Literature DB >> 23846502

Who should undergo surgery for degenerative spondylolisthesis? Treatment effect predictors in SPORT.

Adam M Pearson1, Jon D Lurie, Tor D Tosteson, Wenyan Zhao, William A Abdu, James N Weinstein.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: Combined prospective randomized controlled trial and observational cohort study of degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) with an as-treated analysis.
OBJECTIVE: To determine modifiers of the treatment effect (TE) of surgery (the difference between surgical and nonoperative outcomes) for DS using subgroup analysis. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial demonstrated a positive surgical TE for DS at the group level. However, individual characteristics may affect TE.
METHODS: Patients with DS were treated with either surgery (n = 395) or nonoperative care (n = 210) and were analyzed according to treatment received. Fifty-five baseline variables were used to define subgroups for calculating the time-weighted average TE for the Oswestry Disability Index during 4 years (TE = [INCREMENT] Oswestry Disability Index(surgery)- [INCREMENT] Oswestry Disability Index(nonoperative)). Variables with significant subgroup-by-treatment interactions (P< 0.05) were simultaneously entered into a multivariate model to select independent TE predictors.
RESULTS: All analyzed subgroups that included at least 50 patients improved significantly more with surgery than with nonoperative treatment (P< 0.05). Multivariate analyses demonstrated that age 67 years or less (TE -15.7 vs.-11.8 for age >67, P= 0.014); female sex (TE -15.6 vs.-11.2 for males, P= 0.01); the absence of stomach problems (TE -15.2 vs.-11.3 for those with stomach problems, P= 0.035); neurogenic claudication (TE -15.3 vs.-9.0 for those without claudication, P= 0.004); reflex asymmetry (TE -17.3 vs.-13.0 for those without asymmetry, P= 0.016); opioid use (TE -18.4 vs.-11.7 for those not using opioids, P< 0.001); not taking antidepressants (TE -14.5 vs.-5.4 for those on antidepressants, P= 0.014); dissatisfaction with symptoms (TE -14.5 vs.-8.3 for those satisfied or neutral, P= 0.039); and anticipating a high likelihood of improvement with surgery (TE -14.8 vs.-5.1 for anticipating a low likelihood of improvement with surgery, P= 0.019) were independently associated with greater TE.
CONCLUSION: 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. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23846502      PMCID: PMC3808504          DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182a314d0

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


  38 in total

1.  Factors influencing the outcome of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  M Mariconda; G Zanforlino; G A Celestino; S Brancaleone; R Fava; C Milano
Journal:  J Spinal Disord       Date:  2000-04

2.  Nomenclature and classification of lumbar disc pathology. Recommendations of the Combined task Forces of the North American Spine Society, American Society of Spine Radiology, and American Society of Neuroradiology.

Authors:  D F Fardon; P C Milette
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2001-03-01       Impact factor: 3.468

3.  Surgical and nonsurgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis: four-year outcomes from the maine lumbar spine study.

Authors:  S J Atlas; R B Keller; D Robson; R A Deyo; D E Singer
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2000-03-01       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  Does the duration of symptoms in patients with spinal stenosis and degenerative spondylolisthesis affect outcomes?: analysis of the Spine Outcomes Research Trial.

Authors:  Kristen E Radcliff; Jeff Rihn; Alan Hilibrand; Timothy DiIorio; Tor Tosteson; Jon D Lurie; Wenyan Zhao; Alexander R Vaccaro; Todd J Albert; James N Weinstein
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2011-12-01       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  Minimum 10-year outcome of decompressive laminectomy for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  T Iguchi; A Kurihara; J Nakayama; K Sato; M Kurosaka; K Yamasaki
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2000-07-15       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  A predictive model for outcome after conservative decompression surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  K F Spratt; T S Keller; M Szpalski; K Vandeputte; R Gunzburg
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2003-12-05       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  Spine patient outcomes research trial: radiographic predictors of clinical outcomes after operative or nonoperative treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis.

Authors:  Adam M Pearson; Jon D Lurie; Emily A Blood; John W Frymoyer; Heike Braeutigam; Howard An; Federico P Girardi; James N Weinstein
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2008-12-01       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  The influence of preoperative back pain on the outcome of lumbar decompression surgery.

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

9.  Reliability of readings of magnetic resonance imaging features of lumbar spinal stenosis.

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

10.  Design of the Spine Patient outcomes Research Trial (SPORT).

Authors:  Nancy J O Birkmeyer; James N Weinstein; Anna N A Tosteson; Tor D Tosteson; Jonathan S Skinner; Jon D Lurie; Richard Deyo; John E Wennberg
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2002-06-15       Impact factor: 3.468

View more
  20 in total

Review 1.  Surgery for adult spondylolisthesis: a systematic review of the evidence.

Authors:  Tobias L Schulte; Florian Ringel; Markus Quante; Sven O Eicker; Cathleen Muche-Borowski; Ralph Kothe
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-09-12       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Is There Variation in Procedural Utilization for Lumbar Spine Disorders Between a Fee-for-Service and Salaried Healthcare System?

Authors:  Andrew J Schoenfeld; Heeren Makanji; Wei Jiang; Tracey Koehlmoos; Christopher M Bono; Adil H Haider
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  Fusion in degenerative spondylolisthesis: how to reconcile conflicting evidence.

Authors:  Adam M Pearson
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2016-06

Review 4.  Management of lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Jon Lurie; Christy Tomkins-Lane
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2016-01-04

Review 5.  Surgery or physical activity in the management of sciatica: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

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

6.  Variations in Medicare payments for episodes of spine surgery.

Authors:  Andrew J Schoenfeld; Mitchel B Harris; Haiyin Liu; John D Birkmeyer
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2014-07-11       Impact factor: 4.166

7.  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

8.  Percutaneous Transforaminal Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Clinical and Radiological Results of Mean 46-Month Follow-Up.

Authors:  Sang-Ho Lee; H Yener Erken; Junseok Bae
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2017-02-27       Impact factor: 3.411

9.  Variation in surgical treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis in Canada: surgeon assessment of stability and impact on treatment.

Authors:  Charles G Fisher; Y Raja Rampersaud; R Andrew Glennie; Christopher S Bailey; Edward Abraham; Neil Manson; Steve Casha; Kenneth Thomas; Jerome Paquet; Greg McIntosh; Hamiton Hall
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2021-07-29       Impact factor: 3.134

10.  Comparison of patient-controlled epidural analgesia and patient-controlled intravenous analgesia after spinal fusion surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Peng Tian; Xin Fu; Zhi-jun Li; Xin-long Ma
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2015-12-15       Impact factor: 2.362

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.