Trial reportEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2019
Rehabilitation following lumbar fusion surgery (REFS) a randomised controlled feasibility study.
Trial report in 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, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Rehabilitation to improve outcomes of lumbar fusion surgery: a systematic review with 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 · 2022Pooled it
- Compression therapy following posterior lumbar interbody fusion: a prospective, randomized, clinical study.BMC surgery · 2019Trial
- Living with pain: Experiences, hopes and expectations when going through lumbar spinal fusion - A qualitative study.International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being · 2026Article
- Data-Driven Clustering for Risk Stratification of Unfavorable Outcomes After Lumbar Fusion Surgery: A Development Study.Neurospine · 2026Article
- Let's Get Physical! A Comprehensive Review of Pre- and Post-Surgical Interventions Targeting Physical Activity to Improve Pain and Functional Outcomes in Spine Surgery Patients.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- The Rehabilitation-Related Effects on the Fear, Pain, and Disability of Patients With Lumbar Fusion Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Neurospine · 2023Article
- A qualitative evaluation of participants experiences of living with back pain, lumbar fusion surgery, and post-operative rehabilitation.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2022Article
- Article
- The Michel Benoist and Robert Mulholland yearly European spine journal review: a survey of the "surgical and research" articles in European spine journal, 2019.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 · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeFollowing lumbar fusion surgery (LFS), 40% of patients are unsure/dissatisfied with their outcome. A prospective, single-centre, randomised, controlled trial was conducted to evaluate the feasibility (including clinical and economic impact) of a theoretically informed rehabilitation programme following LFS (REFS).
methodsREFS was informed by an explicit theoretical framework and consisted of 10 consecutive weekly group rehabilitation sessions (education, low-tech cardiovascular, limb and spine strengthening exercises, and peer support). Participants were randomised to REFS or 'usual care.' Primary feasibility outcomes included recruitment and engagement. Secondary outcomes, collected preoperatively and 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively, comprised the Oswestry disability index, European Quality of Life 5 dimensions score, pain self-efficacy questionnaire, hospital anxiety and depression scale and the aggregated functional performance time. Economic impact was evaluated with the Client Services Receipt Inventory.
resultsFifty-two of 58 eligible participants were recruited, and engagement with REFS was > 95%. REFS participants achieved a clinically meaningful reduction in unadjusted mean short-term disability (- 13.27 ± 13.46), which was not observed in the 'usual care' group (- 2.42 ± 12.33). This was maintained in the longer term (- 14.72% ± 13.34 vs - 7.57 ± 13.91). Multilevel regression analyses, adjusted for body mass index, baseline depression, and smoking status reported a statistically significant short-term improvement in disability (p = 0.014) and pain self-efficacy (p = 0.007). REFS costs £275 per participant.
conclusionsResults suggest that REFS is feasible and potentially affordable for delivery in the National Health Service. It is associated with a clinically meaningful impact. A multicentre randomised controlled study to further elucidate these results is warranted. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
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.