Literature DB >> 29516096

Development and Validation of a Prediction Model for Pain and Functional Outcomes After Lumbar Spine Surgery.

Sara Khor1, Danielle Lavallee1, Amy M Cizik2, Carlo Bellabarba2, Jens R Chapman3, Christopher R Howe4, Dawei Lu5, A Alex Mohit6, Rod J Oskouian3, Jeffrey R Roh3, Neal Shonnard7, Armagan Dagal8, David R Flum1,9.   

Abstract

Importance: Functional impairment and pain are common indications for the initiation of lumbar spine surgery, but information about expected improvement in these patient-reported outcome (PRO) domains is not readily available to most patients and clinicians considering this type of surgery. Objective: To assess population-level PRO response after lumbar spine surgery, and develop/validate a prediction tool for PRO improvement. Design, Setting, and Participants: This statewide multicenter cohort was based at 15 Washington state hospitals representing approximately 75% of the state's spine fusion procedures. The Spine Surgical Care and Outcomes Assessment Program and the survey center at the Comparative Effectiveness Translational Network prospectively collected clinical and PRO data from adult candidates for lumbar surgery, preoperatively and postoperatively, between 2012 and 2016. Prediction models were derived for PRO improvement 1 year after lumbar fusion surgeries on a random sample of 85% of the data and were validated in the remaining 15%. Surgical candidates from 2012 through 2015 were included; follow-up surveying continued until December 31, 2016, and data analysis was completed from July 2016 to April 2017. Main Outcomes and Measures: Functional improvement, defined as a reduction in Oswestry Disability Index score of 15 points or more; and back pain and leg pain improvement, defined a reduction in Numeric Rating Scale score of 2 points or more.
Results: A total of 1965 adult lumbar surgical candidates (mean [SD] age, 61.3 [12.5] years; 944 [59.6%] female) completed baseline surveys before surgery and at least 1 postoperative follow-up survey within 3 years. Of these, 1583 (80.6%) underwent elective lumbar fusion procedures; 1223 (77.3%) had stenosis, and 1033 (65.3%) had spondylolisthesis. Twelve-month follow-up participation rates for each outcome were between 66% and 70%. Improvements were reported in function, back pain, and leg pain at 12 months by 306 of 528 surgical patients (58.0%), 616 of 899 patients (68.5%), and 355 of 464 patients (76.5%), respectively, whose baseline scores indicated moderate to severe symptoms. Among nonoperative patients, 35 (43.8%), 47 (53.4%), and 53 (63.9%) reported improvements in function, back pain, and leg pain, respectively. Demographic and clinical characteristics included in the final prediction models were age, sex, race, insurance status, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, smoking status, diagnoses, prior surgery, prescription opioid use, asthma, and baseline PRO scores. The models had good predictive performance in the validation cohort (concordance statistic, 0.66-0.79) and were incorporated into a patient-facing, web-based interactive tool (https://becertain.shinyapps.io/lumbar_fusion_calculator). Conclusions and Relevance: The PRO response prediction tool, informed by population-level data, explained most of the variability in pain reduction and functional improvement after surgery. Giving patients accurate information about their likelihood of outcomes may be a helpful component in surgery decision making.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29516096      PMCID: PMC5875305          DOI: 10.1001/jamasurg.2018.0072

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA Surg        ISSN: 2168-6254            Impact factor:   14.766


  36 in total

1.  Development of an index to characterize the "invasiveness" of spine surgery: validation by comparison to blood loss and operative time.

Authors:  Sohail K Mirza; Richard A Deyo; Patrick J Heagerty; Mark A Konodi; Lorri A Lee; Judith A Turner; Robert Goodkin
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2008-11-15       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 2.  Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 2: assessment of functional outcome following lumbar fusion.

Authors:  Zoher Ghogawala; Daniel K Resnick; William C Watters; Praveen V Mummaneni; Andrew T Dailey; Tanvir F Choudhri; Jason C Eck; Alok Sharan; Michael W Groff; Jeffrey C Wang; Sanjay S Dhall; Michael G Kaiser
Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine       Date:  2014-07

Review 3.  Minimum Clinically Important Difference: Current Trends in the Spine Literature.

Authors:  Andrew S Chung; Anne G Copay; Neil Olmscheid; David Campbell; J Brock Walker; Norman Chutkan
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2017-07-15       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  Responsiveness of the numeric pain rating scale in patients with low back pain.

Authors:  John D Childs; Sara R Piva; Julie M Fritz
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2005-06-01       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  Does daily tobacco smoking affect outcomes after microdecompression for degenerative central lumbar spinal stenosis? - A multicenter observational registry-based study.

Authors:  Sasha Gulati; Trond Nordseth; Ulf S Nerland; Michel Gulati; Clemens Weber; Charalampis Giannadakis; Øystein P Nygaard; Tore K Solberg; Ole Solheim; Asgeir S Jakola
Journal:  Acta Neurochir (Wien)       Date:  2015-05-06       Impact factor: 2.216

6.  Prediction model for outcome after low-back surgery: individualized likelihood of complication, hospital readmission, return to work, and 12-month improvement in functional disability.

Authors:  Matthew J McGirt; Ahilan Sivaganesan; Anthony L Asher; Clinton J Devin
Journal:  Neurosurg Focus       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 4.047

7.  Repeat surgery after lumbar decompression for herniated disc: the quality implications of hospital and surgeon variation.

Authors:  Brook I Martin; Sohail K Mirza; David R Flum; Thomas M Wickizer; Patrick J Heagerty; Alex F Lenkoski; Richard A Deyo
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2011-12-21       Impact factor: 4.166

8.  Fibromyalgia survey criteria are associated with increased postoperative opioid consumption in women undergoing hysterectomy.

Authors:  Allison M Janda; Sawsan As-Sanie; Baskar Rajala; Alex Tsodikov; Stephanie E Moser; Daniel J Clauw; Chad M Brummett
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  2015-05       Impact factor: 7.892

9.  Disparities in the outcomes of lumbar spinal stenosis surgery based on insurance status.

Authors:  Shivanand P Lad; Kevin T Huang; Jacob H Bagley; Matthew A Hazzard; Ranjith Babu; Timothy Ryan Owens; Beatrice Ugiliweneza; Chirag G Patil; Maxwell Boakye
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2013-06-01       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  Using the spine surgical invasiveness index to identify risk of surgical site infection: a multivariate analysis.

Authors:  Amy M Cizik; Michael J Lee; Brook I Martin; Richard J Bransford; Carlo Bellabarba; Jens R Chapman; Sohail K Mirza
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2012-02-15       Impact factor: 5.284

View more
  29 in total

1.  Development of a model to predict the probability of incurring a complication during spine surgery.

Authors:  Pascal Zehnder; Ulrike Held; Tim Pigott; Andrea Luca; Markus Loibl; Raluca Reitmeir; Tamás Fekete; Daniel Haschtmann; Anne F Mannion
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2021-03-09       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  CORR Insights®: What Are the MCIDs for PROMIS, NDI, and ODI Instruments Among Patients With Spinal Conditions?

Authors:  Sheeraz Qureshi
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2018-10       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  External validation of a prediction model for pain and functional outcome after elective lumbar spinal fusion.

Authors:  Ayesha Quddusi; Hubert A J Eversdijk; Anita M Klukowska; Marlies P de Wispelaere; Julius M Kernbach; Marc L Schröder; Victor E Staartjes
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2019-10-22       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 4.  Racial and ethnic differences in the experience and treatment of noncancer pain.

Authors:  Samantha M Meints; Alejandro Cortes; Calia A Morais; Robert R Edwards
Journal:  Pain Manag       Date:  2019-05-29

5.  Magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) can identify painful lumbar discs and may facilitate improved clinical outcomes of lumbar surgeries for discogenic pain.

Authors:  Matthew G Gornet; James Peacock; John Claude; Francine W Schranck; Anne G Copay; Robert K Eastlack; Ryan Benz; Adam Olshen; Jeffrey C Lotz
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2019-01-04       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  Can Machine Learning Algorithms Predict Which Patients Will Achieve Minimally Clinically Important Differences From Total Joint Arthroplasty?

Authors:  Mark Alan Fontana; Stephen Lyman; Gourab K Sarker; Douglas E Padgett; Catherine H MacLean
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2019-06       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  A nomogram for short-term recurrent pain after percutaneous vertebroplasty for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures.

Authors:  Z Liu; X Zhang; H Liu; D Wang
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2021-11-11       Impact factor: 4.507

8.  Development of a machine-learning based model for predicting multidimensional outcome after surgery for degenerative disorders of the spine.

Authors:  D Müller; D Haschtmann; T F Fekete; F Kleinstück; R Reitmeir; M Loibl; D O'Riordan; F Porchet; D Jeszenszky; A F Mannion
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2022-07-14       Impact factor: 2.721

9.  Validating the VR-12 Physical Function Instrument After Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion with SF-12, PROMIS, and NDI.

Authors:  Nathaniel W Jenkins; James M Parrish; Michael T Nolte; Nadia M Hrynewycz; Thomas S Brundage; Kern Singh
Journal:  HSS J       Date:  2020-11-09

Review 10.  Does Workers' Compensation Status Affect Outcomes after Lumbar Spine Surgery? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Fabrizio Russo; Sergio De Salvatore; Luca Ambrosio; Gianluca Vadalà; Luca Fontana; Rocco Papalia; Jorma Rantanen; Sergio Iavicoli; Vincenzo Denaro
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-06-07       Impact factor: 3.390

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.