Literature DB >> 32355633

Minimal Clinically Important Difference in Patient-Reported Outcome Measures with the Transforaminal Endoscopic Decompression for Lateral Recess and Foraminal Stenosis.

Kai-Uwe Lewandrowski1, Paulo Sérgio Teixeira DE Carvalho2, Paulo DE Carvalho3, Anthony Yeung4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have become widely used to better measure patients' judgment of treatment benefits from surgical spine care. The concept of determining the minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) of PROMs is aimed at assessing the benefits of lumbar spine care that are meaningful to the patient. The goal of this study was to validate the utility of MCIDs of the visual analog score (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) in patients with sciatica-type low back and leg pain due to lateral recess and foraminal stenosis who were treated with directly visualized transforaminal outpatient endoscopic decompression.
METHODS: The retrospective study population consisted of 406 patients on whom PROMs were obtained preoperatively, and again postoperatively at final follow-up. Employing an anchor-based approach with a patient satisfaction index based on the modified Macnab criteria, a receiver operating characteristics (ROC) and area under the curve (AUC) analysis was performed using IBM SPSS 25.0 to define the optimal MCID in VAS and ODI with the transforaminal endoscopy using the top-left-corner criteria and the Youden index. Improvements in walking endurance were recorded as an additional parameter of patient functioning and correlated with PROMs to test for statistical significance.
RESULTS: The patients' average age was 41.08 years, ranging from 30 to 84 years. The mean follow-up was 33.59 months, ranging from 24 to 85 months, with a standard deviation of 12.79. The MCIDs for VAS and ODI were 2.5 to 3.5 and 15 to 16.5, respectively. Patients were dichotomized as improved (377/406; 92.9%) if they reported excellent (224/406; 55.2%), good (112/406; 27.6%), and fair (41/406; 10.1%) Macnab outcomes. Patients were dichotomized as failed if they reported poor (29/406; 7.1%) Macnab outcomes. Preoperatively, only 32.5% (132/406) of patients had unlimited walking endurance compared to 77.6% (315/406) of patients postoperatively. The ROC and AUC analysis showed better accuracy with the single-integer VAS score (0.926) than with the 10-item ODI score (0.751).
CONCLUSIONS: Transforaminal outpatient endoscopic decompression for symptomatic foraminal and lateral recess stenosis is an effective surgical treatment to alleviate sciatica-type and back symptoms in 92.9% of patients. Of the PROMs analyzed, the VAS provided a more meaningful and accurate reflection of patients' interpretation of outcome with the transforaminal endoscopic spinal decompression procedure than ODI. Understanding which patient expectations drive these MCIDs may aid in replacing open surgeries for sciatica-type low back and leg pain currently preferred by traditional spine surgeons with a personalized early-staged transforaminal endoscopic hybrid decompressive/ablative procedures favored by the authors. These may prove more cost effective by focusing on significant pain generators validated with a diagnostic interventional workup instead of employing image-based indication criteria for surgery. ©International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery 2020.

Entities:  

Keywords:  ODI; VAS; endoscopic transforaminal decompression; minimally clinically important differences; patient reported outcomes

Year:  2020        PMID: 32355633      PMCID: PMC7188088          DOI: 10.14444/7034

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Spine Surg        ISSN: 2211-4599


  79 in total

Review 1.  Many faces of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID): a literature review and directions for future research.

Authors:  Dorcas E Beaton; Marteen Boers; George A Wells
Journal:  Curr Opin Rheumatol       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 5.006

2.  Full-endoscopic uniportal decompression in disc herniations and stenosis of the thoracic spine using the interlaminar, extraforaminal, or transthoracic retropleural approach.

Authors:  Sebastian Ruetten; Patrick Hahn; Semih Oezdemir; Xenophon Baraliakos; Harry Merk; Georgios Godolias; Martin Komp
Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine       Date:  2018-06-01

3.  Clinimetrics Corner: The Minimal Clinically Important Change Score (MCID): A Necessary Pretense.

Authors:  Chad E Cook
Journal:  J Man Manip Ther       Date:  2008

4.  The surgery of lumbar disc degeneration.

Authors:  I Macnab
Journal:  Surg Annu       Date:  1976

5.  Clinically important deterioration in patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery: a choice of evaluation methods using the Oswestry Disability Index, 36-Item Short Form Health Survey, and pain scales: clinical article.

Authors:  Jeffrey L Gum; Steven D Glassman; Leah Y Carreon
Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine       Date:  2013-09-06

6.  Minimal Clinically Important Difference and Substantial Clinical Benefit Values for the 12-Item International Hip Outcome Tool.

Authors:  RobRoy L Martin; Benjamin R Kivlan; John J Christoforetti; Andrew B Wolff; Shane J Nho; John P Salvo; Thomas J Ellis; Geoff Van Thiel; Dean K Matsuda; Dominic S Carreira
Journal:  Arthroscopy       Date:  2019-01-04       Impact factor: 4.772

7.  Transforaminal posterolateral endoscopic discectomy with or without the combination of a low-dose chymopapain: a prospective randomized study in 280 consecutive cases.

Authors:  Thomas Hoogland; Michael Schubert; Boris Miklitz; Agnes Ramirez
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2006-11-15       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  Quantification of Multifidus Atrophy and Fatty Infiltration Following a Minimally Invasive Microdiscectomy.

Authors:  Ehsan Tabaraee; Junyoung Ahn; Daniel D Bohl; Frank M Phillips; Kern Singh
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2015-06-26

9.  Endoscopic Transforaminal and Lateral Recess Decompression After Previous Spinal Surgery.

Authors:  Kai-Uwe Lewandrowski
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2018-08-03

10.  The "inside out" transforaminal technique to treat lumbar spinal pain in an awake and aware patient under local anesthesia: results and a review of the literature.

Authors:  Satishchandra Gore; Anthony Yeung
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2014-12-01
View more
  3 in total

1.  Durability of Endoscopes Used During Routine Lumbar Endoscopy: An Analysis of Use Patterns, Common Failure Modes, Impact on Patient Care, and Contingency Plans.

Authors:  Kai-Uwe Lewandrowski; Friedrich Tieber; Stefan Hellinger; Paulo Sérgio Teixeira de Carvalho; Max Rogério Freitas Ramos; Zhang Xifeng; André Luiz Calderaro; Thiago Soares Dos Santos; Jorge Felipe Ramírez León; Marlon Sudário de Lima E Silva; Girish Datar; Jin-Sung Kim; Hyeun Sung Kim; Anthony Yeung
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2021-12

2.  Remodeling Pattern of Spinal Canal after Full Endoscopic Uniportal Lumbar Endoscopic Unilateral Laminotomy for Bilateral Decompression: One Year Repetitive MRI and Clinical Follow-Up Evaluation.

Authors:  Hyeun-Sung Kim; Pang-Hung Wu; Giovanni Grasso; Jin-Woo An; Myeonghun Kim; Inkyung Lee; Jong-Seon Park; Jun-Hyoung Lee; Sangsoo Kang; Jeongshik Lee; Yeonjin Yi; Jun-Hyung Lee; Jun-Hwan Park; Jae-Hyeon Lim; Il-Tae Jang
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2022-03-24

3.  A Proposed Personalized Spine Care Protocol (SpineScreen) to Treat Visualized Pain Generators: An Illustrative Study Comparing Clinical Outcomes and Postoperative Reoperations between Targeted Endoscopic Lumbar Decompression Surgery, Minimally Invasive TLIF and Open Laminectomy.

Authors:  Kai-Uwe Lewandrowski; Ivo Abraham; Jorge Felipe Ramírez León; Albert E Telfeian; Morgan P Lorio; Stefan Hellinger; Martin Knight; Paulo Sérgio Teixeira De Carvalho; Max Rogério Freitas Ramos; Álvaro Dowling; Manuel Rodriguez Garcia; Fauziyya Muhammad; Namath Hussain; Vicky Yamamoto; Babak Kateb; Anthony Yeung
Journal:  J Pers Med       Date:  2022-06-29
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.