From:
PubMed. Spine. 2006 Jan 15;31(2):245-9.
A review of the 2001 Volvo Award winner in clinical studies: lumbar fusion versus nonsurgical treatment for chronic low back pain: a multicenter randomized controlled trial from the Swedish lumbar spine study group
Kwon B, Katz JN, Kim DH, Jenis LG
Abstract
The current debate over the efficacy of lumbar fusion for low back pain has not been settled. Fritzell et al published a landmark paper entitled "Lumbar fusion versus nonsurgical treatment for chronic low back pain: a multicenter randomized controlled trial from the Swedish lumbar spine study group." Their goal was to provide objective evidence supporting lumbar fusion. While it was well designed and important to our knowledge base, it has limitations. We set out to review their work in an unbiased yet critical manner. Our goals are to summarize the strengths and weaknesses of the paper, place it in the context of current knowledge, and highlight its significance for present-day practice and research. From technical and study design perspectives, Fritzell et al were able to validate the use of lumbar fusion for the treatment of low back pain. However, their use of "usual nonoperative" care and nonspecific definition of low back pain precluded a truly genuine comparison of operative and nonoperative groups. We commend the Swedish lumbar spine study group and their remarkable efforts; they elevated the sophistication of spine research and spawned many more excellent works to help settle the ongoing controversy on the ideal treatment of low back pain.
Keywords: lumbar spine; artificial disc replacement; neurological complication; metaanalysis; LOW-BACK-PAIN; 2-YEAR FOLLOW-UP; INTERBODY FUSION; POSTEROLATERAL FUSION; CIRCUMFERENTIAL FUSION; BONE-GRAFT; IN-VITRO; SPINE; PROSTHESIS; NUCLEUS