Trial reportSpine2001
2001 Volvo Award Winner in Clinical Studies: Lumbar fusion versus nonsurgical treatment for chronic low back pain: a multicenter randomized controlled trial from the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group.
Trial report in Spine, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 6 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 245 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Vertebral Osteosynthesis in Degenerative Lumbar Stenosis With Spondylolisthesis - CLEOS Study
Physical Capability Outcomes After Single-Level ProDisc-L Total Disc Replacement or Single-Level Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: a Multi-Center Clinical Trial
Parametres globaux de reference du rachis calcules sur des patients asymptomatiques par imagerie eos™
Bone Marrow Concentrate Intradiscal Injection for Chronic Discogenic Low Back Pain: A Double-Blind, Placebo Controlled Trial
sPinal coRd stimulatiOn coMpared With Lumbar InStrumEntation for Low Back Pain After Previous Lumbar Decompression (PROMISE): a Prospective Randomized Controlled Study
The Lumbar Interbody Fusion vs. Multidisciplinary Rehabilitation (LIFEHAB) Trial
Who cites it
245 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 918 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Pathoanatomic Risk Factors for Instability and Adjacent Segment Disease in Lumbar Spine: How to Use Topping Off?BioMed research international · 2017Pooled it
- Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of degenerative lumbar disease: systematic review and meta-analysis.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2015Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Total disc replacement for chronic back pain in the presence of disc degeneration.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2012Pooled it
- Low back pain (chronic).BMJ clinical evidence · 2010Pooled it
- Total disc replacement surgery for symptomatic degenerative lumbar disc disease: a systematic review of the literature.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2010Pooled it
- A meta-analysis of artificial total disc replacement versus fusion for lumbar degenerative disc disease.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2010Pooled it
- Trial
- Perioperative transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation (pTEAS) in pain management in major spinal surgery patients.BMC anesthesiology · 2022Trial
- Long-Term Safety and Efficacy of Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression Procedure for the Treatment of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis With Neurogenic Claudication: 2-Year Results of MiDAS ENCORE.Regional anesthesia and pain medicine · 2018Trial
- Intraosseous basivertebral nerve ablation for the treatment of chronic low back pain: a prospective randomized double-blind sham-controlled multi-center study.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2018Trial
- Trial
- A Randomized Controlled Trial Evaluating the Effects of Diosmin in the Treatment of Radicular Pain.BioMed research international · 2017Trial
- Trial
- ALIF and total disc replacement versus 2-level circumferential fusion with TLIF: a prospective, randomized, clinical and radiological trial.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2016Trial
- Evaluating rehabilitation following lumbar fusion surgery (REFS): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.Trials · 2015Trial
- Anterior stand-alone fusion revisited: a prospective clinical, X-ray and CT investigation.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2015Trial
- Evaluation of efficacy of a new hybrid fusion device: a randomized, two-centre controlled trial.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2014Trial
- Unilateral versus bilateral instrumented transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in two-level degenerative lumbar disorders: a prospective randomised study.International orthopaedics · 2014Trial
185 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by[Operations].2012
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designA randomized controlled multicenter study with a 2-year follow-up by an independent observer.
objectivesTo determine whether fusion of the lower lumbar spine could reduce pain and diminish disability more effectively when compared with nonsurgical treatment in patients with severe chronic low back pain (CLBP). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The reported results after fusion surgery on patients with CLBP vary considerably, and the evidence of treatment efficacy is weak in the absence of randomized controlled studies. PATIENTS AND
methodsA total of 294 patients referred to 19 spinal centers from 1992 through 1998 were randomized blindly into four treatment groups. Patients aged 25-65 years with CLBP for at least 2 years and with radiologic evidence of disc degeneration at L4-L5, L5-S1, or both were eligible to participate in the study. The surgical group (n=222) included three different fusion techniques, not analyzed separately in this study. Patients in the nonsurgical group (n=72) were treated with different kinds of physical therapy. The surgical group comprised 49.5% men, and the mean age was 43 years. The corresponding figures for the nonsurgical group were 48.6% and 44 years. The patients had suffered from low back pain for a mean of 7.8 and 8.5 years and been on sick leave due to back pain for a mean of 3.2 and 2.9 years, respectively. The Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) was used to measure pain. The Oswestry Low Back Pain Questionnaire, the Million Score and the General Function Score (GFS) were used to measure disability. The Zung Depression Scale was used to measure depressive symptoms. The overall result was assessed by the patient and by an independent observer. Records from the Swedish Social Insurance were used to evaluate work disability. Patients who changed groups were included in the analyses of significance according to the intention-to-treat principle.
resultsAt the 2-year follow-up 289 of 294 (98%) patients, including 25 who had changed groups, were examined. Back pain was reduced in the surgical group by 33% (64 to 43), compared with 7% (63 to 58) in the nonsurgical group (P=0.0002). Pain improved most during the first 6 months and then gradually deteriorated. Disability according to Oswestry was reduced by 25% (47 to 36) compared with 6% (48 to 46) among nonsurgical patients (P=0.015), according to Million by 28% (64 to 46) compared with 8% (66 to 60) (P=0.004), and accordingtoGFS by 31% (49 to 34) compared with 4% (48 to 46) (P=0.005). The depressive symptoms, according to Zung, were reduced by 20% (39 to 31) in the surgical group compared with 7% (39 to 36) in the nonsurgical group (P=0.123). In the surgical group 63% (122/195) rated themselves as "much better" or "better" compared with 29% (18/62) in the nonsurgical group (P<0.0001). The "net back to work rate" was significantly in favor of surgical treatment, or 36% vs. 13% (P=0.002). The early complication rate in the surgical group was 17%.
conclusionLumbar fusion in a well-informed and selected group of patients with severe CLBP can diminish pain and decrease disability more efficiently than commonly used nonsurgical treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.