STUDY DESIGN: Combined prospective randomized controlled trial and observational cohort study of spinal stenosis (SpS) with an as-treated analysis. OBJECTIVE: To determine modifiers of the treatment effect (TE) of surgery (the difference between surgical and nonoperative outcomes) for SpS using subgroup analysis. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial demonstrated a positive surgical TE for SpS at the group level. However, individual characteristics may affect TE. No previous studies have evaluated TE modifiers in SpS. METHODS:SpS patients were treated with either surgery (n = 419) ornonoperative care (n = 235) and were analyzed according to treatment received. Fifty-three baseline variables were used to define subgroups for calculating the time-weighted average TE for the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) over 4 years (TE = ΔODIsurgery - ΔODInonoperative). Variables with significant subgroup × treatment interactions (P < 0.05) were simultaneously entered into a multivariate model to select independent TE predictors. RESULTS: Other than smokers, all analyzed subgroups including at least 50 patients improved significantly more with surgery than with nonoperative treatment (P < 0.05). Multivariate analysis demonstrated: baseline ODI ≤ 56 (TE -15.0 vs. -4.4, ODI > 56, P < 0.001), not smoking (TE -11.7 vs. -1.6 smokers, P < 0.001), neuroforaminal stenosis (TE -14.2 vs. -8.7 no neuroforaminal stenosis, P = 0.002), predominant leg pain (TE -11.5 vs. -7.3 predominant back pain, P = 0.035), not lifting at work (TE -12.5 vs. -0.5 lifting at work, P = 0.017), and the presence of a neurological deficit (TE -13.3 vs. -7.2 no neurological deficit, P < 0.001) were associated with greater TE. CONCLUSION: With the exception of smokers, patients who met strict inclusion criteria improved more with surgery than with nonoperative treatment, regardless of other specific characteristics. However, TE varied significantly across certain subgroups, and these data can be used to individualize shared decision making discussions about likely outcomes. Smoking cessation should be considered before surgery for SpS.
RCT Entities:
STUDY DESIGN: Combined prospective randomized controlled trial and observational cohort study of spinal stenosis (SpS) with an as-treated analysis. OBJECTIVE: To determine modifiers of the treatment effect (TE) of surgery (the difference between surgical and nonoperative outcomes) for SpS using subgroup analysis. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial demonstrated a positive surgical TE for SpS at the group level. However, individual characteristics may affect TE. No previous studies have evaluated TE modifiers in SpS. METHODS: SpS patients were treated with either surgery (n = 419) or nonoperative care (n = 235) and were analyzed according to treatment received. Fifty-three baseline variables were used to define subgroups for calculating the time-weighted average TE for the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) over 4 years (TE = ΔODIsurgery - ΔODInonoperative). Variables with significant subgroup × treatment interactions (P < 0.05) were simultaneously entered into a multivariate model to select independent TE predictors. RESULTS: Other than smokers, all analyzed subgroups including at least 50 patients improved significantly more with surgery than with nonoperative treatment (P < 0.05). Multivariate analysis demonstrated: baseline ODI ≤ 56 (TE -15.0 vs. -4.4, ODI > 56, P < 0.001), not smoking (TE -11.7 vs. -1.6 smokers, P < 0.001), neuroforaminal stenosis (TE -14.2 vs. -8.7 no neuroforaminal stenosis, P = 0.002), predominant leg pain (TE -11.5 vs. -7.3 predominant back pain, P = 0.035), not lifting at work (TE -12.5 vs. -0.5 lifting at work, P = 0.017), and the presence of a neurological deficit (TE -13.3 vs. -7.2 no neurological deficit, P < 0.001) were associated with greater TE. CONCLUSION: With the exception of smokers, patients who met strict inclusion criteria improved more with surgery than with nonoperative treatment, regardless of other specific characteristics. However, TE varied significantly across certain subgroups, and these data can be used to individualize shared decision making discussions about likely outcomes. Smoking cessation should be considered before surgery for SpS.
Authors: Antti Malmivaara; Pär Slätis; Markku Heliövaara; Päivi Sainio; Heikki Kinnunen; Jyrki Kankare; Nina Dalin-Hirvonen; Seppo Seitsalo; Arto Herno; Pirkko Kortekangas; Timo Niinimäki; Hannu Rönty; Kaj Tallroth; Veli Turunen; Paul Knekt; Tommi Härkänen; Heikki Hurri Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2007-01-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: James N Weinstein; Jon D Lurie; Tor D Tosteson; Brett Hanscom; Anna N A Tosteson; Emily A Blood; Nancy J O Birkmeyer; Alan S Hilibrand; Harry Herkowitz; Frank P Cammisa; Todd J Albert; Sanford E Emery; Lawrence G Lenke; William A Abdu; Michael Longley; Thomas J Errico; Serena S Hu Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-05-31 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: James N Weinstein; Tor D Tosteson; Jon D Lurie; Anna N A Tosteson; Emily Blood; Brett Hanscom; Harry Herkowitz; Frank Cammisa; Todd Albert; Scott D Boden; Alan Hilibrand; Harley Goldberg; Sigurd Berven; Howard An Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-02-21 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Thomas L Walsh; Karen Homa; Brett Hanscom; Jon Lurie; Maria Grau Sepulveda; William Abdu Journal: Spine J Date: 2006 May-Jun Impact factor: 4.166
Authors: Sanna Sinikallio; Timo Aalto; Olavi Airaksinen; Arto Herno; Heikki Kröger; Heimo Viinamäki Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2009-11-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Frank S Kleinstück; Dieter Grob; Friederike Lattig; Viktor Bartanusz; Francois Porchet; Dezsö Jeszenszky; David O'Riordan; Anne F Mannion Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2009-05-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Jon D Lurie; Anna N Tosteson; Tor D Tosteson; Eugene Carragee; John A Carrino; John Carrino; Jay Kaiser; Roberto T Blanco Sequeiros; Amy Rosen Lecomte; Margaret R Grove; Emily A Blood; Loretta H Pearson; James N Weinstein; Richard Herzog Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2008-06-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Sara Khor; Danielle Lavallee; Amy M Cizik; Carlo Bellabarba; Jens R Chapman; Christopher R Howe; Dawei Lu; A Alex Mohit; Rod J Oskouian; Jeffrey R Roh; Neal Shonnard; Armagan Dagal; David R Flum Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2018-07-01 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Jordan F Karp; Jonathan McGovern; Megan M Marron; Peter Gerszten; Debra K Weiner; David Okonkwo; Adam S Kanter Journal: Pain Manag Date: 2016-04-22
Authors: Anthony Delitto; Sara R Piva; Charity G Moore; Julie M Fritz; Stephen R Wisniewski; Deborah A Josbeno; Mark Fye; William C Welch Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2015-04-07 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Daniel Steffens; Mark J Hancock; Leani S M Pereira; Peter M Kent; Jane Latimer; Chris G Maher Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2015-09-02 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Matthew Fernandez; Manuela L Ferreira; Kathryn M Refshauge; Jan Hartvigsen; Isabela R C Silva; Chris G Maher; Bart W Koes; Paulo H Ferreira Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2015-07-26 Impact factor: 3.134