Literature DB >> 16470397

Evaluation of a Dallas Pain Questionnaire classification in relation to outcome in lumbar spinal fusion.

Thomas Andersen1, Finn B Christensen, Cody Bünger.   

Abstract

Several studies have suggested that psychosocial distress is an important predictor of negative outcome in lumbar spine surgery. Ozguler et al. [Spine 27:1783-1789, 2002, 18] described a classification tool for low back pain patients using the Dallas Pain Questionnaire (DPQ) which included a measure of distress. We wanted to evaluate the ability of this classification tool to predict the outcome in spinal fusion patients. Five hundred and sixty-six patients (239 men, 327 women; mean age 46, range 18-81) operated between 1992 and 2002, with a complete DPQ preoperatively and after a minimum of 1-year follow-up, were included. They were classified preoperatively and at follow-up into four groups: group 1 (slight disability), group 2 (intermediate disability), group 3 (major disability) and group 4 (major disability and emotional distress). Using logistic regression, seven predictor variables were investigated: age (-39 years/40-59 years/60+ years), Gender (male/female), Indication (spondylolisthesis/primary degeneration/secondary degeneration), Work status (working/without work or on sick leave/retired or pensioned), Duration of pain (less than 1 year/1-2 years/more than 2 years), Presence of radiating pain (yes/no) and disability/distress [intermediate disability (group 1-2)/major disability (group 3)/major disability and distress (group 4)]. The outcome variable was disability at follow-up (low = group1 + 2/high = group 3 + 4). Preoperative classification was group 1, 1%; group 2, 14%; group 3, 37%; group 4, 48%. Variables found to predict high disability at follow-up were secondary degeneration Odds Ratio (OR) 1.61 (P=0.020), being retired/pensioned OR 3.48 (P<0.0005), age between 40-59 years OR 1.68 (P=0.011), belonging to group 3 OR 2.69 (P=0.003) or belonging to group 4 OR 5.53 (P<0.0005). The classification based on the DPQ were able to identify lumbar spinal fusion patients with a considerable amount of psychological distress in their symptomatology. Furthermore, the presence of distress, as determined by this classification, was a highly significant risk factor for inferior outcome.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16470397     DOI: 10.1007/s00586-005-0046-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Spine J        ISSN: 0940-6719            Impact factor:   3.134


  23 in total

1.  Posterolateral spinal fusion at unintended levels due to bone-graft migration: no effect on clinical outcome in 19/130 patients.

Authors:  F B Christensen; M Laursen; J Gelineck; E S Hansen; C E Bünger
Journal:  Acta Orthop Scand       Date:  2001-08

2.  Phospholipase A2 activity in herniated lumbar discs. Clinical correlations and inhibition by piroxicam.

Authors:  M Piperno; M P Hellio le Graverand; P Reboul; P Mathieu; A M Tron; G Perrin; M J Peschard; M Richard; E Vignon
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1997-09-15       Impact factor: 3.468

3.  Retrograde ejaculation after retroperitoneal lower lumbar interbody fusion.

Authors:  F B Christensen; C E Bünger
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 3.075

4.  The distress and risk assessment method (DRAM).

Authors:  J L Hobby; L N Lutchman; J M Powell; D J Sharp
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2001-01

5.  Posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Association between disability and psychological disturbance in noncompensation patients.

Authors:  V Tandon; F Campbell; E R Ross
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1999-09-01       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  Radiological and functional outcome after anterior lumbar interbody spinal fusion.

Authors:  F B Christensen; B Karlsmose; E S Hansen; C E Bünger
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  Is a condition-specific instrument for patients with low back pain/leg symptoms really necessary? The responsiveness of the Oswestry Disability Index, MODEMS, and the SF-36.

Authors:  Thomas L Walsh; Brett Hanscom; Jon D Lurie; James N Weinstein
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2003-03-15       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  The Distress and Risk Assessment Method. A simple patient classification to identify distress and evaluate the risk of poor outcome.

Authors:  C J Main; P L Wood; S Hollis; C C Spanswick; G Waddell
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1992-01       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  Functional outcome after posterolateral spinal fusion using pedicle screws: comparison between primary and salvage procedure.

Authors:  F B Christensen; K Thomsen; S P Eiskjaer; J Gelinick; C E Bünger
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  1998       Impact factor: 3.134

10.  The development of the Dallas Pain Questionnaire. An assessment of the impact of spinal pain on behavior.

Authors:  G F Lawlis; R Cuencas; D Selby; C E McCoy
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1989-05       Impact factor: 3.468

View more
  4 in total

Review 1.  Prognostic factors for outcome following lumbar spine fusion surgery: a systematic review and narrative synthesis.

Authors:  Retze J Achttien; Andrew Powell; Konstantinos Zoulas; J Bart Staal; Alison Rushton
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2021-10-27       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Assessment of biopsychosocial risk factors for medical treatment: a collaborative approach.

Authors:  Daniel Bruns; John Mark Disorbio
Journal:  J Clin Psychol Med Settings       Date:  2009-02-10

3.  Determinants of cost-effectiveness in lumbar spinal fusion using the net benefit framework: a 2-year follow-up study among 695 patients.

Authors:  Rikke Soegaard; Cody E Bünger; Terkel Christiansen; Finn B Christensen
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2007-05-23       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Preoperative Mental Health May Not Be Predictive of Improvements in Patient-Reported Outcomes Following a Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

Authors:  Benjamin C Mayo; Ankur S Narain; Fady Y Hijji; Dustin H Massel; Daniel D Bohl; Kern Singh
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2020-02-29
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.