Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Utility for Predicting Spinal Surgery in an Integrated Spine Practice

Are We Considering the Whole Patient? The Impact of Physical and Mental Health on the Outcomes of Spine Care

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective, observational.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the influence of baseline health status on the physical and mental health (MH) outcomes of spine patients.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Spine conditions can have a significant burden on both the physical and MH of patients. To date, few studies have evaluated the outcomes of both dimensions of health, particularly in nonoperative populations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

At their first visit to a multidisciplinary spine clinic, 2668 nonoperative patients completed the Patient-reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-Global Health (PROMIS-GH) instrument and a questionnaire evaluating symptoms and goals of care. Patients were stratified by their baseline percentile score of the MH and physical health (PH) components of the PROMIS-GH. Four groups of patients were compared based on the presence or absence of bottom quartile PH or MH scores. The primary end point was the achievement of a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) on the MH or PH components at follow-up. Multivariate regression assessed the predictors of MCID achievement.

RESULTS

After controlling for demographics, symptoms, and goals, each 1-point increase in baseline PROMIS-GH mental score reduced the odds of achieving MH MCID by 9.0% ( P <0.001). Conversely, each 1-point increase in baseline GH-physical score increased the odds of achieving MCID by 4.5% ( P =0.005). Each 1-point increase in baseline GH-physical score reduced the odds of achieving PH MCID by 12.5% ( P <0.001), whereas each 1-point increase in baseline GH-mental score increased the odds of achieving MCID by 5.0% ( P <0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Spine patients presenting with the lowest levels of physical or MH were most likely to experience clinically significant improvement in those domains. However, lower levels of physical or mental health made it less likely that patients would experience significant improvement in the alternative domain. Physicians should evaluate and address the complex spine population holistically to maximize improvement in both physical and mental health status.

Prediction of 2-year clinical outcome trajectories in patients undergoing anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for spondylotic radiculopathy

OBJECTIVE

Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is often described as the gold standard surgical technique for cervical spondylotic radiculopathy. Although outcomes are considered favorable, there is little prognostic evidence to guide patient selection for ACDF. This study aimed to 1) describe the 24-month postoperative trajectories of arm pain, neck pain, and pain-related disability; and 2) identify perioperative prognostic factors that predict trajectories representing poor clinical outcomes.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, patients with cervical spondylotic radiculopathy who underwent ACDF at 1 of 12 orthopedic or neurological surgery centers were recruited. Potential outcome predictors included demographic, health, clinical, and surgery-related prognostic factors. Surgical outcomes were classified by trajectories of arm pain intensity, neck pain intensity (numeric pain rating scales), and pain-related disability (Neck Disability Index) from before surgery to 24 months postsurgery. Trajectories of postoperative pain and disability were estimated with latent class growth analysis, and prognostic factors associated with poor outcome trajectory were identified with robust Poisson models.

RESULTS

The authors included data from 352 patients (mean age 50.9 [SD 9.5] years; 43.8% female). The models estimated that 15.5%-23.5% of patients followed a trajectory consistent with a poor clinical outcome. Lower physical and mental health-related quality of life, moderate to severe risk of depression, and longer surgical wait time and procedure time predicted poor postoperative trajectories for all outcomes. Receiving compensation and smoking additionally predicted a poor neck pain outcome. Regular exercise, physiotherapy, and spinal injections before surgery were associated with a lower risk of poor disability outcome. Patients who used daily opioids, those with worse general health, or those who reported predominant neck pain or a history of depression were at greater risk of poor disability outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who undergo ACDF for cervical spondylotic radiculopathy experience heterogeneous postoperative trajectories of pain and disability, with 15.5%-23.5% of patients experiencing poor outcomes. Demographic, health, clinical, and surgery-related prognostic factors can predict ACDF outcomes. This information may further assist surgeons with patient selection and with setting realistic expectations. Future studies are needed to replicate and validate these findings prior to confident clinical implementation.

Association between chiropractic spinal manipulation and lumbar discectomy in adults with lumbar disc herniation and radiculopathy: retrospective cohort study using United States' data

OBJECTIVES

Chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy (CSMT) and lumbar discectomy are both used for lumbar disc herniation (LDH) and lumbosacral radiculopathy (LSR); however, limited research has examined the relationship between these therapies. We hypothesised that adults receiving CSMT for newly diagnosed LDH or LSR would have reduced odds of lumbar discectomy over 1-year and 2-year follow-up compared with those receiving other care.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

101 million patient US health records network (TriNetX), queried on 24 October 2022, yielding data from 2012 query.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults age 18-49 with newly diagnosed LDH/LSR (first date of diagnosis) were included. Exclusions were prior lumbar surgery, absolute indications for surgery, trauma, spondylolisthesis and scoliosis. Propensity score matching controlled for variables associated with the likelihood of discectomy (eg, demographics, medications).

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were divided into cohorts according to receipt of CSMT.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

ORs for lumbar discectomy; calculated by dividing odds in the CSMT cohort by odds in the cohort receiving other care.

RESULTS

After matching, there were 5785 patients per cohort (mean age 36.9±8.2). The ORs (95% CI) for discectomy were significantly reduced in the CSMT cohort compared with the cohort receiving other care over 1-year (0.69 (0.52 to 0.90), p=0.006) and 2-year follow-up (0.77 (0.60 to 0.99), p=0.040). E-value sensitivity analysis estimated the strength in terms of risk ratio an unmeasured confounding variable would need to account for study results, yielding point estimates for each follow-up (1 year: 2.26; 2 years: 1.92), which no variables in the literature reached.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest receiving CSMT compared with other care for newly diagnosed LDH/LSR is associated with significantly reduced odds of discectomy over 2-year follow-up. Given socioeconomic variables were unavailable and an observational design precludes inferring causality, the efficacy of CSMT for LDH/LSR should be examined via randomised controlled trial to eliminate residual confounding.

Preoperative Factors Predict Postoperative Trajectories of Pain and Disability Following Surgery for Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

STUDY DESIGN

Longitudinal analysis of prospectively collected data.

OBJECTIVE

Investigate potential predictors of poor outcome following surgery for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

LSS is the most common reason for an older person to undergo spinal surgery, yet little information is available to inform patient selection.

METHODS

We recruited LSS surgical candidates from 13 orthopedic and neurological surgery centers. Potential outcome predictors included demographic, health, clinical, and surgery-related variables. Outcome measures were leg and back numeric pain rating scales and Oswestry disability index scores obtained before surgery and after 3, 12, and 24 postoperative months. We classified surgical outcomes based on trajectories of leg pain and a composite measure of overall outcome (leg pain, back pain, and disability).

RESULTS

Data from 529 patients (mean [SD] age = 66.5 [9.1] yrs; 46% female) were included. In total, 36.1% and 27.6% of patients were classified as experiencing a poor leg pain outcome and overall outcome, respectively. For both outcomes, patients receiving compensation or with depression/depression risk were more likely, and patients participating in regular exercise were less likely to have poor outcomes. Lower health-related quality of life, previous spine surgery, and preoperative anticonvulsant medication use were associated with poor leg pain outcome. Patients with ASA scores more than two, greater preoperative disability, and longer pain duration or surgical waits were more likely to have a poor overall outcome. Patients who received preoperative chiropractic or physiotherapy treatment were less likely to report a poor overall outcome. Multivariable models demonstrated poor-to acceptable (leg pain) and excellent (overall outcome) discrimination.

CONCLUSION

Approximately one in three patients with LSS experience a poor clinical outcome consistent with surgical non-response. Demographic, health, and clinical factors were more predictive of clinical outcome than surgery-related factors. These predictors may assist surgeons with patient selection and inform shared decision-making for patients with symptomatic LSS.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2.

Utility of Patient-reported Symptoms and Health Conditions for Predicting Surgical Candidacy and Utilization of Surgery via an Outpatient Spine Clinic Nomogram

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort.

OBJECTIVE

Identify the nonradiographic predictors of a patient's decision to undergo elective spine surgery.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Up to 132 million people seek elective evaluation by spine surgeons annually, though 55%-82% of specialty referrals may be inappropriate. We sought to determine which clinical and psychosocial factors are associated with surgical utilization by patients seeking surgical evaluation for degenerative spine pathologies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Consecutive elective outpatient visits seen in a single clinic between May 2016 and April 2017 for degenerative spine pathologies were reviewed. Data were collected on presenting symptoms, baseline medical illness, demographics, and previous spine care. Multivariable logistic regressions were performed to determine which factors were associated with surgical candidacy and surgical utilization.

RESULTS

A total of 353 patients were seen during the period reviewed, of which 144 had complete medical records. Our cohort included 90 nonsurgical candidates, 25 surgical candidates who declined surgery, and 29 patients who underwent surgery. In multivariable analysis, factors negatively associated with surgical candidacy were age, a history of smoking, and osteoporosis, where those positively associated with surgical candidacy were reports of spine-specific pain, higher Charlson Comorbidity Index, pain medication use, number of neurological symptoms, and being myelopathic. Factors positively associated with surgical utilization included proportion of all complaints that were neurological in nature, being myelopathic, higher Charlson Comorbidity Index, and report of pain as chronic, whereas being osteoporotic was negatively associated with surgical use. A receiver operating curve constructed for these models produced c-statistics of 0.75 and 0.80, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that the results of standard clinic intake questions, such as review of systems, medical history, and chief complaints, may be predictive of surgical candidacy before evaluation by a surgeon. The present pilot study suggests a preliminary algorithm that can be further validated and expanded upon to help decide on optimal patient referrals to spine surgery specialists.

Comparing functioning in spinal cord injury and in chronic spinal pain with two ICF-based instruments: WHODAS 2.0 and the WHO minimal generic data set covering functioning and health

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether the two briefest validated ICF-based (International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health) tools can detect differences between different spinal conditions.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING

University hospital rehabilitation clinic.

SUBJECTS

A total of 84 patients with spinal cord injury and 81 with chronic spinal pain.

MAIN MEASURES

Disability evaluated using self-reported and proxy 12-item WHODAS 2.0 ((World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule), and physician-rated WHO minimal generic data set covering functioning and health.

FINDINGS

The two measures used showed severe disability in both patient populations, those with spinal cord injury (mean age 47.5 years, SD 13.2) and those with chronic spinal pain (mean age 47.2 years, SD 9.5), WHODAS patient sum being 18.4 (SD 9.6) versus 22.0 (SD 9.0), P < 0.05, and the WHO generic data set 15.6 (SD 4.4) versus 14.2 (SD 3.7), P < 0.01, respectively. Correlations between patient and proxy ratings and between the two disability scales were mostly strong. Severe restrictions were found in the working ability of both the populations, in mobility of patients with spinal cord injury and in pain function of patients with chronic spinal pain. In this tertiary clinic patient population, patients with spinal pain perceived more problems in emotional and cognitive functions, and in participation than patients with spinal cord injury.

CONCLUSIONS

Both scales were able to find differences between two patient populations with severe disability.

Do Patients Unconsciously Associate Suggestions for More-invasive Treatment with Better Care?

BACKGROUND

It seems common for patients to conceive of care in physical terms, such as medications, injections, and procedures rather than advice and support. Clinicians often encounter patients who seem to prefer more testing or invasive treatments than expertise supports. We wanted to determine whether patients unconsciously associate suggestions for invasive treatments with better care.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) Do patients have (A) an implicit preference and (B) an expressed preference for a physical intervention (such as a pill, an injection, or surgery) over supportive care (such as reassurance and education)? (2) What factors are independently associated with both an implicit and an expressed preference for a physical intervention over supportive care? (3) Is there a relationship between a patient's implicit preference toward or away from a physical intervention and his/her expressed preference on that subject?

METHODS

In this study, we approached 129 new patients in a large urban area visiting one of 13 participating surgeons divided among six upper and lower extremity specialist offices. After excluding four patients based on our exclusion criteria, 125 patients (97%) completed a survey of demographics and their expressed preference about receiving either physical treatment or support. Treatment was defined as any surgery, procedure, injection, or medication; support was defined as reassurance, conversation, and education, but no physical treatment. Patients then completed the Implicit Association Test (IAT) to evaluate implicit preferences toward treatment or support. Although other IATs have been validated in numerous studies, the IAT used in this study was specifically made for this study. Scores (D scores) range from -2 to 2, where 0 indicates no implicit preference, positive scores indicate a preference toward receiving a physical treatment is good care, and negative scores indicate a preference toward receiving supportive care is good care. According to the original IAT, break points for a slight (± 0.15 to 0.35), moderate (± 0.35 to 0.65), and strong preference (± 0.65 to 2) were selected conservatively according to psychological conventions for effect size. Patients' mean age was 50 ± 15 years (range, 18-79 years) and 56 (45%) were men. The patients had a broad spectrum of upper and lower extremity musculoskeletal conditions, ranging from trigger finger to patellofemoral syndrome.

RESULTS

We found a slight implicit association of good care with support (D = -0.17 ± 0.62; range, -2 to 1.2) and an expressed preference for physical treatment (mean score = 0.63 ± 2.0; range, -3 to 3). Patients who received both physical and supportive treatment had greater implicit preference for good care, meaning supportive care, than patients receiving physical care alone (β = -0.42; 95% CI, -0.73 to -0.11; p = 0.008; semipartial R = 0.04; adjusted R full model = 0.13). Gender was independently associated with a greater expressed preference for physical treatment, with men expressing this preference more than women (β = 1.0; 95% CI, 0.31-1.7; p = 0.005; semipartial R = 0.06; adjusted R full model = 0.08); receiving supportive treatment was independently associated with more expressed preference for support (β = -0.98; 95% CI, -1.7 to -0.23; p = 0.011; semipartial R = 0.05). An expressed preference for treatment was not associated with implicit preference (β = 0.01; 95% CI, -0.04 to 0.06; p = 0.721).

CONCLUSIONS

Although surgeons may sometimes feel pressured toward physical treatments, based on our results and cutoff values, the average patient with upper or lower extremity symptoms has a slight implicit preference for supportive treatment and would likely be receptive.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II, prognostic study.

The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System in spine surgery: a systematic review

OBJECTIVEThe Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) was developed to provide a standardized measure of clinical outcomes that is valid and reliable across a variety of patient populations. PROMIS has exhibited strong correlations with many legacy patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures. However, it is unclear to what extent PROMIS has been used within the spine literature. In this context, the purpose of this systematic review was to provide a comprehensive overview of the PROMIS literature for spine-specific populations that can be used to inform clinicians and guide future work. Specifically, the authors aimed to 1) evaluate publication trends of PROMIS in the spine literature, 2) assess how studies have used PROMIS, and 3) determine the correlations of PROMIS domains with legacy PROs as reported for spine populations.METHODSStudies reporting PROMIS scores among spine populations were identified from PubMed/MEDLINE and a review of reference lists from obtained studies. Articles were excluded if they did not report original results, or if the study population was not evaluated or treated for spine-related complaints. Characteristics of each study and journal in which it was published were recorded. Correlation of PROMIS to legacy PROs was reported with 0.1 ≤ |r| < 0.3, 0.3 ≤ |r| < 0.5, and |r| ≥ 0.5 indicating weak, moderate, and strong correlations, respectively.RESULTSTwenty-one articles were included in this analysis. Twelve studies assessed the validity of PROMIS whereas 9 used PROMIS as an outcome measure. The first study discussing PROMIS in patients with spine disorders was published in 2012, whereas the majority were published in 2017. The most common PROMIS domain used was Pain Interference. Assessments of PROMIS validity were most frequently performed with the Neck Disability Index. PROMIS domains demonstrated moderate to strong correlations with the legacy PROs that were evaluated. Studies assessing the validity of PROMIS exhibited substantial variability in PROMIS domains and legacy PROs used for comparisons.CONCLUSIONSThere has been a recent increase in the use of PROMIS within the spine literature. However, only a minority of studies have incorporated PROMIS for its intended use as an outcomes measure. Overall, PROMIS has exhibited moderate to strong correlations with a majority of legacy PROs used in the spine literature. These results suggest that PROMIS can be effective in the assessment and tracking of PROs among spine populations.