Literature DB >> 17990007

What comprises a good outcome in spinal surgery? A preliminary survey among spine surgeons of the SSE and European spine patients.

M Haefeli1, A Elfering, M Aebi, B J C Freeman, P Fritzell, J Guimaraes Consciencia, C Lamartina, M Mayer, T Lund, N Boos.   

Abstract

Standardized and validated self-administered outcome-instruments are broadly used in spinal surgery. Despite a plethora of articles on outcome research, no systematic evaluation is available on what actually comprises a good outcome in spinal surgery from the patients' and surgeons' perspective, respectively. However, this is a prerequisite for improving outcome instruments. In performing a cross-sectional survey among spine patients from different European regions and spine surgeons of the SSE, the study attempted (1) to identify the most important domains determining a good outcome from a patients' as well as a surgeon's perspective, and (2) to explore regional differences in the identified domains. For this purpose, a structured interview was performed among 30 spine surgeons of the SSE and 353 spine surgery patients (representing Northern, Central and Southern Europe) to investigate their criteria for a good outcome. A qualitative and descriptive approach was used to evaluate the data. Results revealed a high agreement on what comprises a good outcome among surgeons and patients, respectively. The main parameters determining good outcome were achieving the patients' expectations/satisfaction, pain relief, improvement of disability and social reintegration. Younger patients more often expected a complete pain relief, an improved work capacity, and better social life participation. Patients in southern Europe more often wanted to improve work capacity compared to those from central and northern European countries. No substantial differences were found when patients' and surgeons' perspective were compared. However, age and differences in national social security and health care system ("black flags") have an impact on what is considered a good outcome in spinal surgery.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17990007      PMCID: PMC2365536          DOI: 10.1007/s00586-007-0541-5

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


  21 in total

1.  Subclassification of low back pain: a cross-country comparison.

Authors:  Evdokia V Billis; Christopher J McCarthy; Jacqueline A Oldham
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2007-03-17       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 2.  Outcome measures for low back pain research. A proposal for standardized use.

Authors:  R A Deyo; M Battie; A J Beurskens; C Bombardier; P Croft; B Koes; A Malmivaara; M Roland; M Von Korff; G Waddell
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1998-09-15       Impact factor: 3.468

3.  Better standardisation will improve the quality of analgesic studies.

Authors:  E Kalso
Journal:  Acta Anaesthesiol Scand       Date:  1996-04       Impact factor: 2.105

4.  Fear-avoidance beliefs and catastrophizing: occurrence and risk factor in back pain and ADL in the general population.

Authors:  Nina Buer; Steven J Linton
Journal:  Pain       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 6.961

5.  Medical versus surgical treatment for low back pain: evidence and clinical practice.

Authors:  N J Birkmeyer; J N Weinstein
Journal:  Eff Clin Pract       Date:  1999 Sep-Oct

6.  "Are you better?" A qualitative study of the meaning of recovery.

Authors:  D E Beaton; V Tarasuk; J N Katz; J G Wright; C Bombardier
Journal:  Arthritis Rheum       Date:  2001-06

7.  2001 Volvo Award Winner in Clinical Studies: Lumbar fusion versus nonsurgical treatment for chronic low back pain: a multicenter randomized controlled trial from the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group.

Authors:  P Fritzell; O Hägg; P Wessberg; A Nordwall
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2001-12-01       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  The incidence of spinal surgery in Canada.

Authors:  G McIntosh; H Hall; T Melles
Journal:  Can J Surg       Date:  1998-02       Impact factor: 2.089

9.  Simplifying outcome measurement: evaluation of instruments for measuring outcome after fusion surgery for chronic low back pain.

Authors:  Olle Hägg; Peter Fritzell; Anders Odén; Anders Nordwall
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2002-06-01       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  Low back pain in eight areas of Britain.

Authors:  K Walsh; M Cruddas; D Coggon
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1992-06       Impact factor: 3.710

View more
  13 in total

1.  Outcome assessment and documentation: a friend or foe?

Authors:  Norbert Boos
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2005-11-29       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  The use of electronic PROMs provides same outcomes as paper version in a spine surgery registry. Results from a prospective cohort study.

Authors:  Francesco Langella; Paolo Barletta; Alice Baroncini; Matteo Agarossi; Laura Scaramuzzo; Andrea Luca; Roberto Bassani; Giuseppe M Peretti; Claudio Lamartina; Jorge H Villafañe; Pedro Berjano
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2021-05-10       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Update on urologic pelvic pain syndromes: highlights from the 2010 international chronic pelvic pain symposium and workshop, august 29, 2010, kingston, ontario, Canada.

Authors:  J Curtis Nickel; Dean Tripp; Allan Gordon; Michel Pontari; Daniel Shoskes; Kenneth M Peters; Ragi Doggweiler; Andrew Paul Baranowski
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2011

Review 4.  Do we have the right PROMs for measuring outcomes in lumbar spinal surgery?

Authors:  O M Stokes; A A Cole; L M Breakwell; A J Lloyd; C M Leonard; M Grevitt
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-01-09       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Life dissatisfaction is associated with a poorer surgery outcome and depression among lumbar spinal stenosis patients: a 2-year prospective study.

Authors:  Sanna Sinikallio; Timo Aalto; Heli Koivumaa-Honkanen; Olavi Airaksinen; Arto Herno; Heikki Kröger; Heimo Viinamäki
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-04-03       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  Determination of minimally clinically important differences for JOABPEQ measure after discectomy in patients with lumbar disc herniation.

Authors:  Parisa Azimi; Taravat Yazdanian; Edward C Benzel
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2018-03

7.  Accuracy and reproducibility of a retrospective outcome assessment for lumbar spinal stenosis surgery.

Authors:  Pekka Kuittinen; Timo Juhani Aalto; Tapani Heikkilä; Ville Leinonen; Sakari Savolainen; Petri Sipola; Heikki Kröger; Veli Turunen; Olavi Airaksinen
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2012-05-29       Impact factor: 2.362

8.  Clinical decision making in spinal fusion for chronic low back pain. Results of a nationwide survey among spine surgeons.

Authors:  Paul Willems; Rob de Bie; Cumhur Oner; René Castelein; Marinus de Kleuver
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2011-12-21       Impact factor: 2.692

9.  Visually assessed severity of lumbar spinal canal stenosis is paradoxically associated with leg pain and objective walking ability.

Authors:  Pekka Kuittinen; Petri Sipola; Tapani Saari; Timo Juhani Aalto; Sanna Sinikallio; Sakari Savolainen; Heikki Kröger; Veli Turunen; Ville Leinonen; Olavi Airaksinen
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2014-10-16       Impact factor: 2.362

10.  Correlation of lateral stenosis in MRI with symptoms, walking capacity and EMG findings in patients with surgically confirmed lateral lumbar spinal canal stenosis.

Authors:  Pekka Kuittinen; Petri Sipola; Timo Juhani Aalto; Sara Määttä; Anita Parviainen; Tapani Saari; Sanna Sinikallio; Sakari Savolainen; Veli Turunen; Heikki Kröger; Olavi Airaksinen; Ville Leinonen
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2014-07-23       Impact factor: 2.362

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.