Cited by 28Spine and Intervertebral Disc PathologyMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare

Pain Intensity and Patientsʼ Acceptance of Surgical Complication Risks With Lumbar Fusion

Open access
Bono, Christopher M., Harris, Mitchel B., Warholic, Natalie, Katz, Jeffrey N., Carreras, Edward, White, Andrew, Schmitz, Miguel, Wood, Kirkham B. +1 more·2013·Spine

Abstract

STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study with prospective recruitment. OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationship of pain intensity (back and leg) on patients' acceptance of surgical complication risks when deciding whether or not to undergo lumbar spinal fusion. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: To formulate informed decisions regarding lumbar fusion surgery, preoperative discussions should include a review of the risk of complications balanced with the likelihood of symptom relief. Pain intensity has the potential to influence a patient's decision to consent to lumbar fusion. We hypothesized that pain intensity is associated with a patient's acceptance of surgical complication risks. METHODS: Patients being seen for the first time by a spine surgeon for treatment of a nontraumatic or non-neoplastic spinal disorder completed a structured questionnaire. It posed 24 scenarios, each presenting a combination of risks of 3 complications (nerve damage, wound infection, and nonunion) and probabilities of symptom relief. For each scenario, the patient indicated whether he or she would or would not consent to a fusion for low back pain (LBP). The sum of the scenarios in which the patient responded that he or she would elect surgery was calculated to represent acceptance of surgical complication risks. A variety of other data were also recorded, including age, sex, education level, race, history of nonspinal surgery, duration of pain, and history of spinal injections. Data were analyzed using bivariate and multivariate regression analyses. RESULTS: The mean number of scenarios accepted by 118 enrolled subjects was 10.2 (median, 8; SD, 8.5; range, 0-24, or 42.5% of scenarios). In general, subjects were more likely to accept scenarios with lower risks and higher efficacy. Spearman rank correlation estimates demonstrated a moderate association between the LBP intensity and acceptance of surgical complication risks (r = 0.37, P = 0.0001) whereas leg pain intensity had a weak but positive correlation (r = 0.19, P = 0.04). In bivariate analyses, a history of spinal injections was strongly associated with patients' acceptance of surgical complication risks and willingness to proceed with surgery (54.5% of scenarios accepted for those who had a history of spinal injections vs. 27.6% for those with no history of spinal injections, P = 0.0001). White patients were more willing to accept surgery (45.9% of scenarios) than non-white patients (28.4%, P = 0.03). With the available numbers, age, sex, history of nonspinal surgery, education, and the duration of pain demonstrated no clear association with acceptance of surgical complication risks. Although education overall was not an influential factor, more educated males had greater risk tolerance than less educated males whereas more educated females had less risk tolerance than less educated females (P = 0.023). In multivariate analysis, LBP intensity remained a highly statistically significant correlate (P = 0.001) of the proportion of scenarios accepted, as did a history of spinal injections (P = 0.001) and being white (0.03). CONCLUSION: The current investigation indicates that the intensity of LBP is the most influential factor affecting a patient's decision to accept risk of complication and symptom persistence when considering lumbar fusion. This relationship has not been previously shown for any surgical procedure. These data could potentially change the manner in which patients are counseled to make informed choices about spinal surgery. With growing interest in adverse events and complications, these data could be important in establishing guidelines for patient-directed surgical decision making.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/brs.0b013e318279b648

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Participants' reasons for electing spine surgery align with prior quantitative studies indicating that pain reduction, walking tolerance, physical function, overall quality of life, other therapies not helping, and surgeon/doctor recommendation are important factors influencing patients' decision to undergo spine surgery.

    “Participants' reasons for electing spine surgery align with prior quantitative studies indicating that pain reduction, 11,12,14,27 walking tolerance, 12,14 physical function, 27 overall quality of life, 13 other therapies not helping, 14 and surgeon/doctor recommendation 27 are important factors influencing patients' decision to undergo spine surgery.”

    From A Conceptual Model for Spine Surgery Recovery: A Qualitative Study of Patients’ Expectations, Experiences, and Satisfaction (2023) · cites this paper as [11]

    The Discussion identifies pain as important to surgical decisions and reports a prior questionnaire finding that patients valued walking tolerance. The Results associate prior spinal injections with willingness to proceed, but the Discussion only suggests that this may reflect dissatisfaction with other treatments; it does not establish that unsuccessful therapies themselves influenced the decision. Physical function, quality of life, and doctor recommendation are cited to other sources in the sentence. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bono, C. M., Harris, M. B., Warholic, N., Katz, J. N., Carreras, E., White, A., Schmitz, M., Wood, K. B., & Losina, E.
Affiliations
Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
Bono, Christopher M.
Venue
Spine
Published
2013-01
Volume
38
Issue
2
Pages
140-147
ISSN
0362-2436 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2008132547
Cited by
28
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1
FWCI
1.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Spine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (K24AR057827)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Spine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Keywords
lumbar fusion, informed consent, nerve root injury, wound infection, nonunion, patient decision-making, spinal surgery outcomes, shared decision-making, patient satisfaction, patient satisfaction with communication
MeSH terms
Adult, Back Pain, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Humans, Leg, Lumbar Vertebrae, Male, Middle Aged, Pain Measurement, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Postoperative Complications, Prospective Studies, Surveys and Questionnaires, Severity of Illness Index, Spinal Fusion

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review