Outcome of physiotherapy after surgery for cervical disc disease: a prospective randomised multi-centre trial

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

Håkan Löfgren⁶  Liselott CG Persson¹  Ann-Sofi Kammerlind⁴  Lars Bernfort³  Peter Zsigmond⁷  Åsa Dedering⁵  Johanna Wibault²  Birgitta Öberg²  Anneli Peolsson² 

[1] Division of Physiotherapy, Department of Health Sciences, Lunds University, Lund, Sweden;Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Physiotherapy, Faculty of Health Sciences, Linköping University, SE-58183 Linköping, Sweden;Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Health Care Analysis, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden;Futurum the Academy for Healthcare, County Council Jönköping, Jönköping, Sweden;Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Division of Physiotherapy, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden;Neuroorthopedic Centre, Ryhov Hospital, Jönköping, Sweden;Department of Neurosurgery, Linköping University Hospital, Linköping, Sweden

关键词: Physical therapy;    Rehabilitation;    Neck;    Spine;    Intervertebral disc;   

Others  :  1128848
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2474-15-34

 received in 2013-11-24, accepted in 2014-01-15,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Many patients with cervical disc disease require leave from work, due to long-lasting, complex symptoms, including chronic pain and reduced levels of physical and psychological function. Surgery on a few segmental levels might be expected to resolve disc-specific pain and reduce neurological deficits, but not the non-specific neck pain and the frequent illness. No study has investigated whether post-surgery physiotherapy might improve the outcome of surgery. The main purpose of this study was to evaluate whether a well-structured rehabilitation programme might add benefit to the customary post-surgical treatment for cervical disc disease, with respect to function, disability, work capability, and cost effectiveness.

Methods/Design

This study was designed as a prospective, randomised, controlled, multi-centre study. An independent, blinded investigator will compare two alternatives of rehabilitation. We will include 200 patients of working age, with cervical disc disease confirmed by clinical findings and symptoms of cervical nerve root compression. After providing informed consent, study participants will be randomised to one of two alternative physiotherapy regimes; (A) customary treatment (information and advice on a specialist clinic); or (B) customary treatment plus active physiotherapy. Physiotherapy will follow a standardised, structured programme of neck-specific exercises combined with a behavioural approach. All patients will be evaluated both clinically and subjectively (with questionnaires) before surgery and at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months, and 24 months after surgery. The main outcome variable will be neck-specific disability. Cost-effectiveness will also be calculated.

Discussion

We anticipate that the results of this study will provide evidence to support physiotherapeutic rehabilitation applied after surgery for cervical radiculopathy due to cervical disc disease.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01547611

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Peolsson et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Fouyas IP, Statham PFX, Sandercock PAG: Cochrane review on the role of surgery in cervical spondylotic radiculomyelopathy. Spine 2002, 27:736-747.
• [2]Löfgren H: Outcome and Bone Grafts in Surgical Treatment of Cervical Disc Disease. Sweden: Linköping University Medical Dissertations; 2000. ISSN 0345–0082;6212000, ISBN:91-7219-578-9. http://www.dissertations.se/dissertation/7939d696b1/ webcite
• [3]Peolsson A, Kjellman G: Neck Muscle endurance in non-specific patients with neck pain and in patients after anterior cervical decompression and fusion. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2007, 30:343-350.
• [4]Peolsson A: Clinically important benefit of anterior cervical decompression and fusion. Eur Spine J 2007, 16:507-514.
• [5]Persson LCG, Carlsson C-A, Carlsson JY: Long-lasting cervical radicular pain managed with surgery, physiotherapy, or a cervical collar: a prospective randomised study. Spine 1997, 7:751-758.
• [6]Zoëga B, Kärrholm J, Lind B: Outcome scores in degenerative cervical disc surgery. Eur Spine J 2000, 9:137-143.
• [7]Radhakrishnan K, Litchy WJ, O’Fallon WM, Kurland LT: Epidemiology of cervical radiculopathy. A population-based study from Rochester, Minnesota, 1976 through 1990. Brain 1994, 117:325-335.
• [8]Epstein NE: A review of laminoforaminotomy for the management of lateral and foraminal cervical disc herniations or spurs. Surg Neurol 2002, 57:226-233.
• [9]Hacker RJ, Cauthen JC, Gilbert TJ, Griffith SL: A prospective randomized multicenter clinical evaluation of an anterior cervical fusion cage. Spine 2000, 25:2646-2654.
• [10]Peolsson A, Peolsson M: Predictive factors for long-term outcome of anterior cervical decompression and fusion: a multivariate data analysis. Eur Spine J 2008, 17:406-414.
• [11]Peolsson A, Söderlund A, Engquist M, Lind B, Löfgren H, Vavruch L, Holtz A, Winström-Christersson A, Isaksson I, Öberg B: Physical function outcome in cervical radiculopathy patients after physiotherapy alone compared with anterior surgery followed by physiotherapy: a prospective randomized study with a 2-year follow-up. Spine 2013, 38:300-307.
• [12]Hermansen A, Hedlund R, Vavruch L, Peolsson A: A comparison between the carbon fiber cage and the Cloward procedure in cervical spine surgery: a 10–13 year follow-up of a prospective randomized study. Spine 2011, 36:919-925.
• [13]Peolsson A, Vavruch L, Hedlund R: Long-term randomised comparison between a carbon fibre cage and the cloward procedure in the cervical spine. Eur Spine J 2007, 16:173-178.
• [14]Peolsson A, Vavruch L, Öberg : Can the results 6 months after anterior cervical decompression and fusion identify patients who will have remaining deficit at long-term? Disabil Rehabil 2006, 28:117-124.
• [15]Peolsson A, Vavruch L, Öberg B: Disability after anterior decompression and fusion for cervical disc disease. Adv Physiol Educ 2002, 4:111-124.
• [16]Ellenberg MR, Honet JC, Treanor WJ: Cervical radiculopathy. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1994, 75:342-352.
• [17]Murphy DR, Hurwitz EL, Gregory A, Clary R: A nonsurgical approach to the management of patients with cervical radiculopathy: a prospective observational cohort study. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2006, 29:279-287.
• [18]Saal JS, Saal JA, Yurth E: Nonoperative management of herniated cervical intervertebral disc with radiculopathy. Spine 1996, 21:1877-1883.
• [19]Engquist M, Löfgren H, Öberg B, Holtz A, Peolsson A, Söderlund A, Vavruch L, Lind B: Surgery versus nonsurgical treatment of cervical radiculopathy: a prospective, randomized study comparing surgery plus physiotherapy with physiotherapy alone with a 2-year follow-up. Spine 2013, 38:1715-1722.
• [20]Söderlund A, Lindberg P: Coping as a mediating factor between self-efficacy and disability in Whiplash Associated Disorders (WAD). J Whiplash Rel Disord 2002, 1:25-37.
• [21]Söderlund A, Lindberg P: Whiplash Associated Disorders - predicting disability from a process-oriented perspective on coping. Clin Rehabil 2003, 17:101-107.
• [22]Söderlund A, Åsenlöf P: The mediating role of self-efficacy, fear of movement and catastrophising beliefs in two samples of acute pain patients. Disabil Rehabil 2010, 32:2118-2126.
• [23]Bandura A: Social cognitive theory: an agentive perspective. Ann Rev Psychol 2001, 52:1-26.
• [24]Folkman S, Lazarus RS, Gruen RJ, DeLongis A: Appraisal, coping, health status, and psychological symptoms. J Pers Soc Psychol 1986, 50:571-579.
• [25]Kay T, Gross A, Goldsmith C, Santaguida P, Hoving J, Bronfort G, Cervical overview group: Exercises for mechanical neck disorders. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005, 20(3):CD004250. Review. Update in: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;8:CD004250. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16034925 webcite
• [26]Miller J, Gross A, D’Sylva J, Burnie SJ, Goldsmith CH, Graham N, Haines T, Brønfort G, Hoving JL: Manual therapy and exercise for neck pain: a systematic review. Man Ther 2010, 15:334-354.
• [27]Söderlund A, Lindberg P: An integrated physiotherapy/cognitive-behavioural approach to the analysis and treatment of chronic Whiplash Associated Disorders, WAD. Disabil Rehabil 2001, 23:436-447.
• [28]Söderlund A, Lindberg P: Cognitive behavioural components in physiotherapy management of chronic Whiplash Associated Disorders (WAD) - a randomised group study. Physiother Theory Pract 2001, 17:229-238.
• [29]Faugli HP: Medical Exercise Therapy. Oslo Universitetsforlaget: The Norwegian MET Institute; 1996. ISBN 82-993876-0-4
• [30]Peolsson A, Hedlund R, Ertzgaard S, Öberg B: Intra-and inter-tester reliability and age- and sex-specific range of motion of the neck. Physiother Can 2000, 52:233-242.
• [31]Wibault J, Vaillant J, Vuillerme N, Dedering Å, Peolsson A: Using the cervical range of motion (CROM) device to assess head repositioning accuracy in individuals with cervical radiculopathy in comparison to neck healthy individuals. Man Ther 2013, 18:403-409.
• [32]Peolsson A, Almkvist C, Dahlberg C, Lindqvist S, Pettersson S: Age- and sex-specific reference values of a test of neck muscle endurance. J Manip Physiol Ther 2007, 30:171-177.
• [33]Peolsson A, Hedlund R, Öberg B: Intra- and inter-tester reliability and reference values for hand strength. J Rehabil Med 2001, 33:36-41.
• [34]Kammerlind A-S, Bergquist Larsson P, Ledin T, Skargren E: Reliability of clinical balance tests and subjective ratings in dizziness and disequilibrium. Adv Physiol Educ 2005, 7:96-107.
• [35]Johansson G, Jarnlo G-B: Balance training in 70-year-old women. Physiother Theory Pract 1991, 7:121-125.
• [36]Westaway MD, Stratford PW, Binkley JM: The patient-specific functional scale: validation of its use in persons with neck dysfunction. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 1998, 27:331-338.
• [37]Cleland JA, Fritz JM, Whitman JM, Palmer JA: The reliability and construct validity of the Neck Disability Index and patient specific functional scale in patients with cervical radiculopathy. Spine 2006, 31:598-602.
• [38]Carlsson AM: Assessment of chronic pain. I. Aspects of the reliability and validity of the visual analogue scale. Pain 1983, 16:87-101.
• [39]Werneke M, Hart DL, Cook D: A descriptive study of the centralization phenomenon. A prospective analysis. Spine 1999, 24:676-683.
• [40]Altmaier E, Russell D, Feng KC, Lehmann T, Weinstein J: Role of self-efficacy in rehabilitation outcome among chronic low back pain patients. J Couns Psychol 1993, 40:335-339.
• [41]Cherkin DC, Deyo RA, Street JH, Barlow W: Predicting poor outcomes of back pain seen in primary care using patients’ own criteria. Spine 1996, 21:2900-2907.
• [42]Main CJ, Wood PLR, Hollis S, Spanswick CG, Wadell G: The distress and risk assessment method: a simple patient classification to identify distress and evaluate the risk of poor outcome. Spine 1992, 17:42-52.
• [43]Rosenstiel AK, Keefe FJ: The use of coping strategies in chronic low back pain patients: relationships to patient characteristics and current adjustment. Pain 1983, 17:33-44.
• [44]de Zwart BC, Frings-Dresen MH, van Duivenbooden JC: Test-retest reliability of the work ability index questionnaire. Occup Med (Lond) 2002, 52:177-181.
• [45]Brooks R: EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy 1996, 37:53-72.
• [46]Bergström G, Jensen IB, Linton SJ, Nygren ÅL: A psychometric evaluation of the Swedish version of the Multidimensional Pain Inventory (MPI-S): a gender-differentiated evaluation. Eur J Pain 1999, 3:261-273.
• [47]Howie JGR, Heaney DJ, Maxwell M, Walker JJ: A comparison of a Patient Enablement Instrument (PEI) against two established satisfaction scales as an outcome measure of primary care consultations. Fam Pract 1998, 15:165-171.