Literature DB >> 26951175

Determinants of patient satisfaction after surgery for central spinal stenosis without concomitant spondylolisthesis: a register study of 5100 patients.

Freyr Gauti Sigmundsson1, Bo Jönsson2, Björn Strömqvist2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Satisfaction with the outcome of treatment is a widely used outcome measure but information about the determinants of patient satisfaction after surgery for central spinal stenosis (CSS) are lacking. The aim of the study was to analyze determinants of patient satisfaction 1 year after surgery for CSS without degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS).
METHODS: This prospective register study included 5100 patients operated for CSS without DS. 88 % received decompression only (D) and 12 % had decompression and fusion (DF). The patient reported outcome measures were the EuroQol-5D, the Short-Form 36, the visual analogue scale for leg and back pain, the Oswestry disability index and the self-estimated walking distance. Logistic regression reporting odds ratios (OR) for being satisfied was utilized.
RESULTS: There were significant baseline differences between satisfied and dissatisfied patients in all patient reported outcome measures except leg pain. Factors decreasing the likelihood for satisfaction included previous spine surgery OR: 0.4 (95 % CI: 0.3-0.5), smoking OR: 0.6 (95 % CI: 0.4-0.8), unemployment OR: 0.6 (95 % CI: 0.4-0.9), back pain exceeding 1 year OR: 0.6 (95 % CI: 0.4-0.9), back pain predominance OR: 0.7 (95 % CI: 0.5-0.8). Fusion surgery did not predict satisfaction OR: 1.3 (95 % CI: 0.9-1.9). Preoperative self-estimated walking distance >1000 m predicted satisfaction, OR: 2.4 (95 %: 1.6-3.6).
CONCLUSIONS: Numerous factors have predictive value for satisfaction of outcome after surgery for CSS without DS. The results from this study can constitute background data in the shared decision making process when discussing surgery with patients suffering from CSS.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Decompression; Fusion; Lumbar spinal stenosis; Outcome; Register studies; Satisfaction

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26951175     DOI: 10.1007/s00586-016-4495-3

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


  29 in total

1.  The patient experience and health outcomes.

Authors:  Matthew P Manary; William Boulding; Richard Staelin; Seth W Glickman
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2012-12-26       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  Patient satisfaction as an outcome measure after surgical treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis: testing the validity and discriminative ability in terms of symptoms and functional status.

Authors:  Kazuo Yamashita; Kenji Ohzono; Kazuo Hiroshima
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2006-10-15       Impact factor: 3.468

3.  The relationship of patient satisfaction with care and clinical outcomes.

Authors:  R L Kane; M Maciejewski; M Finch
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1997-07       Impact factor: 2.983

4.  Relationship between preoperative expectations, satisfaction, and functional outcomes in patients undergoing lumbar and cervical spine surgery: a multicenter study.

Authors:  Alexandra Soroceanu; Alexander Ching; William Abdu; Kevin McGuire
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2012-01-15       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  The cost of satisfaction: a national study of patient satisfaction, health care utilization, expenditures, and mortality.

Authors:  Joshua J Fenton; Anthony F Jerant; Klea D Bertakis; Peter Franks
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2012-02-13

6.  Correlation of patient satisfaction with symptom severity and walking ability after surgical treatment for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Kazuo Yamashita; Junzo Hayashi; Kenji Ohzono; Kazuo Hiroshima
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2003-11-01       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  Spinal canal morphology and clinical outcomes of microsurgical bilateral decompression via a unilateral approach for lumbar spinal canal stenosis.

Authors:  Won-Seok Choi; Chang Hyun Oh; Gyu Yeul Ji; Sung Chan Shin; Jang-Bo Lee; Dong-Hyuk Park; Tai-Hyoung Cho
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-12-01       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Decompression with and without arthrodesis.

Authors:  D Grob; T Humke; J Dvorak
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1995-07       Impact factor: 5.284

9.  Obesity is associated with inferior results after surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis: a study of 2633 patients from the Swedish spine register.

Authors:  Björn Knutsson; Karl Michaëlsson; Bengt Sandén
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2013-03-01       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  Clinical correlates of patient satisfaction after laminectomy for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  J N Katz; S J Lipson; G W Brick; L J Grobler; J N Weinstein; A H Fossel; R A Lew; M H Liang
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1995-05-15       Impact factor: 3.468

View more
  9 in total

1.  ISASS Recommendations/Coverage Criteria for Decompression with Interlaminar Stabilization - Coverage Indications, Limitations, and/or Medical Necessity.

Authors:  Richard Guyer; Michael Musacchio; Frank P Cammisa; Morgan P Lorio
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2016-12-05

2.  Validation of a surgical invasiveness index in patients with lumbar spinal disorders registered in the Spine Tango registry.

Authors:  Erik M Holzer; Emin Aghayev; Dave O'Riordan; Tamas F Fekete; Dezső J Jeszenszky; Daniel Haschtmann; Francois Porchet; Frank S Kleinstueck; Tim Pigott; Everard Munting; Andrea Luca; Anne F Mannion
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2020-11-24       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 3.  The Michel Benoist and Robert Mulholland yearly European Spine Journal Review : A survey of the "medical" articles in the European Spine Journal, 2017.

Authors:  Michel Benoist
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-12-21       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Only walking matters-assessment following lumbar stenosis decompression.

Authors:  S Budithi; Rohit Dhawan; Andrew Cattell; Birender Balain; David Jaffray
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-11-30       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Factors Influencing Patient Satisfaction After Decompression Surgery Without Fusion for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.

Authors:  Yoji Ogura; Yoshiomi Kobayashi; Yoshio Shinozaki; Takahiro Kitagawa; Yoshiro Yonezawa; Yoshiyuki Takahashi; Kodai Yoshida; Akimasa Yasuda; Jun Ogawa
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2019-08-06

6.  Psychological Predictors of Satisfaction after Lumbar Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.

Authors:  Yoshio Yamamoto; Mamoru Kawakami; Masakazu Minetama; Masafumi Nakagawa; Masatoshi Teraguchi; Ryohei Kagotani; Yoshimasa Mera; Tadashi Sumiya; Sachika Matsuo; Tomoko Kitano; Yukihiro Nakagawa
Journal:  Asian Spine J       Date:  2021-05-21

7.  Meeting Patient Expectations or Achieving a Minimum Clinically Important Difference: Predictors of Satisfaction among Lumbar Fusion Patients.

Authors:  Elliot D K Cha; Conor P Lynch; Caroline N Jadczak; Shruthi Mohan; Cara E Geoghegan; Kern Singh
Journal:  Asian Spine J       Date:  2021-09-02

8.  Usefulness of preoperative Short Form-36 Mental Component Score as a prognostic factor in patients who underwent decompression surgery for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Sangbong Ko; Wonkee Choi
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2022-09-30       Impact factor: 1.817

9.  Usefulness of the Inferior Articular Process's Cross-Sectional Area as a Morphological Parameter for Predicting Central Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.

Authors:  Sooho Lee; Taeha Lim; Young-Seob Lim; Young Uk Kim
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2020-01-13       Impact factor: 4.241

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.