Literature DB >> 30069521

Evaluating cervical deformity corrective surgery outcomes at 1-year using current patient-derived and functional measures: are they adequate?

Peter G Passias1, Samantha R Horn1, Cheongeun Oh1, Subaraman Ramchandran1, Douglas C Burton2, Virginie Lafage3, Renaud Lafage3, Gregory W Poorman1, Leah Steinmetz1, Frank A Segreto1, Cole A Bortz1, Justin S Smith4, Christopher Ames5, Christopher I Shaffrey6, Han Jo Kim3, Alexandra Soroceanu7, Eric O Klineberg8.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Current health-related quality of life (HRQL) metrics used to assess patient outcomes following surgical correction of cervical deformity (CD) are not deformity-specific and thus cannot capture all aspects of a patient's deformity and outcomes. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the sensitivity of different HRQL outcome measures in assessing CD patients' outcomes 1-year post-operatively.
METHODS: Retrospective review of prospective multi-center database. Inclusion criteria: CD patients ≥18 yrs with pre- and 1-year post-operative radiographs and HRQLs [modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA), EuroQol five-dimensions (EQ-5D), neck disability index (NDI)]. Associations between changes in EQ5D and NDI with improvement at 1-year in mJOA scores were assessed by whether or not the patient met the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) as well as whether or not they improved by one or more categories (i.e., change from moderate to mild). Odds ratios reported with 95% confidence intervals.
RESULTS: Sixty-three CD patients were included (mean 62 y, 55.6% F). Average baseline NDI scores were 46.75, mJOA was 13.68, and EQ-5D 0.74. Overall baseline myelopathy breakdown: none-9.5%, mild-30.2%, moderate-42.9%, high-17.5%. At 1-year, 46% of patients improved in mJOA, 71.4% NDI, and 65.1% EQ-5D. 19% of patients met mJOA MCID, 44.4% NDI MCID, 19% EQ-5D MCID. One-point improvement in NDI increased the odds of mJOA improvement and reaching mJOA MCID (improvement: OR, 1.06, CI: 1.01-1.10, P=0.01; MCID: OR, 1.06, CI: 1.02-1.11, P=0.006). Improvement in EQ-5D by 0.1 increased the odds of improving in mJOA and reaching mJOA MCID at 1-year (improvement: OR, 3.85, CI: 1.51-9.76, P=0.005; MCID: OR, 3.88, CI: 1.52-9.88, P=0.005). While correlations exist between outcome measures, when modeling these outcomes while controlling for confounders including cSVA change, surgical invasiveness, age and CCI, these HRQLs were not strongly correlated.
CONCLUSIONS: Improvements in functional outcomes, as defined by mJOA score, were correlated with changes in neck based disability and general health state, defined by NDI and EQ-5D respectively. In an adjusted model, however, these direct relationships were not maintained. A CD-specific HRQL might be more useful for surgeons in assessing patient outcomes using a single metric.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cervical deformity (CD); alignment; cervical spine; health-related quality of life metrics (HRQL metrics); myelopathy; outcomes; sagittal malalignment; spinal deformity; spino-pelvic alignment; surgical correction

Year:  2018        PMID: 30069521      PMCID: PMC6046308          DOI: 10.21037/jss.2018.05.29

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Spine Surg        ISSN: 2414-4630


  30 in total

Review 1.  EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group.

Authors:  R Rabin; F de Charro
Journal:  Ann Med       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 4.709

2.  Sagittal alignment after single cervical disc arthroplasty.

Authors:  Patrick Guérin; Ibrahim Obeid; Olivier Gille; Anouar Bourghli; Stéphane Luc; Vincent Pointillart; Jean-Marc Vital
Journal:  J Spinal Disord Tech       Date:  2012-02

3.  Validation of new clinical quantitative analysis software applicable in spine orthopaedic studies.

Authors:  S Champain; K Benchikh; A Nogier; C Mazel; J De Guise; W Skalli
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2005-06-17       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Minimal clinically important change of the Neck Disability Index and the Numerical Rating Scale for patients with neck pain.

Authors:  Jan J M Pool; Raymond W J G Ostelo; Jan L Hoving; Lex M Bouter; Henrica C W de Vet
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2007-12-15       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  Global tilt and lumbar lordosis index: two parameters correlating with health-related quality of life scores-but how do they truly impact disability?

Authors:  Louis Boissière; Mitsuru Takemoto; Anouar Bourghli; Jean-Marc Vital; Ferran Pellisé; Ahmet Alanay; Caglar Yilgor; Emre Acaroglu; Francisco Javier Perez-Grueso; Frank Kleinstück; Ibrahim Obeid
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2016-11-01       Impact factor: 4.166

6.  Prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical study evaluating the correlation of clinical outcomes and cervical sagittal alignment.

Authors:  Alan T Villavicencio; Jason M Babuska; Alex Ashton; Eric Busch; Cassandra Roeca; E Lee Nelson; Alexander Mason; Sigita Burneikiene
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  2011-05       Impact factor: 4.654

Review 7.  Outcomes after surgery for cervical spine deformity: review of the literature.

Authors:  Arnold B Etame; Anthony C Wang; Khoi D Than; Frank La Marca; Paul Park
Journal:  Neurosurg Focus       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 4.047

8.  Cervical kyphotic deformity correction using 360-degree reconstruction.

Authors:  Eric W Nottmeier; Hugh Gordon Deen; Naresh Patel; Barry Birch
Journal:  J Spinal Disord Tech       Date:  2009-08

Review 9.  Cervical spine alignment, sagittal deformity, and clinical implications: a review.

Authors:  Justin K Scheer; Jessica A Tang; Justin S Smith; Frank L Acosta; Themistocles S Protopsaltis; Benjamin Blondel; Shay Bess; Christopher I Shaffrey; Vedat Deviren; Virginie Lafage; Frank Schwab; Christopher P Ames
Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine       Date:  2013-06-14

10.  A Clinical Prediction Rule for Functional Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Surgery for Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: Analysis of an International Prospective Multicenter Data Set of 757 Subjects.

Authors:  Lindsay Tetreault; Branko Kopjar; Pierre Côté; Paul Arnold; Michael G Fehlings
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2015-12-16       Impact factor: 5.284

View more
  7 in total

1.  Improvement rates, adverse events and predictors of clinical outcome following surgery for degenerative cervical myelopathy.

Authors:  Eddie de Dios; Mats Laesser; Isabella M Björkman-Burtscher; Lars Lindhagen; Anna MacDowall
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2022-09-02       Impact factor: 2.721

2.  PROMIS physical health domain scores are related to cervical deformity severity.

Authors:  Katherine E Pierce; Haddy Alas; Avery E Brown; Cole A Bortz; Brooke O'Connell; Dennis Vasquez-Montes; Bassel G Diebo; Renaud Lafage; Virginie Lafage; Aaron J Buckland; Peter G Passias
Journal:  J Craniovertebr Junction Spine       Date:  2019 Jul-Sep

3.  Prioritization of realignment associated with superior clinical outcomes for surgical cervical deformity patients.

Authors:  Katherine E Pierce; Peter Gust Passias; Avery E Brown; Cole A Bortz; Haddy Alas; Renaud Lafage; Oscar Krol; Dean Chou; Douglas C Burton; Breton Line; Eric Klineberg; Robert Hart; Jeffrey Gum; Alan Daniels; Kojo Hamilton; Shay Bess; Themistocles Protopsaltis; Christopher Shaffrey; Frank A Schwab; Justin S Smith; Virginie Lafage; Christopher Ames
Journal:  J Craniovertebr Junction Spine       Date:  2021-09-08

4.  Risk-benefit assessment of major versus minor osteotomies for flexible and rigid cervical deformity correction.

Authors:  Peter Gust Passias; Lara Passfall; Samantha R Horn; Katherine E Pierce; Virginie Lafage; Renaud Lafage; Justin S Smith; Breton G Line; Gregory M Mundis; Robert Eastlack; Bassel G Diebo; Themistocles S Protopsaltis; Han Jo Kim; Justin Scheer; Douglas C Burton; Robert A Hart; Frank J Schwab; Shay Bess; Christopher P Ames; Christopher I Shaffrey
Journal:  J Craniovertebr Junction Spine       Date:  2021-09-08

5.  Predictive model for achieving good clinical and radiographic outcomes at one-year following surgical correction of adult cervical deformity.

Authors:  Peter Gust Passias; Samantha R Horn; Cheongeun Oh; Gregory W Poorman; Cole Bortz; Frank Segreto; Renaud Lafage; Bassel Diebo; Justin K Scheer; Justin S Smith; Christopher I Shaffrey; Robert Eastlack; Daniel M Sciubba; Themistocles Protopsaltis; Han Jo Kim; Robert A Hart; Virginie Lafage; Christopher P Ames
Journal:  J Craniovertebr Junction Spine       Date:  2021-09-08

6.  What are the major drivers of outcomes in cervical deformity surgery?

Authors:  Peter Gust Passias; Katherine E Pierce; Brandon Passano; Muhammad B Tariq; Salman Ahmad; Vivek Singh; Stephane Owusu-Sarpong; Oscar Krol; Bailey Imbo; Lara Passfall; Peter Tretiakov; Tyler Williamson; Rachel Joujon-Roche; Waleed Ahmad; Sara Naessig; Bassel Diebo
Journal:  J Craniovertebr Junction Spine       Date:  2021-12-11

7.  What are the major drivers of outcomes in cervical deformity surgery?

Authors:  Peter Gust Passias; Katherine E Pierce; Bailey Imbo; Oscar Krol; Lara Passfall; Peter Tretiakov; Kevin Moattari; Tyler Williamson; Rachel Joujon-Roche; Brandon Passano; Waleed Ahmad; Sara Naessig; Bassel Diebo
Journal:  J Craniovertebr Junction Spine       Date:  2021-12-11
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.