Literature DB >> 22481548

The bothersomeness of patient self-rated "complications" reported 1 year after spine surgery.

A F Mannion1, U M Mutter, F T Fekete, D O'Riordan, D Jeszenszky, F S Kleinstueck, F Lattig, D Grob, F Porchet.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The last few decades have witnessed a paradigm shift in the assessment of outcome in spine surgery, with patient-centred questionnaires superseding traditional surgeon-based assessments. The assessment of complications after surgery and their impact on the patient has not enjoyed this same enlightened approach. This study sought to quantify the incidence and bothersomeness of patient-rated complications 1 year after surgery.
METHODS: Patients with lumbar degenerative disorders, operated with the goal of pain relief between October 2006 and September 2010, completed a questionnaire 1 year postoperatively enquiring about complications arising as a consequence of their operation. They rated the bothersomeness of any such complications on a 5-point scale. Global outcome of surgery and satisfaction at the 12-month follow-up were also rated on 5-point Likert scales. The multidimensional Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) was completed preoperatively and at the 12-month follow-up.
RESULTS: Of 2,282 patients completing the questionnaire (92% completion rate), 687 (30.1%) reported complications, most commonly sensory disturbances (36% of those with complications) or ongoing/new pain (26%), followed by motor problems (8%), pain plus neurological disturbances (11%), and problems with wound healing (6%). The corresponding "bothersomeness" ratings for these were: 1% not at all, 23% slightly, 27% moderately, 31% very, and 18% extremely bothersome. The greater the bothersomeness, the worse the global outcome (Rho = 0.51, p < 0.0001), patient satisfaction (Rho = 0.44, p < 0.0001) and change in COMI score (Rho = 0.52, p < 0.0001).
CONCLUSION: Most complications reported by the patient are perceived to be at least moderately bothersome and hence are not inconsequential. Complications and their severity should be assessed from both the patient's and the surgeon's perspectives--not least to better understand the reasons for poor outcome and dissatisfaction with treatment.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22481548      PMCID: PMC3535242          DOI: 10.1007/s00586-012-2261-8

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


  24 in total

1.  Outcome assessment in low back pain: how low can you go?

Authors:  Anne F Mannion; Achim Elfering; Ralph Staerkle; Astrid Junge; Dieter Grob; Norbert K Semmer; Nicola Jacobshagen; Jiri Dvorak; Norbert Boos
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2005-06-04       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Validation of a minimum outcome core set in the evaluation of patients with back pain.

Authors:  Montserrat Ferrer; Ferran Pellisé; Oscar Escudero; Luis Alvarez; Angels Pont; Jordi Alonso; Richard Deyo
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2006-05-20       Impact factor: 3.468

3.  What is a surgical complication?

Authors:  Daniel K Sokol; James Wilson
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 3.352

4.  Long-term results of lumbar spine surgery complicated by unintended incidental durotomy.

Authors:  A A Jones; J L Stambough; R A Balderston; R H Rothman; R E Booth
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1989-04       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  Development and validation of the Headache Needs Assessment (HANA) survey.

Authors:  J A Cramer; S D Silberstein; P Winner
Journal:  Headache       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 5.887

6.  Development of a symptom based outcome measure for asthma.

Authors:  N Steen; A Hutchinson; E McColl; M P Eccles; J Hewison; K A Meadows; S M Blades; P Fowler
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1994-10-22

7.  Predictors of multidimensional outcome after spinal surgery.

Authors:  A F Mannion; A Elfering; R Staerkle; A Junge; D Grob; J Dvorak; N Jacobshagen; N K Semmer; N Boos
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2006-11-14       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 8.  Measuring the functional status of patients with low back pain.

Authors:  R A Deyo
Journal:  Arch Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  1988-12       Impact factor: 3.966

9.  Great expectations: really the novel predictor of outcome after spinal surgery?

Authors:  Anne F Mannion; Astrid Junge; Achim Elfering; Jiri Dvorak; François Porchet; Dieter Grob
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2009-07-01       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  Towards standardized measurement of adverse events in spine surgery: conceptual model and pilot evaluation.

Authors:  Sohail K Mirza; Richard A Deyo; Patrick J Heagerty; Judith A Turner; Lorri A Lee; Robert Goodkin
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2006-06-20       Impact factor: 2.362

View more
  3 in total

1.  Patient-rated outcome after atlantoaxial (C1-C2) fusion: more than a decade of evaluation of 2-year outcomes in 126 patients.

Authors:  F S Kleinstück; T F Fekete; M Loibl; D Jeszenszky; D Haschtmann; F Porchet; A F Mannion
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2021-09-03       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Patient reporting of complications after surgery: what impact does documenting postoperative problems from the perspective of the patient using telephone interview and postal questionnaires have on the identification of complications after surgery?

Authors:  John Woodfield; Priya Deo; Ann Davidson; Tina Yen-Ting Chen; Andre van Rij
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-07-09       Impact factor: 2.692

3.  An exploration of patients' expectation of and satisfaction with surgical outcome.

Authors:  Alison H McGregor; Caroline J Doré; Tim P Morris
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-08-30       Impact factor: 3.134

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.