Literature DB >> 14588332

The use of presurgical psychological screening to predict the outcome of spine surgery.

A R Block1, D D Ohnmeiss, R D Guyer, R F Rashbaum, S H Hochschuler.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Several previous studies have shown that psychosocial factors can influence the outcome of elective spine surgery.
PURPOSE: The purpose of the current study was to determine how well a presurgical screening instrument could predict surgical outcome. STUDY DESIGN/
SETTING: The study was conducted by staff of a psychologist's office. They performed preoperative screening for spine surgery candidates and collected the follow-up data. PATIENT SAMPLE: Presurgical screening and follow-up data collection was performed on 204 patients who underwent laminectomy/discectomy (n=118) or fusion (n=86) of the lumbar spine. OUTCOME MEASURES: The outcome measures used in the study were visual analog pain scales, the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire, and medication use.
METHODS: A semi-structured interview and psychometric testing were used to identify specific, quantifiable psychological, and "medical" risk factors for poor surgical outcome. A presurgical psychological screening (PPS) scorecard was completed for each patient, assessing whether the patient had a high or low level of risk on these psychological and medical dimensions. Based on the scorecard, an overall surgical prognosis of "good," "fair," or "poor" was generated.
RESULTS: Results showed spine surgery led to significant overall improvements in pain, functional ability, and medication use. Medical and psychological risk levels were significantly related to outcome, with the poorest results obtained by patients having both high psychological and medical risk. Further, the accuracy of PPS surgical prognosis in predicting overall outcome was 82%. Only 9 of 53 patients predicted to have poor outcome achieved fair or good results from spine surgery.
CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that PPS should become a more routine part of the evaluation of chronic pain patients in whom spine surgery is being considered.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 14588332     DOI: 10.1016/s1529-9430(01)00054-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine J        ISSN: 1529-9430            Impact factor:   4.166


  34 in total

1.  Do surgical expectations change depending on first time surgery or reoperation? A prospective cohort study in lumbar spine surgery.

Authors:  G Vilà-Canet; A Covaro; A García de Frutos; M T Ubierna; S Rodríguez-Alabau; S Mojal; E Cáceres
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-08-27       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 2.  [Lumbar disc arthroplasty. Established technique or experimental procedure?].

Authors:  T L Schulte; V Bullmann; T Lerner; H F Halm; U Liljenqvist; L Hackenberg
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 1.087

Review 3.  Predictors of surgical outcome and their assessment.

Authors:  Anne F Mannion; Achim Elfering
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2005-12-01       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 4.  Pain assessment.

Authors:  Mathias Haefeli; Achim Elfering
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2005-12-01       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Investigating and predicting early lumbar spine surgery outcomes.

Authors:  Saddam F Kanaan; Paul M Arnold; Douglas C Burton; Hung-Wen Yeh; Lindsay Loyd; Neena K Sharma
Journal:  J Allied Health       Date:  2015

6.  Evaluation of psychosomatic distress and its influence in the outcomes of lumbar fusion procedures for degenerative disorders of the spine.

Authors:  Emiliano Vialle; Barbara Miroski de Oliveira Pinto; Luiz Roberto Vialle; Juan David Castro Gomez
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2015-05-07

7.  Assessment of presurgical psychological screening in patients undergoing spine surgery: use and clinical impact.

Authors:  Arthur K Young; Benjamin K Young; Lee H Riley; Richard L Skolasky
Journal:  J Spinal Disord Tech       Date:  2014-04

8.  One-year Patient-reported Outcomes After Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair Do Not Correlate With Mild to Moderate Psychological Distress.

Authors:  Michael Q Potter; James D Wylie; Erin K Granger; Patrick E Greis; Robert T Burks; Robert Z Tashjian
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 4.176

9.  Psychologic distress reduces preoperative self-assessment scores in femoroacetabular impingement patients.

Authors:  Michael Q Potter; James D Wylie; Grant S Sun; James T Beckmann; Stephen K Aoki
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2014-02-27       Impact factor: 4.176

10.  Psychological distress negatively affects self-assessment of shoulder function in patients with rotator cuff tears.

Authors:  Michael Q Potter; James D Wylie; Patrick E Greis; Robert T Burks; Robert Z Tashjian
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2014-07-31       Impact factor: 4.176

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.