Literature DB >> 30296576

Patient-reported outcomes unbiased by length of follow-up after lumbar degenerative spine surgery: Do we need 2 years of follow-up?

Victor E Staartjes1, Alessandro Siccoli2, Marlies P de Wispelaere3, Marc L Schröder4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In modern clinical research, the accepted minimum follow-up for patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) after lumbar spine surgery is 24 months, particularly after fusion. Recently, this minimum requirement has been called into question.
PURPOSE: We aim to quantify the concordance of 1- and 2-year PROMs to evaluate the importance of long-term follow-up after elective lumbar spine surgery. STUDY
DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of data from a prospective registry. PATIENT SAMPLE: We identified all patients in our prospective institutional registry who underwent degenerative lumbar spine surgery with complete baseline, 12-month, and 24-month follow-up for ODI and numeric rating scales for back and leg pain (NRS-BP and NRS-LP). OUTCOME MEASURES: Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and NRS-BP and NRS-LP at 1 year and at 2 years.
METHODS: We evaluated concordance of 1- and 2-year change scores by means of Pearson's product-moment correlation and performed logistic regression to assess if achieving the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) at 12 months predicted 24-month MCID. Odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI), as well as model areas-under-the-curve were obtained.
RESULTS: A total of 210 patients were included. We observed excellent correlation among 12- and 24-month ODI (r = 0.88), NRS-LP (r = 0.76) and NRS-BP (r = 0.72, all p <.001). Equal results were obtained when stratifying for discectomy, decompression, or fusion. Patients achieving 12-month MCID were likely to achieve 24-month MCID for ODI (OR: 3.3, 95% CI: 2.4-4.1), NRS-LP (OR: 2.99, 95% CI: 2.2-4.2) and NRS-BP (OR: 3.4, 95% CI: 2.7-4.2, all p <.001) with excellent areas-under-the-curve values of 0.81, 0.77, and 0.84, respectively. Concordance rates between MCID at both follow-ups were 87.2%, 83.8%, and 84.2%. A post-hoc power analysis demonstrated sufficient statistical power.
CONCLUSIONS: Irrespective of the surgical procedure, 12-month PROMs for functional disability and pain severity accurately reflect those at 24 months. In support of previous literature, our results suggest that 12 months of follow-up may be sufficient for evaluating spinal patient care in clinical practice as well as in research.
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Decompression; Degenerative; Discectomy; Fusion; Outcome measurement; Patient-reported outcomes

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30296576     DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2018.10.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine J        ISSN: 1529-9430            Impact factor:   4.166


  8 in total

1.  Outcomes after decompression surgery without fusion for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis and substantial low back pain.

Authors:  Soichiro Masuda; Yusuke Kanba; Jun Kawai; Noboru Ikeda
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2019-08-31       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  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

3.  A Comparison of Revision Rates and Patient-Reported Outcomes for a 2-Level Posterolateral Fusion Augmented With Single Versus 2-Level Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

Authors:  I David Kaye; Terry Fang; Scott C Wagner; Joseph S Butler; Arjun Sebastian; Patrick B Morrissey; Marc J Levine; Alex R Vaccaro; Alan S Hilibrand
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2019-11-20

4.  Safety and Efficacy of Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Discogenic Chronic Low Back Pain in a Short-stay Setting: Data From a Prospective Registry.

Authors:  Moira Vieli; Victor E Staartjes; Hubert A J Eversdjik; Marlies P De Wispelaere; Jan Wolter A Oosterhuis; Marc L Schröder
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2019-08-07

5.  Definitions of unfavorable surgical outcomes and their risk factors based on disability score after spine surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Gang-Un Kim; Jiwon Park; Ho-Joong Kim; Feng Shen; Jaewoo Cho; Bong-Soon Chang; Choon-Ki Lee; Heoung-Jae Chun; Jin S Yeom
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2020-05-08       Impact factor: 2.362

6.  Post-operative follow-up care after acute spinal trauma: What is the reality?

Authors:  Celeste Tavolaro; Julie Agel; Matthew Vincent; Ekamjeet Dhillon; Edward Jung; Haitao Zhou
Journal:  Brain Spine       Date:  2022-06-14

7.  The European Robotic Spinal Instrumentation (EUROSPIN) study: protocol for a multicentre prospective observational study of pedicle screw revision surgery after robot-guided, navigated and freehand thoracolumbar spinal fusion.

Authors:  Victor E Staartjes; Granit Molliqaj; Paulien M van Kampen; Hubert A J Eversdijk; Aymeric Amelot; Christoph Bettag; Jasper F C Wolfs; Sophie Urbanski; Farman Hedayat; Carsten G Schneekloth; Mike Abu Saris; Michel Lefranc; Johann Peltier; Duccio Boscherini; Ingo Fiss; Bawarjan Schatlo; Veit Rohde; Yu-Mi Ryang; Sandro M Krieg; Bernhard Meyer; Nikolaus Kögl; Pierre-Pascal Girod; Claudius Thomé; Jos W R Twisk; Enrico Tessitore; Marc L Schröder
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-09-08       Impact factor: 2.692

8.  Influence of dynamic preoperative body mass index changes on patient-reported outcomes after surgery for degenerative lumbar spine disease.

Authors:  Alessandro Siccoli; Marc L Schröder; Victor E Staartjes
Journal:  Neurosurg Rev       Date:  2020-12-11       Impact factor: 3.042

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.