Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Effectiveness of behavioral graded activity after first-time lumbar disc surgery: short term results of a randomized controlled trial

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Behavioral approaches to treating patients following lumbar disc surgery are becoming increasingly popular. The treatment method is based on the assumption that pain and pain disability are not only influenced by somatic pathology, if found, but also by psychological and social factors. A recent study highlighted the effectiveness of cognitive-behavioral interventions, as compared to no treatment, for chronic low back patients. However, to the authors' knowledge, there is no randomized controlled trial that evaluates a behavioral program for patients following lumbar disc surgery. The purpose of this study was to assess the effectiveness of a behavioral graded activity (BGA) program compared to usual care (UC) in physiotherapy following first-time lumbar disc surgery. The BGA program was a patient-tailored intervention based upon operant therapy. The essence of the BGA is to teach patients that it is safe to increase activity levels. The study was designed as a randomized controlled trial. Assessments were carried out before and after treatment by an observer blinded to treatment allocation. Patients suffering residual symptoms restricting their activities of daily living and/or work at the 6 weeks post-surgery consultation by the neurosurgeon were included. The exclusion criteria were: complications during surgery, any relevant underlying pathology, and any contraindication to physiotherapy or the BGA program. Primary outcome measures were the patient's Global Perceived Effect and the functional status. Secondary measures were: fear of movement, viewing pain as extremely threatening, pain, severity of the main complaint, range of motion, and relapses. Physiotherapists in the BGA group received proper training. Between November 1997 and December 1999, 105 patients were randomized; 53 into the UC group and 52 into the BGA group. The unadjusted analysis shows a 19.3% (95% CI: 0.1 to 38.5) statistically significant difference to the advantage of the UC group on Global Perceived Effect. This result, however, is not robust, as the adjusted analyses reveal a difference of 15.7% (95% CI: −3.9 to 35.2), which is not statistically significant. For all other outcome measures there were no statistically significant or clinically relevant differences between the two intervention groups. In general, the physiotherapists' compliance with the BGA program was satisfactory, although not all treatments, either in the BGA or the UC group, were delivered exactly as planned, resulting in less contrast between the two interventions than had been planned for. There was one re-operation in each group. The BGA program was not more effective than UC in patients following first-time lumbar disc surgery. For Global Perceived Effect there was a borderline statistically significant difference to the advantage of the UC group. On functional status and all other outcome measures there were no relevant differences between interventions. The number of re-operations was negligible, indicating that it is safe to exercise after first-time disc surgery.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Barrios C, Ahmed M, Arrotegui JI, et al (1990) Clinical factors predicting outcome after surgery for herniated lumbar disc: an epidemiological multivariate analysis. J Spinal Disord 3:205–209

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Beurskens AJ, Vet de HC, Köke AJ, et al (1999) A patient-specific approach for measuring functional status in low back pain. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 22:144–148

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bø K, Hilde G, Storheim K (1997) Intra- and interobserver reproducibility of Cybex EDI-320 measuring spinal mobility. Scand J Med Sci Sports 7:140–143

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Carlsson A M (1983) Assessment of chronic pain. 1. Aspects of the reliability and validity of the visual analogue scale. Pain 16:87–101

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Cherkin DC, Deyo RA, Loeser JD, et al (1994) An international comparison of back surgery rates. Spine 19:1201–1206

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Chiarello CM, Savidge R (1993) Interrater reliability of the Cybex EDI-320 and fluid goniometer in normals and patients with low back pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 74:32–37

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Connolly ES (1993) Management of persistent or recurrent symptoms and signs in the postoperative lumbar disc patient. Neurosurg Clin N Am 4:161–166

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Danielsen JM, Johnsen R, Kibsgaard SK, et al (2000) Early aggressive exercise for postoperative rehabilitation after discectomy. Spine 25:1201–1206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Dolan P, Greenfield K, Nelson RJ, et al (2000) Can exercise therapy improve the outcome of microdiscectomy? Spine 25:1523–1532

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Dvorak J, Valach L, Fuhrimann P, et al (1988) The outcome of surgery for lumbar disc herniation. A 4–17 years' follow-up with emphasis on psychosocial aspects. Spine 13:1423–1427

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Fordyce WE (1976) Behavioral methods for chronic pain and illness. Mosby, St Louis

  12. Fordyce WE, Fowler RS, Lehmann JF, et al (1973) Operant conditioning in the treatment of chronic pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 5:399–408

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hansen JW (1964) Postoperative management in lumbar disc protrusions. Acta Orthop Scand 71 [Suppl]:1–47

    Google Scholar 

  14. Hurme M, Alaranta M (1987) Factors predicting the result of surgery for lumbar intervertebral disc herniation. Spine 12:933–938

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Koes B, Mameren v H, Bouter L, et al (1989) The reproducibilty of measuring spinal mobilty with the EDI-320 (in Dutch). Neder Tijdschr Fysiother 99:207–211

    Google Scholar 

  16. Korres DS, Loupassis G, Stamos K (1992) Results of lumbar discectomy: a study using 15 different evaluation methods. Eur Spine J 1:20–24

    Google Scholar 

  17. Lindström I, Öhlund C, Eek v C, et al (1992) The effect of graded activity on patients with subacute low back pain. Phys Ther 72:279–293

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Manniche C, Skall HF, Braendholt L, et al (1993) Clinical trial of postoperative dynamic back exercises after first lumbar discectomy. Spine 18:92–97

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Manniche C, Asmussen KH, Vinterberg H, et al (1994) Analysis of preoperative prognostic factors in first-time surgery for lumbar disc herniation, including Finneson's and modified Spengler's score systems. Dan Med Bull 41:110–115

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Manniche C, Asmussen KH, Vinterberg H, et al (1994) Back pain, sciatica and disability following first-time conventional hemilaminectomy for lumbar disc herniation. Dan Med Bull 41:103–106

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Netherlands' Health Council (1999) Management of the lumbosacral radicular syndrome (sciatica) 1999/18. Netherlands Health Council, The Hague

  22. Noordzij CM, Dolder v R (1991) Physiotherapy for patients following lumbar disc surgery (in Dutch). Neder Tijdschr Fysiother 101:160–162

    Google Scholar 

  23. Oerlemans H (1988) Physiotherapy following lumbar disc surgery, (in Dutch). Neder Tijdschr Fysiother 98:245–251

    Google Scholar 

  24. Ostelo RW, Köke AJ, Beurskens AJ, et al (2000) Behavioral-graded activity compared with usual care after first-time disk surgery: considerations of a design of a RCT. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 23:312–319

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Ostelo RW, Stomp-van den Berg SG, Vlaeyen JW, et al (2003) Healthcare providers' attitudes and beliefs regarding chronic low back pain. Manual Therapy (in press)

  26. Pappas CT, Harrington ET, Sonntag VK (1992) Outcome analysis in 654 surgically treated lumbar disc herniations. Neurosurgery 30:862–866

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Revill SI, Robinson JO, Rosen M, et al (1976) The reliability of a linear analogue for evaluating pain. Anaesthesia 31:1191–1198

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Roland M, Morris R (1983) A study of the natural history of back pain. 1. Development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low-back pain. Spine 8:141–144

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Slebus FG, Maas vd PJ, Braakman R, et al (1989) The effectiveness of imaging diagnostics and surgery of the lumbar disc hernation (in Dutch). Rapport Ministerie van WVC

  30. Smulders WL, Loon v G (1993) Treatment following a lumbar disc surgery or chemonucleolyse. An 'out-patient' survey. Fysiopraxis 2:4–6

    Google Scholar 

  31. Spangfort EV (1972) The lumbar disc herniation. A computer-aided analysis of 2,504 operations. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl 95:1421–1495

    Google Scholar 

  32. Sriwatanakul K, Kelvie W, Lasagna L, et al (1983) Studies with different types of visual analog scales for measurement of pain. Clin Pharmacol Ther 34:234–239

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Stegen K, Neujens A, Crombez G, et al (1998) Negative affect, respiratory reactivity, and somatic complaints in a CO2 enriched air inhalation paradigm. Biol Psychol 49:109–122

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Sullivan MJ, Bishop SR, Pivik J (1995) The Pain Catastrophizing Scale: development and validation. Psychol Assess 7:524–532

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Turk DC (1984) Etiological theories and treatments for chronic back pain. 2. Psychological models and interventions. Pain 19:209–233

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Van Burken MM, Sanders EA (1992) Positive results of re-operation for recurrent lumbar disc hernation following a first-time lumbar disc surgery (in Dutch). Ned Tijdschr Geneesk 136:692–695

    Google Scholar 

  37. Van Tulder MW, Ostelo RW, Vlaeyen JW, et al (2001) Behavioral treatment for chronic low back pain: a systematic review within the framework of the Cochrane Back Review Group. Spine 26:270–281

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Vlaeyen JW, Linton SJ (2000) Fear-avoidance and its consequences in chronic musculoskeletal pain: a state of the art. Pain 85:317–332

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Vlaeyen JW, Haazen IW, Schuerman JA, et al (1995) Behavioral rehabilitation of chronic low back pain. Br J Clin Psychol 34:95–118

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Vlaeyen JW, Kole-Snijders AM, van Eek H (1996) Chronic pain and rehabilitation (in Dutch). Bohn Stafleu Van Loghum, Hoensbroek

  41. Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD (1992) The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). 1. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 30:473–483

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Weber H (1983) Lumbar disc herniation. A controlled, prospective study with ten years of observation. Spine 8:131–140

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Yorimitsu E, Chiba K, Toyama Y, et al (2001) Long-term outcomes of standard discectomy for lumbar disc herniation: a follow-up study of more than 10 years. Spine 26:652–657

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R. W. J. G. Ostelo.

Additional information

The research for this study was carried out at the Department of Epidemiology, Maastricht University. The research was supported by "Profileringsfonds" (PF-57) of the Maastricht University Hospital and "Stichting Annafonds Leiden"

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ostelo, R.W.J.G., de Vet, H.C.W., Berfelo, M.W. et al. Effectiveness of behavioral graded activity after first-time lumbar disc surgery: short term results of a randomized controlled trial. Eur Spine J 12, 637–644 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-003-0560-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-003-0560-9

Keywords

Navigation