Department of Orthopaedics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84108, USA.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011 Oct 1;36(21 Suppl):S96-109. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31822ef6b9.
Systematic review.
The objectives of this systematic review were to determine whether fusion is superior to conservative management in certain psychological subpopulations and to determine the most common psychological screening tests and their ability to predict outcome after treatment in patients with chronic lower back pain.
Many studies have documented the effects of various psychological disorders on outcomes in the treatment of lower back pain. The question of whether patients with certain psychological disorders would benefit more from conservative treatment than fusion is not clear. Furthermore, the most appropriate screening tools for assessing psychological factors in the presence of treatment decision making should be recommended.
Systematic review of the literature, focused on randomized controlled trials to assess the heterogeneity of treatment effect of psychological factors on the outcomes of fusion versus nonoperative care of the treatment of chronic low back pain. In the analysis of psychological screening tests, we searched for the most commonly reported questionnaires and those that had been shown to predict lower back pain treatment outcomes.
Few studies comparing fusion to conservative management reported differences in outcome by the presence or absence of a psychological disorder. Among those that did, we observed the effect of fusion compared with conservative management was more favorable in patients without a personality disorder, neuroticism, or depression. The most commonly reported, validated psychological screening tests for lower back pain are the Beck Depression Inventory, the Fear Avoidance Belief Questionnaire, the Spielberger Trait Anxiety Inventory, the Zung Depression Scale, and the Distress Risk Assessment Method.
Psychological disorders affect chronic lower back pain treatment outcomes. Patients with a personality disorder appear to respond more favorably to conservative management and those without a personality disorder more favorably to fusion. Patients with higher depression and neuroticism scores may also respond more favorably to conservative management.
Recommendation 1: Chronic LBP patients with depression, neuroticism, and certain personality disorders should preferentially be treated nonoperatively. Strength of recommendation: Weak. Recommendation 2: Consider the use of a validated psychological screening questionnaire such as the BDI, FABQ, DRAM, ZDI or STAI, when treating patients with CLBP. Strength of recommendation: Weak.
系统回顾。
本系统回顾的目的是确定在某些心理亚群中,融合是否优于保守治疗,以及确定最常见的心理筛查测试及其在慢性下腰痛患者治疗后预测结局的能力。
许多研究记录了各种心理障碍对下腰痛治疗结果的影响。患有某些心理障碍的患者是否会从保守治疗中获益多于融合治疗,这一点尚不清楚。此外,应该推荐最适合在治疗决策中评估心理因素的筛选工具。
对文献进行系统回顾,重点是随机对照试验,以评估心理因素对融合与非手术治疗慢性下腰痛的治疗效果的异质性。在分析心理筛查测试时,我们搜索了最常报告的问卷和那些已被证明能预测下腰痛治疗结果的问卷。
少数比较融合与保守治疗的研究报告了存在或不存在心理障碍时结局的差异。在那些有报告的研究中,我们观察到与保守治疗相比,融合治疗在没有人格障碍、神经质或抑郁的患者中效果更好。最常报告的、经验证的用于下腰痛的心理筛查测试是贝克抑郁量表、害怕回避信念问卷、斯皮尔伯格特质焦虑量表、zung 抑郁量表和痛苦风险评估方法。
心理障碍影响慢性下腰痛的治疗结果。有人格障碍的患者似乎对保守治疗反应更好,而没有人格障碍的患者对融合治疗反应更好。抑郁和神经质评分较高的患者也可能对保守治疗反应更好。
建议 1:有抑郁、神经质和某些人格障碍的慢性下腰痛患者应优先接受非手术治疗。推荐强度:弱。建议 2:在治疗慢性下腰痛患者时,可考虑使用经过验证的心理筛查问卷,如 BDI、FABQ、DRAM、ZDI 或 STAI。推荐强度:弱。