The prognostic value of fear-avoidance beliefs on postoperative pain and dysfunction for lumbar degenerative disk disease: a meta-analysis

• Published in: International journal of rehabilitation research Vol. 46; no. 1; p. 3
• Main Authors: Zhao, Zhenni, Li, Jiawei, Zhang, Rui, Feng, Yun, He, Yanyan, Sun, Zhiling
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England 01.03.2023
• Subjects: Avoidance Learning; Fear; Humans; Low Back Pain; Pain, Postoperative; Prognosis
• ISSN: 1473-5660
• DOI: 10.1097/MRR.0000000000000567

The study aimed to explore the prognostic value of fear-avoidance beliefs (FABs) on postoperative pain and back-specific function for patients with lumbar degenerative disk disease (LDDD). FABs have been proven to be a predictorof pain and disability for patients with low back pain. However, whether FABs are a predictor of surgical outcomes for LDDD is a matter of debate. PubMed, Cochrane library, EMBASE, and EBSCO were searched for eligible cohort studies or secondary analyses of randomized controlled trials. Fixed-effect meta-analysis models were used to estimate odds ratios (OR) because of absent or low heterogeneity ( I ² < 50%). Subgroup analyses were conducted according to different follow-up durations. Forest plots were used for graphical representation. Six studies with a total of 829 participants were included in the meta-analyses. Risk of bias was high for three studies and moderate for the other three studies. For patients with LDDD, meta-analyses showed that FABs were a predictor of postoperative pain intensity [OR 2.88; 95% confidence interval (CI), 2.76-3.00] and back-specific function (OR 3.13; 95% CI, 3.02-3.24). Patients with FABs are less likely to report improvement in pain (OR 2.56; 95% CI, 1.73-3.86) and function (OR 2.81; 95% CI, 2.57-3.07). In conclusion, FABs were a predictor of postoperative pain and back-specific function for patients with LDDD. This prognostic value is sustained for a long period after surgery (>12 months). Clinicians are advised to initiate targeted interventions for patients with FABs at different stages after surgery. Due to the limited number and low quality of included studies, the results of this meta-analysis should be interpreted with caution.