BMJ, doi: 10.1136/bmj.38441.620417.8F, (Published 23 May 2005)

PAPERS

Randomised controlled trial to compare surgical stabilisation of the lumbar spine with an intensive rehabilitation programme for patients with chronic low back pain: the MRC spine stabilisation trial

Jeremy Fairbank ^1*, Helen Frost ², James Wilson-MacDonald ¹, Ly-Mee Yu ³, Karen Barker ¹, Rory Collins ⁴, for the Spine Stabilisation Trial Group

¹ Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre, Oxford OX3 7LD
² University of Warwick, Division of Health in the Community, Coventry CV4 7AL
³ Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Oxford OX3 7LF
⁴ Clinical Trial Service Unit and Epidemiological Studies Unit, Radcliffe Infirmary, Oxford OX2 6HE

^* Correspondence to: jeremy.fairbank{at}ndos.ox.ac.uk.

Objectives To assess the clinical effectiveness of surgical stabilisation (spinal fusion) compared with intensive rehabilitation for patients with chronic low back pain.

Design Multicentre randomised controlled trial.

Setting 15 secondary care orthopaedic and rehabilitation centres across the United Kingdom.

Participants 349 participants aged 18-55 with chronic low back pain of at least one year's duration who were considered candidates for spinal fusion.

Intervention Lumbar spine fusion or an intensive rehabilitation programme based on principles of cognitive behaviour therapy.

Main outcome measure The primary outcomes were the Oswestry disability index and the shuttle walking test measured at baseline and two years after randomisation. The SF-36 instrument was used as a secondary outcome measure.

Results 176 participants were assigned to surgery and 173 to rehabilitation. 284 (81%) provided follow-up data at 24 months. The mean Oswestry disability index changed favourably from 46.5 (SD 14.6) to 34.0 (SD 21.1) in the surgery group and from 44.8 (SD14.8) to 36.1 (SD 20.6) in the rehabilitation group. The estimated mean difference between the groups was -4.1(95% confidence interval -8.1 to -0.1, P=0.045) in favour of surgery. No significant differences between the treatment groups were observed in the shuttle walking test or any of the other outcome measures.

Conclusions Both groups reported reductions in disability during two years of follow-up, possibly unrelated to the interventions. The statistical difference between treatment groups in one of the two primary outcome measures was marginal and only just reached the predefined minimal clinical difference, and the potential risk and additional cost of surgery also need to be considered. No clear evidence emerged that primary spinal fusion surgery was any more beneficial than intensive rehabilitation.

---

(Accepted 24 March 2005)
CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Articles

Diagnosis and treatment of low back pain

B W Koes, M W van Tulder, and S Thomas
BMJ 2006 332: 1430-1434. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Hit parade
BMJ 2005 331: 115. [Extract] [Full Text]

Chronic low back pain: surgery isn't conclusively better...
BMJ 2005 330: 0. [Full Text] [PDF]

Surgery versus intensive rehabilitation programmes for chronic low back pain

Bart W Koes
BMJ 2005 330: 1220-1221. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Surgical stabilisation of the spine compared with a programme of intensive rehabilitation for the management of patients with chronic low back pain: cost utility analysis based on a randomised controlled trial

Oliver Rivero-Arias, Helen Campbell, Alastair Gray, Jeremy Fairbank, Helen Frost, James Wilson-MacDonald for the Spine Stabilisation Trial Group
BMJ 2005 330: 1239. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Multidisciplinary rehabilitation for chronic low back pain: systematic review

Jaime Guzmán, Rosmin Esmail, Kaija Karjalainen, Antti Malmivaara, Emma Irvin, and Claire Bombardier
BMJ 2001 322: 1511-1516. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

For and against: Clinical equipoise and not the uncertainty principle is the moral underpinning of the randomised controlled trial • FOR • AGAINST

Charles Weijer, Stanley H Shapiro, Kathleen Cranley Glass, and Murray W Enkin
BMJ 2000 321: 756-758. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Glassman, S. D., Copay, A. G., Berven, S. H., Polly, D. W., Subach, B. R., Carreon, L. Y. (2008). Defining Substantial Clinical Benefit Following Lumbar Spine Arthrodesis. JBJS 90: 1839-1847 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Ng, J, Kitchen, N (2008). Neurosurgery and pregnancy. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 79: 745-752 [Full text]  
• Chou, R., Qaseem, A., Snow, V., Casey, D., Cross, J. T. Jr, Shekelle, P., Owens, D. K., for the Clinical Efficacy Assessment Subcommittee, (2007). Diagnosis and Treatment of Low Back Pain: A Joint Clinical Practice Guideline from the American College of Physicians and the American Pain Society. ANN INTERN MED 147: 478-491 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Haig, A. J. (2007). Nonoperative Treatment for Lumbar Disk Herniation. JAMA 297: 1545-1545 [Full text]  
• Clarke, M., Hopewell, S., Chalmers, I. (2007). Reports of clinical trials should begin and end with up-to-date systematic reviews of other relevant evidence: a status report. JRSM 100: 187-190 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Carragee, E. (2006). Surgical Treatment of Lumbar Disk Disorders. JAMA 296: 2485-2487 [Full text]  
• Bridwell, K. H., Anderson, P. A., Boden, S. D., Vaccaro, A. R., Wang, J. C. (2006). What's New in Spine Surgery. JBJS 88: 1897-1907 [Full text]  
• Koes, B W, van Tulder, M W, Thomas, S (2006). Diagnosis and treatment of low back pain.. BMJ 332: 1430-1434 [Full text]  
• Moffett, J., McLean, S. (2006). The role of physiotherapy in the management of non-specific back pain and neck pain. Rheumatology (Oxford) 45: 371-378 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Hanley, E. N. Jr. (2006). Surgical Stabilization of the Spine Improved Disability Slightly More Than an Intensive Rehabilitation Program in Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain. JBJS 88: 453-453 [Full text]  
• (2005). Hit parade. BMJ 331: 115-115 [Full text]  
• (2005). Spinal Fusion and Chronic Low Back Pain: Not the Best Match. JWatch General 2005: 7-7 [Full text]  
• Koes, B. W (2005). Surgery versus intensive rehabilitation programmes for chronic low back pain. BMJ 330: 1220-1221 [Full text]  
• Rivero-Arias, O., Campbell, H., Gray, A., Fairbank, J., Frost, H., Wilson-MacDonald, J., for the Spine Stabilisation Trial Group, (2005). Surgical stabilisation of the spine compared with a programme of intensive rehabilitation for the management of patients with chronic low back pain: cost utility analysis based on a randomised controlled trial. BMJ 330: 1239- [Abstract] [Full text]  

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

All outcomes are not equal

Randall H. Rosenthal
bmj.com, 24 May 2005 [Full text]

All outcomes are not equal: a response

Richard Bartley
bmj.com, 24 May 2005 [Full text]

reducing knife crime

Richard V Harrington
bmj.com, 27 May 2005 [Full text]

Better informed patients will not mean the end for spinal fusion

Jon norman
bmj.com, 28 May 2005 [Full text]

Osteoporosis

milind m deshpande
bmj.com, 28 May 2005 [Full text]

Do lower back problem sufferers need doctors at all?

Frank J Leavitt
bmj.com, 1 Jun 2005 [Full text]

Re: Do lower back problem sufferers need doctors at all?

Ian P stevens
bmj.com, 2 Jun 2005 [Full text]

Surgical responses to Back Pain

Fenella Lemonsky
bmj.com, 3 Jun 2005 [Full text]

Indications for Surgery in Low Back Pain Still Unclear

Gerson T. Lesser, MD
bmj.com, 11 Jun 2005 [Full text]

Spinal Surgery or Intensive Rehabilitation: Patient selection is key

Clare J Harris, et al.
bmj.com, 13 Jun 2005 [Full text]

Rehabilitation programme must precede spinal stabilisation

Nicholas Vyner Todd
bmj.com, 22 Jun 2005 [Full text]

Concerned about conclusions

Brian R. Subach, MD, FACS, et al.
bmj.com, 29 Jun 2005 [Full text]

Statistical analysis for one way cross over

David W. Polly
bmj.com, 5 Jul 2005 [Full text]

SF36 scores

Gnanie Panch
bmj.com, 7 Sep 2005 [Full text]