Literature DB >> 17873814

Is the SRS-22 instrument responsive to change in adult scoliosis patients having primary spinal deformity surgery?

Keith H Bridwell1, Sigurd Berven, Steven Glassman, Christopher Hamill, William C Horton, Lawrence G Lenke, Frank Schwab, Christine Baldus, Michael Shainline.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: Multicenter study.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to prospectively analyze responsiveness of the SRS-22 to change at 1 and 2 years following primary surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: A number of efforts have been directed at validation of the SRS-22 instrument in the setting of adolescent and adult spinal deformity. However, few have extensively analyzed the ability of the instrument to detect change (brought on by surgical treatment) in adult scoliosis patients.
METHODS: A multicenter prospective series of consecutive adult scoliosis patients (all primary/no revisions) were administered SRS-22, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI)and Short Form-12 (SF-12) questionnaires preoperation and 1 and 2 years postoperation. Fifty-six patients had preoperative, 1-year postoperative, and 2-year postoperative data.
RESULTS: The greatest changes from preoperation to 2-year postoperation were the SRS self-image domain followed by SRS total, SRS pain, and ODI scores. SRS pain and function scores significantly (P < 0.05) improved from 1-year to 2-year postoperation. There were not substantial differences in the outcome measures according to age or curve type. All outcome measures except SF-12 mental health showed statistically significant (P < 0.05) improvement from baseline to 2-year follow-up.
CONCLUSION: Based on these 3 outcome tools, the greatest responsiveness to change was demonstrated by the SRS self-image domain followed by SRS total, then SRS pain, then ODI. This suggests that the SRS tool is more responsive than ODI, which is more responsive than SF-12 to change brought on by primary surgical treatment of adult scoliosis patients. Surgical treatment in adult scoliosis significantly improved pain, self-image, and function based on the health-related quality of life measures used in this study.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17873814     DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31814cf120

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)        ISSN: 0362-2436            Impact factor:   3.468


  28 in total

1.  How do idiopathic scoliosis patients who improve after surgery differ from those who do not exceed a minimum detectable change?

Authors:  Joan Bago; Francisco Javier Sanchez Perez-Grueso; Ferran Pellise; Esther Les
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-09-20       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Likelihood of reaching minimal clinically important difference in adult spinal deformity: a comparison of operative and nonoperative treatment.

Authors:  Shian Liu; Frank Schwab; Justin S Smith; Eric Klineberg; Christopher P Ames; Gregory Mundis; Richard Hostin; Khaled Kebaish; Vedat Deviren; Munish Gupta; Oheneba Boachie-Adjei; Robert A Hart; Shay Bess; Virginie Lafage
Journal:  Ochsner J       Date:  2014

3.  Long fusions to the sacrum in elderly patients with spinal deformity.

Authors:  Charles H Crawford; Leah Y Carreon; Keith H Bridwell; Steven D Glassman
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-04-27       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  CORR Insights®: When Should We Wean Bracing for Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis?

Authors:  Harish Hosalkar
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2019-09       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  Adult spinal deformity surgical decision-making score : Part 1: development and validation of a scoring system to guide the selection of treatment modalities for patients below 40 years with adult spinal deformity.

Authors:  Takashi Fujishiro; Louis Boissière; Derek Thomas Cawley; Daniel Larrieu; Olivier Gille; Jean-Marc Vital; Ferran Pellisé; Francisco Javier Sanchez Pérez-Grueso; Frank Kleinstück; Emre Acaroglu; Ahmet Alanay; Ibrahim Obeid
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2019-03-07       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  Adult spinal deformity surgical decision-making score. Part 2: development and validation of a scoring system to guide the selection of treatment modalities for patients above 40 years with adult spinal deformity.

Authors:  Takashi Fujishiro; Louis Boissière; Derek Thomas Cawley; Daniel Larrieu; Olivier Gille; Jean-Marc Vital; Ferran Pellisé; Francisco Javier Sanchez Pérez-Grueso; Frank Kleinstück; Emre Acaroglu; Ahmet Alanay; Ibrahim Obeid
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2019-07-17       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  Factors affecting the outcome in appearance of AIS surgery in terms of the minimal clinically important difference.

Authors:  James T Bennett; Amer F Samdani; Tracey P Bastrom; Robert J Ames; Firoz Miyanji; Joshua M Pahys; Michelle C Marks; Baron S Lonner; Peter O Newton; Harry L Shufflebarger; Burt Yaszay; John M Flynn; Randal R Betz; Patrick J Cahill
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-12-09       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  Patient Factors That Influence Decision Making: Randomization Versus Observational Nonoperative Versus Observational Operative Treatment for Adult Symptomatic Lumbar Scoliosis.

Authors:  Brian J Neuman; Christine Baldus; Lukas P Zebala; Michael P Kelly; Christopher Shaffrey; Charles Edwards; Tyler Koski; Frank Schwab; Steven Glassman; Stefan Parent; Stephen Lewis; Lawrence G Lenke; Jacob M Buchowski; Justin S Smith; Charles H Crawford; Han Jo Kim; Virginia Lafage; Jon Lurie; Leah Carreon; Keith H Bridwell
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  Minimal important differences of the SRS-22 Patient Questionnaire following surgical treatment of idiopathic scoliosis.

Authors:  Juan Bagó; Francisco J S Pérez-Grueso; Esther Les; Pablo Hernández; Ferran Pellisé
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-06-16       Impact factor: 3.134

10.  Reliability of the revised Scoliosis Research Society-22 and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) questionnaires in adult spinal deformity when administered by telephone.

Authors:  Steven L Bokshan; Jakub Godzik; Jonathan Dalton; Jennifer Jaffe; Lawrence G Lenke; Michael P Kelly
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2016-03-17       Impact factor: 4.166

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.