C Parai1,2, O Hägg3, B Lind4,3, H Brisby4,5. 1. Department of Orthopaedics, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden. catharina.parai@spinecenter.se. 2. Spine Center Göteborg, Gothenburg, Sweden. catharina.parai@spinecenter.se. 3. Spine Center Göteborg, Gothenburg, Sweden. 4. Department of Orthopaedics, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden. 5. Department of Orthopaedics, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the outcome of degenerative lumbar spine surgery in a credible way, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) should be assessed after an adequate follow-up period. Most authors/journals consider a follow-up period of less than two years to be too short. The purpose of this study was to explore the possibility of restricting follow-up to one year. METHODS: Adult patients operated between 1998 and 2017 were retrieved from Swespine (Lumbar Disc Herniation n = 31,314, Lumbar Spinal Stenosis n = 53,043 and Degenerative Disc Disease n = 14,375). The proportion reaching the minimal important change (MIC) in Visual Analogue Scale for pain (VASBACK/LEG), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the quality-of-life measure EQ-5DINDEX at 1 and 2 years, respectively, was calculated. The single-item questions such as Global Assessment (GABACK/LEG) and Satisfaction were analysed by the McNemar test. Threshold values for a successful outcome based on the final scores of each PROM at 1 and 2 years post-surgery were also defined. RESULTS: For all the three diagnostic groups, the differences in proportions reaching MIC of each PROM at 1 and 2 years were below 2%. Global Assessment and Satisfaction with outcome at one year remained at 2 years. There were no important differences of threshold values of treatment success based on final scores CONCLUSION: No clinically important changes in PROMs appeared between 1 and 2 years after surgery for degenerative lumbar conditions, demonstrating that a follow-up period of 1 year as opposed to 2 years is sufficient in effectiveness studies if PROMs are to be used as outcome variables. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the outcome of degenerative lumbar spine surgery in a credible way, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) should be assessed after an adequate follow-up period. Most authors/journals consider a follow-up period of less than two years to be too short. The purpose of this study was to explore the possibility of restricting follow-up to one year. METHODS: Adult patients operated between 1998 and 2017 were retrieved from Swespine (Lumbar Disc Herniation n = 31,314, Lumbar Spinal Stenosis n = 53,043 and Degenerative Disc Disease n = 14,375). The proportion reaching the minimal important change (MIC) in Visual Analogue Scale for pain (VASBACK/LEG), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the quality-of-life measure EQ-5DINDEX at 1 and 2 years, respectively, was calculated. The single-item questions such as Global Assessment (GABACK/LEG) and Satisfaction were analysed by the McNemar test. Threshold values for a successful outcome based on the final scores of each PROM at 1 and 2 years post-surgery were also defined. RESULTS: For all the three diagnostic groups, the differences in proportions reaching MIC of each PROM at 1 and 2 years were below 2%. Global Assessment and Satisfaction with outcome at one year remained at 2 years. There were no important differences of threshold values of treatment success based on final scores CONCLUSION: No clinically important changes in PROMs appeared between 1 and 2 years after surgery for degenerative lumbar conditions, demonstrating that a follow-up period of 1 year as opposed to 2 years is sufficient in effectiveness studies if PROMs are to be used as outcome variables. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
Authors: Lidwine B Mokkink; Caroline B Terwee; Donald L Patrick; Jordi Alonso; Paul W Stratford; Dirk L Knol; Lex M Bouter; Henrica C W de Vet Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2010-02-19 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Caroline B Terwee; Leo D Roorda; Joost Dekker; Sita M Bierma-Zeinstra; George Peat; Kelvin P Jordan; Peter Croft; Henrica C W de Vet Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2009-11-18 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: F Tubach; P Ravaud; G Baron; B Falissard; I Logeart; N Bellamy; C Bombardier; D Felson; M Hochberg; D van der Heijde; M Dougados Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2004-05-06 Impact factor: 19.103
Authors: Steven D Glassman; Frank Schwab; Keith H Bridwell; Christopher Shaffrey; William Horton; Serena Hu Journal: Spine J Date: 2008-09-06 Impact factor: 4.166
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: Jeffrey J Hébert; Edward Abraham; Niels Wedderkopp; Erin Bigney; Eden Richardson; Mariah Darling; Hamilton Hall; Charles G Fisher; Y Raja Rampersaud; Kenneth C Thomas; W Bradley Jacobs; Michael Johnson; Jérôme Paquet; Najmedden Attabib; Peter Jarzem; Eugene K Wai; Parham Rasoulinejad; Henry Ahn; Andrew Nataraj; Alexandra Stratton; Neil Manson Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2020-11-01 Impact factor: 3.241