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. 1. Surgical Outcomes Research Center, University of Washington, Seattle. 2. Department of Orthopaedic and Sports Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle. 3. Swedish Neuroscience Institute, Swedish Medical Center, Seattle, Washington. 4. Valley Medical Center, Renton, Washington. 5. Skagit Northwest Orthopedics, Proliance Surgeons, Inc, Mount Vernon, Washington. 6. Franciscan Neurosurgery Associates at St Joseph, CHI Franciscan Health, Tacoma, Washington. 7. Rainier Orthopedic Institute, Proliance Surgeons, Inc, Puyallup, Washington. 8. Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle. 9. Department of Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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