Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 3, 2026
Treating Low Back Pain in Failed Back Surgery Patients with Multicolumn-lead Spinal Cord Stimulation
Published on: June 26, 2018
HADS and SOMS-2 brief score evaluation can prevent unnecessary minimal invasive spine interventions - a prospective
Andreas Veihelmann1,2,3, Florian Beck4,5, Christof Birkenmaier4
1Department of Orthopaedics, Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, Ludwig-Maximilians- University of Munich, Munich, Germany. andyvei@gmx.de.
Introduction:
To test the hypothesis, whether HADS/SOMS is practical in a spine surgery consultation setting and that patients with CLBP, but a high-risk of psychic comorbidities using above screenings will not improve after minimal-invasive spine interventions (MIS).
Methods:
n = 150 completed HADS and SOMS prior to the acquisition of history and examination. Primary outcome was improvement by numeric rating scale (NRS), Pain disability index (PDI) and oswestry disability index (ODI) at baseline and 6 months after intervention. In case of sciatica due to disc herniation epidural neurolysis, for facet or SI-joint-syndrome, radiofrequency and for discogenic pain intradiscal electrothermal therapy (IDET) was performed.
Results:
6 months after interventions, pat. with a high-risk of anxiety or depression showed no clinically important improvements in NRS, PDI and ODI, whereas in the low-risk group all 3 parameters were significantly reduced. We found a statistically significant difference in the improvement of NRS (p < 0·05), PDI (p < 0·001), ODI (p < 0·001) between high- and low-risk HADS-anxiety and depression groups and in the improvement of NRS and PDI (p < 0·05) between high- and low-risk SOMS-2-subgroups.
Conclusions:
In this group of CLBP patients, the easy-to-administer HADS/SOMS reliably predicted outcome after MIS due to the detection of somatoform comorbidities. Thus, 30 out of 150 patients were invasively treated without improvement. This is alarming not only because of unnecessary MIS being performed on these individuals, but also because it represents an inefficient allocation of increasingly limited healthcare funds.
Level Of Evidence:
II.
