Oswestry Disability Index: a psychometric analysis with 1,610 patients

Running is acceptable and efficacious in adults with non-specific chronic low back pain: the ASTEROID randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

Running is one of the most accessible forms of exercise, yet its suitability for adults with chronic low back pain (LBP) is unknown. This study assessed the efficacy and acceptability of running in adults with chronic LBP.

METHODS

This two-arm parallel (1:1) individually randomised controlled trial allocated 40 participants (mean (SD) age: 33 (6) years, female: 50%) with non-specific chronic LBP to a 12-week intervention or waitlist control. The intervention was a progressive run-walk interval programme comprising three 30-min sessions per week that were digitally delivered and remotely supported by an exercise physiologist. Efficacy outcomes were self-reported pain intensity (100-point visual analogue scale) and disability (Oswestry Disability Index). Acceptability outcomes were attrition, adherence and adverse events.

RESULTS

At 12-week follow-up, the intervention improved average pain intensity (mean net difference (95% CI): -15.30 (-25.33, -5.27) points, p=0.003), current pain intensity (-19.35 (-32.01, -6.69) points, p=0.003) and disability (-5.20 (-10.12, -0.24) points, P=0.038), compared with control. There was no attrition, and mean (SD) training adherence was 70% (20%; ie, 2.1 of 3 sessions per week). Nine non-serious adverse events deemed likely study-related were reported (lower limb injury/pain: n=7, syncope associated with an underlying condition: n=1, LBP: n=1).

CONCLUSIONS

A run-walk programme was considered an acceptable intervention by the participants to improve the pain intensity and disability in individuals aged 18-45 years with non-specific chronic LBP when compared with the control. An individualised and conservative run-walk programme should be considered a suitable form of physical activity for adults with chronic LBP.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12622001276741. Registered on 29 September 2022.

Challenges in Contemporary Spine Surgery: A Comprehensive Review of Surgical, Technological, and Patient-Specific Issues

Spine surgery has significantly progressed due to innovations in surgical techniques, technology, and a deeper understanding of spinal pathology. However, numerous challenges persist, complicating successful outcomes. Anatomical intricacies at transitional junctions demand precise surgical expertise to avoid complications. Technical challenges, such as underestimation of the density of fixed vertebrae, individual vertebral characteristics, and the angle of pedicle inclination, pose additional risks during surgery. Patient anatomical variability and prior surgeries add layers of difficulty, often necessitating thorough pre- and intraoperative planning. Technological challenges involve the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) and advanced visualization systems. AI offers predictive capabilities but is limited by the need for large, high-quality datasets and the "black box" nature of machine learning models, which complicates clinical decision making. Visualization technologies like augmented reality and robotic surgery enhance precision but come with operational and cost-related hurdles. Patient-specific challenges include managing postoperative complications such as adjacent segment disease, hardware failure, and neurological deficits. Effective patient outcome measurement is critical, yet existing metrics often fail to capture the full scope of patient experiences. Proper patient selection for procedures is essential to minimize risks and improve outcomes, but criteria can be inconsistent and complex. There is the need for continued technological innovation, improved patient-specific outcome measures, and enhanced surgical education through simulation-based training. Integrating AI in preoperative planning and developing comprehensive databases for spinal pathologies can aid in creating more accurate, generalizable models. A holistic approach that combines technological advancements with personalized patient care and ongoing education is essential for addressing these challenges and improving spine surgery outcomes.

Efficacy of using autologous cells with graft substitutes for spinal fusion surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical outcomes and imaging features

Over the past several decades, there has been a notable increase in the total number of spinal fusion procedures worldwide. Advanced spinal fusion techniques, surgical approaches, and new alternatives in grafting materials and implants, as well as autologous cellular therapies, have been widely employed for treating spinal diseases. While the potential of cellular therapies to yield better clinical results is appealing, supportive data are needed to confirm this claim. This meta-analysis aims to compare the radiographic and clinical outcomes between graft substitutes with autologous cell therapies and graft substitutes alone. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for studies comparing graft substitutes with autologous cell therapies and graft substitutes alone up to February 2024. The risk of bias of the included studies was evaluated using the Downs and Black checklist. The following outcomes were extracted for comparison: fusion success, complications/adverse events, Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score. Thirteen studies involving 836 patients were included, with 7 studies considered for the meta-analysis. Results indicated that the use of graft substitutes with autologous cell therapies demonstrated higher fusion success rates at 3, 6, and 12 months, lower VAS score at 6 months, and lower ODI score at 3, 6, and 12 months. The complication rate was similar between graft substitutes with autologous cell therapies and graft substitutes alone. Although the current literature remains limited, this meta-analysis suggests that the incorporation of cellular therapies such as bone marrow and platelet derivatives with graft substitutes is associated with a higher fusion rate and significant improvements in functional status and pain following spinal fusion. Future well-designed randomized clinical trials are needed to definitively assess the clinical effectiveness of cellular therapies in spinal fusion.

Reduction of Chronic Primary Low Back Pain by Spinal Manipulative Therapy is Accompanied by Decreases in Segmental Mechanical Hyperalgesia and Pain Catastrophizing: A Randomized Placebo-controlled Dual-blind Mixed Experimental Trial

Chronic primary low back pain (CPLBP) refers to low back pain that persists over 3 months, that cannot be explained by another chronic condition, and that is associated with emotional distress and disability. Previous studies have shown that spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is effective in relieving CPLBP, but the underlying mechanisms remain elusive. This randomized placebo-controlled dual-blind mixed experimental trial (NCT05162924) aimed to investigate the efficacy of SMT to improve CPLBP and its underlying mechanisms. Ninety-eight individuals with CPLBP and 49 controls were recruited. Individuals with CPLBP received SMT (n = 49) or a control intervention (n = 49), 12 times over 4 weeks. The primary outcomes were CPLBP intensity (0-100 on a numerical rating scale) and disability (Oswestry Disability Index). Secondary outcomes included pressure pain thresholds in 4 body regions, pain catastrophizing, Central Sensitization Inventory, depressive symptoms, and anxiety scores. Individuals with CPLBP showed widespread mechanical hyperalgesia (P < .001) and higher scores for all questionnaires (P < .001). SMT reduced pain intensity compared with the control intervention (mean difference: -11.7 [95% confidence interval, -11.0 to -12.5], P = .01), but not disability (P = .5). Similar mild to moderate adverse events were reported in both groups. Mechanical hyperalgesia at the manipulated segment was reduced after SMT compared with the control intervention (P < .05). Pain catastrophizing was reduced after SMT compared with the control intervention (P < .05), but this effect was not significant after accounting for changes in clinical pain. Although the reduction of segmental mechanical hyperalgesia likely contributes to the clinical benefits of SMT, the role of pain catastrophizing remains to be clarified. PERSPECTIVE: This randomized controlled trial found that 12 sessions of SMT yield greater relief of CPLBP than a control intervention. These clinical effects were independent of expectations, and accompanied by an attenuation of hyperalgesia in the targeted segment and a modulation of pain catastrophizing.

Postural and Lumbopelvic Control: Crucial Factors in the Functionality of Patients with Low Back Pain-A Descriptive Cross-Sectional Study

Background: Low back pain (LBP) is one of the most prevalent musculoskeletal disorders in adults worldwide. Alterations in postural and lumbopelvic control and functionality appear to be determining factors in its resolution. Methods: A cross-sectional study was performed. Patients with LBP were enrolled. Lumbar pain; postural control (PC), total area of the center of pressure (TACOP), and the velocity of the center of pressure (VCOP); lumbopelvic control (LPC); and functionality were evaluated. Statistical tests were implemented to determine differences between sex and age and correlation models among the variables. Results: Thirty adult patients with LBP were analyzed. A strong relationship was found between pain and functionality [r = 0.64; p < 0.001]. A moderate relationship was found between pain and TACOP [r = 0.395; p = 0.031]. A moderate relationship was observed between TACOP and functionality [0.413; p = 0.023] and between LPC and TACOP [r = 0.416; p = 0.001]. Conclusions: This study demonstrates the significant impact of LBP on postural control, lumbopelvic control, and functionality. These results highlight the importance of addressing postural and lumbopelvic control in LBP treatment. No significant differences based on gender and age were found, but all clinical variables differed significantly between the LBP and control groups, underscoring the unique impairments associated with LBP.

Efficacy and Safety of Conservative Treatment Compared With Surgical Treatment for Thoracolumbar Fracture With Score 4 Thoracolumbar Injury Classification and Severity (TLICS): A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

STUDY DESIGN

This was a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE

The clinical outcomes, radiologic outcome, and complications were compared between surgical treatment and conservative treatment of thoracolumbar fractures with a Thoracolumbar Injury Classification and Severity (TLICS) score of 4.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The thoracolumbar fracture is the main reason leading to the spinal cord injury. Some studies suggested that the treatment of TLICS=4 is a "gray zone." Hence, the efficacy and safety of surgical treatment and conservative treatment of thoracolumbar fractures with scores 4 TLICS was still debated.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chongqing VIP Database (VIP), and Wan Fang Database was performed up to October 2021. Relevant studies were identified using specific eligibility criteria and data was extracted and analyzed based on primary and secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 10 studies involving 555 patients were included (3 randomized controlled trials and 7 retrospective studies). There was no significant difference of hospital time (standardized mean difference=0.24, 95% CI: -1.50 to 1.97, P =0.79) and Oswestry Disability Index (mean difference=2.97, 95% CI: -1.07 to 7.01, P =0.15) between surgery and nonsurgery. The length of returning to work was shorter in surgical treatment (standardized mean difference=1.27, 95% CI: 0.07-2.46, P =0.04). Visual Analog Scale in surgical treatment was lower at 1, 3, and 6 months (respectively, P <0.00001, P =0.003, and P =0.02). However, there existed no significant difference between surgical treatment and nonsurgical treatment at 12 and >24 months (respectively, P =0.18 and 0.17). Cobb angle was lower in surgical treatment at postoperative at 6, 12, and >24 months (respectively, P =0.005, P <0.00001, P =0.002, and P =0.0002). Finally, the surgical treatment had a lower incidence of complications (odds ratio=3.89, 95% CI: 1.90-7.94, P =0.0002).

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence recommended that surgical treatment is superior to conservative treatment of TLICS score of 4 at the early follow-up. Surgical treatment had lower Cobb angle, Visual Analog Scale scores, and complications compared with a nonsurgical TLICS score of 4. However, these findings needed to be verified further by multicenter, double-blind, and large-sample randomized controlled trials.

Development and initial testing of a brief, generic self-reported disability questionnaire: The Universal Disability Index

BACKGROUND

Disability is an important multifaceted construct. A brief, generic self-reported disability questionnaire that promises a broader and more comparable measure of disability than disease-specific instruments does not currently exist. The aim of this study was to develop and evaluate such a questionnaire: the Universal Disability Index (UDI).

METHODS

An online survey was used to collect general population data. Data were randomly divided into training and validation subsets. The dimensionality and structure of eight UDI questionnaire items were evaluated using exploratory factor analysis (EFA, training subset) followed by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA, validation subset). To assess concurrent validity, the UDI summed score from the full dataset was compared to the Groningen Activity Restriction Scale (GARS) and the Graded Chronic Pain Scale (GCPS) disability scores. Internal consistency and discriminant validity were also assessed. Bootstrapping was used to evaluate model stability and generalisability.

RESULTS

403 participants enrolled; 364 completed at least one UDI item. Three single-factor versions of the UDI were assessed (8-item, 7-item, and 6-item). All versions performed well during EFA and CFA (182 cases assigned to each), but none met the RMSEA (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation) criterion (≤ 0.08). All versions of the UDI had high internal consistency (Cronbach's α > 0.90), were strongly correlated (Pearson's r > 0.7) with both GARS and GCPS disability scores, indicating concurrent validity, and could accurately discriminate between upper and lower quartiles of these comparators. Confidence intervals of estimates were narrow, suggesting model stability and generalisability.

CONCLUSIONS

A brief, generic self-reported disability questionnaire was found to be valid and to possess good psychometric properties. The UDI has a single factor structure and either a 6-item, 7-item or 8-item version can be used to measure disability. For brevity and parsimony, the 6-item UDI is recommended, but further testing of all versions is warranted.

How to Interpret Effect Sizes for Biopsychosocial Outcomes and Implications for Current Research

Biopsychosocial factors are associated with pain, but they can be difficult to compare. One way of comparing them is to use standardized mean differences. Previously, these effects sizes have been termed as small, medium, or large, if they are bigger than or equal to, respectively, .2, .5, or .8. These cut-offs are arbitrary and recent evidence showed that they need to be reconsidered. We argue it is necessary to determine cut-offs for each biopsychosocial factor. To achieve this, we propose 3 potential approaches: 1) examining, for each factor, how the effect size differs depending upon disease severity; 2) using an existing minimum clinically important difference to anchor the large effect size; and 3) define cut-offs by comparing data from people with and without pain. This is important for pain research, as exploring these methodologies has potential to improve comparability of biopsychosocial factors and lead to more directed treatments. We note assumptions and limitations of these methods that should also be considered. PERSPECTIVE: Standardized mean differences can estimate effect sizes between groups and could theoretically allow for comparison of biopsychosocial factors. However, common thresholds to define effect sizes are arbitrary and likely differ based on outcome. We propose methods that could overcome this and be used to derive biopsychosocial outcome-specific effect sizes.

Spinal manipulation and electrical dry needling as an adjunct to conventional physical therapy in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: a multi-center randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Nonoperative management of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) includes activity modification, medication, injections, and physical therapy. Conventional physical therapy includes a multimodal approach of exercise, manual therapy, and electro-thermal modalities. There is a paucity of evidence supporting the use of spinal manipulation and dry needling as an adjunct to conventional physical therapy in patients with LSS.

PURPOSE

This study aimed to determine the effects of adding thrust spinal manipulation and electrical dry needling to conventional physical therapy in patients with LSS.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Randomized, single-blinded, multi-center, parallel-group clinical trial.

PATIENT SAMPLE

One hundred twenty-eight (n=128) patients with LSS from 12 outpatient clinics in 8 states were recruited over a 34-month period.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcomes included the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Secondary outcomes included the Roland Morris Disability Index (RMDI), Global Rating of Change (GROC), and medication intake. Follow-up assessments were taken at 2 weeks, 6 weeks, and 3 months.

METHODS

Patients were randomized to receive either spinal manipulation, electrical dry needling, and conventional physical therapy (MEDNCPT group, n=65) or conventional physical therapy alone (CPT group, n=63).

RESULTS

At 3 months, the MEDNCPT group experienced greater reductions in overall low back, buttock, and leg pain (NPRS: F=5.658; p=.002) and related-disability (ODI: F=9.921; p<.001; RMDI: F=7.263; p<.001) compared to the CPT group. Effect sizes were small at 2 and 6 weeks, and medium at 3 months for the NPRS, ODI, and RMDI. At 3 months, significantly (p=.003) more patients in the MEDNCPT group reported a successful outcome (GROC≥+5) than the CPT group.

CONCLUSION

Patients with LSS who received electrical dry needling and spinal manipulation in addition to impairment-based exercise, manual therapy and electro-thermal modalities experienced greater improvements in low back, buttock and leg pain and related-disability than those receiving exercise, manual therapy, and electro-thermal modalities alone at 3 months, but not at the 2 or 6 week follow-up.

Comparisons of postural control, proprioception, muscle strength, pain and disability between individuals with acute, subacute and chronic low back pain

PURPOSE/AIM

Postural control, proprioception and lower extremity muscle strength are affected in individuals with low back pain (LBP). However, it is yet unknown whether these variables differentiate between acute, subacute and chronic stages of LBP. The aim was to investigate if there were any differences in postural control, proprioception, lower extremity muscle strength, pain intensity and disability between individuals in the different stages of LBP.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, 124 individuals with LBP were grouped as acute LBP (ALBP) (n = 38), subacute LBP (SLBP) (n = 30) and chronic LBP (CLBP) (n = 56) groups. Postural control was assessed via computerised technology. Lumbar proprioception, lower extremity muscle strength, pain intensity and disability were assessed using Joint Repositioning Error Test, hand-held dynamometer, Numeric Rating Scale and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), respectively. Kruskal-Wallis Tests, ANCOVA and post hoc Mann-Whitney U-Test with Bonferroni correction were performed.

RESULTS

While there were no significant differences in terms of postural control, proprioception and pain intensity (p > 0.05), significant differences were found in terms of lower extremity muscle strength and ODI scores between groups when adjusted for age (p < 0.05). Individuals with CLBP demonstrated poorer lower extremity muscle strength than those with ALBP and SLBP, and higher disability than those with ALBP (p < 0.017).

CONCLUSIONS

Although postural control, proprioception and pain intensity were similar between individuals with acute, subacute and chronic LBP, muscle strength and disability seem to worsen stepwise as the pain becomes chronic. Muscle strength and disability should be taken into account while evaluating and/or managing individuals with acute and subacute stages of LBP.

Combining Static and Dynamic Myofascial Dry Cupping Therapy to Improve Local and Regional Symptoms in Individuals with Low Back Pain: A Case Series

Introduction

Chronic low back pain is a common musculoskeletal healthcare presentation with an expense of over $100 billion annually. The clinical effect of myofascial cupping on pain and function is not clear, especially when different cupping techniques are combined. The purpose of this case series was to explore changes in pain and function following local static and distal dynamic myofascial dry cupping treatments in patients with chronic low back pain.

Case Descriptions

Three adults from the general population received three ten-minute treatment sessions, 48 hours between each session, of static dry cupping to the low back followed by dynamic myofascial cupping of the quadriceps and hamstring musculature. Outcome measures were taken at two different time points within one-week per participant. Subjective measures included the numeric pain rating scale and the Oswestry Disability Index, objective measures included passive straight leg raise measurements, and pressure pain threshold.

Results and Discussion

Local static combined with distal dynamic myofascial cupping reduced pain, pain sensitivity and perceived disability, and improved hamstring muscle extensibility in all three participants. These encouraging results support the initiation of a larger controlled trial aimed at investigating the efficacy of combined dry cupping interventions to treat musculoskeletal dysfunction and pain.

Level of Evidence

4 (case series).

Health-related Quality of Life (HRQOL) Outcomes of Selective/Nonselective Thoracic Fusion for Lenke 1C Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis (AIS) Patients with a Minimum 4-year Follow-up

OBJECTIVE

Both the selective thoracic fusion (STF) and nonselective thoracic fusion (NSTF) are treatments for Lenke 1C adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). To date, the impacts of the two surgical strategies on patients' long-term quality of life remain unclear. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to explore the long-term effects of STF/NSTF on the quality of life in Lenke 1C AIS patients through a 4-10-year follow-up.

METHODS

From January 2011 to April 2018, according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, a retrospective single-center study of 75 surgical patients with Lenke 1C curves was performed (n = 75). They all underwent posterior fusion, and patients were divided into the selective thoracic fusion (STF) group (n = 42) and the nonselective thoracic fusion (NSTF) group (n = 33) based on their surgical approach. All participants received the survey of the visual analogue scale (VAS), SRS30, SF12, and Oswestry disability index (ODI) scales. Patients' gender, age, body mass index (BMI), surgical approach (STF/NSTF), surgical segments (UIV and LIV), follow-up time, complications, preoperative, postoperative, and last follow-up Cobb angles, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) outcomes were collected, and analyzed through the Shapiro-Wilks test, Wilcoxon rank-sum test, t-test, and χ2 test.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up of the entire cohort was 73 ± 5.6 months. The lumbar Cobb angle in the STF group improved from 31.8 ± 6.5° to 11.5 ± 5.1° after the operation and 10.3 ± 6.9° at the last follow-up. The postoperative correction rate of the lumbar curve was 63.8%, which increased to 67.7% at the last follow-up. In the NSTF group, the lumbar Cobb angle improved from 34.3 ± 11.3° to 4.3 ± 3.7° after the operation, and was 5.1 ± 3.1° at the last follow-up. The postoperative correction rate of the lumbar curve was 87.4%, and 85.1% at the last follow-up. At the last follow-up, the STF group had higher overall HRQOL scores than the NSTF group, and there were statistically differences between the different groups (STF/NSTF) in SRS-30-Mental health (p = 0.03), SRS-30-Satisfaction with management (p = 0.02), SRS-30-Pain (p = 0.03), ODI (p = 0.01), SF-12 PCS (p = 0.03), VAS back pain (p = 0.005) and VAS leg pain (p = 0.001). No statistically differences were found in SF12 MCS, SRS-30-Self-image/Appearance and SRS-30 Function/activity.

CONCLUSION

After 4-10 years of follow-up, we found that the STF group achieved satisfactory correction results, and compared with the NSTF group, their overall HRQOL scores were higher, especially in terms of pain and satisfaction, where the STF group shows a significant advantage.

Identifying Clinical Phenotypes in People Who Are Hispanic/Latino With Chronic Low Back Pain: Use of Sensor-Based Measures of Posture and Movement, Pain, and Psychological Factors

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to identify clinical phenotypes using sensor-based measures of posture and movement, pain behavior, and psychological factors in Hispanic/Latino people with chronic low back pain (CLBP).

METHODS

Baseline measures from an ongoing clinical trial were analyzed for 81 Hispanic/Latino people with CLBP. Low back posture and movement were measured using commercial sensors during in-person testing and 8 hours of ecological monitoring. Magnitude, frequency, and duration of lumbar movements, sitting and standing postures were measured. Movement-evoked pain was assessed during in-person movement testing. Psychological measures included the Pain Catastrophizing Scale and the Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire. Random forest analysis was conducted to generate 2 groups and identify important variables that distinguish groups. Group differences in demographics, pain, psychological, and posture and movement variables were examined using t-tests and chi-square analyses.

RESULTS

Two subgroups of Hispanic/Latino people with CLBP were identified with minimal error (7.4% misclassification ["out-of-bag" error]). Ecological posture and movement measures best distinguished groups, although most movement-evoked pain and psychological measures did not. Group 1 had greater height and weight, lower movement frequency, more time in sitting, and less time in standing. Group 2 had a greater proportion of women than men, longer low back pain duration, higher movement frequency, more time in standing, and less time in sitting.

CONCLUSION

Two distinct clinical phenotypes of Hispanic/Latino people with CLBP were identified. One group was distinguished by greater height and weight and more sedentary posture and movement behavior; the second group had more women, longer duration of low back pain, higher lumbar spine movement frequency, and longer duration of standing postures.

IMPACT

Ecological measures of posture and movement are important for identifying 2 clinical phenotypes in Hispanic/Latino people with CLBP and may provide a basis for a more personalized plan of care.

LAY SUMMARY

Wearable sensors were used to measure low back posture and movement in Hispanic/Latino people with chronic low back pain. These posture and movement measures helped to identify 2 different clinical subgroups that will give physical therapists more information to better personalize treatment for chronic low back pain in Hispanic/Latino patients.

Pain Scales: What Are They and What Do They Mean

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

It is essential to have validated and reliable pain measurement tools that cover a wide range of areas and are tailored to individual patients to ensure effective pain management. The main objective of this review is to provide comprehensive information on commonly used pain scales and questionnaires, including their usefulness, intended purpose, applicability to different patient populations, and associated advantages and disadvantages.

RECENT FINDINGS

Acute pain questionnaires typically focus on measuring the severity of pain and the extent of relief achieved through interventions. Chronic pain questionnaires evaluate additional aspects such as pain-related functional limitations, psychological distress, and psychological well-being. The selection of an appropriate pain scale depends on the specific assessment objectives. Additionally, each pain scale has its strengths and limitations. Understanding the differences among these pain scales is essential for selecting the most appropriate tool tailored to individual patient needs in different settings.

CONCLUSION

Medical professionals encounter challenges in accurately assessing pain. Physicians must be familiar with the different pain scales and their applicability to specific patient population.

Anterolateral versus posterior minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion surgery for spondylolisthesis: comparison of outcomes from a global, multicenter study at 12-months follow-up

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Several minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion techniques may be used as a treatment for spondylolisthesis to alleviate back and leg pain, improve function and provide stability to the spine. Surgeons may choose an anterolateral or posterior approach for the surgery however, there remains a lack of real-world evidence from comparative, prospective studies on effectiveness and safety with relatively large, geographically diverse samples and involving multiple surgical approaches.

PURPOSE

To test the hypothesis that anterolateral and posterior minimally invasive approaches are equally effective in treating patients with spondylolisthesis affecting one or two segments at 3-months follow-up and to report and compare patient reported outcomes and safety profiles between patients at 12-months post-surgery.

DESIGN

Prospective, multicenter, international, observational cohort study.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Patients with degenerative or isthmic spondylolisthesis who underwent 1- or 2-level minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Patient reported outcomes assessing disability (ODI), back pain (VAS), leg pain (VAS) and quality of life (EuroQol 5D-3L) at 4-weeks, 3-months and 12-months follow-up; adverse events up to 12-months; and fusion status at 12-months post-surgery using X-ray and/or CT-scan. The primary study outcome is improvement in ODI score at 3-months.

METHODS

Eligible patients from 26 sites across Europe, Latin America and Asia were consecutively enrolled. Surgeons with experience in minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion procedures used, according to clinical judgement, either an anterolateral (ie, ALIF, DLIF, OLIF) or posterior (MIDLF, PLIF, TLIF) approach. Mean improvement in disability (ODI) was compared between groups using ANCOVA with baseline ODI score used as a covariate. Paired t-tests were used to examine change from baseline in PRO for both surgical approaches at each timepoint after surgery. A secondary ANCOVA using a propensity score as a covariate was used to test the robustness of conclusions drawn from the between group comparison.

RESULTS

Participants receiving an anterolateral approach (n=114) compared to those receiving a posterior approach (n=112) were younger (56.9 vs 62.0 years, p <.001), more likely to be employed (49.1% vs 25.0%, p<.001), have isthmic spondylolisthesis (38.6% vs 16.1%, p<.001) and less likely to only have central or lateral recess stenosis (44.9% vs 68.4%, p=.004). There were no statistically significant differences between the groups for gender, BMI, tobacco use, duration of conservative care, grade of spondylolisthesis, or the presence of stenosis. At 3-months follow-up there was no difference in the amount of improvement in ODI between the anterolateral and posterior groups (23.2 ± 21.3 vs 25.8 ± 19.5, p=.521). There were no clinically meaningful differences between the groups on mean improvement for back- and leg-pain, disability, or quality of life until the 12-months follow-up. Fusion rates of those assessed (n=158; 70% of the sample), were equivalent between groups (anterolateral, 72/88 [81.8%] fused vs posterior, 61/70 [87.1%] fused; p=.390).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with degenerative lumbar disease and spondylolisthesis who underwent minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion presented statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements from baseline up to 12-months follow-up. There were no clinically relevant differences between patients operated on using an anterolateral or posterior approach.

Biportal endoscopic surgery for lumbar spine herniated discs: a narrative review of its clinical application and outcomes

Lumbar disk herniation (LDH) is a common condition affecting millions worldwide. The management of LDH has evolved over the years, with the development of newer surgical techniques that aim to provide better outcomes with minimal invasiveness. One promising emerging technique is biportal endoscopic spinal surgery (BESS), which utilizes specialized endoscopic equipment to treat LDH through two small incisions. This review aims to assess the effectiveness of BESS as a management option for LDH by analyzing the available literature on surgical outcomes and potential complications associated with the technique. Our review shows that BESS is associated with favorable postoperative results as judged by clinical scoring systems, such as visual analog scale, Oswestry disability index, and MacNab criteria. BESS has several advantages over traditional open surgery, including minimized blood loss, a shorter duration of hospitalization, and an expedited healing process. However, the technique has limitations, such as a steep learning curve and practical challenges for surgeons. Our review offers recommendations for the optimal use of BESS in clinical practice, and provides a foundation for future research and development in this field, aiming to improve patient outcomes and quality of life.

Expandable versus static cages in unilateral biportal endoscopy lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) for treating degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS): comparison of clinical and radiological results

BACKGROUND

In recent years, early rehabilitation after spinal fusion and the recovery of physiological curvature have attracted much attention. Therefore, expandable cages have entered the field of vision of scientists. The goal of the current study was to compare the clinical and radiological results of unilateral portal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) with expandable versus static cages.

METHODS

We retrospectively analysed patients who received ULIF treatment for DLS from May 2019 to February 2021. Patients were categorized by cage type (static vs. expandable), and the main study was the preop and postop clinical and radiological index changes of the patients.

RESULTS

Eighty-four patients were included (38 in the static cages group; 46 in the expandable cages group). There was no difference in the preop results between the two groups. The VAS scores for low back and leg pain and ODI scores in the expandable cages group 7 d postop were significantly superior to those in the static cages group (P < 0.05), and the segmental angle and PDH in the expandable cages group postop were significantly higher than those in the static cages group (P < 0.05). The fusions at 6 m postop in the expandable cages group were superior to those in the Static Cages group (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study showed that compared with the stable cage group, the expandable cage group had unique advantages in restoring the physiological curvature of the lumbar spine, increasing the fusion rate, and relieving pain in the early postoperative period. ULIF can be used to treat single-segment, mild lumbar spondylolisthesis patients using expandable cages instead of static cages.

Pain and Disability Following Exercise-Induced Injury in Prognostic and Intervention Studies: The Why May Be More Important Than the How

OBJECTIVES

In preclinical prognostic studies, the description of expected outcomes during an informed consent process indicates that the extent of pain and disability experienced and recovery time is unknown. In intervention studies, the consent process suggests that pain and disability will definitely occur and a treatment provided. Our objective was to determine whether study design (prognosis or intervention) was associated with the severity of pain intensity and disability reports from a preclinical model.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We pooled pain and disability outcomes from prognostic and intervention studies using an exercise-induced muscle injury model of pain. Pain intensity, disability, and fear of pain were collected by validated self-report measures. Pain and disability data were z-transformed for pooled analyses and compared across the study design.

RESULTS

Data from 310 people were included. The primary findings were that self-reported pain intensity and disability were: (1) higher in prognostic studies than in the intervention studies and (2) associated with fear of pain. A secondary finding was that fear of pain was lower in the intervention compared with the prognostic studies.

DISCUSSION

Although there are other possible explanations, we speculate that these results could be related to the uncertainty inherent to providing informed consent for a prognostic study. In light of these findings, we recommend that informed consent language be more carefully considered when pain is induced in a controlled manner. Incorporating informed consent language commonly used in prognostic studies could result in higher pain intensity and disability ratings in studies that use preclinical models to test the efficacy of pain interventions.

Influence of Preoperative Disability on Clinical Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion

BACKGROUND

Few studies have examined the influence of preoperative disability through the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) on clinical outcomes in patients undergoing anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF).

METHODS

Patients undergoing ALIF were separated into 2 groups based on ODI<41 (lower disability) versus ODI≥41% (higher disability). Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were collected at preoperative and postoperative 6-week/12-week/6-month/1-year/2-year time points. Physical function PROs were Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function and 12-item Short Form Physical Component Score. Mental function PROs were 12-item Short Form Mental Component Score and Patient Health Questionnaire-9. Pain PROs were visual analog scale back and visual analog scale leg. ODI was the disability PRO.

RESULTS

A total of 148 patients were identified, with 52 patients with lower disability. Higher disability patients demonstrated significant improvement in mental function (P ≤ 0.010, all). Lower disability patients demonstrated superior postoperative PROs in physical function, mental function, back pain, and disability outcomes (P ≤ 0.034, all). Minimum clinically important difference achievement rates for lower disability patients were higher for back pain and lower for mental function and disability outcomes (P ≤ 0.041, all).

CONCLUSIONS

Independent of preoperative disability, patients undergoing ALIF reported significant postoperative improvement in physical function, pain, and disability outcomes. Patients with lower preoperative disability continued to report superior PROs in mental function, back pain, and disability postoperatively. Minimum clinically important difference achievement rates for lower disability patients were higher for back pain and lower in mental function and disability outcomes. Patients undergoing ALIF with higher preoperative disability may experience greater clinically meaningful improvement in mental function and disability.

Assessing safety and treatment efficacy of running on intervertebral discs (ASTEROID) in adults with chronic low back pain: protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Poor intervertebral disc (IVD) health is associated with low back pain (LBP). This 12-week parallel randomised controlled trial will evaluate the efficacy of a progressive interval running programme on IVD health and other clinical outcomes in adults with chronic LBP. Participants will be randomised to either a digitally delivered progressive interval running programme or waitlist control. Participants randomised to the running programme will receive three individually tailored 30 min community-based sessions per week over 12 weeks. The waitlist control will undergo no formal intervention. All participants will be assessed at baseline, 6 and 12 weeks. Primary outcomes are IVD health (lumbar IVD T2 via MRI), average LBP intensity over the prior week (100-point visual analogue scale) and disability (Oswestry Disability Index). Secondary outcomes include a range of clinical measures. All outcomes will be analysed using linear mixed models. This study has received ethical approval from the Deakin University Human Research Ethics Committee (ID: 2022-162). All participants will provide informed written consent before participation. Regardless of the results, the findings of this study will be disseminated, and anonymised data will be shared via an online repository. This will be the first study to evaluate whether a progressive interval running programme can improve IVD health in adults with chronic LBP. Identifying conservative options to improve IVD health in this susceptible population group has the potential to markedly reduce the burden of disease. This study was registered via the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry on 29 September 2022 (ACTRN12622001276741).

Efficiency and Accuracy of Computerized Adaptive Testing for the Oswestry Disability Index and Neck Disability Index

This study aimed to determine the efficiency and accuracy of computerized adaptive testing (CAT) models of the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Neck Disability Index (NDI).

Methods

The study involved simulation using retrospectively collected real-world data. Previously developed CAT models of the ODI and NDI were applied to the responses from 52,551 and 18,196 patients with spinal conditions, respectively. Efficiency was evaluated by the reduction in the number of questions administered. Accuracy was evaluated by comparing means and standard deviations, calculating Pearson r and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) values, plotting the frequency distributions of CAT and full questionnaire scores, plotting the frequency distributions of differences between paired scores, and Bland-Altman plotting. Score changes, calculated as the postoperative ODI or NDI scores minus the preoperative scores, were compared between the CAT and full versions in patients for whom both preoperative and postoperative ODI or NDI questionnaires were available.

Results

CAT models of the ODI and NDI required an average of 4.47 and 4.03 fewer questions per patient, respectively. The mean CAT ODI score was 0.7 point lower than the full ODI score (35.4 ± 19.0 versus 36.1 ± 19.3), and the mean CAT NDI score was 1.0 point lower than the full NDI score (34.7 ± 19.3 versus 33.8 ± 18.5). The Pearson r was 0.97 for both the ODI and NDI, and the ICC was 0.97 for both. The frequency distributions of the CAT and full scores showed marked overlap for the ODI and NDI. Differences between paired scores were less than the minimum clinically important difference in 98.9% of cases for the ODI and 98.5% for the NDI. Bland-Altman plots showed no proportional bias. The ODI and NDI score changes could be calculated in a subgroup of 6,044 and 4,775 patients, respectively; the distributions of the ODI and NDI score changes were near identical between the CAT and full versions.

Conclusions

CAT models were able to reduce the question burden of the ODI and NDI. Scores obtained from the CAT models were faithful to those from the full questionnaires, both on the population level and on the individual patient level.

Level of Evidence

Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Validation of Adult Spinal Deformity Surgical Outcome Prediction Tools in Adult Symptomatic Lumbar Scoliosis

STUDY DESIGN

A post hoc analysis.

OBJECTIVE

Advances in machine learning (ML) have led to tools offering individualized outcome predictions for adult spinal deformity (ASD). Our objective is to examine the properties of these ASD models in a cohort of adult symptomatic lumbar scoliosis (ASLS) patients.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

ML algorithms produce patient-specific probabilities of outcomes, including major complication (MC), reoperation (RO), and readmission (RA) in ASD. External validation of these models is needed.

METHODS

Thirty-nine predictive factors (12 demographic, 9 radiographic, 4 health-related quality of life, 14 surgical) were retrieved and entered into web-based prediction models for MC, unplanned RO, and hospital RA. Calculated probabilities were compared with actual event rates. Discrimination and calibration were analyzed using receiver operative characteristic area under the curve (where 0.5=chance, 1=perfect) and calibration curves (Brier scores, where 0.25=chance, 0=perfect). Ninety-five percent confidence intervals are reported.

RESULTS

A total of 169 of 187 (90%) surgical patients completed 2-year follow up. The observed rate of MCs was 41.4% with model predictions ranging from 13% to 68% (mean: 38.7%). RO was 20.7% with model predictions ranging from 9% to 54% (mean: 30.1%). Hospital RA was 17.2% with model predictions ranging from 13% to 50% (mean: 28.5%). Model classification for all three outcome measures was better than chance for all [area under the curve=MC 0.6 (0.5-0.7), RA 0.6 (0.5-0.7), RO 0.6 (0.5-0.7)]. Calibration was better than chance for all, though best for RA and RO (Brier Score=MC 0.22, RA 0.16, RO 0.17).

CONCLUSIONS

ASD prediction models for MC, RA, and RO performed better than chance in a cohort of adult lumbar scoliosis patients, though the homogeneity of ASLS affected calibration and accuracy. Optimization of models require samples with the breadth of outcomes (0%-100%), supporting the need for continued data collection as personalized prediction models may improve decision-making for the patient and surgeon alike.

Does Age Younger Than 65 Affect Clinical Outcomes in Medicare Patients Undergoing Lumbar Fusion?

STUDY DESIGN

This was a retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

To determine if age (younger than 65) and Medicare status affect patient outcomes following lumbar fusion.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Medicare is a common spine surgery insurance provider, but most qualifying patients are older than age 65. There is a paucity of literature investigating clinical outcomes for Medicare patients under the age of 65.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients 40 years and older who underwent lumbar fusion surgery between 2014 and 2019 were queried from electronic medical records. Patients with >2 levels fused, >3 levels decompressed, incomplete patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), revision procedures, and tumor/infection diagnosis were excluded. Patients were placed into 4 groups based on Medicare status and age: no Medicare under 65 years (NM<65), no Medicare 65 years or older (NM≥65), yes Medicare under 65 (YM<65), and yes Medicare 65 years or older (YM≥65). T tests and χ 2 tests analyzed univariate comparisons depending on continuous or categorical type. Multivariate regression for ∆PROMs controlled for confounders. Alpha was set at 0.05.

RESULTS

Of the 1097 patients, 567 were NM<65 (51.7%), 133 were NM≥65 (12.1%), 42 were YM<65 (3.8%), and 355 were YM≥65 (32.4%). The YM<65 group had significantly worse preoperative Visual Analog Scale back ( P =0.01) and preoperative and postoperative Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Short-Form 12 Mental Component Score (MCS-12), and Physical Component Score (PCS-12). However, on regression analysis, there were no significant differences in ∆PROMs for YM <65 compared with YM≥65, and NM<65. NM<65 (compared with YM<65) was an independent predictor of decreased improvement in ∆ODI following surgery (β=12.61, P =0.007); however, overall the ODI was still lower in the NM<65 compared with the YM<65.

CONCLUSION

Medicare patients younger than 65 years undergoing lumbar fusion had significantly worse preoperative and postoperative PROMs. The perioperative improvement in outcomes was similar between groups with the exception of ∆ODI, which demonstrated greater improvement in Medicare patients younger than 65 compared with non-Medicare patients younger than 65.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III (treatment).

Patient-reported outcome measures in spine surgery: A systematic review

Background

Steadily increasing expenditure in the United States health-care system has led to a shift toward a value-based model that focuses on quality of care and cost-effectiveness. Operations involving the spine rank among some of the most common and expensive procedures performed in operating rooms nationwide. Patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) are a useful tool for reporting levels of outcome and analyzing patient recovery but are both under-utilized and nonstandardized in spine surgery.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review of the literature using the PubMed database, focusing on the most commonly utilized PROMs for spine disease as well as spinal deformity. The benefits and drawbacks of these PROMs were then summarized and compared.

Results

Spine-specific PROMs were based on the class of disease. The most frequently utilized PROMs were the Neck Disability Index and the modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association scale; the Oswestry Disability Index and the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire; and the Scoliosis Research Society 22-item questionnaire (SRS-22) for cervicothoracic spine disease, lumbar spine disease, and spinal deformity, respectively.

Conclusion

We found limited, though effective, use of PROMs targeting specific classes of disease within spine surgery. Therefore, we advocate for increased use of PROMs in spine surgery, in both the research and clinical settings. PROM usage can help physicians assess subjective outcomes in standard ways that can be compared across patients and institutions, more uniquely tailor treatment to individual patients, and engage patients in their own medical care.

Analysis of Patient-reported Outcomes Measures Used in Lumbar Fusion Surgery Research for Degenerative Spondylolisthesis

STUDY DESIGN

Meta-analyses.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to document the most common Patient-reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) used to assess lumbar fusion surgery outcomes and provide an estimate of the average improvement following surgical treatment.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

As health care institutions place more emphasis on quality of care, accurately quantifying patient perceptions has become a valued tool in measuring outcomes. To this end, greater importance has been placed on the use of PROMs. This is a systemic review and meta-analysis of randomly controlled trials published between 2014 and 2019 assessing surgical treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis.

METHODS

A fixed effect size model was used to calculate mean difference and a 95% confidence interval (95% CI). Linear regression was used to calculate average expected improvement, adjusted for preoperative scores.

RESULTS

A total of 4 articles (7 study groups) were found for a total of 444 patients. The 3 most common PROMs were Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) (n=7, 100%), Short-Form-12 or Short-Form-36 (SF-12/36) (n=4, 57.1%), and visual analog scale-back pain (n=3, 42.8%). Pooled average improvement was 24.12 (95% CI: 22.49-25.76) for ODI, 21.90 (95% CI: 19.71-24.08) for SF-12/36 mental component score, 22.74 (95% CI: 20.77-24.71) for SF-12/36 physical component score, and 30.87 (95% CI: 43.79-47.97) for visual analog scale-back pain. After adjusting for preoperative scores, patients with the mean preoperative ODI (40.47) would be expected to improve by 22.83 points postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides a range of expected improvement for common PROMs used to evaluate degenerative spondylolisthesis with the goal of equipping clinicians with a benchmark value to use when counseling patients regarding surgery. In doing so, it hopes to provide a comparison point by which to judge individual patient improvement.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II.

Estimating measurement error of the Oswestry Disability Index with missing data

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) is the most commonly used patient-reported outcome measure for low back pain. Incomplete ODI questionnaires may induce measurement error, causing misclassification of disability level.

PURPOSE

We determined which scoring method-alternative scoring (AS) or multiple imputation (MI)-produced the best estimate of measurement error with missing items; and assessed the precision of AS and MI when scoring the ODI and classifying disability level with increasing numbers of missing items.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Quantitative study PATIENT SAMPLE: We included 995 patients who underwent lumbar spine surgery from 2014 to 2020 and who had complete ODI data.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Measurement error.

METHODS

We (1) simulated 1000 datasets for each number of ODI items (1-9) for which data could be missing by randomly setting items to missing; (2) calculated simulated scores using AS or MI; (3) calculated absolute percentage error (APE) of simulated vs. true scores; (4) classified disability level using the simulated score; and (5) compared APE between scoring methods to assess precision and misclassification rates.

RESULTS

For 1, 5, and 9 missing items using AS, APE was 0.6%, 3.1%, and 12%, respectively, and misclassification rates were 0.6%, 4.6%, and 13%. For 1, 5, and 9 missing items using MI, APE was 1.3%, 7.9%, and 56%, respectively, and misclassification rates were 4.6%, 9.7%, and 58%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

With increasing numbers of missing ODI items, MI introduced more measurement error than AS did. Clinicians should consider APE when interpreting ODI scores with missing data and classifying disability level. Inaccurate interpretations could negatively affect assessments and treatment plans.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Data-driven phenotyping of preoperative functional decline patterns in patients undergoing lumbar decompression and lumbar fusion using smartphone accelerometry

OBJECTIVE

Treatment of degenerative lumbar spine pathologies typically escalates to surgical intervention when symptoms begin to significantly impair patients’ functional status. Currently, surgeons rely on subjective patient assessments through patient-reported outcome measures to estimate the decline in patient wellness and quality of life. In this analysis, the authors sought to use smartphone-based accelerometry data to provide an objective, continuous measurement of physical activity that might aid in effective characterization of preoperative functional decline in different lumbar spine surgical indications.

METHODS

Up to 1 year of preoperative activity data (steps taken per day) from 14 patients who underwent lumbar decompression and 15 patients who underwent endoscopic lumbar fusion were retrospectively extracted from patient smartphones. A data-driven algorithm was constructed based on 10,585 unique activity data points to identify and characterize the functional decline of patients preceding surgical intervention. Algorithmic estimation of functional decline onset was compared with reported symptom onset in clinical documentation across patients who presented acutely (≤ 5 months of symptoms) or chronically (> 5 months of symptoms).

RESULTS

The newly created algorithm identified a statistically significant decrease in physical activity during measured periods of functional decline (p = 0.0020). To account for the distinct clinical presentation phenotypes of patients requiring lumbar decompression (71.4% acute and 28.6% chronic) and those requiring lumbar fusion (6.7% acute and 93.3% chronic), a variable threshold for detecting clinically significant reduced physical activity was implemented. The algorithm characterized functional decline (i.e., acute or chronic presentation) in patients who underwent lumbar decompression with 100% accuracy (sensitivity 100% and specificity 100%), while characterization of patients who underwent lumbar fusion was less effective (accuracy 26.7%, sensitivity 21.4%, and specificity 100%). Adopting a less-permissive detection threshold in patients who underwent lumbar fusion, which rendered the algorithm robust to minor fluctuations above or below the chronically decreased level of preoperative activity in most of those patients, increased functional decline classification accuracy of patients who underwent lumbar fusion to 66.7% (sensitivity 64.3% and specificity 100%).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, the authors found that smartphone-based accelerometer data successfully characterized functional decline in patients with degenerative lumbar spine pathologies. The accuracy and sensitivity of functional decline detection were much lower when using non–surgery-specific detection thresholds, indicating the effectiveness of smartphone-based mobility analysis in characterizing the unique physical activity fingerprints of different lumbar surgical indications. The results of this study highlight the potential of using activity data to detect symptom onset and functional decline in patients, enabling earlier diagnosis and improved prognostication.

Understanding how individualised physiotherapy or advice altered different elements of disability for people with low back pain using network analysis

PURPOSE

The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) is a common aggregate measure of disability for people with Low Back Pain (LBP). Scores on individual items and the relationship between items of the ODI may help understand the complexity of low back disorders and their response to treatment. In this study, we present a network analysis to explore how individualised physiotherapy or advice might influence individual items of the ODI, and the relationship between those items, at different time points for people with LBP.

METHODS

Data from a randomised controlled trial (n = 300) comparing individualised physiotherapy versus advice for low back pain were used. A network analysis was performed at baseline, 5, 10, 26 and 52 weeks, with the 10 items of the Oswestry Disability Index modelled as continuous variables and treatment group (Individualised Physiotherapy or Advice) modelled as a dichotomous variable. A Mixed Graphical Model was used to estimate associations between variables in the network, while centrality indices (Strength, Closeness and Betweenness) were calculated to determine the importance of each variable.

RESULTS

Individualised Physiotherapy was directly related to lower Sleep and Pain scores at all follow-up time points relative to advice, as well as a lower Standing score at 10-weeks, and higher Lifting and Travelling scores at 5-weeks. The strongest associations in the network were between Sitting and Travelling at weeks 5 and 26, between Walking and Standing at week 10, and between Sitting and Standing scores at week 52. ODI items with the highest centrality measures were consistently found to be Pain, Work and Social Life.

CONCLUSION

This study represents the first to understand how individualised physiotherapy or advice differentially altered disability in people with LBP. Individualised Physiotherapy directly reduced Pain and Sleep more effectively than advice, which in turn may have facilitated improvements in other disability items. Through their high centrality measures, Pain may be considered as a candidate therapeutic target for optimising LBP management, while Work and Socialising may need to be addressed via intermediary improvements in lifting, standing, walking, travelling or sleep. Slower (5-week follow-up) improvements in Lifting and Travelling as an intended element of the Individualised Physiotherapy approach did not negatively impact any longer-term outcomes.

TRIALS REGISTRATION

ACTRN12609000834257.

Endoscopic modified total laminoplasty for symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis

Context/objective: At present, there is no consensus on the most effective surgical method for treating symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). Total laminectomy, which is frequently used at this time, destroys the posterior midline structure, causing many postoperative complications. We have designed a new surgical approach instead of total laminectomy. In this paper, we aimed to describe the surgical method of endoscopic modified total laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis as well as to explore its early efficacy.Participants: Patients with symptomatic LSS who underwent endoscopic modified total laminoplasty between August 2016 and August 2017 were eligible for our study.Outcome measures: Before surgery and one year after surgery, we measured lower limb pain and back pain by visual analog scale (VAS), disability via Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and severity of back pain according to the Japanese Orthopedic Association Score for Back Pain (JOA), while any complications were also assessed.Results: Endoscopic modified total laminoplasty was performed on 22 LSS patients, including eight males and 14 females(mean age = 59.3 ± 9.6 years). We found statistically significant differences before and one year after surgery for VAS lower limb pain and back pain, ODI and JOA scores(P < 0.001). Complications included intraoperative dural tears(n = 1),and weak fusion between the lamina and the vertebral body (n = 1).Conclusion: Endoscopic modified total laminectomy is a promising surgical approach which reduces patient suffering and improves patient quality of life.

Immediate functional progression program in adolescent athletes with a spondylolysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the preliminary evidence for the efficacy and safety of an immediate functional progression program to treat adolescent athletes with an active spondylolysis.

DESIGN

Prospective single-arm trial.

SETTING

Hospital-based sports medicine and physical therapy clinic.

PARTICIPANTS

Twelve adolescent athletes (14.2 ± 2 years, 25% female) with an active spondylolysis.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Clinical outcomes included time out of sport, Micheli Functional Scale (Function and Pain) and adverse reactions. Clinical outcomes were assessed at baseline, 1 month, 3 months and 6 months. Magnetic resonance imaging was performed at baseline and 3 months to confirm diagnosis and assess healing of lesion.

RESULTS

Eleven participants (92%) fully returned to sport in a median time of 2.5 months (75 days; interquartile range 55 days, 85 days). All participants demonstrated marked improvements in pain and function by the end of the program. One participant (8%) had an adverse reaction during care with a significant recurrence of LBP and had not returned to sport by 6 months. Magnetic resonance imaging demonstrated improvement of the spondylolytic lesion in all but one participant.

CONCLUSION

The immediate functional progression program appears a viable method for treating active spondylolysis and warrants future research.

Linking Oswestry Disability Index to the PROMIS pain interference CAT with equipercentile methods

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

When different health care providers use different patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments, it is challenging to integrate findings that describe particular patient groups or to establish treatment effectiveness across studies. It is therefore critical to develop accurate ways to convert scores between various instruments for clinicians and researchers to make comparisons across health outcomes.

PURPOSE

To develop a common metric so that scores on the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and scores on the PROMIS Physical Function can be converted interchangeably.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Data were collected from a prospective study. A single-group linking design was used.

PATIENT SAMPLE

The study population included 9020 patients presented to an orthopedic spine clinic from November 2013 to March 2019.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Patients completed the ODI and the PROMIS Pain Interference scale delivered by Computerized Adaptive Testing (CAT) at the same time prior to their visit with a spine clinician.

METHODS

Equipercentile linking methods based on log-linear smoothing approach and non-smoothing approach were used to establish a common metric across the two measures.

RESULTS

The two measures assess the similar contruct of pain. The correlation between the scores of the ODI and the PROMIS PI was 0.81. The standardized Root Expected Mean Square Difference (REMSD) values for gender, ethnic, and racial groups ranged from 3.55% to 4.81%. Hence, the assumptions for the equipercentile linking method were met. The crosswalk derived linked scores based on the log-linear smoothing method yielded small deviations (Δ = 0.09) from the observed scores. We then identified linked PROMIS-PI scores corresponding to the benchmark ODI scores for the five disability levels and for various categories of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

This study is the first to create crosswalks to interchangeably convert scores between the ODI to the PROMIS-PI in a large population of spine patients using the equipercentile linking method. The results of this study provide confidence in the validity and usefulness of the derived crosswalks based on the equipercentile linking approach. The crosswalks are helpful for comparing new and old studies on the two measures and identifying benchmark scores for various diseases and disability levels.

Comparison of Percutaneous Kyphoplasty with or without Pedicle Screw Fixation in Osteoporotic Thoracolumbar Vertebral Fractures: A Retrospective Study

Background

Osteoporotic thoracolumbar compression fractures have become a great social burden due to the aging tendency of population. This study is aimed at comparing the clinical and radiological outcomes of percutaneous kyphoplasty with or without pedicle screw fixation in patients with osteoporotic thoracolumbar fractures. Hypothesis. There is a difference in clinical outcomes between percutaneous kyphoplasty with pedicle screw fixation and percutaneous kyphoplasty.

Methods

This retrospective study included 87 patients who received percutaneous kyphoplasty with or without pedicle screw fixation between October 2015 and October 2017 at Ningbo No.6 Hospital and were followed for 2 years. A total of 40 patients received percutaneous kyphoplasty with pedicle screw fixation (PKPF group), and the other 47 patients had percutaneous kyphoplasty only (PKP group). The outcomes were measured using the visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Cobb angle (CA), and anterior vertebra height rate (AVHr), which were calculated at preoperative admission and each follow-up visit. Complications including postoperative back pain, refracture, and fixation failure were collected from medical records.

Results

There was no significant difference in baseline characteristics or preoperative data between the two groups (p < 0.05) but significantly better improvements in VAS, ODI, CA, and AVHr at 12- and 24-month follow-up visits in the PKPF group compared with those of the PKP group. 23 (48.9%) patients in the PKP group had complications, whereas only 5 (12.5%) patients in the PKPF group presented complications including 2 postoperative back pain and 1 fixation failure (p = 0.04).

Conclusions

PKPF obtained longer correction and better improvement in VAS, ODI, and CA in patients with osteoporotic thoracolumbar vertebral fractures than PKP.

Manual Therapy in Cervical and Lumbar Radiculopathy: A Systematic Review of the Literature

The aim of this study was to describe and update current knowledge of manual therapy accuracy in treating cervical and lumbar radiculopathy, to identify the limitations in current studies, and to suggest areas for future research. The study was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews. A comprehensive literature review was conducted using PubMed and Web of Science databases up to April 2020. The following inclusion criteria were used: (1) presence of radiculopathy; (2) treatment defined as manual therapy (i.e., traction, manipulation, mobilization); and (3) publication defined as a Randomized Controlled Trial. The electronic literature search resulted in 473 potentially relevant articles. Finally, 27 articles were accepted: 21 on cervical (CR) and 6 in lumbar radiculopathy (LR). The mean PEDro score for CR was 6.6 (SD 1.3), and for LR 6.7 (SD 1.6). Traction-oriented techniques are the most frequently chosen treatment form for CR and are efficient in reducing pain and improving functional outcomes. In LR, each of the included publications used a different form of manual therapy, which makes it challenging to summarize knowledge in this group. Of included publications, 93% were either of moderate or low quality, which indicates that quality improvement is necessary for this type of research.

Stability threshold during seated balancing is sensitive to low back pain and safe to assess

Challenging trunk neuromuscular control maximally using a seated balancing task is useful for unmasking impairments that may go unnoticed with traditional postural sway measures and appears to be safe to assess in healthy individuals. This study investigates whether the stability threshold, reflecting the upper limits in trunk neuromuscular control, is sensitive to pain and disability and is safe to assess in low back pain (LBP) patients. Seventy-nine subjects with non-specific LBP balanced on a robotic seat while rotational stiffness was gradually reduced. The critical rotational stiffness, K_Crit, that marked the transition between stable and unstable balance was used to quantify the individual's stability threshold. The effects of current pain, 7-day average pain, and disability on K_Crit were assessed, while controlling for age, sex, height, and weight. Adverse events (AEs) recorded at the end of the testing session were used to assess safety. Current pain and 7-day average pain were strongly associated with K_Crit (current pain p < 0.001, 7-day pain p = 0.023), reflecting that people experiencing more pain have poorer trunk neuromuscular control. There was no evidence that disability was associated with K_Crit, although the limited range in disability scores in subjects may have impacted the analysis. AEs were reported in 13 out of 79 total sessions (AE Severity: 12 mild, 1 moderate; AE Relatedness: 1 possibly, 11 probably, 1 definitely-related to the study). Stability threshold is sensitive to pain and appears safe to assess in people with LBP, suggesting it could be useful for identifying trunk neuromuscular impairments and guiding rehabilitation.

The patient acceptable symptom state for the Oswestry Disability Index following single-level lumbar fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

The patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) is a valuable tool for interpreting patient-reported outcomes. Previous studies have attempted to define the PASS in a heterogenous cohort with various lumbar spinal disorders and surgical procedures.

PURPOSE

We aimed to determine the PASS threshold for the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) specifically for patients undergoing lumbar fusion for spondylolisthesis-associated functional disability.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective review of prospectively collected registry data.

PATIENT SAMPLE

There were 692 patients who underwent primary single-level minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis between 2006 and 2014.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The ODI was collected pre-operatively, at 6 months and 2 years postoperatively. An anchor question was adapted from the NASS questionnaire, "How would you rate the overall results of your treatment?" while a validation question was taken from the same questionnaire, "Has the surgery for your back condition met your expectations so far?"

METHODS

Responses to the anchor question were used to determine whether a PASS was achieved. Receiver operating characteristics curve analysis was performed to assess the ability of the ODI to discriminate between an acceptable/unacceptable symptom state as well as to define PASS thresholds. Sensitivity analyses were performed for different follow-up periods (6 months, 2 years), subgroups (by age, gender, BMI, and comorbidity burden), baseline ODI tertiles, and an alternate definition of PASS.

RESULTS

In total, 529 of 692 (76%) patients completed 2-year follow-up, of which, 89% considered their symptom state to be acceptable. Areas under the curve (AUC) ranged from 0.81 to 0.90 for all receiver operating characteristics analyses, indicating that the ODI had an excellent discriminative ability. The PASS threshold was ≤18.09 at 6 months (AUC 0.81, sensitivity 77%, specificity 72%) and ≤15.27 at 2 years (AUC 0.86, sensitivity 79%, specificity 79%). These thresholds proved to be robust in the sensitivity analyses, showing minimal variation across different patient subgroups and baseline score tertiles.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with an ODI of ≤15.27 can be considered to have achieved a PASS after lumbar fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis. These findings will help surgeons to contextualize a patient's functional recovery after lumbar spine surgery and enable researchers to define clinically relevant benchmarks when designing trials utilizing the ODI.

Manual Pressure Release and Low-Grade Electrical Peripheral Receptor Stimulation in Nonspecific Low Back Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Chronic nonspecific low back pain is a frequent clinical condition affecting the general population and influencing disability level and quality of life. We performed a single-blinded, randomized, and controlled study to compare the effectiveness of manual pressure release (MPR) and electrical neuromodulation (ENM) treatments in the management of chronic low back pain. There were 20 patients with chronic low back pain randomly assigned to 6 treatment sessions with either technique. Both groups were treated for 2 days a week for 3 weeks. Myofascial trigger points (MTrPs) were identified and skin conductance, pressure-pain threshold, postural changes, and the Oswestry Disability Index were assessed before and after each treatment session, along with the protocol-end data compared against the baseline data in each group. We found an outstanding and about equal deactivation of MTrPs from pre- to post-treatment in both groups, reducing disability in patients with chronic low back pain. The study highlights the ENM as a reliable tool for the evaluation of MTrPs, given a high agreement with the MPR. The effect on the neuromuscular condition of treating the "key trigger points" found in this study advances the knowledge of medical rehabilitation.

Conversion of PROMIS global health to EQ-5D health state values in patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery: A psychometric evaluation

This study seeks to validate the conversion of PROMIS-GH scores to EQ-5D Health Utility Index (HUI) values. Patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery were prospectively surveyed using EQ-5D-3L and PROMIS-GH short form instruments. EQ-5D-HUI scores, and PROMIS scores converted to HUI were calculated. Neither instrument demonstrated any floor effects. The EQ-5D-HUI demonstrated significantly higher ceiling effects. Patients reported a significantly higher mean HUI score using the EQ-5D compared to PROMIS-GH. Strong positive correlation and agreement were observed. Conversion of the PROMIS-GH to the EQ-5D-HUI appears to be viable for evaluating the health status of patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery.

Effects of a pain management programme on occupational performance are influenced by gains in self-efficacy

Introduction

The perceived capacity to perform particular activities or skills (i.e. self-efficacy) is paramount in occupational therapy and is thought to be reinforced by actual functional capacity. This study examined whether changes in self-efficacy or confidence to lift weighted items influences changes in occupational performance and disability levels in patients attending a cognitive behavioural therapy pain management programme.

Method

Clients attending an 8-week cognitive behavioural therapy pain management programme ( N = 125) completed questionnaires before treatment, at discharge, and at 3-month and 6-month reviews, including measures of pain self-efficacy, disability and self-perceived performance and satisfaction using the Canadian occupational performance measure. Analyses examined disability and occupational performance over time, adjusting for baseline characteristics (age, sex, education), and sought to determine whether self-efficacy or lifting confidence influenced the outcomes.

Results

The level of disability, lifting confidence, self-efficacy and occupational performance all improved over time; however, only occupational performance and lifting confidence maintained improvements up to the 6-month review. Self-efficacy had a greater impact on occupational performance than lifting confidence.

Endoscopic removal of nucleus pulposus of intervertebral disc on lumbar intervertebral disc protrusion and the influence on inflammatory factors and immune function

Endoscopic removal of nucleus pulposus (NP) of intervertebral disc (IVD) on lumbar intervertebral disc protrusion (LIDP) and its influence on inflammatory factors and immune function were explored. A total of 145 patients with LIDP admitted to The First Affiliated Hospital of Bengbu Medical College from June 2017 to December 2018 were selected and electively treated, in which 87 patients were treated with fenestration discectomy (fenestration group) and 58 patients were treated with endoscopic removal of NP of IVD (minimally invasive group). Effects on patients in the two groups within 6 months after surgery were evaluated by modified MacNab score; differences in surgical related indexes and incidence rates of complications between the two groups were compared; the Oswestry dysfunction score and VAS pain score before treatment, and 1, 3 and 6 months after treatment, and changes of cellular levels of TNF-α, IL-4, IL-6, CD3⁺, CD4⁺, and CD8⁺ before treatment, and 24 and 48 h after surgery were evaluated. Length of surgical incision, intraoperative blood loss, time of operation, time in bed, and hospital stays of patients in minimally invasive group were lower than those in the fenestration group (P<0.05). The Oswestry score and VAS score of patients in minimally invasive group 1, 3 and 6 months after surgery were lower than those in fenestration group (P<0.05). The incidence rate of spinal instability and overall incidence of complications of patients in minimally invasive group were significantly lower than those in fenestration group (P<0.05). Levels of TNF-α and IL-6 of patients in the minimally invasive group 24 and 48 h after surgery were lower than those in the fenestration group (P<0.05) and cellular levels of IL-4, CD3⁺, CD4⁺, and CD8⁺ were higher (P<0.05). In conclusion, endoscopic removal of NP of IVD has good therapeutic effects in patients with LIDP. It reduces inflammation and suppresses immune function with higher safety, worthwhile for clinical use.

Patient-reported outcomes in spine surgery: past, current, and future directions

The purpose of this article is to review the current state of outcome measurement in spine surgery, with an emphasis on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). The commonly used generic and disease-specific outcome measures used in spinal surgery and research will be discussed. The authors will introduce the concepts of response shift and appraisal processes, which may affect the face validity of PROMs, as well as their interpretation over time. It is not uncommon for there to be a discrepancy between the observed and expected outcome, which is not wholly explainable by objective measures. Current work on understanding how appraisal affects outcome measurement will be discussed, and future directions will be suggested to facilitate the continued evolution of PROMs.There has been an evolution in the way clinicians measure outcomes following spinal surgery. In moving from purely physical, objective measures to a growing emphasis on the patient's perspective, spine surgery outcomes are better able to integrate the impact at multiple levels of relevant change. Appraisal concepts and methods are gaining traction as ways to understand the cognitive processes underlying PROMs over time. Measurement of appraisal is a valuable adjunct to the current spine outcome tools.

Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System instruments: outperforming traditional quality of life measures in patients with back and neck pain

OBJECTIVE

The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) has become increasingly popular due to computer adaptive testing methodology. This study aims to validate the association between PROMIS and legacy outcome metrics and compare PROMIS to legacy metrics in terms of ceiling and floor effects and questionnaire burden.

METHODS

A retrospective review of an outcomes database was performed at a single institution from December 2016 to April 2017. Inclusion criteria were age > 18 years and a chief complaint of back pain or neck pain. The PROMIS computer adaptive testing Pain Interference, Physical Function (PF), and Pain Intensity domains; Oswestry Disability Index (ODI); Neck Disability Index (NDI); and visual analog scale (VAS) back, VAS leg, VAS neck, and VAS arm were completed in random order. PROMIS was compared to legacy metrics in terms of the average number of questions needed to complete each questionnaire and the score distributions in the lower and higher bounds of scores.

RESULTS

A total of 494 patients with back pain and 130 patients with neck pain were included. For back pain, ODI showed a strong correlation with PROMIS-PF (R = -0.749, p < 0.001), Pain Intensity (R = 0.709, p < 0.001), and Pain Interference (R = 0.790, p < 0.001) domains. Additionally, the PROMIS Pain Intensity domain correlated to both VAS back and neck pain (R = 0.642, p < 0.001 for both). PROMIS-PF took significantly fewer questions to complete compared to the ODI (4.123 vs 9.906, p < 0.001). When assessing for instrument sensitivity, neither survey presented a significant ceiling and floor effect in the back pain population (ODI: 0.40% and 2.63%; PROMIS-PF: 0.60% and 1.41%). In the neck pain cohort, NDI showed a strong correlation with PROMIS-PF (R = 0.771, p < 0.001). Additionally, PROMIS Pain Intensity correlated to VAS neck (R = 0.642, p < 0.001). The mean number of questions required to complete the questionnaire was much lower for PROMIS-PF compared to NDI (4.417 vs 10, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences found in terms of ceiling and floor effects for neck complaints (NDI: 2.3% and 6.92%; PROMIS-PF: 0.00% and 5.38%) or back complaints (ODI: 0.40% and 2.63%; PROMIS-PF: 1.41% and 0.60%).

CONCLUSIONS

PROMIS correlates strongly with traditional disability measures in patients with back pain and neck pain. For both back and neck pain, the PROMIS-PF required patients to answer significantly fewer questions to achieve similar granularity. There were no significant differences in ceiling and floor effects for NDI or ODI when compared with the PROMIS-PF instrument.

Level of Evidence for Reliability, Validity, and Responsiveness of Physical Capacity Tasks Designed to Assess Functioning in Patients With Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review Using the COSMIN Standards

BACKGROUND

Physical capacity tasks (ie, observer-administered outcome measures that comprise a standardized activity) are useful for assessing functioning in patients with low back pain.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to systematically review the level of evidence for the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of physical capacity tasks.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, and relevant reference lists were used as data sources.

STUDY SELECTION

Two authors independently selected articles addressing the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of physical capacity tasks, and a third author resolved discrepancies.

DATA EXTRACTION AND QUALITY ASSESSMENT

One author performed data extraction, and a second author independently checked the data extraction for accuracy. Two authors independently assessed the methodological quality with the Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) 4-point checklist, and a third author resolved discrepancies.

DATA SYNTHESIS AND ANALYSIS

Data synthesis was performed by all authors to determine the level of evidence per measurement property per physical capacity task. The 5-repetition sit-to-stand, 5-minute walk, 50-ft (∼15.3-m) walk, Progressive Isoinertial Lifting Evaluation, and Timed "Up & Go" tasks displayed moderate to strong evidence for positive ratings of both reliability and construct validity. The 1-minute stair-climbing, 5-repetition sit-to-stand, shuttle walking, and Timed "Up & Go" tasks showed limited evidence for positive ratings of responsiveness.

LIMITATIONS

The COSMIN 4-point checklist was originally developed for patient-reported outcome measures and not physical capacity tasks.

CONCLUSIONS

The 5-repetition sit-to-stand, 50-ft walk, 5-minute walk, Progressive Isoinertial Lifting Evaluation, Timed "Up & Go," and 1-minute stair-climbing tasks are promising tests for the measurement of functioning in patients with chronic low back pain. However, more research on the measurement error and responsiveness of these tasks is needed to be able to fully recommend them as outcome measures in research and clinical practice.

Responsiveness of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS), Neck Disability Index (NDI) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) instruments in patients with spinal disorders

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

The Patient-Reported Outcomes Information System (PROMIS) instruments are an important advancement in the use of PROs, but need to be evaluated with longitudinal data to determine whether they are responsive to change in specific clinical populations.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to assess the responsiveness of the PROMIS Physical Function (PF), PROMIS Pain Interference (PI), Neck Disability Index (NDI), and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI).

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

This study entailed prospective data collection from consecutive patients aged 18 and older, visiting a university-based orthopaedic spine clinic between October 2013 and January 2017.

PATIENT SAMPLE

A total of 763 participants in the sample had a mean age of 58 (SD = 15) years and the sample was 50.2% male and 92.8% Caucasian.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The PROMIS PF and PROMIS PI Computerized Adaptive Tests along with either the NDI or ODI instruments were administered on tablet computers before clinic visits. Global rating of change questions relating to pain and function levels was also administered.

METHODS

Baseline scores were compared with follow-up scores at four different time-points from 3-months to 6-months and beyond. Patient demographics, mean scores, paired-sample t tests, Standardized Response Mean (SRM), and Effect Size (ES) were analyzed to determine instrument responsiveness. This project was funded by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases of the National Institutes of Health under award number U01AR067138 and the authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

RESULTS

The PROMIS instruments were strongly correlated with each other as well as with the NDI and ODI. Responsiveness was significant on all four instruments at every time-point assessed (paired sample t tests ranged from p < .001 to p = .049). SRM's were large and over 0.94 for every instrument at every time-point. Cohen's d ES were large and over 0.96 for all at all time-points, except for the NDI which had ES ranging from 0.74 to 0.83. This study showed large effect sizes and responsiveness of the PROMIS PF, PROMIS PI, NDI and ODI in a population of orthopaedic patients with spine pathologies.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates strong responsiveness of the PROMIS PF and PROMIS PI in a spine clinic population.

What Are the MCIDs for PROMIS, NDI, and ODI Instruments Among Patients With Spinal Conditions?

BACKGROUND

As new Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) instruments are incorporated into clinical practice, determining how large a change on these instruments represents a clinically relevant difference is important; the metric that describes this is the minimum clinically important difference (MCID). Prior research on MCIDs of the Neck Disability Index (NDI) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) has produced values ranging from 5 to 10 points, but these measures have not been presented in relation to MCID values of PROMIS instruments.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

To establish a comprehensive repository of MCID values calculated both with distribution-based and anchor-based methods for four outcomes instruments in spine care, we asked: (1) What are the MCIDs of the PROMIS Physical Function (PF); (2) the PROMIS Pain Interference (PI); (3) the NDI; and (4) the ODI among spine patients?

METHODS

We conducted a prospective study of previously tested diagnostic measures on 1945 consecutive patients with a reference standard applied. All patients aged 18 years and older visiting an orthopaedic spine clinic between October 2013 and January 2017 completed the PROMIS PF and PI, NDI, and ODI on tablet computers before their clinic visits. Patients were grouped by change level (self-report of meaningful change versus slight or no change) using an anchor question in comparison to baseline. Descriptive statistics, two anchor-based MCID values (mean change and receiver operating characteristic curve), and five distribution-based values (SD at 1/2 and 1/3 values and minimum detectable change [MDC] at 90%, 95%, and 99%) were analyzed four different times between 3 months and > 6 months of followup. A total of 1945 included patients with a wide range of spine conditions and varying treatments had a mean age of 58 years (SD = 15.5), were 51% (988 of 1945) male, 90% (1754 of 1945) self-identified as white, and 5% (94 of 1945) as Hispanic with 1% to 2% of patients refusing participation.

RESULTS

The PROMIS PF mean change scores in the changed group (much worse, worse, improved, or much improved) ranged between 7 and 8 points. MCID values ranged from 3 to 23 points depending on the method of calculation with a median of 8. For the PROMIS PI, mean change scores ranged from 8 to 9 points and MCID values from 1 to 24 points with a median of 8. For the NDI, mean change scores ranged from 13 to 18 points and MCID values ranged from 6 to 43 points with a median of 18. For the ODI, mean change ranged from 17 to 19 points and MCID values ranged from 7 to 51 points with a median of 24. For each instrument, distribution-based SD yielded the smallest values, followed by anchor-based methods, with MDC yielding the largest MCID values.

CONCLUSIONS

This study uses a range of methods for determining MCIDs of the PROMIS PF and PI, NDI, and ODI from anchor-based to distribution-based methods. MCIDs do not have a static value for a given outcome measure, but have a range of values and are dependent on the method calculated. The lowest MCIDs identified for the NDI and ODI are consistent with prior studies, but those at the upper range are much higher. Anchor-based methods are thought to be most relevant in the clinical setting and are more easily understood by clinicians, whereas the distribution-based MCIDs are useful in understanding population breadth. Lower MCID values may be most appropriate for screening purposes or low-risk effects, and the median or higher MCID values should be used for high-risk effects or outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I, diagnostic study.

Which Domains of the ODI Best Predict Change in Physical Function in Patients After Surgery for Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis?

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective review.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study is to determine the differential improvement of the various individual items of the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and to determine their relationship to other measures of Health Related Quality of Life (HRQOL).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The ODI is an easily scored, common, 10-item questionnaire about symptoms relevant to lumbar spine pathology. It is not clear if all of the items can be reliably applied to spine surgery. The purpose of this study is to determine the differential improvement of the various individual items of the ODI and to determine their relationship to other measures of HRQOL.

METHODS

Analysis of a prospective registry of patients treated at an academic medical center was undertaken. At baseline, standardized outcome measures including ODI and SF12 PCS were collected on all patients undergoing elective fusion surgery for degenerative spondylolisthesis. Multiple linear regressions were performed using change in SF12 PCS as the dependent variable and change in ODI components as the independent variables.

RESULTS

Baseline and 1-year follow-up data were collected on 196 patients (mean age 60.4 years). There were statistically significant differences in improvement among ODI items. Surprisingly, the most improvement after surgery was noted in the standing, sex life, and social life domains. The least improvement was noted in the personal care, sleeping, and sitting domains. Linear regression for change in ODI components versus change in SF-12 PCS revealed a significant correlation (R = 0.353, P ≤ 0.001). The only retained domains in the final model were change in lifting, standing, and traveling as predictors for ΔPCS.

CONCLUSION

All domains of the ODI do not improve equally after surgery for degenerative spondylolisthesis. Some of the domains that improve most (e.g., sex life) have no discernible relationship to the known pathophysiology of degenerative spondylolisthesis. Based upon these results, we conclude that the item bank and composite scoring of the ODI are inappropriate for evaluating quality of life in studies of surgically treated degenerative spondylolisthesis patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.