Lumbar spinal fusion (LSF) is frequently and increasingly used in lumbar degenerative disorders despite conflicting results and recommendations. Further understanding of patient outcomes after LSF is required to inform decisions regarding surgery and to improve post-surgery management. The objective was to evaluate the course of pain and disability in patients with degenerative disorders of the lumbar spine (spinal stenosis, spondylolisthesis, disc herniation, discogenic low back pain) after first-time LSF. A systematic review and meta-analysis of pain and disability outcomes in prospective cohort studies after first time LSF for degenerative disorders. Two independent researchers searched key databases, determined study eligibility, extracted data and assessed risk of bias (modified Quality in Prognostic Studies tool). A third reviewer mediated at each stage. N weighted pooled estimates were calculated. Twenty-five articles (n=1,777 participants) were included. 17 studies were at unclear risk of bias and 8 at high risk. Back pain (12 studies) decreased modestly and irregularly at follow-up intervals. The n weighted mean VAS back pain decreased from 65.4 (±3.3) pre-surgery to 22.2 (±3.1) at 23 months, but then 45.0 (±not reported; 2 studies at risk of bias) at 42 months. In contrast, leg pain (12 studies) improved substantially short and long-term. Disability (20 studies) improved steadily over time with the exception of the 42-months and 48-months intervals.Purpose and background
Methods and results
The goal of this study was to describe and evaluate the implementation of a tailored care pathway as an alternative to a standard joint care protocol in the postoperative in-hospital rehabilitation after total knee replacement (TKR) on clinically relevant outcome parameters. We monitored an orthopaedic department regarding postoperative rehabilitation after TKR on several outcome parameters throughout a period of 32 months, whilst introducing a new care pathway after 17 months. Outcome parameters were monitored and comprised: Time to get functionally recovered (in days), length of stay (in days) and destination of discharge. Key-differences between the joint care protocol and the new tailored pathway were: 1. determination of individual short term rehabilitation goals on the basis of a preoperative clinical prediction rule and postoperative monitoring of functional recovery, 2. Enhancement of expertise of and collaboration between health care professionals and 3. implementation of fast track rehabilitation. We compared the patients operated after implementation of the tailored care pathway with those who were treated according to the joint care protocol. Regression analysis was used to estimate differences between the two groups of patients while correcting for baseline differences in risk profile between the groups.Objectives
Methods
