Literature DB >> 22426453

Predictors of treatment choice in lumbar spinal stenosis: a spine patient outcomes research trial study.

Mark F Kurd1, Jon D Lurie, Wenyan Zhao, Tor Tosteson, Alan S Hilibrand, Jeffrey Rihn, Todd J Albert, James N Weinstein.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study.
OBJECTIVE: In this article, we examined the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial lumbar stenosis observational cohort to determine baseline patient characteristics that are predictive of the treatment patients chose. We also evaluated cutoff points on validated patient questionnaires that differentiate patients who chose surgery from those who chose nonsurgical management. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Although the evidence from current studies suggests that surgical intervention is effective for lumbar spinal stenosis, the same studies show that nonoperative patients also improve. Thus, the reasons for patients choosing surgery versus nonoperative care are of continuing interest.
METHODS: Baseline patient and clinical characteristics between those who received operative intervention and those who received nonoperative care were compared to determine baseline predictors of lumbar spinal stenosis management. Also, an evaluation of responses to the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey Bodily Pain (BP), 36-Item Short Form Health Survey Physical Function (PF), and the modified Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) questionnaires was performed to determine the percentage of patients choosing surgical versus nonoperative care relative to their initial questionnaire values.
RESULTS: This analysis looked at the 356 patients in the observational spinal stenosis cohort of Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial who completed at least 1 follow-up visit. Patients choosing surgery were younger (P = 0.022), had worse BP (P < 0.001), worse PF (P < 0.001), worse ODI (P < 0.001), worse Stenosis Bothersomeness Index (P < 0.001), were dissatisfied with their symptoms (P = 0.001), and had a worse self-assessed health trend (P < 0.001). Patients tended to choose surgery if they had lateral recess stenosis (P = 0.022). Kaplan-Meier curves demonstrate that patients with a BP score of 32 or less, PF score of 30 or less, and ODI greater than 29 chose surgery 75% of the time.
CONCLUSION: A greater understanding of baseline characteristics that influence patient choices in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis can aid the patient and the surgeon during the shared decision-making process.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22426453      PMCID: PMC5987770          DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182541955

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


  17 in total

Review 1.  The Oswestry Disability Index.

Authors:  J C Fairbank; P B Pynsent
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2000-11-15       Impact factor: 3.468

2.  Lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Kern Singh; Dino Samartzis; Ashok Biyani; Howard S An
Journal:  J Am Acad Orthop Surg       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 3.020

3.  Lumbar spinal stenosis: conservative or surgical management?: A prospective 10-year study.

Authors:  T Amundsen; H Weber; H J Nordal; B Magnaes; M Abdelnoor; F Lilleâs
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2000-06-01       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection.

Authors:  J E Ware; C D Sherbourne
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1992-06       Impact factor: 2.983

5.  Long-term outcomes of surgical and nonsurgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis: 8 to 10 year results from the maine lumbar spine study.

Authors:  Steven J Atlas; Robert B Keller; Yen A Wu; Richard A Deyo; Daniel E Singer
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2005-04-15       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  Predictors of surgical outcome in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  J N Katz; G Stucki; S J Lipson; A H Fossel; L J Grobler; J N Weinstein
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1999-11-01       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  The Maine Lumbar Spine Study, Part III. 1-year outcomes of surgical and nonsurgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  S J Atlas; R A Deyo; R B Keller; A M Chapin; D L Patrick; J M Long; D E Singer
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1996-08-01       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 8.  Lumbar spinal stenosis: syndrome, diagnostics and treatment.

Authors:  Eberhard Siebert; Harald Prüss; Randolf Klingebiel; Vieri Failli; Karl M Einhäupl; Jan M Schwab
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurol       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 42.937

9.  The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs.

Authors:  C A McHorney; J E Ware; A E Raczek
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1993-03       Impact factor: 2.983

10.  Assessing health-related quality of life in patients with sciatica.

Authors:  D L Patrick; R A Deyo; S J Atlas; D E Singer; A Chapin; R B Keller
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1995-09-01       Impact factor: 3.468

View more
  8 in total

1.  Factors influencing the surgical decision for the treatment of degenerative lumbar stenosis in a preference-based shared decision-making process.

Authors:  Ho-Joong Kim; Jae-Young Park; Kyoung-Tak Kang; Bong-Soon Chang; Choon-Ki Lee; Jin S Yeom
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-07-01       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Early predictors of lumbar spine surgery after occupational back injury: results from a prospective study of workers in Washington State.

Authors:  Benjamin J Keeney; Deborah Fulton-Kehoe; Judith A Turner; Thomas M Wickizer; Kwun Chuen Gary Chan; Gary M Franklin
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2013-05-15       Impact factor: 3.468

3.  Central lumbar spinal stenosis: natural history of non-surgical patients.

Authors:  Per Wessberg; Karin Frennered
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-04-17       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Comparison of treatment methods in lumbar spinal stenosis for geriatric patient: nerve block versus radiofrequency neurotomy versus spinal surgery.

Authors:  Chang Kyu Park; Sung Bum Kim; Min Ki Kim; Bong Jin Park; Seok Geun Choi; Young Jin Lim; Tae Sung Kim
Journal:  Korean J Spine       Date:  2014-09-30

5.  Surgical Outcome Predictor in Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Disease Based on Health Related Quality of Life Using Euro-Quality 5 Dimensions Analysis.

Authors:  Byung Ho Lee; Jae Ho Yang; Hwan Mo Lee; Jun Young Park; Sang Eun Park; Seong Hwan Moon
Journal:  Yonsei Med J       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 2.759

Review 6.  Management of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: an evidence-based review.

Authors:  Augusto Covaro; Gemma Vilà-Canet; Ana García de Frutos; Maite T Ubierna; Francesco Ciccolo; Enric Caceres
Journal:  EFORT Open Rev       Date:  2017-03-13

7.  Comparative effectiveness and prognostic factors for outcome of surgical and non-surgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis in an elderly population: protocol for an observational study.

Authors:  Helle Algren Brøgger; Thomas Maribo; Robin Christensen; Berit Schiøttz-Christensen
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2018-12-19       Impact factor: 2.692

8.  A valid model for predicting responsible nerve roots in lumbar degenerative disease with diagnostic doubt.

Authors:  Xiaochuan Li; Xuedong Bai; Yaohong Wu; Dike Ruan
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2016-03-15       Impact factor: 2.362

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.