Chronic low back pain is a common, disabling and costly health problem. The treatment of chronic low back is difficult and is often ineffective. For treatment to be effective the cause of the pain has to be established but unfortunately in 80% to 95% of the patients the cause cannot be determined despite the existence of modern imaging techniques. A pathoanatomical diagnosis which fits into a classical disease model where successful treatment can be carried out, can only be made in 5% to 7% of the patients. The back pain in the rest of the patients where no pathoanatomical diagnosis can be made is often labelled, unscientifically, as chronic low back pain. Despite the existence of sophisticated imaging techniques and a plethora of diagnostic test the source of pain in patients with nonspecific back pain cannot be established. There exist no causal relationship between imaging findings of degenerated disc, lumbar facet arthritis, spondylosis, spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis, to the pain in these patients. Surgical treatment of non-specific back pain where no pathoanatomical diagnosis has been established is bound to fail. Therefore the outcome of spinal fusion in these patients can be no better than nonsurgical treatment. Spinal fusion is a major surgery which can be associated with significant morbidity and occasionally with mortality. Yet there is rapid rise in the rates of spinal fusion. There is a growing tension between ethics and conflicts of interest for surgeons. The spine, unfortunately, has been labelled as a profit centre and there are allegations of conflicts of interest in the relationship of doctors with the multi-billion dollar spinal devices industry. The devices industry has a significant influence on not only research publications in peer review journals but also on decisions made by doctors which can have a detrimental effect on the welfare of the patient.

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.