Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T01:02:09.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Appropriateness of Lumbar Spine Referrals to a Neurosurgical Service

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 September 2016

J. Max Findlay  and
Nathan Deis
J. Max Findlay*
Affiliation:
Department of Surgery, Division of Neurosurgery, University of Alberta Hospital, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Nathan Deis
Affiliation:
Department of Surgery, Division of Neurosurgery, University of Alberta Hospital, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
*
Department of Surgery, Division of Neurosurgery, University of Alberta Hospital, 2D1.02 WMC, 8440-112 Street, Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 2B7, Canada
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Background:

Patients with lumbar spine complaints are often referred for surgical assessment. Only those with clinical and radiological evidence of nerve root compression are potential candidates for surgery and appropriate for surgical assessment. This study examines the appropriateness of lumbar spine referrals made to neurosurgeons in Edmonton, Alberta.

Methods:

Lumbar spine referrals to a group of ten neurosurgeons at the University of Alberta were reviewed over three two month intervals. Clinical criteria for “appropriateness” for surgical assessment were as follows: •“Appropriate” referrals were those that stated leg pain was the chief complaint, or those that described physical exam evidence of neurological deficit, and imaging reports (CT or MRI) were positive for nerve root compression. •“Uncertain” referrals were those that reported both back and leg pain without specifying which was greater, without mention of neurologic deficit, and when at least possible nerve root compression was reported on imaging. •“Inappropriate” referrals contained no mention of leg symptoms or signs of neurological deficit, and/or had no description of nerve root compression on imaging.

Results:

Of the 303 referrals collected, 80 (26%) were appropriate, 92 (30%) were uncertain and 131 (44%) were inappropriate for surgical assessment.

Conclusions:

Physicians seeking specialist consultations for patients with lumbar spine complaints need to be better informed of the criteria which indicate an appropriate referral for surgical treatment, namely clinical and radiological evidence of nerve root compression. Avoiding inappropriate referrals could reduce wait-times for both surgical consultation and lumbar spine surgery for those patients requiring it.

Résumé

RésuméContexte:

Les patients qui ont des symptômes à la colonne lombaire sont souvent dirigés vers une évaluation chirurgicale. Seulement ceux qui présentent des manifestations cliniques et radiologiques de compression d'une racine nerveuse sont des candidats potentiels à la chirurgie et à une évaluation en vue d'une chirurgie. Cette étude examine le bien fondé des orientations vers des neurochirurgiens à Edmonton, en Alberta, pour des problèmes lombaires.

Méthodologie:

Les demandes de consultation pour des patients adressés à un groupe de dix neurochirurgiens à l'Université de l'Alberta pour des problèmes lombaires ont été révisées au cours de trois périodes de deux mois. Les critères cliniques pour évaluer le bien fondé d'une évaluation chirurgicale étaient les suivants : la demande faisait état de douleurs aux membres inférieurs comme symptôme principal ou décrivait un déficit neurologique à l'examen physique et les rapports d'imagerie (CT ou IRM) montraient une compression d'une racine nerveuse. Ces demandes étaient considérés comme appropriés. Celles qui rapportaient des douleurs au dos et aux membres inférieurs sans spécifier quelle douleur était la plus intense, sans mentionner de déficit neurologique, et qui mentionnaient une compression possible d'une racine nerveuse dans le rapport d'imagerie étaient considérés comme incertaines. Celles qui ne mentionnaient pas de symptômes au niveau des membres inférieurs ou de signes de déficit neurologique et/ou ne contenaient pas de description de compression d'une racine nerveuse à l'imagerie étaient considérées comme inappropriées.

Résultats:

Quatre-vingt (26%) des 303 requêtes pour une évaluation chirurgicale étaient appropriées, 92 (30%) étaient incertaines et 131 (44%) étaient inappropriées .

Conclusions:

Les médecins qui dirigent des patients qui présentent des symptômes lombaires vers des spécialistes doivent être mieux informés des critères qui indiquent qu'un traitement chirurgical serait approprié, soit des observations cliniques et radiologiques de compression d'une racine nerveuse. Le fait d'éviter de diriger des patients pour lesquels une telle évaluation est inappropriée pourrait diminuer le temps d'attente tant pour la consultation en chirurgie que pour la chirurgie lombaire pour les patients chez qui elle est indiquée.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences , Volume 37 , Issue 6 , November 2010 , pp. 843 - 848
Copyright
Copyright © The Canadian Journal of Neurological 2010

References

1. Manchikanti, L, Singh, V, Datta, S, Cohen, SP, Hirsch, JA, Physicians ASolP. Comprehensive review of epidemiology, scope, and impact of spinal pain. Pain Physician. 2009; 12(4): e35–70.19165297Google Scholar
2. Cassidy, JD, Carroll, LJ, Côté, P. The Saskatchewan health and back pain survey. The prevalence of low back pain and related disability in Saskatchewan adults. Spine. 1998; 23(17): 1860–6.10.1097/00007632-199809010-000129762743Google Scholar
3. Freburger, JK, Holmes, GM, Agans, RP, et al. The rising prevalence of chronic low back pain. Arch Intern Med. 2009; 169(3): 251–8.10.1001/archinternmed.2008.54319204216Google Scholar
4. Kalichman, L, Cole, R, Kim, DH, et al. Spinal stenosis prevalence and association with symptoms: the Framingham Study. Spine J. 2009; 9(7): 545–50.10.1016/j.spinee.2009.03.00519398386Google Scholar
5. Licciardone, JC. The epidemiology and medical management oflow back pain during ambulatory medical care visits in the United States. Osteopath Med Prim Care. 2008; 2: 11.10.1186/1750-4732-2-1119025636Google Scholar
6. Lim, K-L, Jacobs, P, Klarenbach, S. A population-based analysis of healthcare utilization of persons with back disorders: results from the Canadian Community Health Survey 2000–2001. Spine. 2006; 31(2): 212–8.10.1097/01.brs.0000194773.10461.9f16418643Google Scholar
7. Chenot, J-F, Leonhardt, C, Keller, S, et al. The impact of specialist care for low back pain on health service utilization in primary care patients: a prospective cohort study. Eur J Pain. 2008; 12(3): 275–83.10.1016/j.ejpain.2007.06.00417681811Google Scholar
8. Melloh, M, Elfering, A, Egli Presland, C, et al. Identification of prognostic factors for chronicity in patients with low back pain: a review of screening instruments. Int Orthop. 2009; 33(2):301–13.10.1007/s00264-008-0707-819130056Google Scholar
9. Jain, R. Pain and the brain: lower back pain. J Clin Psychiatry. 2009;70(2): e41.Google Scholar
10. Chou, R, Qaseem, A, Snow, V, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of low back pain: a joint clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians and the American Pain Society. Ann Intern Med. 2007; 147(7):478–91.10.7326/0003-4819-147-7-200710020-0000617909209Google Scholar
11. Buchbinder, R, Staples, M, Jolley, D. Doctors with a special interest in back pain have poorer knowledge about how to treat back pain. Spine. 2009; 34(11): 1218–26.10.1097/BRS.0b013e318195d68819407674Google Scholar
12. Corbett, M, Foster, N, Ong, BN. GP attitudes and self-reported behaviour in primary care consultations for low back pain. Fam Pract. 2009; 26(5): 359–64. 10.1093/fampra/cmp04219546118Google Scholar
13. Rao, JK, Kroenke, K, Mihaliak, KA, Eckert, GJ, Weinberger, M. Can guidelines impact the ordering of magnetic resonance imaging studies by primary care providers for low back pain? Am J Manag Care. 2002; 8(1): 27–35.11814170Google Scholar
14. González-Urzelai, V, Palacio-Elua, L, López-de-Munain, J. Routine primary care management of acute low back pain: adherence to clinical guidelines. Eur Spine J. 2003; 12(6): 589–94.10.1007/s00586-003-0567-214605973Google Scholar
15. Huang, JG, Huang, GH, Teddy, PJ. Low back pain in neurosurgical outpatients: an audit. J Clin Neurosci. 2008; 15(11): 1216–21.10.1016/j.jocn.2007.09.01518829325Google Scholar
16. Hurlbert, RJ, Mobbs, R, Teo, C. Access to spine care: a tale of two cities. Can J Neurol Sci. 2008; 35(3): 308–13.10.1017/S031716710000888X18714798Google Scholar
17. Mayman, D, Yen, D. Maximizing use of a surgical clinic for referrals of patients having back problems. Can J Surg. 1999; 42(2): 117–9.10223072Google Scholar
18. Rossignol, M, Abenhaim, L, Bonvalot, Y, Gobeille, D, Shrier, I. Should the gap be filled between guidelines and actual practice for management of low back pain in primary care? The Quebec experience. Spine. 1996; 21(24): 2893–8; discussion 2898–9.10.1097/00007632-199612150-000219112714Google Scholar
19. Hicks, GE, Morone, N, Weiner, DK. Degenerative lumbar disc and facet disease in older adults: prevalence and clinical correlates. Spine. 2009; 34(12): 1301–6.10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181a1826319455005Google Scholar
20. Cheung, KMC, Karppinen, J, Chan, D, et al. Prevalence and pattern of lumbar magnetic resonance imaging changes in a population study of one thousand forty-three individuals. Spine. 2009; 34(9): 934–40.10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181a01b3f19532001Google Scholar
21. Simon, D, Coyle, M, Dagenais, S, O’Neil, J, Wai, EK. Potential triaging of referrals for lumbar spinal surgery consultation: a comparison of referral accuracy from pain specialists, findings from advanced imaging and a 3-item questionnaire. Can J Surg. 2009; 52(6): 473–80.20011183Google Scholar
22. Mofidi, A, Sedhom, M, O’Shea, K, et al. Screening of lower back pain, low back pain clinic. The clinical experience. Ir Med J. 2003; 96(9): 270–3.14753581Google Scholar
23. Klein, BJ, Radecki, RT, Foris, MP, Feil, EI, Hickey, ME. Bridging the gap between science and practice in managing low back pain. A comprehensive spine care system in a health maintenance organization setting. Spine. 2000; 25(6): 738–40.10.1097/00007632-200003150-0001510752108Google Scholar
24. Harrington, JT, Dopf, CA, Chalgren, CS. Implementing guidelines for interdisciplinary care of low back pain: a critical role for pre-appointment management of specialty referrals. Jt Comm J Qual Improv. 2001; 27(12): 651–63.11765382Google Scholar
25. Fullen, BM, Baxter, GD, O’Donovan, BGG, Doody, C, Daly, LE, Hurley, DA. Factors impacting on doctors’ management of acute low back pain: a systematic review. Eur J Pain. 2009; 13(9): 908–14.10.1016/j.ejpain.2008.11.01319110456Google Scholar
26. Dey, P, Simpson, CWR, Collins, SI, et al. Implementation of RCGP guidelines for acute low back pain: a cluster randomised controlled trial. Br J Gen Pract. 2004; 54(498): 33–7.14965404Google Scholar
27. Grimshaw, JM, Winkens, RAG, Shirran, L, et al. Interventions to improve outpatient referrals from primary care to secondary care. Cochrane Database of Syst Rev. 2005; (3): CD005471.Google Scholar
28. Schectman, JM, Schroth, WS, Verme, D, Voss, JD. Randomized controlled trial of education and feedback for implementation of guidelines for acute low back pain. J Gen Intern Med. 2003; 18(10): 773–80.10.1046/j.1525-1497.2003.10205.x14521638Google Scholar
29. Jones, TR, Rao, RD. Adult isthmic spondylolisthesis. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2009; 17(10): 609–17.19794218Google Scholar
30. Fourney, DR, Gokaslan, ZL. Spinal instability and deformity due to neoplastic conditions. Neurosurg Focus. 2003; 14(1): e8.AMBIGUOUS (63 citations)Google Scholar
31. Buchowski, JM, Kuhns, CA, Bridwell, KH, Lenke, LG. Surgical management of posttraumatic thoracolumbar kyphosis. Spine J. 2008; 8(4): 666–77.10.1016/j.spinee.2007.03.00617662662Google Scholar
32. Glaser, J, Stanley, M, Sayre, H, Woody, J, Found, E, Spratt, K. A 10-year follow-up evaluation of lumbar spine fusion with pedicle screw fixation. Spine. 2003; 28(13): 1390–5.12838096Google Scholar
33. Schafer, J, O’Connor, D, Feinglass, S, Salive, M. Medicare Evidence Development and Coverage Advisory Committee Meeting on lumbar fusion surgery for treatment of chronic back pain from degenerative disc disease. Spine. 2007; 32(22): 2403–4.10.1097/BRS.0b013e318157384118090077Google Scholar
34. Mirza, SK, Deyo, RA. Systematic review of randomized trials comparing lumbar fusion surgery to nonoperative care for treatment ofchronic back pain. Spine. 2007; 32(7): 816–23.10.1097/01.brs.0000259225.37454.3817414918Google Scholar
35. Gibson, JN, Waddell, G, Grant, IC. Surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000; (3): CD001352.AMBIGUOUS (102 citations)Google Scholar
36. Gibson, JNA, Waddell, G. Surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylosis: updated Cochrane Review. Spine. 2005; 30(20):2312–20.10.1097/01.brs.0000182315.88558.9c16227895Google Scholar
37. Tsang, IK. Perspective on low back pain. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 1993; 5(2): 219–23.10.1097/00002281-199305020-000158452773Google Scholar
38. Brox, JI, Reikerås, O, Nygaard, ø, et al. Lumbar instrumented fusion compared with cognitive intervention and exercises in patients with chronic back pain after previous surgery for disc herniation: a prospective randomized controlled study. Pain. 2006; 122(1–2): 145–55.10.1016/j.pain.2006.01.02716545523Google Scholar