Orthopedics

Feature Article 

Lumbar Diskography and Failed Back Syndrome in Patients Receiving Workers' Compensation

Joshua T. Anderson, BS; Arnold R. Haas, BS, BA; Rick Percy, PhD; Stephen T. Woods, MD; Uri M. Ahn, MD; Nicholas U. Ahn, MD

Abstract

Lumbar diskography (LD) is frequently used in the evaluation of patients with degenerative disk disease and diskogenic low back pain. Its safety and diagnostic accuracy are a topic of debate. No study has evaluated the efficacy of LD within the clinically distinct workers' compensation population. Within this setting, the authors wished to determine the effect of undergoing LD before diskogenic fusion on rates of postoperative failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS). Also, the authors compared opioid analgesic use between patients undergoing LD and patients not undergoing LD. ICD-9 diagnoses and CPT procedural codes were used to identify 1591 patients from the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation who underwent diskogenic fusion between 1993 and 2013. A total of 682 patients underwent LD before fusion, which formed the LD group, with the remaining 909 patients as controls. The authors used a multivariate logistic regression analysis while correcting for relevant covariates. Diskography before fusion was a positive predictor of postoperative FBSS (P=.04; odds ratio, 1.44). The rate of FBSS was 13.9% of the LD group and 8.8% in the control group. Postoperatively, the LD group was supplied with a significantly higher daily opioid analgesic load (P=.04) for an average of 130 additional days (P<.01). Additional predictors of FBSS included the ability to remain at work within 1 week of index fusion (P=.02; odds ratio, 0.54), male sex (P=.03; odds ratio, 1.51), preoperative narcotic use for more than 1 year (P=.02; odds ratio, 1.53), and fusion technique (P=.03). Diskography should ideally help identify good candidates for lumbar fusion. However, the authors' study raises significant concerns regarding LD's current role within the workers' compensation population. [Orthopedics. 2015; 38(11):e951–e958.]

Abstract

Lumbar diskography (LD) is frequently used in the evaluation of patients with degenerative disk disease and diskogenic low back pain. Its safety and diagnostic accuracy are a topic of debate. No study has evaluated the efficacy of LD within the clinically distinct workers' compensation population. Within this setting, the authors wished to determine the effect of undergoing LD before diskogenic fusion on rates of postoperative failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS). Also, the authors compared opioid analgesic use between patients undergoing LD and patients not undergoing LD. ICD-9 diagnoses and CPT procedural codes were used to identify 1591 patients from the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation who underwent diskogenic fusion between 1993 and 2013. A total of 682 patients underwent LD before fusion, which formed the LD group, with the remaining 909 patients as controls. The authors used a multivariate logistic regression analysis while correcting for relevant covariates. Diskography before fusion was a positive predictor of postoperative FBSS (P=.04; odds ratio, 1.44). The rate of FBSS was 13.9% of the LD group and 8.8% in the control group. Postoperatively, the LD group was supplied with a significantly higher daily opioid analgesic load (P=.04) for an average of 130 additional days (P<.01). Additional predictors of FBSS included the ability to remain at work within 1 week of index fusion (P=.02; odds ratio, 0.54), male sex (P=.03; odds ratio, 1.51), preoperative narcotic use for more than 1 year (P=.02; odds ratio, 1.53), and fusion technique (P=.03). Diskography should ideally help identify good candidates for lumbar fusion. However, the authors' study raises significant concerns regarding LD's current role within the workers' compensation population. [Orthopedics. 2015; 38(11):e951–e958.]

The lifetime prevalence of disk degeneration and low back pain (LBP) is approximately 80% in the general population.1 Since 1990, the number of lumbar fusions for degenerative disk disease (DDD) and diskogenic LBP have risen approximately 220% in the United States.2 Therefore, it is not surprising that lumbar diskography (LD), an injection procedure used in the evaluation of patients with chronic diskogenic LBP, is frequently performed. Diskography's purpose is to determine which intervertebral disks are pain generators and may respond well to surgical intervention, most commonly lumbar fusion. Derby et al3 reported that if particular attention is paid to injection pressures, LD can be associated with false-positive rates no higher than 10%. Multiple other studies also support the role of LD in evaluating patients with diskogenic LBP.4–8

In contrast, some consider LD controversial because a growing number of reports have questioned its safety and diagnostic accuracy.9–17 Carragee et al10 found that pain provocation during LD was common in patients without LBP and that pain reproduction in many patients with chronic LBP was inaccurate. In a separate study, Carragee et al14 reported similar provoked pain responses when injecting symptomatic and asymptomatic disks, raising the concern that LD could lead to inappropriately high surgical rates. One 10-year study associated LD with accelerated disk degeneration, disk herniation, and loss of disk height.11

Furthermore, the workers' compensation (WC) population tends to have worse lumbar fusion outcomes than the general population.18–21 A 2011 cohort study reported that undergoing lumbar fusion for DDD, disk herniation, and/or radiculopathy in a WC setting is associated with increased disability, opiate use, prolonged work loss, and a poor return to work status.21

Sufficiently poor outcomes following back surgery can be characterized by the biopsychosocial phenomenon known as failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS). These patients experience decreased functional capacity, morale, and productivity as well as opioid addiction. Approximately two-thirds of all patients enrolled in chronic pain centers experience FBSS.22 Several pathways to FBSS exist, the most common of which is poor patient selection for surgery.23,24

Lumbar diskography is a diagnostic tool meant to help clinicians select which patients are good candidates for lumbar fusion, which should ideally help lower postoperative rates of FBSS. However, if LD is not associated with better postoperative clinical outcomes, then questions may be raised regarding its usefulness. To the current authors' knowledge, this study is the first to directly evaluate the efficacy of LD in the WC population. Relatively few studies have been published evaluating risk factors for poor lumbar fusion outcomes in WC patients.25–27

Therefore, the authors wanted to compare clinical outcomes following diskogenic fusion between WC patients who underwent LD before fusion and WC patients who did not. The primary objective of this study was to determine how undergoing diskography before diskogenic fusion affects rates of postoperative FBSS. Can LD, already considered controversial by some, effectively identify which WC patients with diskogenic LBP and DDD are ideal candidates for lumbar fusion, resulting in lower rates of post-fusion FBSS? Because FBSS is a chronic pain syndrome, the authors also wished to determine whether there is a difference in postoperative opioid use between patients who underwent LD before fusion and those who did not.

Materials and Methods

The authors initially identified 14,640 WC patients from the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation (BWC) who were diagnosed with lumbar comorbidities after sustaining a workplace injury between 1993 and 2013 using ICD-9 diagnosis codes. Next, CPT procedural codes were used to identify 5990 of these patients who underwent lumbar fusion surgery with a minimum of 3 years of postoperative follow-up. The authors characterized the type of fusion each patient underwent using a CPT coding schema published by Nguyen et al21 in 2011. Because smoking is a known risk factor for worse outcomes, patients with a positive smoking history were excluded, as identified with ICD-9 codes and/or the use of prescription smoking deterrents.28–30 Patients diagnosed with FBSS before fusion were also excluded, as identified by the ICD-9 code 722.83.

From the fusion population of 5990 patients, ICD-9 codes were used to identify 1591 patients who underwent fusion for the primary indications of DDD and diskogenic LBP. To do so, patients not diagnosed with DDD before fusion and patients diagnosed with spinal instability or deformity (ie, spondylolisthesis or scoliosis) in addition to DDD were excluded. Thus, the authors arrived at their final study population, comprising patients who underwent diskogenic fusion with at least 3 years of follow-up. Using the CPT code 62290, 682 (42.9%) of these patients who underwent LD before fusion were identified, forming the LD group. The remaining 909 patients became the control group. Because some of the patients in this study may have had multiple fusion surgeries while under WC, the authors only evaluated outcomes following each patient's index diskogenic fusion after WC-qualifying workplace injury. Figure 1 illustrates the patient selection process. Table 1 provides the coding used to identify this study population and to characterize each patient's fusion surgery.

The authors used a combination of ICD-9 diagnoses and CPT procedural codes to derive the final study population.

Figure 1:

The authors used a combination of ICD-9 diagnoses and CPT procedural codes to derive the final study population.

Coding Used for Study Population

Table 1:

Coding Used for Study Population

The authors' primary outcome was a diagnosis of FBSS within 3 years after index fusion (AIF). The authors measured the following secondary outcomes at 3 years AIF: prescription opioid analgesic use, rates of permanent disability, rates of all-cause and perioperative mortality, development of psychological comorbidity, rates of pseudoarthrosis, and additional lumbar surgery.

The number of days each patient was supplied with prescription opioid analgesics before index fusion (BIF) and AIF were calculated. Each opioid prescription was converted to morphine equivalent units (MEQs), and the total MEQs supplied BIF and AIF were measured. Also, the authors determined the average daily morphine equivalents (MEDs) for each patient BIF and within 3 years AIF. Permanent disability rates, both BIF and within 3 years AIF, were determined by identifying patients awarded permanent partial or total disability. Because a biopsychosocial model of illness is used to explain the chronic pain experienced by patients with FBSS,22 the authors determined postoperative rates of depression, anxiety, and adjustment reaction disorders. Perioperative mortality was defined as death within 6 weeks of fusion. Additional lumbar surgeries included fusions and decompression procedures.

Furthermore, the authors collected data on each patient's age at index fusion, sex, approximated income, and presence of obesity. Specific incomes for each patient were unavailable; therefore, each patient's ZIP code of residence was correlated with a mean per capita income based on the 2010 United States Census. Next, comorbid lumbar conditions BIF, in addition to DDD, were characterized. The authors determined whether patients were clinically diagnosed with depression, generalized anxiety, and/or adjustment reaction disorders BIF. The authors identified which patients underwent a concurrent decompression procedure with index fusion and the number of days between each patient's injury and index fusion. The authors characterized the graft type(s) and instrumentation used at each patient's index fusion. The patients who were able to continue working within the same week as fusion and who had legal representation BIF were also determined.

To determine the effect of preoperative diskography on postoperative rates of FBSS, a multivariate logistic regression analysis was used. The dependent variable was whether FBSS was diagnosed within 3 years AIF. In the regression model, the authors corrected for the following binary covariates: lumbar diskography BIF, single- or multi-level index fusion, working within the same week as index fusion, permanent disability BIF, legal representation BIF, obesity, sex, prior lumbar surgery BIF, and whether a patient was supplied with opioid analgesics for more than 1 year BIF. Preoperative lumbar and psychological comorbidities were also included as individual binary variables. The authors corrected for the following continuous variables: age at index fusion, per capita income, and daily MEQs BIF. The authors corrected for the following categorical variables: type of fusion technique(s), instrumentation, and graft type(s) at index fusion. Baseline characteristics and secondary outcomes were compared between the LD and control groups using chi-square tests for categorical and binary variables. For continuous variables, t tests were used.

Table 2 highlights key information and preoperative differences between the LD and control groups. Table 3 characterizes fusion techniques, instrumentation, and graft types. The authors' study population spanned nearly 20 years. Figure 2 shows injury, diskography, fusion, and FBSS rates by year. A P value less than .05 was considered statistically significant. For all analyses, Statgraphics Centurion XVI statistical software (Statpoint Technologies, Inc, Warrenton, Virginia) was used. The authors did not require institutional review board or ethics committee approval because all subject data were provided in a deidentified manner. The authors worked directly with the Ohio BWC's legal department.

Preoperative Population Characteristics

Table 2:

Preoperative Population Characteristics

Index Fusion Characterization

Table 3:

Index Fusion Characterization

The rates of patient injury, diskography, index fusion, and postoperative failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) by year.

Figure 2:

The rates of patient injury, diskography, index fusion, and postoperative failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) by year.

Results

Undergoing diskography BIF was positively associated with FBSS (P=.04; odds ratio [OR], 1.44). A total of 13.9% of the LD group and 8.8% of the control group developed FBSS within 3 years AIF. Overall, 11.0% of the entire study population developed FBSS within 3 years AIF. Figure 3 illustrates these results. A chi-square goodness-of-fit test determined that there was no reason to reject the fitted logistic regression model at the 95% confidence level. Additional predictors of FBSS included the ability to remain at work within 1 week of index fusion (P=.02; OR, 0.54), male sex (P=.03; OR, 1.51), opioid analgesic use for more than 1 year BIF (P=.02; OR, 1.53), and fusion technique (P<.01). For the latter covariate, patients who underwent anterior lumbar interbody fusion or posterior lumbar fusion plus posterior lumbar interbody fusion developed FBSS at the highest rates (10.2% and 15.7%, respectively). Patients who underwent PLF or 360° fusion developed FBSS at the lowest rates (5.4% and 6.4%, respectively) (Table 4). No other covariates significantly affected FBSS rates.

Undergoing diskography before diskogenic fusion was a positive predictor of postoperative failed back surgery syndrome (P=.04; odds ratio, 1.44). Diskography patients developed failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) at a 5.1% higher rate when compared with controls.

Figure 3:

Undergoing diskography before diskogenic fusion was a positive predictor of postoperative failed back surgery syndrome (P=.04; odds ratio, 1.44). Diskography patients developed failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) at a 5.1% higher rate when compared with controls.

Predictors of Failed Back Surgery Syndrome

Table 4:

Predictors of Failed Back Surgery Syndrome

Patients in the LD group were supplied with prescription opioid analgesics for an average of 129.7 additional days after fusion (P<.01). This equated to 16,390.5 additional MEQs (P<.01). A total of 64.5% of the LD group and 53.5% of the control group used opioid analgesics for more than 1 year postoperatively (P<.01). Daily opioid load was also higher among the LD group, at an average of 5.7 more MEQs per day (P=.04). No other secondary outcome measures differed significantly between the LD and control groups (Table 5).

Secondary Outcome Measures

Table 5:

Secondary Outcome Measures

Discussion

The safety and diagnostic accuracy of LD are debated in the literature.3–17 The purpose of LD is to determine which intervertebral disks are pain generators and may subsequently respond well to surgery, most commonly lumbar fusion. Failed back surgery syndrome is a chronic pain syndrome most commonly due to poor patient selection,23,24 something that diskography should help prevent. If LD is consistently able to identify good candidates for fusion surgery, then patients selected to undergo lumbar fusion after positive provocation with LD should develop FBSS at lower rates. At the very least, a significant difference should not exist.

However, within the current study population of 1591 WC patients, the authors found that patients who underwent LD before diskogenic fusion were paradoxically associated with significantly higher rates of FBSS. The LD group developed FBSS at a 5.1% higher rate within 3 years AIF. In addition, patients in the LD group were prescribed a significantly higher daily opioid analgesic load for significantly longer periods of time after fusion. These results are in line with studies by Carragee et al9–15 that have questioned the current usefulness of LD.

The current study has some limitations. First, it is limited by its retrospective design. Although the authors controlled for many potentially confounding covariates, the 2 groups under study may have varied in unobserved ways. Second, the authors were unable to determine why the LD group underwent diskography and how many levels of degeneration they had. However, the numbers of levels fused, something the authors knew, should be roughly equivalent to this. Third, multiple studies report low false-positive results if particular attention is paid to the pressure of injection during LD.3,8 The authors were unable to control for injection pressures for each patient. Fourth, the authors were unable to determine the severity of some of the conditions under study, such as depression and DDD. However, this study included the entire population of Ohio WC patients who fit the authors' study design, which helped avoid bias and increased the chances of having a distribution of disease severity and mean diskography injection pressures that would be present in other similar populations. Fifth, the completeness of these data could have potentially been limited by the use of administrative information. However, a study of CPT and ICD-9 coding data from a large Veterans Affairs database provided accurate data with sensitivities and specificities of 95% or greater.31 Sixth, the authors were unable to assess magnetic resonance imaging or other imaging data for this study population. The authors also did not know how it was decided who would undergo LD. The lack of such data could introduce some variability to the groups under study that could weaken the conclusions. Finally, the generalizability of the authors' results to WC patients in states other than Ohio could be limited by varying legislative regulations, treatment guidelines, and plausible geographic variations in outcomes. For example, a 2014 study by Martin et al32 demonstrated significant outcome differences between California and Washington state WC patients due to policy and reimbursement differences.

It appears that, within the WC population, LD may not be as helpful in identifying ideal fusion candidates as one would hope. It is not possible to answer with this study alone why these patients developed FBSS at higher rates. This study identified an association, not causation. The 682 patients in the LD group could have been poor candidates for fusion surgery in the first place. Given such a large number of patients, this is unlikely. Undergoing LD before fusion alone could carry an increased risk of post-fusion FBSS. Complicating matters further is that this study is of WC patients, an already complicated patient population. Workers' compensation patients could exhibit amplified pain responses not directly related to disk pathology, leading to inappropriately high surgery rates. These speculations require further inquiry. Also, because WC patients tend to have worse clinical outcomes than the general population,18–21 care should be taken when applying the conclusions of the current study to non-WC patients.

A negative association exists between the early receipt of opioid pain medications and outcomes in patients with LBP,33 and patients in the LD group were prescribed narcotics for significantly longer times before fusion. The authors corrected for this possibility in their regression model. Also, because the LD group developed FBSS at significantly higher rates, higher opioid use is almost to be expected. However, this is still concerning because the safety and effectiveness of long-term opioid therapy for chronic LBP remains unproven.34

Conclusion

The authors showed an association between preoperative LD and higher rates of FBSS after diskogenic fusion and increased postoperative opioid use. Future studies identifying why these patients developed FBSS at such a high rate are necessary because the current study identified an association, not causation. In those who cope poorly with pain and have significant neurophysiologic changes in addition to their structural spine changes, LD has already been shown to be a poor tool.9,12,15 The authors corrected for a number of psychosocial covariates in their analysis. Yet, questions remain. Is the increased risk for FBSS inherent to LD itself? Is the issue inherent to the WC population? Or is it a combination of both? Regardless, the fact that significantly more patients in the LD group developed FBSS after fusion should raise significant concerns about the current role of LD among the WC population.

References

  1. Andersson GB. Epidemiological features of chronic low-back pain. Lancet. 1999; 354(9178):581–585. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(99)01312-4 [CrossRef]
  2. Deyo RA, Gray DT, Kreuter W, Mirza S, Martin BI. United States trends in lumbar fusion surgery for degenerative conditions. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005; 30(12):1441–1445. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000166503.37969.8a [CrossRef]
  3. Derby R, Lee SH, Kim BJ, Chen Y, Aprill C, Bogduk N. Pressure-controlled lumbar discography in volunteers without low back symptoms. Pain Med. 2005; 6(3):213–221. doi:10.1111/j.1526-4637.2005.05034.x [CrossRef]
  4. Boswell MV, Trescot AM, Datta S, et al. Interventional techniques: evidence-based practice guidelines in the management of chronic spinal pain. Pain Physician. 2007; 10(1):7–11.
  5. Buenaventura RM, Shah RV, Patel V, Benyamin R, Singh V. Systematic review of discography as a diagnostic test for spinal pain: an update. Pain Physician. 2007; 10(1):147–164.
  6. Derby R, Howard MW, Grant JM, Lettice JJ, Van Peteghem PK, Ryan DP. The ability of pressure-controlled discography to predict surgical and nonsurgical outcomes. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1999; 24(4):364–371. doi:10.1097/00007632-199902150-00014 [CrossRef]
  7. Shah RV, Everett CR, McKenzie-Brown AM, Sehgal N. Discography as a diagnostic test for spinal pain: a systematic and narrative review. Pain Physician. 2005; 8(2):187–209.
  8. Wolfer LR, Derby R, Lee JE, Lee SH. Systematic review of lumbar provocation discography in asymptomatic subjects with a meta-analysis of false-positive rates. Pain Physician. 2008; 11(4):513–538.
  9. Carragee EJ, Chen Y, Tanner CM, Hayward C, Rossi M, Hagle C. Can discography cause long-term back symptoms in previously asymptomatic subjects?Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000; 25(14):1803–1808. doi:10.1097/00007632-200007150-00011 [CrossRef]
  10. Carragee EJ, Chen Y, Tanner CM, Truong T, Lau E, Brito JL. Provocative discography in patients after limited lumbar discectomy: a controlled, randomized study of pain response in symptomatic and asymptomatic subjects. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000; 25(23):3065–3071. doi:10.1097/00007632-200012010-00014 [CrossRef]
  11. Carragee EJ, Don AS, Hurwitz EL, Cuellar JM, Carrino JA, Herzog R. Does discography cause accelerated progression of degeneration changes in the lumbar disc: a ten-year matched cohort study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009; 34(21):2338–2345. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181ab5432 [CrossRef]
  12. Carragee EJ, Hannibal M. Diagnostic evaluation of low back pain. Orthop Clin North Am. 2004; 35(1):7–16. doi:10.1016/S0030-5898(03)00099-3 [CrossRef]
  13. Carragee EJ, Lincoln T, Parmar VS, Alamin T. A gold standard evaluation of the “discogenic pain” diagnosis as determined by provocative discography. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006; 31(18):2115–2123. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000231436.30262.dd [CrossRef]
  14. Carragee EJ, Paragioudakis SJ, Khurana S. 2000 Volvo Award winner in clinical studies: lumbar high-intensity zone and discography in subjects without low back problems. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000; 25(23):2987–2992. doi:10.1097/00007632-200012010-00005 [CrossRef]
  15. Carragee EJ, Tanner CM, Khurana S, et al. The rates of false-positive lumbar discography in select patients without low back symptoms. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000; 25(11):1373–1380. doi:10.1097/00007632-200006010-00009 [CrossRef]
  16. Cohen SP, Larkin TM, Barna SA, Palmer WE, Hecht AC, Stojanovic MP. Lumbar discography: a comprehensive review of outcome studies, diagnostic accuracy, and principles. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2005; 30(2):163–183.
  17. Gruber HE, Rhyne AL III, Hansen KJ, et al. Deleterious effects of discography radiocontrast solution on human annulus cell in vitro: changes in cell viability, proliferation, and apoptosis in exposed cells. Spine J. 2012; 12(4):329–335. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2012.02.003 [CrossRef]
  18. Carreon LY, Glassman SD, Kantamneni NR, Mugavin MO, Djurasovic M. Clinical outcomes after posterolateral lumbar fusion in workers' compensation patients: a case-control study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010; 35(19):1812–1817. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181c68b75 [CrossRef]
  19. Franklin GM, Haug J, Heyer NJ, McKeefrey SP, Picciano JF. Outcome of lumbar fusion in Washington State workers' compensation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1994; 19(17):1897–1903. doi:10.1097/00007632-199409000-00005 [CrossRef]
  20. Gum JL, Glassman SD, Carreon LY. Is type of compensation a predictor of outcome after lumbar fusion?Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013; 38(5):443–448. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e318278ebe8 [CrossRef]
  21. Nguyen TH, Randolph DC, Talmage J, Succop P, Travis R. Long-term outcomes of lumbar fusion among workers' compensation subjects: a historical cohort study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011; 36(4):320–331.
  22. Miller B, Gatchel RJ, Lou L, Stowell A, Robinson R, Polatin PB. Interdisciplinary treatment of failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS): a comparison of FBSS and non-FBSS patients. Pain Pract. 2005; 5(3):190–202. doi:10.1111/j.1533-2500.2005.05304.x [CrossRef]
  23. Block AR, Gatchel RJ, Deardorff WW, Guyer RD. The Psychology of Spine Surgery. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2003. doi:10.1037/10613-000 [CrossRef]
  24. Oaklander AL, North RB. Failed back surgery syndrome. In: Loeser JD, Butler SH, Chapman CR, Turk DC, eds. Bonica's Management of Pain. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2001:1540–1549.
  25. DeBerard MS, Masters KS, Colledge AL, Schleusener RL, Schlegel JD. Outcomes of posterolateral lumbar fusion in Utah patients receiving workers' compensation: a retrospective cohort study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001; 26(7):738–746. doi:10.1097/00007632-200104010-00007 [CrossRef]
  26. Hodges SD, Humphreys SC, Eck JC, Covington LA, Harrom H. Predicting factors of successful recovery from lumbar spine surgery among workers' compensation patients. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 2001; 101(2):78–83.
  27. Maghout Juratli S, Franklin GM, Mirza SK, Wickizer TM, Fulton-Kehoe D. Lumbar fusion outcomes in Washington State workers' compensation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006; 31(23):2715–2723.
  28. Andersen T, Christensen FB, Laursen M, Høy K, Hansen ES, Bünger C. Smoking as a predictor of negative outcome in lumbar spinal fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001; 26(23):2623–2628. doi:10.1097/00007632-200112010-00018 [CrossRef]
  29. Cobo Soriano J, Sendino Revuelta M, Fabregate Fuente M, et al. Predictors of outcome after decompressive lumbar surgery and instrumented posterolateral fusion. Eur Spine J. 2010; 19(11):1841–1848. doi:10.1007/s00586-010-1284-2 [CrossRef]
  30. Jenkins LT, Jones AL, Harms JJ. Prognostic factors in lumbar spinal fusion. Contemp Orthop. 1994; 29(3):173–180.
  31. Singh JA, Ayub S. Accuracy of VA databases for diagnoses of knee replacement and hip replacement. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2010; 18(12):1639–1642. doi:10.1016/j.joca.2010.10.003 [CrossRef]
  32. Martin BI, Franklin GM, Deyo RA, Wickizer TM, Lurie JD, Mirza SK. How do coverage policies influence practice patterns, safety, and cost of initial lumbar fusion surgery? A population-based comparison of workers' compensation systems. Spine J. 2014; 14(7):1237–1246. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2013.08.018 [CrossRef]
  33. Webster BS, Verma SK, Gatchel RJ. Relationship between early opioid prescribing for acute occupational low back pain and disability duration, medical costs, subsequent surgery and late opioid use. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007; 32(19):2127–2132. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e318145a731 [CrossRef]
  34. Chaparro LE, Furlan AD, Deshpande A, Mailis-Gagnon A, Atlas S, Turk DC. Opioids compared with placebo or other treatments for chronic low back pain: an update of the Cochrane Review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014; 39(7):556–563. doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000000249 [CrossRef]

Coding Used for Study Population

Procedure/ComorbidityCode
Fusion technique
  Posterior lumbar fusion (PLF), CPT
    Single-level22612
    Multi-level22612+22614
  Posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), CPT
    Single-level22630 or 22633
    Multi-level22630 or 22633-22632 or 22634
  Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), CPT
    Single-level22558
    Multi-level22558+22585
  Lateral extracavitary lumbar fusion (LEC), CPT
    Single-level22533
    Multi-level22533+22534
Lumbar comorbidity, ICD-9
    Degenerative disk disease722.52
    Disk herniation722.10
    Spondylosis721.3
    Lumbar sprain847.2
    Radiculopathy724.4 or 729.2
    Spinal stenosis724.02–724.03

Preoperative Population Characteristics

CharacteristicLD GroupControl GroupP
Patients, No.682909
Age at index fusion, mean±SD, y43.8±8.546.1±9.2<.01
Sex, No. (%).45
  Male471 (69.1)611 (67.2)
  Female211 (30.9)297 (32.7)
Lumbar comorbidities BIF, No. (%)
  Disk herniation395 (57.9)543 (59.7).47
  Spinal stenosis62 (9.1)153 (16.8).70
  Radiculopathy114 (16.7)155 (17.1).86
Psychological comorbidities BIF, No. (%)
  Depression60 (8.8)70 (7.7).43
  Anxiety6 (0.9)6 (0.7).62
  Adjustment reaction5 (0.7)12 (1.3).26
Patients using psychotherapy BIF, No. (%)88 (12.9)92 (10.1).08
Permanently disableda BIF, No. (%)293 (43.0)405 (44.6).53
Legal representation BIF, No. (%)566 (83.0)714 (78.5).03
Working within 1 wk of index fusion, No. (%)104 (15.2)174 (19.1).04
Patients with prior lumbar surgery, No. (%)142 (20.8)250 (27.5)<.01
Time from injury to index fusion, mean±SD, d1511.0±1078.71440.9±1129.7.21
Narcotic use BIF
  Time supplied, mean±SD, d615.8±841.4430.0±710.4<.01
  Patients supplied for >1 year, No. (%)342 (50.1)312 (34.3)<.01
  Net MEQs prescribed, mean±SD38,608.0±78,393.425,124.6±64,632.8<.01
  Average MEDs, mean±SD57.4±45.053.5±54.3.13

Index Fusion Characterization

Procedural VariableNo. (%)P

LD Group (n=682)Control Group (n=909)
Type of fusion<.01
  ALIF58 (8.5)50 (5.5)
  PLF122 (17.9)245 (27.0)
  PLIF66 (9.7)147 (16.2)
  PLF+PLIF347 (50.9)381 (41.9)
  360° fusion88 (12.9)85 (9.4)
  LEC1 (0.2)1 (0.1)
Levels fused.38
  Single381 (55.9)528 (58.1)
  Multi301 (44.1)381 (41.9)
Instrumentation<.01
  Instrumented173 (25.4)284 (31.2)
  Intervertebral biomechanical device (eg, cage)94 (13.8)139 (15.3)
  Instrumented+intervertebral biomechanical device385 (56.5)433 (47.6)
  Uninstrumented30 (4.4)53 (5.8)
  Column total682 (100)909 (100)
Graft.67
  Allograft47 (6.9)62 (6.8)
  Allograft+autograft62 (9.1)69 (7.6)
  Autograft327 (48.0)431 (47.4)
  BMP or other graft material246 (36.1)347 (38.2)
  Column total682 (100)909 (100)

Predictors of Failed Back Surgery Syndrome

Independent VariableOdds Ratio95% CIPFBSS Ratea
Diskography BIF1.441.02–2.05.0413.9%
Ability to remain working within same wk as index fusion0.540.31–0.94.026.5%
Supplied with opioid analgesics for >1 y BIF1.531.07–2.18.0214.8%
Male sex1.511.03–2.20.0311.9%
Type of fusion surgeryb<.01
  ALIF1.570.67–3.6810.2%
  PLF0.740.33–1.665.4%
  PLIF--8.9%
  PLF+PLIF1.911.01–3.6015.7%
  360° fusion0.770.32–1.836.4%

Secondary Outcome Measures

Secondary OutcomeLD Group (n=682)Control Group (n=909)P
Narcotic use AIFa
  Time supplied, mean±SD, d778.0±661.6648.3±670.3<.01
  Patients supplied for >1 y, No. (%)440 (64.5)486 (53.5)<.01
  Net mg of MEQs prescribed, mean±SD60,607.7±92,630.344,217.2±70,734.9<.01
  Average MEDs, mean±SD67.1±51.661.4±55.5.04
Mortality AIF, No. (%)
  All-cause12 (1.8)13 (1.4).60
  Perioperative0 (0)2 (0.2).22
Psychological developments AIF, No. (%)
  Depression120 (17.6)142 (15.6).29
  Anxiety8 (1.2)19 (2.1).16
  Adjustment reaction11 (1.6)14 (1.5).91
Nonunion/pseudoarthrosis AIF, No. (%)8 (1.2)6 (0.7).28
Permanent disabilityb AIF, No. (%)144 (37.0)188 (37.3).94
  Additional lumbar surgery AIF, No. (%)144 (21.1)169 (18.6).21
  Additional fusion107 (15.7)136 (15.0).69
  Additional decompression90 (13.2)99 (10.9).16
Authors

The authors are from the Department of Orthopaedics (JTA, NUA), University Hospitals Case Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, and the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation (ARH, RP, STW), Columbus, Ohio; and the New Hampshire NeuroSpine Institute (UMA), Bedford, New Hampshire.

Mr Anderson, Mr Haas, and Dr Percy have no relevant financial relationships to disclose. Dr Woods holds stock in OrthoNeuro, Inc. Dr U. M. Ahn is a paid consultant for, is on the speaker's bureau of, receives royalties from, holds stock in, and receives travel expenses from Alphatec Spine 360 K1. Dr N. U. Ahn receives grants and research support from Stryker.

Correspondence should be addressed to: Joshua T. Anderson, BS, Department of Orthopaedics, University Hospitals Case Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, 11100 Euclid Ave, Cleveland, OH 44106 ( Jta38@case.edu).

Received: September 03, 2014
Accepted: February 18, 2015

10.3928/01477447-20151020-01

Sign up to receive

Journal E-contents