Literature DB >> 35177523

Risk Factors for Failing to Reach a Minimal Clinically Important Difference Following Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression.

Elliot D K Cha1, Conor P Lynch1, Cara E Geoghegan1, Caroline N Jadczak1, Shruthi Mohan1, Kern Singh2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Clinically important postoperative changes can be best evaluated through the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). Our study aims to evaluate risk factors associated with failure to achieve MCID following lumbar decompression (LD).
METHODS: Demographics, perioperative characteristics, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) for pain, disability, and physical function were retrospectively reviewed and collected for patients undergoing LD. MCID achievement was calculated using established values. Relative risk of demographic and perioperative characteristics with failure to meet MCID for all PROMs was calculated. Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) was used to estimate individual risk factors, and postestimation logistic regression was performed.
RESULTS: The study cohort included 811 patients. Comorbidity burden was associated with failed MCID for visual analog scale (VAS) back and leg pain and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Operative levels or duration was associated with failed MCID for VAS leg pain, 12-item short form physical component summary (SF-12 PCS), and the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system physical function (PROMIS PF). Preoperative spinal pathology was associated with failed MCID for VAS leg pain, ODI, SF-12 PCS, and PROMIS PF. Additional risk factors included the type of operation, insurance, age, and body mass index. LASSO selected insurance, age, comorbidity burden, blood loss, operative duration, and type of spinal pathology as significant risk factors for failure to reach MCID.
CONCLUSION: Failure to reach MCID was greatest for VAS back. Age, comorbidity burden, and prolonged procedures were significantly associated with risk for failure to reach MCID for a majority of PROMs. Comorbidity burden combined with operative outcomes may place patients at increased risk for failure to reach MCID for pain, disability, and physical function following LD. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Establishes risk factors for failing to reach the threshold of meaningful difference in symptoms after LD surgery. This manuscript is generously published free of charge by ISASS, the International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery.
Copyright © 2022 ISASS. To see more or order reprints or permissions, see http://ijssurgery.com.

Entities:  

Keywords:  lumbar decompression; minimal clinically important difference; outcomes

Year:  2022        PMID: 35177523      PMCID: PMC9519070          DOI: 10.14444/8176

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


  38 in total

Review 1.  Minimum Clinically Important Difference: Current Trends in the Spine Literature.

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

2.  Recurrence of lumbar disc herniation after microendoscopic discectomy.

Authors:  Morio Matsumoto; Kota Watanabe; Naobumi Hosogane; Takashi Tsuji; Ken Ishii; Masaya Nakamura; Kazuhiro Chiba; Yoshiaki Toyama
Journal:  J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg       Date:  2012-12-18       Impact factor: 1.268

3.  Does Obesity Affect Outcomes After Decompressive Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis? A Multicenter, Observational, Registry-Based Study.

Authors:  Charalampis Giannadakis; Ulf S Nerland; Ole Solheim; Asgeir S Jakola; Michel Gulati; Clemens Weber; Øystein P Nygaard; Tore K Solberg; Sasha Gulati
Journal:  World Neurosurg       Date:  2015-06-20       Impact factor: 2.104

4.  Risk factors for medical complication after lumbar spine surgery: a multivariate analysis of 767 patients.

Authors:  Michael J Lee; Jacques Hacquebord; Anuj Varshney; Amy M Cizik; Richard J Bransford; Carlo Bellabarba; Mark A Konodi; Jens Chapman
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2011-10-01       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  Prognostic Factors for Satisfaction After Decompression Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.

Authors:  Rune Tendal Paulsen; Jamal Bech Bouknaitir; Søren Fruensgaard; Leah Carreon; Mikkel Andersen
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  2018-05-01       Impact factor: 4.654

6.  Minimum clinically important difference in lumbar spine surgery patients: a choice of methods using the Oswestry Disability Index, Medical Outcomes Study questionnaire Short Form 36, and pain scales.

Authors:  Anne G Copay; Steven D Glassman; Brian R Subach; Sigurd Berven; Thomas C Schuler; Leah Y Carreon
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2008-01-16       Impact factor: 4.166

7.  Preoperative Risk Factors for Recurrent Lumbar Disk Herniation in L5-S1.

Authors:  Kyoung-Tae Kim; Dong-Hyun Lee; Dae-Chul Cho; Joo-Kyung Sung; Young-Baeg Kim
Journal:  J Spinal Disord Tech       Date:  2015-12

8.  Risk Factors for Negative Global Treatment Outcomes in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Surgery: A Mixed Effects Model Analysis of Data from an International Spine Registry.

Authors:  Emin Aghayev; Anne F Mannion; Tamas F Fekete; Sven Janssen; Kelly Goodwin; Marcel Zwahlen; Ulrich Berlemann; Tobias Lorenz
Journal:  World Neurosurg       Date:  2019-12-31       Impact factor: 2.104

9.  Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 310 diseases and injuries, 1990-2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015.

Authors: 
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2016-10-08       Impact factor: 79.321

10.  Trend of the incidence of lumbar disc herniation: decreasing with aging in the elderly.

Authors:  Daoyou Ma; Yunbiao Liang; Daoming Wang; Zejiang Liu; Wei Zhang; Tantan Ma; Liang Zhang; Xingjun Lu; Zhiyou Cai
Journal:  Clin Interv Aging       Date:  2013-08-07       Impact factor: 4.458

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.