Literature DB >> 18762642

Defining substantial clinical benefit following lumbar spine arthrodesis.

Steven D Glassman1, Anne G Copay, Sigurd H Berven, David W Polly, Brian R Subach, Leah Y Carreon.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Validated health-related quality-of-life measures have become important standards in the evaluation of the outcomes of lumbar spine surgery. However, there are few well-defined criteria for clinical success based on these measures. The minimum clinically important difference is an important demarcation, but it could be considered a floor value rather than a goal in defining clinical success. Therefore, we sought to define thresholds of substantial clinical benefit for commonly used health-related quality-of-life measures following lumbar spine arthrodesis.
METHODS: Prospectively collected preoperative and one-year postoperative health-related quality-of-life measures from 357 patients who were managed with lumbar spine arthrodesis for the treatment of degenerative conditions were identified. Candidate substantial clinical benefit thresholds for the Short Form-36 physical component score, Oswestry Disability Index, and back and leg pain numeric rating scales were identified with use of receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. Receiver operating characteristic curves were used to discriminate between patients who reported being "much better" or "about the same" with use of the validated Short Form-36 health transition item and between those who reported being "mostly satisfied" or "unsure" with use of a nonvalidated but more surgery-specific satisfaction-with-results survey. For each health-related quality-of-life measure, three response parameters were used: net change, percent change, and raw score at the time of the one-year follow-up.
RESULTS: Substantial clinical benefit thresholds for the Short Form-36 physical component score were a 6.2-point net improvement, a 19.4% improvement, or a final raw score of > or = 35.1 points. Substantial clinical benefit thresholds for the Oswestry Disability Index were an 18.8-point net improvement, a 36.8% improvement, or a final raw score of < 31.3 points. Substantial clinical benefit thresholds for the back pain and leg pain numeric rating scales were a 2.5-point net improvement or a final raw score of < 3.5 points. Substantial clinical benefit thresholds for percent change were 41.4% for the back pain numeric rating scale and 38.8% for the leg pain numeric rating scale.
CONCLUSIONS: We believe that thresholds of substantial clinical benefit for commonly used health-related quality-of-life measures following lumbar spine arthrodesis are important as they describe a magnitude of change that the patient recognizes as a major improvement.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18762642     DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.G.01095

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am        ISSN: 0021-9355            Impact factor:   5.284


  79 in total

1.  Is low back pain associated with worse health-related quality of life 6 months later?

Authors:  Paul S Nolet; Vicki L Kristman; Pierre Côté; Linda J Carroll; J David Cassidy
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-11-13       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.  A systematic review of minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion utilizing a lateral transarticular technique.

Authors:  Jake Heiney; Robyn Capobianco; Daniel Cher
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2015-07-22

4.  Should age be a contraindication for degenerative lumbar surgery?

Authors:  Daniel Pérez-Prieto; Carlos Lozano-Álvarez; Guillem Saló; Antoni Molina; Andreu Lladó; Lluís Puig-Verdié; Manuel Ramírez-Valencia
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-01-24       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Value-based Health Care: Moving Beyond "Minimum Clinically Important Difference" to a Tiered System of Evaluating Successful Clinical Outcomes.

Authors:  David N Bernstein; Benedict U Nwachukwu; Kevin J Bozic
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2019-05       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  Editorial: The Minimum Clinically Important Difference-The Least We Can Do.

Authors:  Seth S Leopold; Raphaël Porcher
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2017-01-25       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  Criteria for failure and worsening after surgery for lumbar disc herniation: a multicenter observational study based on data from the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery.

Authors:  David A T Werner; Margreth Grotle; Sasha Gulati; Ivar M Austevoll; Greger Lønne; Øystein P Nygaard; Tore K Solberg
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-06-14       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  Comparison of clinical outcomes following minimally invasive lateral interbody fusion stratified by preoperative diagnosis.

Authors:  Kaveh Khajavi; Alessandria Shen; Madeline Lagina; Anthony Hutchison
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-03-27       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  Substantial clinical benefit for Neck Disability Index revisited: establishing the goal for treatment?

Authors:  Roland D Donk; Andre L M Verbeek; Wim I M Verhagen; Hans Groenewoud; Allard T F Hosman; Ronald H M A Bartels
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-08-12       Impact factor: 3.134

10.  Optimizing success with lumbar disc arthroplasty.

Authors:  Matthew F Gornet; Francine Schranck; Nicholas D Wharton; Douglas P Beall; Elizabeth Jones; Mark E Myers; John A Hipp
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-04-26       Impact factor: 3.134

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.