Lumbar microdiscectomy is an effective treatment for short-term pain relief and improvements in disability in patients with lumbar radiculopathy, however, many patients experience residual pain and long-term disability. The 'people like me' approach seeks to enhance personalized prognosis and treatment effectiveness, utilizing historical data from similar patients to forecast individual outcomes.

The primary objective was to develop and test the "people-like-me" approach for leg pain intensity and disability at 12 month follow-up after lumbar microdiscectomy and postoperative physical therapy. The secondary objective was to verify the clinical utility of the prediction tool via case vignettes.

A 12 month prospective cohort study.

Patients (N=618, mean age: 44.7) with lumbar radiculopathy who undergo a lumbar microdiscectomy and postoperative physical therapy.

Leg pain intensity (Visual Analogue Scale) and disability (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire) were measured at 12 months following surgery.

Predictors were selected from data collected in routine practice before and 3 months after lumbar microdiscectomy. Predictive mean matching was used to select matches. Predictions were developed using preoperative data alone or combined with 3 month postoperative data. The prediction performance was evaluated for bias (difference between predicted and actual outcomes), coverage (proportion of actual outcomes within prediction intervals), and precision (accuracy of predictions) using leave-one-out cross-validation.

Overall, the 'people-like-me' approach using preoperative data showed accurate coverage and minimal average bias. However, precision based on preoperative data alone was limited. Incorporating 3 month postoperative data alongside preoperative predictors significantly enhanced prognostic precision for both leg pain and disability. Including postoperative data, leg pain prediction accuracy improved by 43% and disability by 23% compared to the sample mean. Adjusted R2 values improved from 0.04 to 0.21 for leg pain, and from 0.07 to 0.34 for disability, enhancing model precision. The effectiveness of this method was highlighted in two case vignettes, illustrating its application in similar patient scenarios.

The "people-like-me" approach generated an accurate prognosis of 12 month outcomes following lumbar discectomy and physical therapy. Scheduling a three month postoperative follow-up to evaluate the course, and refine therapy plans and expectations for patients undergoing lumbar microdiscectomy would be recommended to assist clinicians and patients in more personalized healthcare planning and expectation setting.

The effectiveness of post-surgical rehabilitation following lumbar disc herniation (LDH) surgery is unclear.

To investigate the effectiveness and safety of rehabilitation interventions initiated within three months post-surgery for adults treated surgically for LDH.

This systematic review searched seven databases from inception to November 2023. Independent reviewers screened studies, assessed and extracted data, and rated the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

This systematic review retrieved 20,531 citations and included 25 randomized controlled trials. The high certainty evidence suggests that adding Pilates exercise to routine care and cognitive behavioral therapy may improve function immediately post-intervention (1 RCT), and that adding whole-body magnetic therapy to exercise, pharmacological and aquatic therapy may reduce low back pain intensity (1 RCT) immediately post-intervention. Compared to placebo, pregabalin did not reduce low back pain or leg pain intensity (1 RCT) (moderate to high certainty evidence). We found no differences between: 1) behavioral graded activity vs. physiotherapy (1 RCT); 2) exercise and education vs. neck massage or watchful waiting (1 RCT); 3) exercise, education, and in-hospital usual care vs. in-hospital usual care (1 RCT); 4) functional or staged exercise vs. usual post-surgical care including exercise (2 RCTs); and 5) supervised exercise with education vs. education (1 RCT). No studies assessed adverse events.

Evidence on effective and safe post-surgical rehabilitation interventions is sparse. This review identified two interventions with potential short-term benefits (Pilates exercises, whole-body magnetic therapy) but safety is unclear, and one with an iatrogenic effect (pregabalin).

The role of rehabilitation after surgery in patients with low back pain is well recognized. The aim of this systematic review is to summarize and update the existing evidence according to the type of clinical condition and rehabilitation approach.

This systematic review included RCTs on the effectiveness of rehabilitation after surgery for lumbar disc herniation, spinal stenosis, and spondylolisthesis. We searched the literature for randomized controlled trials indexed in MEDLINE, Embase, CINHAL, CENTRAL, Scopus, PEDro, and Web of Science databases, up to April 15, 2023. We used Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool to assess each study. We conducted a quantitative synthesis when population, intervention, control, and outcome were sufficiently homogeneous; otherwise, we conducted a qualitative analysis.

Forty-five studies (3.036 subjects) were included and analyzed according to the population considered: lumbar stenosis (1 trial), spondylolisthesis (3 trials), and disc herniation (41 trials). Regarding lumbar stenosis, a supervised active exercise program appears to improve outcomes related to pain, disability, and quality of life both in the short- and mid-term (1 study, n = 60). Concerning spondylolisthesis, kinesiophobia is reduced in the home exercises group compared to usual care, at 3-months follow-up (3 studies, n = 98). For disk herniation, supervised exercises are better than non-supervised exercises to reduce pain (MD -1.14; 95% CIs -1.65, -0.62; 5 trials, n = 250) and disability (SMD -0.70; 95% CIs -1.14, -0.26; 4 trials, n = 175). Supervised exercises are better than advice in reducing pain (SMD -0.91; 95% CIs -1.61, -0.21; 5 trials, n = 341) and disability (SMD -0.80; 95% CIs -1.59, -0.01; 4 trials, n = 261), in the short-term. Supervised exercises are equal to no treatment in reducing pain and disability, at 3 and 6 months after intervention (2 trials, n = 166). These results are supported by a very low to low quality of evidence.

Our research suggests that supervised exercise may be effective in improving patient's pain and disability after lumbar surgery, but RCTs regarding lumbar spinal stenosis and lumbar spondylolisthesis are still scarce, with significant heterogeneity of proposed interventions.

The type, timing, and extent of provision of rehabilitation for lumbar discectomy patients in the UK are currently unknown. The aim of this study was to determine the provision and type of rehabilitation for patients undergoing lumbar discectomy in UK neurosurgical centers.

Physical therapists involved in treating lumbar discectomy patients in UK neurosurgery centers were invited to complete an online survey that asked about the type, timing (preop, postop), and rehabilitation content for patients undergoing lumbar discectomy.

Seventeen UK neurosurgery centers completed the survey. Twelve (36%) responded from the 33 centers targeted as well as an additional five private centers. All participating centers provided a rehabilitation service for lumbar discectomy patients. Rehabilitation was provided preoperatively in n = 6 (35%) centers, postoperatively as an inpatient in all centers, and postoperatively as an outpatient in n = 14 (82%) centers. Factors that influenced the decision to provide rehabilitation included both external and internal or patient-related factors. Preoperative rehabilitation focused mainly on education, whilst postoperative outpatient rehabilitation focused more on exercises. Rehabilitation consistently included mobility, functional task training, and exercise prescription.

Whilst all neurosurgical centers in this survey provided some form of rehabilitation for patients undergoing LD surgery, the approach remains inconsistent. Rehabilitation was delivered most frequently postoperatively, with one in three centers providing it preoperatively. Rehabilitation content also varied depending on when it was provided. Further research is needed to determine the optimum timing, contents, and target of rehabilitation for patients undergoing LD surgery.

Perioperative pain management is a unique challenge in patients undergoing spine surgery due to the increased incidence of both pre-existing chronic pain conditions and chronic postsurgical pain. Peri-operative planning and counseling in spine surgery should involve an interdisciplinary approach that includes consideration of patient-level risk factors, as well as pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic pain management techniques. Consideration of psychological factors and patient focused education as an adjunct to these measures is paramount in developing a personalized perioperative pain management plan. Understanding the currently available body of knowledge surrounding perioperative opioid management, management of opioid use disorder, regional/neuraxial anesthetic techniques, ketamine/lidocaine infusions, non-opioid oral analgesics, and behavioral interventions can be useful in developing a comprehensive, multi-modal treatment plan among patients undergoing spine surgery. Although many of these techniques have proved efficacious in the immediate postoperative period, long-term follow-up is needed to define the impact of such approaches on persistent pain and opioid use. Future techniques involving the use of precision medicine may help identify phenotypic and physiologic characteristics that can identify patients that are most at risk of developing persistent postoperative pain after spine surgery.

Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) is a promising minimally invasive treatment for lumbar disc herniation (LDH). Postoperative rehabilitation can improve patient outcomes. Not only rehabilitation for surgical trauma but also rehabilitation for lumbar spine and lower kinetic chain dysfunction should be performed. The aims of this study were to investigate the efficacy of a lumbar kinetic chain training for staged rehabilitation after PELD for LDH.

Fifty one LDH patients treated with PELD were studied. After surgery, patients underwent lumbar kinetic chain training for staged rehabilitation( staged group) or regular low back rehabilitation (regular group). The staged rehabilitation programme included three phases from 2 to 6, 7-12, and 13-24 weeks postoperatively, and different physical therapies were performed during these phases. The low back pain visual analogue scale (VAS), JOA score, ODI, SF-36, and cross-sectional area of the lumbar multifidus on MRI were assessed, and gait analysis was performed.

Twenty five patients in staged group and twenty six patients in regular group were included. There were no significant differences in age or sex between the two groups at baseline (p > 0.05). The VAS score decreased and the JOA and SF-36 scores increased in both groups from baseline to 6 weeks (P < 0.05). In the staged group, compared with the regular group, the VAS and ODI scores were lower and the JOA and SF-36 scores were higher at 6 weeks (P < 0.05); the VAS and ODI scores were lower and the SF-36 score was higher at 12 weeks (P < 0.05); the SF-36 score was higher at 24 weeks (P < 0.05); the cross-sectional area of the lumbar multifidus showed no differences at 12 weeks (P > 0.05); and the left-right support ratio of gait was higher at 24 weeks (P < 0.05).

The staged rehabilitation programme for LDH after PELD promoted postoperative recovery, and the efficacy of lumbar kinetic chain training was higher than that of regular low back muscle exercise.

Indications and techniques of rehabilitation differ widely across types of lumbar surgery, including timing (before or after surgery) and prescriptions (surgeons but also medical or paramedical professionals).

This project aimed to build consensual recommendations for practice in this context.

The SOFMER methodology was used to establish recommendations for physical medicine and rehabilitation: a steering committee defined the types of lumbar surgery involved and developed the main questions to be addressed; a scientific committee performed a literature review for grading evidence and proposed the first version of recommendations, which were discussed during a dedicated session at the national Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine congress; then an e-Delphi method with cross-professional experts was used to finalise recommendations and reach a multidisciplinary consensus.

The main questions developed were the value of rehabilitation before and after surgery, timing and type of rehabilitation, benefit of supervision and instrumental rehabilitation, value of patient education, and complementary interventions concerning rehabilitation for discectomy, fusion, and disc prosthesis (excluding decompression for spinal stenosis). The literature review identified 60 articles, but for several of the questions, no article in the literature addressed the issue. The multidisciplinary scientific committee analysed the literature and addressed the questions to propose the first version of a set of 23 recommendations. The congress session failed to answer all questions or to reach consensus for all items. After a three-step e-Delphi, 20 recommendations were retained, for which consensus among experts was reached. The recommendations are applicable only to patients without a neurological lesion.

These recommendations provide important and consensual knowledge to assist clinicians in decision-making for rehabilitation in lumbar surgery. Despite many of the recommendations relying exclusively on expert opinion rather than published evidence, this approach is an important advance to improve concordance among healthcare professionals.

A lumbar herniation disc appears as a major cause of lumbar pain and sciatica. The purpose of the present systematic review is to examine the effectiveness of such exercise programs on pain, disability, quality of life, strength and the assessed time required to return to work/normal activities after undergoing lumbar discectomy surgery. PubMed, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar were used for the selection of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The PEDro scale was chosen to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. Seven RCTS met the inclusion criteria. According to the evaluation of the PEDro scale, one was considered as « high quality», five as « moderate quality» and one as « low quality». The mean score of the studies was 5.14. The results showed that after such exercise there was an improvement in pain, disability, quality of life, muscle strength and in time required to return to work. The exercise programs have a positive impact on the reduction of pain, disability, time required to return to work/normal activities as well as an increase in quality of life and muscle strength in patients with lumbar discectomy surgery.

The purpose of this prospective case series study was to compare changes in early postoperative physical activity and physical function between 6 weeks and 3 and 6 months after lumbar spine surgery.

Fifty-three patients (mean [95% confidence interval; CI] age = 59.2 [56.2, 62.3] years, 64% female) who underwent spine surgery for a degenerative lumbar condition were assessed at 6 weeks and 3- and 6-months after surgery. The outcomes were objectively-measured physical activity (accelerometry) and patient-reported and objective physical function. Physical activity was assessed using mean steps/day and time spent in moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) over a week. Physical function measures included Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), 12-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12), Timed Up and Go (TUG), and 10-Meter Walk (10 MW). We compared changes over time in physical activity and function using generalized estimating equations with robust estimator and first-order autoregressive covariance structure. Proportion of patients who engaged in meaningful physical activity (e.g., walked at least 4400 and 6000 steps/day or engaged in at least 150 min/week in MVPA) and achieved clinically meaningful changes in physical function were compared at 3 and 6 months.

After surgery, 72% of patients initiated physical therapy (mean [95%CI] sessions =8.5 [6.6, 10.4]) between 6 weeks and 3 months. Compared to 6 weeks post-surgery, no change in steps/day or time in MVPA/week was observed at 3 or 6 months. From 21 to 23% and 9 to 11% of participants walked at least 4400 and 6000 steps/day at 3 and 6 months, respectively, while none of the participants spent at least 150 min/week in MVPA at these same time points. Significant improvements were observed on ODI, SF-12, TUG and 10 MW (p <  0.05), with over 43 to 68% and 62 to 87% achieving clinically meaningful improvements on these measures at 3 and 6 months, respectively.

Limited improvement was observed in objectively-measured physical activity from 6 weeks to 6 months after spine surgery, despite moderate to large function gains. Early postoperative physical therapy interventions targeting physical activity may be needed.

Pain and disability may persist following lumbar spine surgery and patients may subsequently seek providers trained in manipulative and manual therapy (MMT). This systematic review investigates the effectiveness of MMT after lumbar surgery through identifying, summarizing, assessing quality, and grading the strength of available evidence. Secondarily, we synthesized the impact on medication utilization, and reports on adverse events.

Databases and grey literature were searched from inception through August 2020. Article extraction consisted of principal findings, pain and function/disability, medication consumption, and adverse events.

Literature search yielded 2025 articles,117 full-text articles were screened and 51 citations met inclusion criteria.

There is moderate evidence to recommend neural mobilization and myofascial release after lumbar fusion, but inconclusive evidence to recommend for or against most manual therapies after most surgical interventions. The literature is primarily limited to low-level studies. More high-quality studies are needed to make recommendations.

The aim of this study was to compare two physiotherapy interventions following lumber disc surgery regarding effect on pain, functioning and fear of movement.

This study is a prospective randomized controlled study. When admitted to hospital for first time lumbar disc surgery, the participants were randomized to one of two post-operative intervention groups: one group received information only and the other exercise in combination with information. Outcomes were collected at baseline, 6-8 weeks and 12-months post-surgery. The primary outcome was to record changes in back/hip pain and leg pain. Secondary outcomes were evaluation of changes in function, fear-avoidance beliefs and kinesiophobia.

Seventy patients completed the study and were included in the analysis, of which 37 were randomized to the group receiving information only and the remaining 33 receiving both exercise and information. For primary outcomes, at 12 months postoperatively, the group receiving both exercise and information had significantly lower leg pain compared with those receiving only information (p < .033). For secondary outcomes, at 12 months postoperatively, a significant difference (p < .027) was detected for function, which favoured those that received both exercise and information. There was no significant difference in the results for the other secondary outcomes. Both groups showed clinically important changes in relation to pain and function from baseline to 12 months. The effect of treatment showed a statistically significant difference in favour of exercise and information, but the difference was not clinically relevant.

Exercise in combination with information reduced leg pain and improved function, which was statistically more evident over a period of time. Postoperative physiotherapy after lumbar disc surgery could include exercises in addition to information, but perhaps not for all patients, as both groups improved, and the difference between the two groups was not clinically relevant.

Because of the growing trend of lumbar spinal surgery, it is essential for physicians and physiotherapists to develop standardized postoperative treatment. However, currently postoperative treatment after lumbar spinal surgery is controversial.

The purpose of this review article is to make recommendations for the postoperative treatment of lumbar intervertebral disc surgery, lumbar decompression surgery and lumbar spinal fusion surgery regarding mobilization, weight bearing and rehabilitation. These recommendations are based on current evidence and experience in our institution.

A selective literature research of relevant publications was conducted in Pubmed. The studies are presented in tabular form.

Patient training, accurate information about the postoperative course, information about limitations and stress possibilities as well as pain management seem to have an important role in the final outcome of the operation. Ideally, these procedures should be performed preoperatively or at the latest or repeatedly from the first postoperative day after lumbar spine surgery. Physiotherapy can have a positive impact on the clinical and functional outcome after lumbar disc, decompression and fusion surgery.

Due to the heterogeneity of the intensity, duration and form of physiotherapy or rehabilitation, which are listed as interventions in the various studies, it is only possible to draw limited conclusions about general instructions for action on "physiotherapy" after spinal surgery.

Lumbar discectomy is a widely used surgical procedure internationally with the majority of patients experiencing significant benefit. However, approximately 20% of patients report suboptimal functional recovery and quality of life. The impact and meaning of the surgical experience from the patients' perspective are not fully understood. Furthermore, there is limited evidence guiding postoperative management with significant clinical practice variation and it is unclear if current postoperative support is valued, beneficial or meets patients' needs and expectations. This study aims to address the evidence gap by moving beyond current knowledge to gain insight into the lived experiences relating to patients' lumbar discectomy surgery journey. Results will inform more meaningful and specific care, thus, enhance rehabilitation and outcomes.

A qualitative investigation using interpretative phenomenology analysis (IPA) will provide a flexible inductive research approach. A purposive sample (n=20) of patients undergoing primary discectomy will be recruited from one UK NHS secondary care centre. Semi-structured interviews will be conducted postsurgery discharge. A topic guide, developed from the literature and our previous work with input from two patient co-investigators, will guide interviews with the flexibility to explore interesting or patient-specific points raised. Providing longitudinal data, patients will keep weekly diaries capturing experiences and change over time throughout 12 months following surgery. A second interview will be completed 1 year postsurgery with its topic guide informed by initial findings. This combination of patient interviews and diaries will capture patients' attitudes and beliefs regarding surgery and recovery, facilitators and barriers to progress, experiences regarding return to activities/function and interactions with healthcare professionals. The rich density of data will be thematically analysed in accordance with IPA, supported by NVivo software.

Ethical approval has been granted by the London-Bloomsbury Research Ethics Committee (18/LO/0459; IRAS 241345). Conclusions will be disseminated through conferences and peer-reviewed journals.

To evaluate patients' and physiotherapists' perceptions, preferences and feelings about rehabilitation following lumbar discectomy surgery.

A qualitative focus group study, informed from the theoretical perspective of phenomenology, of patients' and physiotherapists' experiences of rehabilitation following lumbar discectomy was conducted. The focus groups were used to explore patients' and physiotherapists' perceptions and their preferences and feelings about different approaches to rehabilitation. The focus groups were facilitated and observed by experienced researchers and were informed by a topic guide that had been piloted previously.

The study was embedded within an external pilot and feasibility trial that randomised patients across two secondary care spinal surgery sites in the UK to receive either 1:1 physiotherapy and leaflet or leaflet-only interventions.

Five focus groups took place between April and July 2014. A framework analysis of thematic coding (deductive and inductive components) by two researchers captured identified themes common to both patients and physiotherapists. Data from three focus groups with patients and carers (n=11) and two with physiotherapists (n=15) contributed to the analytic framework.

Emerging themes included: the value of patient leaflets with or without physiotherapy interventions; the importance of self-motivation in the recovery pathway; benefits of group physiotherapy for some patient groups and patient preference influencing rehabilitation.

Patients and physiotherapists perceived the study patient leaflet and 1:1 physiotherapy interventions as high quality and valuable. Patients' personal priorities, for example, their need to return to work, influenced their preferences for rehabilitation interventions following surgery.

The research aims to determine the influence of early goal-oriented physical therapy program in combination with educational booklet and standard physical therapy without written instructions on functional mobility outcomes in patients after low back surgery.

Thirty patients with similar functional impairments were randomly divided into two groups, a control group (CG n = 10) and an experimental group (EG n = 20). The outcome measures include time to move from lying to sitting position, the TUG test and the 6-meter walk test. Rehabilitation program includes daily physical therapy with mild to moderate intensity, achieving sitting position and education sessions how to perform activities of daily living (ADL) from the first day after surgery.

There was a significant improvement from baseline in two groups for all performed tests (p < 0.001). Statistical significant differences between two groups for transfers in bed on discharge (p < 0.05), in one month (p < 0.01) and for TUG in one month (p < 0.05) were found.

The study revealed that early rehabilitation program consists of therapeutic exercises and written educational booklet after low back surgery improves transfer abilities and basic activities in one month.

There is a lack of high-quality evidence for physiotherapy post lumbar discectomy. Substantial heterogeneity in treatment effects may be explained by variation in quality, administration and components of interventions. An optimised physiotherapy intervention may reduce heterogeneity and improve patient benefit. The objective was to describe, analyse and evaluate an optimised 1:1 physiotherapy outpatient intervention for patients following primary lumbar discectomy, to provide preliminary insights.

A descriptive analysis of the intervention embedded within an external pilot and feasibility trial.

Two UK spinal centres.

Participants aged ≥18; post primary, single level, lumbar discectomy were recruited.

The intervention encompassed education, advice, mobility and core stability exercises, progressive exercise, and encouragement of early return to work/activity. Patients received ≤8 sessions for ≤8 weeks, starting 4 weeks post surgery (baseline).

Blinded outcome assessment at baseline and 12 weeks (post intervention) included the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire. STarT Back data were collected at baseline. Statistical analyses summarised participant characteristics and preplanned descriptive analyses. Thematic analysis grouped related data.

Twenty-two of 29 allocated participants received the intervention. STarT Back categorised n=16 (55%) participants 'not at low risk'. Physiotherapists identified reasons for caution for 8 (36%) participants, commonly risk of overdoing activity (n=4, 18%). There was no relationship between STarT Back and physiotherapists' evaluation of caution. Physiotherapists identified 154 problems (mean (SD) 5.36 (2.63)). Those 'not at low risk', and/or requiring caution presented with more problems, and required more sessions (mean (SD) 3.14 (1.16)).

Patients present differently and therefore require tailored interventions. These differences may be identified using clinical reasoning and outcome data.

ISRCTN33808269; post results.

To develop an optimised 1:1 physiotherapy intervention that reflects best practice, with flexibility to tailor management to individual patients, thereby ensuring patient-centred practice.

Mixed-methods combining evidence synthesis, expert review and focus groups.

Secondary care involving 5 UK specialist spinal centres.

A purposive panel of clinical experts from the 5 spinal centres, comprising spinal surgeons, inpatient and outpatient physiotherapists, provided expert review of the draft intervention. Purposive samples of patients (n=10) and physiotherapists (n=10) (inpatient/outpatient physiotherapists managing patients with lumbar discectomy) were invited to participate in the focus groups at 1 spinal centre.

A draft intervention developed from 2 systematic reviews; a survey of current practice and research related to stratified care was circulated to the panel of clinical experts. Lead physiotherapists collaborated with physiotherapy and surgeon colleagues to provide feedback that informed the intervention presented at 2 focus groups investigating acceptability to patients and physiotherapists. The focus groups were facilitated by an experienced facilitator, recorded in written and tape-recorded forms by an observer. Tape recordings were transcribed verbatim. Data analysis, conducted by 2 independent researchers, employed an iterative and constant comparative process of (1) initial descriptive coding to identify categories and subsequent themes, and (2) deeper, interpretive coding and thematic analysis enabling concepts to emerge and overarching pattern codes to be identified.

The intervention reflected best available evidence and provided flexibility to ensure patient-centred care. The intervention comprised up to 8 sessions of 1:1 physiotherapy over 8 weeks, starting 4 weeks postsurgery. The intervention was acceptable to patients and physiotherapists.

A rigorous process informed an optimised 1:1 physiotherapy intervention post-lumbar discectomy that reflects best practice. The developed intervention was agreed on by the 5 spinal centres for implementation in a randomised controlled trial to evaluate its effectiveness.

Knowledge about the natural clinical course is needed to improve understanding of recovery postsurgery as outcome is poor for some patients. Knowledge of the natural clinical course of symptoms and disability will inform optimal timing and the nature of rehabilitation intervention. The objective of this study is to provide first evidence synthesis investigating the natural clinical course of disability and pain in patients aged >16 years post primary lumbar discectomy.

A systematic review and data synthesis will be conducted. Prospective cohorts that include a well-defined inception cohort (point of surgery) of adult participants who have undergone primary lumbar discectomy/microdiscectomy will be included. Outcomes will include measurements reported on 1 or more outcomes of disability and pain, with a baseline presurgery measurement. Following development of the search strategy, 2 reviewers will independently search information sources, assess identified studies for inclusion, extract data and assess risk of bias. A third reviewer will mediate on any disagreement at each stage. The search will employ sensitive topic-based strategies designed for each database from inception to 31 January 2016. There will be no language or geographical restrictions. Risk of bias will be assessed using a modified QUality In Prognostic Studies (QUIPS) tool . Data will be extracted for time points where follow-up was at least 80%. Means and 95% CIs will be plotted over time for pain and disability. All results will be reported in the context of study quality.

This review will provide the first rigorous summary of the course of pain and disability across all published prospective cohorts. The findings will inform our understanding of when to offer and how to optimise rehabilitation following surgery. Results will be published in an open access journal. The study raises no ethical issues.

CRD42015020806.

To evaluate: acceptability and feasibility of trial procedures; distribution of scores on the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ, planned primary outcome); and efficient working of trial components.

A feasibility and external pilot randomised controlled trial (ISRCTN33808269, assigned 10/12/2012) was conducted across 2 UK secondary care outpatient physiotherapy departments associated with regional spinal surgery centres.

Consecutive consenting patients aged >18 years; post primary, single level, lumbar discectomy.

Participants were randomised to either 1:1 physiotherapy outpatient management including patient leaflet, or patient leaflet alone.

Blinded assessments were made at 4 weeks post surgery (baseline) and 12 weeks post baseline (proposed primary end point). Secondary outcomes included: Global Perceived Effect, back/leg pain, straight leg raise, return to work/function, quality of life, fear avoidance, range of movement, medication, re-operation.

At discharge, 110 (44%) eligible patients gave consent to be contacted. 59 (54%) patients were recruited. Loss to follow up was 39% at 12 weeks, with one site contributing 83% losses. Mean (SD) RMDQ was 10.07 (5.58) leaflet and 10.52 (5.94) physiotherapy/leaflet at baseline; and 5.37 (4.91) leaflet and 5.53 (4.49) physiotherapy/leaflet at 12 weeks. 5.1% zero scores at 12 weeks illustrated no floor effect. Sensitivity to change was assessed at 12 weeks with mean (SD) change -4.53 (6.41), 95%CI -7.61 to -1.44 for leaflet; and -6.18 (5.59), 95%CI -9.01 to -3.30 for physiotherapy/leaflet. RMDQ mean difference (95%CI) between change from baseline to twelve weeks was 1.65(-2.46 to 5.75). Mean difference (95%CI) between groups at 12 weeks was -0.16 (-3.36 to 3.04). Participant adherence with treatment was good. No adverse events were reported.

Both interventions were acceptable, and it is promising that they both demonstrated a trend in reducing disability in this population. A randomised controlled trial, using a different trial design, is needed to ascertain the effectiveness of combining the interventions into a stepped care intervention and comparing to a no intervention arm. Findings will guide design changes for an adequately powered randomised controlled trial, using RMDQ as the primary outcome.

ISRCTN registry 33808269.

To ascertain current surgeon practice in the United Kingdom National Health Service for the management of patients undergoing lumbar spinal fusion surgery.

Descriptive survey methodology utilised an online questionnaire administered through SurveyMonkey. Eligible participants were all surgeons currently carrying out lumbar spinal fusion surgery in the National Health Service. Two previous surveys and a recent systematic review informed questions. Statistical analyses included responder characteristics and pre-planned descriptive analyses. Open question data were interpreted using thematic analysis.

The response rate was 73.8%. Most surgeons (84%) were orthopaedic surgeons. Range of surgeon experience (1-15 years), number of operations performed in the previous 12 mo (4-250), and range of information used to predict outcome was broad. There was some consistency of practice: most patients were seen preoperatively; all surgeons ensured patients are mobile within 3 d of surgery; and there was agreement for the value of post-operative physiotherapy. However, there was considerable variability of practice: variability of protocols, duration of hospital stay, use of discharge criteria, frequency and timing of outpatient follow up, use of written patient information and outcome measures. Much variability was explained through patient-centred care, for example, 62% surgeons tailored functional advice to individual patients.

Current United Kingdom surgeon practice for lumbar spinal fusion is described. The surgical procedure and patient population is diverse, and it is therefore understandable that management varies. It is evident that care should be patient-centred. However with high costs and documented patient dissatisfaction it is important that further research evaluates optimal management.

To produce free, expert-informed postoperative information for lumbar discectomy patients, satisfying UK National Health Service Information Standards.

A mixed methods approach utilising the Delphi technique and focus groups.

Five spinal centres across the UK.

Panel members included 23 physiotherapists, 11 patients and 17 spinal surgeons.

Three rounds of questionnaires including open and closed questions and attendance at a clinician/patient focus group.

Response rates of 85%, 26% and 35% were achieved for the Delphi rounds. Ten clinicians and six patients participated in the focus groups. Consensus for leaflet sections was achieved in round 1 and content in round 3. The focus groups informed further revisions.

A consensually agreed, Information Standard compliant, patient lumbar discectomy leaflet was produced containing: (1) normal spine anatomy; (2) anatomy disc herniation and surgery; (3) back protection strategies and (4) frequently asked questions. Illustrations of exercises enable tailoring to the individual patient.

To evaluate the effectiveness of physiotherapy intervention following lumbar spinal fusion.

Systematic review and meta-analysis. 2 independent reviewers searched information sources, assessed studies for inclusion and evaluated risk of bias. Quantitative synthesis using standardised mean differences was conducted on comparable outcomes across trials with similar interventions.

Predefined terms were employed to search electronic databases. Additional studies were identified from key journals, reference lists, authors and experts.

Randomised control trials published in English prior to 30 September 2011 investigating physiotherapy outpatient management of patients (>16 years), following lumbar spinal fusion, with measurements reported on one or more outcome of disability, function and health were included.

2 Randomised control trials (188 participants) from two countries were included. Both trials included a behavioural and an exercise intervention. 1 trial was evaluated as high risk of bias and one as unclear. 159 participants were incorporated in the meta-analysis. Although evidence from both trials suggested that intervention might reduce back pain short term (6 months) and long term (12 months and 2 years), and a behavioural intervention might be more beneficial than an exercise intervention, the pooled effects (0.72, 95% CI -0.25 to 1.69 at 6 months; 0.52, 95% CI -0.45 to 1.49 at 12 months and 0.75, 95% CI -0.46 to 1.96 at 2 years) did not demonstrate statistically significant effects. There was no evidence that intervention changes pain in the short (6 months) or long term (12 months and 2 years). The wide CI for pooled effects indicated that intervention could be potentially beneficial or harmful. Considerable heterogeneity was evident.

Inconclusive, very low-quality evidence exists for the effectiveness of physiotherapy management following lumbar spinal fusion. Best practice remains unclear. Limited comparability of outcomes and retrieval of only two trials reflect a lack of research in this area that requires urgent consideration.

To define research priorities to strategically inform the evidence base for physiotherapy practice.

A modified Delphi method using SurveyMonkey software identified priorities for physiotherapy research through national consensus. An iterative process of three rounds provided feedback. Round 1 requested five priorities using pre-defined prioritisation criteria. Content analysis identified research themes and topics. Round 2 requested rating of the importance of the research topics using a 1-5 Likert scale. Round 3 requested a further process of rating. Quantitative and qualitative data informed decision-making. Level of consensus was established as mean rating ≥ 3.5, coefficient of variation ≤ 30%, and ≥ 55% agreement. Consensus across participants was evaluated using Kendall's W.

Four expert panels (n=40-61) encompassing a range of stakeholders and reflecting four core areas of physiotherapy practice were established by steering groups (n=204 participants overall).

Response rates of 53-78% across three rounds were good. The identification of 24/185 topics for musculoskeletal, 43/174 for neurology, 30/120 for cardiorespiratory and medical rehabilitation, and 30/113 for mental and physical health and wellbeing as priorities demonstrated discrimination of the process. Consensus between participants was good for most topics. Measurement validity of the research topics was good. The involvement of multiple stakeholders as participants ensured the current context of the intended use of the priorities.

From a process of national consensus involving key stakeholders, including service users, physiotherapy research topics have been identified and prioritised. Setting priorities provides a vision of how research can contribute to the developing research base in physiotherapy to maximise focus.

Objective To evaluate effectiveness of physiotherapy management in patients experiencing whiplash associated disorder II, on clinically relevant outcomes in the short and longer term. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Two reviewers independently searched information sources, assessed studies for inclusion, evaluated risk of bias and extracted data. A third reviewer mediated disagreement. Assessment of risk of bias was tabulated across included trials. Quantitative synthesis was conducted on comparable outcomes across trials with similar interventions. Meta-analyses compared effect sizes, with random effects as primary analyses. Data sources Predefined terms were employed to search electronic databases. Additional studies were identified from key journals, reference lists, authors and experts. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in English before 31 December 2010 evaluating physiotherapy management of patients (>16 years), experiencing whiplash associated disorder II. Any physiotherapy intervention was included, when compared with other types of management, placebo/sham, or no intervention. Measurements reported on ≥1 outcome from the domains within the international classification of function, disability and health, were included. Results 21 RCTs (2126 participants, 9 countries) were included. Interventions were categorised as active physiotherapy or a specific physiotherapy intervention. 20/21 trials were evaluated as high risk of bias and one as unclear. 1395 participants were incorporated in the meta-analyses on 12 trials. In evaluating short term outcome in the acute/sub-acute stage, there was some evidence that active physiotherapy intervention reduces pain and improves range of movement, and that a specific physiotherapy intervention may reduce pain. However, moderate/considerable heterogeneity suggested that treatments may differ in nature or effect in different trial patients. Differences between participants, interventions and trial designs limited potential meta-analyses. Conclusions Inconclusive evidence exists for the effectiveness of physiotherapy management for whiplash associated disorder II. There is potential benefit for improving range of movement and pain short term through active physiotherapy, and for improving pain through a specific physiotherapy intervention.