives of clinicians on the acceptability of this ‘fast-track’ pathway. Methods. Qualitative, semi-structured interviews were conducted with general practitioners, spinal specialist physiotherapists and spinal surgeons (n=20 in total). Interviews were fully transcribed, and data were analysed using the constant comparison method. Results. Across all groups, clinicians identified potential added value in ‘fast-tracking’ some sciatica patients in terms of patient reassurance based on MRI scan findings. Whilst spinal physiotherapists felt that most ‘fast track’ patients were appropriate, some spinal physiotherapists and GPs had concerns that patients with symptom durations of less than 6 weeks might be inappropriately fast-tracked since their symptoms may still resolve without the need for invasive treatments. Spinal surgeons felt it was acceptable for patients with short symptom durations to be ‘fast-tracked’, but to provide early reassurance rather than direct treatment. Conclusion. Whilst clinicians saw added value in a group of sciatica patients being ‘fast-tracked’ to specialist opinion, there was some reservation about moving away from the usual stepped care, ‘wait and see’ approach for patients with short symptom duration. Conflicts of interest statement. No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding. This study is funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme (NIHR HTA project number 12/201/09) and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment. Funding support is also received from an NIHR Research Professorship for Nadine Foster (NIHR-RP-011-015), who is an NIHR Senior Investigator, and a HEFCE Senior Clinical Lecturer award for Kika Konstantinou. The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the HTA programme, NIHR, NHS or the Department of Health and Social Care. The study was approved by the NRES Committee West Midlands – Solihull, 17/03/2015, ref: 15/WM/0078. Trial registration: ISRCTN75449581

Aim. To compare outcomes of revision lumbar discectomy to primary surgery in the same patient cohort. Methods. Prospective outcome data in 36 patients who underwent primary and subsequent revision surgery for lumbar disc herniation between 1995 and 2009. Outcome measures used were Visual Analogue Scores for back (VAB) and leg pain (VAL), the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Low Back Outcome Score (LBO). 5 early recurrences within 3 months were excluded. Results. Complete data was available in 31 patients 13F;18M. The average age was 39 years at index and 45 years at revision. Average interval between surgery of 39 months (range 6-122). Mean Pre op ODI 54 and VAL 73 primary procedure, final follow up of primary procedure ODI 33, VAL 43; prior to revision ODI 57, VAL 75; at last FU ODI 32 and VAL 40. There was no statistical difference between outcomes. In the primary discectomy group there was a statistically significant improvement in the VAL, ODI and LBO scores (P<0.05), with no significant improvement in the VAB (P=0.67). In the revision group there was a statistical significant improvement in all the outcomes (P<0.05). Overall, 45% of patients felt their outcome from revision discectomy was better/much better with 54% of patients rating their treatment as either good/excellent. Conclusion. Primary discectomy produced significant improvement in leg pain, ODI and LBO. Revision discectomy did the same, but also a significant improvement in VAB scores. There was no statistically significant difference in comparing the preoperative and postoperative scores for both procedures. Revision discectomy is a procedure which yields clinically significant and patient perceived improvements in spinal outcome measures with an unexplained improvement in VAB scores as compared to the primary procedure. This may challenge the belief of some surgeons in the need for fusion at the time of revision

Background. Patients with low back-related leg pain (LBLP) can present with neuropathic pain; it is not known but is often assumed that neuropathic pain persists over time. This research aimed to identify cases with neuropathic pain that persisted at short, intermediate and longer-term time points, in LBLP patients consulting in primary care. Methods. LBLP patients in a primary care cohort study (n=606) completed the self-report version of Leeds Assessment for Neurological Symptoms and Signs (s-LANSS, score of ≥12 indicates possible neuropathic pain) at baseline, 4-months, 12-months and 3-years. S-LANSS scores and percentages of patients with score of ≥12 are described at each time-point. Multiple imputation was used to account for missing data. Results. At baseline, 48.3% (293/606) of patients presented with neuropathic pain, 25.0% (94/376) at 4-months, 22.6% (79/349) at 12-months and 21.6% (58/268) at 3-years. A small proportion (6.6%) scored ≥ 12 at all four time-points. Those who scored ≥ 12 at baseline and 4-months reported higher disability (RMDQ (0–23) 15.2) and depression scores (HADS (0–21) 8.6), and lower pain self-efficacy (PSEQ (0–60) 27.2), compared to those with neuropathic pain at one other time-point at most. Conclusion. Few LBLP patients in primary care present with long-term persistent neuropathic pain. Patients with neuropathic pain at baseline and short-term follow-up present with greater morbidity in terms of disability, depression and lower confidence to manage their pain. This is important because these patients may benefit the most from early intervention using neuropathic pain medication. These findings will inform research investigating potential prognostic indicators of persistent neuropathic pain. Conflicts of interest: None. Sources of funding: Support for SA Harrisson, a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Clinical Doctoral Fellow and NE Foster, an NIHR Senior Investigator, was provided by an NIHR Research Professorship awarded to NE Foster (NIHR-RP-011-015). K Konstantinou is supported by a Higher Education Funding Council for England/ NIHR Senior Clinical Lectureship. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health

Aim. To develop a clinical core set of outcome measures that is accepted for relevance, feasibility and validity by stakeholders and useful for a) interaction between patient and professional, b) internal quality improvement, and c) external transparency in patients with NSLBP in primary care physical therapy. Method. We used a consensus-driven modified RAND-UCLA Delphi technique. We conducted seven separate steps with panellists (physical therapists, patient representatives, health insurers) to select accepted outcomes. These seven steps consisted of a literature search, two online surveys, patient interviews, an experts meeting, a consensus meeting and final approval of an advisory board. Results of previous steps were discussed during the consensus meeting, and then panellists voted for inclusion per measure. The final core set was rated on relevance and feasibility on a 9-point Likert scale, when the median was ≥7 the core set was accepted. Results. 34 panellists in two online surveys, five panellists in an expert committee, ten patients for semi-structured interviews and 26 panellists in a consensus meeting participated in the study. 12 outcome measures were rated and discussed and finally six outcome measures were accepted. The final core set was accepted with a median of 7. Conclusion. This study present an outcome set that is accepted by stakeholders as having added value for a) interaction between patient and professional, b) internal quality improvement, and c) external transparency in patients with NSLBP in primary care physical therapy. In a next project this outcome set will be tested on his reliability and feasibility in a large pilot. No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: Health insurance company CZ, the Netherlands

Introduction. Analgesic drugs are often prescribed to patients with low back pain (LBP). Recommendations for non-invasive pharmacological management of LBP from recent clinical practice guidelines were compared with each other and with the best available evidence on drug efficacy. Methods. Guideline recommendations concerning opioids, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), paracetamol, antidepressants, anticonvulsants and muscle relaxants from national primary care guidelines published within the last 3 years were included in this review. For each pharmacotherapy, the most recent systematic review was included as the best available evidence on drug efficacy and common adverse effects were summarized. Results. Eight recent national clinical practice guidelines were included in this review (from Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, The Netherlands, UK and US). Guidelines are universally moving away from pharmacotherapy due to the limited efficacy and the risk of adverse effects. NSAIDs have replaced paracetamol as the first choice analgesics for LBP in many guidelines. Opioids are considered to be a last resort in all guidelines, but prescriptions of these medications have been increasing over recent years. Only limited evidence exists for the efficacy of antidepressants and anticonvulsants in chronic LBP. Muscle relaxants are one of the analgesics of first choice in the US, but aren't widely available and thus not widely recommended in most other countries. Conclusions. Upcoming guideline updates should shift their focus from pain to function and from pharmacotherapy to non-pharmacologic treatment options. No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: This review has been supported by a program grant of the Dutch Arthritis Foundation

Background:. Internet interventions provide an opportunity to encourage patients with LBP to self-manage and remain active, by tailoring advice and providing evidence-based support for increasing physical activity. This paper reports the development of the ‘SupportBack’ internet intervention, designed for use with usual primary care, as the first stage of a feasibility RCT currently underway comparing: usual primary care alone; usual care plus the internet intervention; usual care plus the internet intervention with physiotherapist telephone support. Methods:. The internet intervention delivers a 6-week, tailored programme focused on graded goal setting, self-monitoring, and provision of tailored feedback to encourage physical activity/exercise increases or maintenance. 22 patients with back pain from primary care took part in ‘think aloud’ interviews, to qualitatively explore the intervention, provide feedback on its relevance and quality and identify any extraneous content or omissions. Results:. Valuable feedback and suggested amendments from patients included individually-tailoring the activity programme, using the individual's current pain or activity level. Patients reported that the goal setting module was helpful, and were content with the range of activities offered by ‘SupportBack’. The majority of patients reported they would accept their GP's recommendation and use a credible internet intervention such as this programme to help improve self-management. Conclusions:. The development of the ‘SupportBack’ internet intervention has worked with patients to create an acceptable online tailored resource to supplement primary care management for patients with low back pain. The intervention is currently being trialled to determine feasibility and the most appropriate way to support its delivery

Patients with peripheral primary bone tumours are often identified and referred at an early stage to a regional tumour service according to established guidelines. In patients with primary bone tumours of the spine, however, the definitive management or outcome of such patients is being prejudiced by preliminary intervention from non-specialist services prior to their referral. Objective: To audit the standards of management of patients with primary bone tumours of the spine referred to a regional tumour service. Retrospective review of case notes and radiology. Subjects: Patients with primary bone tumour of the spine managed at the Orthopaedic Spine Unit with the Regional Bone Tumour Service in Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Trust. Referral to tumour service, prior intervention, operative treatment, survival, factors affecting definitive management. 31 of 39 (16 benign, 23 malignant) patients were initially referred from primary care to services other than the regional tumour service, most commonly neurosurgery (11/39) and paediatric oncology (4/39). Seven of 39 of these patients had undergone interventions prior to their referral to the tumour service, which may have negatively impacted their definitive management or curative surgery. These tumours present complex issues regarding their definitive management to optimise outcome. Closer links between departments are required to enable the multidisciplinary management of primary bone tumours of the spine. Prior surgical intervention may compromise cure. Those involved in their management should be encouraged to liaise with their regional bone tumour service to improve outcome