Literature DB >> 27942937

Factors affecting the outcome in appearance of AIS surgery in terms of the minimal clinically important difference.

James T Bennett1, Amer F Samdani2, Tracey P Bastrom3, Robert J Ames1, Firoz Miyanji4, Joshua M Pahys1, Michelle C Marks5, Baron S Lonner6, Peter O Newton3, Harry L Shufflebarger7, Burt Yaszay3, John M Flynn8, Randal R Betz9, Patrick J Cahill8.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of the Appearance domain of the SRS-22 questionnaire is an increase ≥1.0 in surgically treated patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). However, no study has sought to identify the factors associated with an SRS-22 Appearance score increase greater than the MCID at 2 years.
METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed on a prospectively collected multicenter database of 1020 surgically treated AIS patients with a minimum 2-year follow-up. Patients were divided into two cohorts: "I" = Improved after surgery (Δ Appearance ≥1.0) and "NI" = Not improved after surgery (Δ Appearance <1.0). Univariate regression was used to find a significant difference between the cohorts for individual measures. Multivariate logistic regression was used to find continuous predictors.
RESULTS: 663 (65%) patients were improved greater than the MCID, and 357 were not improved (35%). The improved cohort trended toward a greater percentage of underweight patients (p = 0.074) with lower preoperative SRS Appearance scores (p < 0.001) and larger preoperative trunk shifts (p = 0.033). Postoperatively, those patients with greater percent correction of thoracic (p = 0.021) and lumbar (p = 0.003) Cobb angles, smaller apical lumbar translation (p = 0.006), and a greater correction in trunk shift (p = 0.003) were most likely to attain the MCID.
CONCLUSION: Several factors influence which patients are most likely to attain the MCID following surgery for AIS. Factors such as preoperative appearance scores and body weight are patient specific; other factors such as percent correction of the thoracic and lumbar Cobb angles, trunk shift, and lumbar apical translation may be influenced by the surgeon. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

Entities:  

Keywords:  MCID; Minimal clinically important difference; Outcome; SRS questionnaire; Scoliosis

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27942937     DOI: 10.1007/s00586-016-4857-x

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


  28 in total

Review 1.  Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods.

Authors:  Anne G Copay; Brian R Subach; Steven D Glassman; David W Polly; Thomas C Schuler
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2007-04-02       Impact factor: 4.166

2.  Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific Quality of Life Questionnaire.

Authors:  E F Juniper; G H Guyatt; A Willan; L E Griffith
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1994-01       Impact factor: 6.437

3.  Adolescents undergoing surgery for idiopathic scoliosis: how physical and psychological characteristics relate to patient satisfaction with the cosmetic result.

Authors:  K D Koch; R Buchanan; J G Birch; A A Morton; R J Gatchel; R H Browne
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2001-10-01       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 4.  Comparison of untreated adolescent idiopathic scoliosis with normal controls: a review and statistical analysis of the literature.

Authors:  Paul R P Rushton; Michael P Grevitt
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2013-04-20       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  Parents' and patients' preferences and concerns in idiopathic adolescent scoliosis: a cross-sectional preoperative analysis.

Authors:  K H Bridwell; H L Shufflebarger; L G Lenke; T G Lowe; R R Betz; G S Bassett
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2000-09-15       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  Is the SRS-22 instrument responsive to change in adult scoliosis patients having primary spinal deformity surgery?

Authors:  Keith H Bridwell; Sigurd Berven; Steven Glassman; Christopher Hamill; William C Horton; Lawrence G Lenke; Frank Schwab; Christine Baldus; Michael Shainline
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2007-09-15       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  Studies in the modified Scoliosis Research Society Outcomes Instrument in adults: validation, reliability, and discriminatory capacity.

Authors:  Sigurd Berven; Vedat Deviren; Sibel Demir-Deviren; Serena S Hu; David S Bradford
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2003-09-15       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  Minimal important differences of the SRS-22 Patient Questionnaire following surgical treatment of idiopathic scoliosis.

Authors:  Juan Bagó; Francisco J S Pérez-Grueso; Esther Les; Pablo Hernández; Ferran Pellisé
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-06-16       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  Estimating SRS-22 quality of life measures with SF-36: application in idiopathic scoliosis.

Authors:  Sue-Min Lai; Marc Asher; Douglas Burton
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2006-02-15       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  The reliability and concurrent validity of the Scoliosis Research Society-22r patient questionnaire compared with the Child Health Questionnaire-CF87 patient questionnaire for adolescent spinal deformity.

Authors:  R Christopher Glattes; Douglas C Burton; Sue Min Lai; Elizabeth Frasier; Marc A Asher
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2007-07-15       Impact factor: 3.468

View more
  4 in total

1.  Accurate prediction of spontaneous lumbar curve correction following posterior selective thoracic fusion in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis using logistic regression models and clinical rationale.

Authors:  H Koller; W Hitzl; M C Marks; P O Newton
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2019-06-24       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Predictors of spontaneous lumbar curve correction in thoracic-only fusions: 3D analysis in AIS.

Authors:  Dylan Kluck; T Barrett Sullivan; Tracey P Bastrom; Carrie E Bartley; Burt Yaszay; Peter O Newton
Journal:  Spine Deform       Date:  2020-11-17

3.  Responsiveness of the EuroQoL 5-dimension (EQ-5D) in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis.

Authors:  Prudence Wing Hang Cheung; Carlos King Ho Wong; Sin Ting Lau; Jason Pui Yin Cheung
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-10-09       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Subjective perception of spinal deformity after selective versus non-selective fusion of Lenke 1C curves.

Authors:  Davide Bizzoca; Andrea Piazzolla; Giuseppe Solarino; Lorenzo Moretti; Biagio Moretti
Journal:  Spine Deform       Date:  2022-02-08
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.