This major network broadcast–-about a surgical procedure that is purported to quickly relieve pain in hundreds of thousands of people with common low back pain–is devoid of evidence and sound reporting. Among the questions it fails to answer:
There are a number of high-quality studies and commentaries on spinal fusion. Reporters have an obligation to their readers and viewers to become familiar with them. Here is just one recent excerpt (November 15, 2008) of the type of commentary available. A search of randomized trials comparing treatments or observational studies about complications will quickly turn up others. It is the reporter’s job to find reliable sources who can accurately represent the clinical evidence.
“The term invasiveness in surgery is frequently misused in clinical medicine. Often minimally invasive surgery suggests to the patient that the surgical intervention is minimized in comparison to a standard procedure. Recently, orthopedic surgeons have begun to replace the hip joint but are confusing minimally invasive with minimal access surgery. Although there may be increasing evidence that hospitalization time, postoperative pain, and rehabilitation can be reduced by a smaller incision with less collateral tissue damage, the actual surgical intervention, ie, replacing the hip joint by a total joint arthroplasty is not minimized. Similarly, minimally invasive spine fusion is a misnomer because the final result is an arthrodesis [fusion], which can only cynically be regarded as minimally invasive. Minimally invasive surgeries are often associated even with higher perioperative risks at least in the learning curve…”
Norbert Boos, MD. Spine 2008;33(24): 2662
The story makes no mention of costs. The average hospital charges for a single-level fusion is about $50,000, exclusive of surgeon fees, rehab costs, and related costs such as time lost from work. The addition of screws or and a “bone growth material” adds thousands more. Not trivial issues.
This broadcast falls down in virtually every possible way, but stands out for failing to address the most important reason for having spine surgery. The story doesn’t say what the outcome of surgery was for the patient interviewed or anyone else in the medical literature, other than to point out that the operation went like clockwork and the patient was heading home by 2:00 in the afternoon of the day she had the surgery. Although this is one outcome that some people care about, it says nothing about the reason she had the operation—to improve daily, disabling pain.
The fusion procedure described in this story would appear to be nearly risk-free. Is exposure to “more than 200 x-rays” harmless because it is purportedly less radiation than a CT scan? Is there independent evidence to support the broadcast’s claim that a minimally invasive procedure cuts “no muscles or nerves”? Is there any evidence to suggest colon perforation is the only potentially serious complication? It seems unlikely, even if colon perforation is more common with the new procedure than with traditional fusion. What of the other complications that afflict people who have standard fusions? A large body of evidence has documented serious complications, including blood clots in the lung (pulmonary embolism), respiratory failure, cardiac arrest, stroke, nerve injury, and death. On average, these affect between 2% and 5% of patients (sometimes less, sometimes much more). Less serious complications abound (10% to 20% of fusions require a transfusion, another 10% tear the protective cover around the nerves). About 1 in 5 fusion operations fail. When it comes to minimally invasive surgery in other areas of orthopaedic and spine surgery, past is often prologue. It’s fine that the benefits outweighed the risks for the patient in this broadcast, but we hope she had a better understanding of the potential risks and benefits than the people watching this news segment.
This major network broadcast–-about a major surgical procedure that is purported to help people hundreds of thousands of people with common low back pain–is devoid of evidence.
The story says 250,000 Americans have fusions annually, and clearly suggests that chronic low back pain is an appropriate indication for fusion surgery. This conflicts with the evidence and expert consensus. Many leading researchers now say that nonspecific chronic low back pain is not an indication for surgery. Indeed, they say the indications are usually narrow—perhaps helpful in people with relatively uncommon conditions such degenerative spondylolisthesis (in which the vertebra shifts forward over the disc) and spinal deformities such as scoliosis.
The broadcast includes interviews with one patient and three doctors. It makes no attempt to identify the experts’ potential conflicts of interest or balance their enthusiastic support for minimally invasive fusion with the views of other experts.
The story mentions one alternative (standard fusion) once. It describes differences in surgical approaches and recovery time (hours vs. days). But the story overlooks arguably the most important alternative treatment—nonsurgical care. Randomized trials since 2003 have compared fusion to nonsurgical programs that combine a graduated exercise program with cognitive behavioral therapy. They suggest that people with chronic low back pain often do as well with nonsurgical care as with fusion, with fewer complications and lower costs. Recent international evidence-based guidelines recommend that all patients participate in such a program before they consider surgery.
The story says minimally invasive fusion is FDA approved. Unfortunately, it fails to say precisely what that means. Is the FDA approval for a device? If so, which device—the screws used to reinforce the fusion, or the “bone growth material” that purportedly aids the fusion? Was the approval based on the procedure being no worse than the usual treatment (standard fusion)? Was the approval based on durable results over a long period of time? If it was compared against “usual” treatment (e.g. standard fusion), has the usual treatment be shown to be safe and effective? If so, in whom?
The broadcast explains that the new, less invasive fusion procedure uses a different surgical approach than standard fusion.
This story does not appear to rely solely or largely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like