Effect of patients' functional status on satisfaction with outcomes 12 months after elective spine surgery for lumbar degenerative disease

Ninety Percent of Patients Are Satisfied With Their Decision to Undergo Spine Surgery for Degenerative Conditions

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey and retrospective review of prospectively collected data.

OBJECTIVE

To explore how patients perceive their decision to pursue spine surgery for degenerative conditions and evaluate factors correlated with decisional regret.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Prior research shows that one-in-five older adults regret their decision to undergo spinal deformity surgery. However, no studies have investigated decisional regret in patients with degenerative conditions.

METHODS

Patients who underwent cervical or lumbar spine surgery for degenerative conditions (decompression, fusion, or disk replacement) between April 2017 and December 2020 were included. The Ottawa Decisional Regret Questionnaire was implemented to assess prevalence of decisional regret. Questionnaire scores were used to categorize patients into low (<40) or medium/high (≥40) decisional regret cohorts. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) included the Oswestry Disability Index, Patient-reported Outcomes Measurement Information System, Visual Analog Scale (VAS) Back/Leg/Arm, and Neck Disability Index at preoperative, early postoperative (<6 mo), and late postoperative (≥6 mo) timepoints. Differences in demographics, operative variables, and PROMs between low and medium/high decisional regret groups were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 295 patients were included (mean follow-up: 18.2 mo). Overall, 92% of patients agreed that having surgery was the right decision, and 90% would make the same decision again. In contrast, 6% of patients regretted the decision to undergo surgery, and 7% noted that surgery caused them harm. In-hospital complications (P=0.02) and revision fusion (P=0.026) were significantly associated with higher regret. The medium/high decisional regret group also exhibited significantly worse PROMs at long-term follow-up for all metrics except VAS-Arm, and worse achievement of minimum clinically important difference for Oswestry Disability Index (P=0.007), Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (P<0.0001), and VAS-Leg (P<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Higher decisional regret was encountered in the setting of need for revision fusion, increased in-hospital complications, and worse PROMs. However, 90% of patients overall were satisfied with their decision to undergo spine surgery for degenerative conditions. Current tools for assessing patient improvement postoperatively may not adequately capture the psychosocial values and patient expectations implicated in decisional regret.

The Prevalence of Back Pain in Patients Operated on Due to Colorectal Cancer Depending on the Type of Surgical Procedure Performed

PURPOSE

Low back pain presents a serious challenge for numerous medical specialties. The purpose of this study was to assess disability due to low back pain in patients operated on due to colorectal cancer depending on the type of surgery performed.

METHODS

This prospective observational study was carried out in the period of July 2019 through March 2020. Included in the study were patients with colorectal cancer for scheduled surgeries including anterior resection of rectum (AR), laparoscopic anterior resection of rectum (LAR), Hartmann's procedure (HART), or abdominoperineal resection of rectum (APR). The Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire was used as the research tool. The study patients were surveyed at three time points: before surgery, six months after surgery, and one year after surgery.

RESULTS

The analysis of study results revealed that an increase in the degree of disability and functioning impairment occurred in all groups between time points I and II, with the differences being statistically significant (p < 0.05). The inter-group comparative analysis of the total Oswestry questionnaire scores revealed statistically significant differences, with the impairment of function being most severe within the APR group and least severe within the LAR group.

CONCLUSION

The study results showed that low back pain contributes to impaired functioning of patients operated on due to colorectal cancer regardless of the type of procedure performed. A reduction in the degree of disability due to low back pain was observed one year after the procedure in patients having undergone LAR.

Minimal Clinically Important Difference and Patient-Acceptable Symptom State in Orthopaedic Spine Surgery: A Review

»

Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS) are both metrics at interpreting patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

»

MCID values tend to vary significantly depending on the baseline pain and function in both acute and chronic symptom states while PASS thresholds are more stable.

»

MCID values are more easily attainable than PASS thresholds.

»

Although PASS is more relevant to the patient, it should continue to be used in tandem with MCID when interpreting PROM data.

Frailty and Sarcopenia: Impact on Outcomes Following Elective Degenerative Lumbar Spine Surgery

STUDY DESIGN

This is a retrospective review of prospectively collected data.

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to evaluate the impact of frailty and sarcopenia on outcomes after lumbar spine surgery.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Elderly patients are commonly diagnosed with degenerative spine disease requiring surgical intervention. Frailty and sarcopenia result from age-related decline in physiological reserve and can be associated with complications after elective spine surgery. Little is known about the impact of these factors on patient-reported outcomes (PROs).

METHODS

Patients older than 70 years of age undergoing elective lumbar spine surgery were included. The modified 5-item frailty index (mFI-5) was calculated. Sarcopenia was defined using total psoas index, which is obtained by dividing the mid L3 total psoas area by VB area (L3-TPA/VB). PROs included Oswestry disability index (ODI), EuroQual-5D (EQ-5D), numeric rating scale (NRS)-back pain, NRS leg pain (LP), and North American Spine Society (NASS) at postoperative 12 months. Clinical outcomes included length of stay (LOS), 90-day readmission and complications. Univariate and multivariable regression analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Total 448 patients were included. The mean mFI-5 index was 1.6±1.0 and mean total psoas index was 1.7±0.5. There was a significant improvement in all PROs from baseline to 12 months ( P <0.0001). After adjusting for age, body mass index, smoking status, levels fused, and baseline PROs, higher mFI-5 index was associated with higher 12-month ODI ( P <0.001), lower 12-month EQ-5D ( P =0.001), higher NRS-L P ( P =0.039), and longer LOS ( P =0.007). Sarcopenia was not associated with 12-month PROs or LOS. Neither sarcopenia or mFI-5 were associated with 90-day complication and readmission.

CONCLUSIONS

Elderly patients demonstrate significant improvement in PROs after elective lumbar spine surgery. Frailty was associated with worse 12 months postoperative ODI, EQ-5D, NRS-LP scores, and longer hospital stay. While patients with sarcopenia can expect similar outcomes compared with those without, the mFI-5 should be considered preoperatively in counseling patients regarding expectations for disability, health-related quality of life, and leg pain outcomes after elective lumbar spine surgery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

Success and failure after surgery of degenerative disease of the lumbar spine: an operational definition based on satisfaction, pain, and disability from a prospective cohort

Background

To describe success and failure (S&F) after lumbar spine surgery in terms equally understandable across the entire health ecosystem.

Methods

Back and leg pain and disability were prospectively recorded before and up to 12 months after the procedure. Satisfaction was recorded using a Likert scale. Initially, patients were classified as satisfied or unsatisfied. Optimal satisfaction/unsatisfaction cutoff values for disability and pain were estimated with ROC curves. Satisfied and unsatisfied groups underwent a second subdivision into four subcategories: success (satisfied AND pain and disability concordant with cutoff values), incomplete success (satisfied AND pain and disability nonconformant with cutoff values), incomplete failure (unsatisfied AND pain and disability nonconformant with cutoff values), and failure (unsatisfied AND pain and disability concordant with cutoff values).

Results

A total of 486 consecutive patients were recruited from 2019–2021. The mean values of preoperative PROMs were ODI 42.2 (+ 16.4), NPRS back 6.6 (+ 2.6) and NPRS leg 6.2 points (+ 2.9). Of the total, 80.7% were classified as satisfied, and 19.3% were classified as unsatisfactory. The optimal disability and pain cutoff values for satisfaction/unsatisfaction (NPRS = 6, AND ODI = 27) defined a subdivision: 59.6% were classified as success, 20.4% as incomplete success, 7.1% as incomplete failure and 12.4% as failure. The descriptions of each group were translated to the following: success—all patients were satisfied and presented no or only mild to tolerable pain and no or borderline disability; incomplete success – all patients were satisfied despite levels of pain and/or disability worse than ideal for success; incomplete failure – all patients were not satisfied despite levels of pain and/or disability better than expected for failure; failure – all patients were unsatisfied and presented moderate to severe pain and disability.

Conclusion

It is possible to report S&F after surgery for DDL with precise and meaningful operational definitions focused on the experience of the patient.

Comparison of Outcomes Between Single-level Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Meta-analysis and Systematic Review

STUDY DESIGN

This is a meta-analysis and systematic review of the available literature.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to compare the clinical and radiologic outcomes of single-level lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) with single-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

In the treatment of adult spinal deformity, LLIF allows interbody fusion while avoiding complications associated with an anterior or transforaminal approach, although the clinical outcomes of LLIF compared with other approaches have not been well established.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, and Scopus for 385 unique studies. On the basis of our exclusion criteria, 8 studies remained for our systematic review. Data were analyzed using Review Manager 5.3 using Mantel-Haenszel statistics and random effect models. This study identified self-reported Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index, length of stay, blood loss, complication rate, and radiologic parameters (disk height, lumbar lordosis, segmental lordosis).

RESULTS

Our meta-analysis showed that LLIF contributed to decreased blood loss [mean difference (MD)=-67.62 mL, 95% confidence interval (CI): -104 to -30.90, P<0.001], superior restoration of segmental lordosis (MD=1.91 degrees, 95% CI: 0.71-3.10, P=0.002), lumbar lordosis (MD=1.95 degrees, 95% CI: 0.15-3.74, P=0.03), and disk height (MD=2.18 mm, 95% CI: 1.18-3.17, P<0.001) when compared with TLIF. However, current data suggests no significant difference in clinical outcomes between LLIF and TLIF based on overall complication rates (P=0.22), length of hospital stay (P=0.65), postoperative Oswestry Disability Index (P=0.13), postoperative VAS Back Pain (P=0.47) and VAS Leg Pain (P=0.16).

CONCLUSIONS

LLIF is an increasingly popular option for single-level anterior column reconstruction. When compared with single-level TLIF, single-level LLIF is associated with greater changes in lumbar lordosis and disk height. The single-level LLIF is a viable alternative to TLIF, demonstrating comparable clinical outcomes and better restoration of spinopelvic parameters.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Disparities in outcomes after spine surgery: a Michigan Spine Surgery Improvement Collaborative study

OBJECTIVE

Most studies on racial disparities in spine surgery lack data granularity to control for both comorbidities and self-assessment metrics. Analyses from large, multicenter surgical registries can provide an enhanced platform for understanding different factors that influence outcome. In this study, the authors aimed to determine the effects of race on outcomes after lumbar surgery, using patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in 3 areas: the North American Spine Society patient satisfaction index, the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) on the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) for low-back pain, and return to work.

METHODS

The Michigan Spine Surgery Improvement Collaborative was queried for all elective lumbar operations. Patient race/ethnicity was categorized as Caucasian, African American, and "other." Measures of association between race and PROs were calculated with generalized estimating equations (GEEs) to report adjusted risk ratios.

RESULTS

The African American cohort consisted of a greater proportion of women with the highest comorbidity burden. Among the 7980 and 4222 patients followed up at 1 and 2 years postoperatively, respectively, African American patients experienced the lowest rates of satisfaction, MCID on ODI, and return to work. Following a GEE, African American race decreased the probability of satisfaction at both 1 and 2 years postoperatively. Race did not affect return to work or achieving MCID on the ODI. The variable of greatest association with all 3 PROs at both follow-up times was postoperative depression.

CONCLUSIONS

While a complex myriad of socioeconomic factors interplay between race and surgical success, the authors identified modifiable risk factors, specifically depression, that may improve PROs among African American patients after elective lumbar spine surgery.

Mild and Severe Obesity Reduce the Effectiveness of Lumbar Fusions: 1-Year Patient-Reported Outcomes in 8171 Patients

BACKGROUND

Elevated body mass index (BMI) is a well-known risk factor for surgical complications in lumbar surgery. However, its effect on surgical effectiveness independent of surgical complications is unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To determine increasing BMI's effect on functional outcomes following lumbar fusion surgery, independent of surgical complications.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed a prospectively built, patient-reported, quality of life registry representing 75 hospital systems. We evaluated 1- to 3-level elective lumbar fusions. Patients who experienced surgical complications were excluded. A stepwise multivariate regression model assessed factors independently associated with 1-yr Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), preop to 1-yr ODI change, and achievement of minimal clinically important difference (MCID).

RESULTS

A total of 8171 patients met inclusion criteria: 2435 with class I obesity (BMI 30-35 kg/m2), 1328 with class II (35-40 kg/m2), and 760 with class III (≥40 kg/m2). Increasing BMI was independently associated with worse 12-mo ODI (t = 8.005, P < .001) and decreased likelihood of achieving MCID (odds ratio [OR] = 0.977, P < .001). One year after surgery, mean ODI, ODI change, and percentage achieving MCID worsened with class I, class II, and class III vs nonobese cohorts (P < .001) in stepwise fashion.

CONCLUSION

Increasing BMI is associated with decreased effectiveness of 1- to 3-level elective lumbar fusion, despite absence of surgical complications. BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2 is, therefore, a risk factor for both surgical complication and reduced benefit from lumbar fusion.

Does Neck Disability Index Correlate With 12-Month Satisfaction After Elective Surgery for Cervical Radiculopathy? Results From a National Spine Registry

BACKGROUND

Modern healthcare reforms focus on identifying and measuring the quality and value of care. Patient satisfaction is particularly important in the management of degenerative cervical radiculopathy (DCR) since it leads to significant neck pain and disability primarily affecting the patients' quality of life.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the association of baseline and 12-mo Neck Disability Index (NDI) with patient satisfaction after elective surgery for DCR.

METHODS

The Quality Outcomes Database cervical module was queried for patients who underwent elective surgery for DCR. A multivariable proportional odds regression model was fitted with 12-mo satisfaction as the outcome. The covariates for this model included patients' demographics, surgical characteristics, and baseline and 12-mo patient reported outcomes (PROs). Wald-statistics were calculated to determine the relative importance of each independent variable for 12-mo patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

The analysis included 2206 patients who underwent elective surgery for DCR. In multivariable analysis, after adjusting for baseline and surgery specific variables, the 12-mo NDI score showed the highest association with 12-mo satisfaction (Waldχ2-df = 99.17, 58.1% of total χ2). The level of satisfaction increases with decrease in 12-mo NDI score regardless of the baseline NDI score.

CONCLUSION

Our study identifies 12-mo NDI score as a very influential driver of 12-mo patient satisfaction after surgery for DCR. In addition, there are lesser contributions from other 12-mo PROs, baseline Numeric Rating Scale for arm pain and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade. The baseline level of disability was found to be irrelevant to patients. They seemed to only value their current level of disability, compared to baseline, in rating satisfaction with surgical outcome.

Impact of Dominant Symptom on 12-Month Patient-Reported Outcomes for Patients Undergoing Lumbar Spine Surgery

BACKGROUND

The impact of symptom characteristics on outcomes of spine surgery remains elusive.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the impact of symptom location, severity, and duration on outcomes following lumbar spine surgery.

METHODS

We queried the Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) for patients undergoing elective lumbar spine surgery for lumbar degenerative spine disease. Multivariable regression was utilized to determine the impact of preoperative symptom characteristics (location, severity, and duration) on improvement in disability, quality of life, return to work, and patient satisfaction at 1 yr. Relative predictor importance was determined using an importance metric defined as Wald χ2 penalized by degrees of freedom.

RESULTS

A total of 22 022 subjects were analyzed. On adjusted analysis, we found patients with predominant leg pain were more likely to be satisfied (P < .0001), achieve minimum clinically important difference (MCID) in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) (P = .002), and return to work (P = .03) at 1 yr following surgery without significant difference in Euro-QoL-5D (EQ-5D) (P = .09) [ref = predominant back pain]. Patients with equal leg and back pain were more likely to be satisfied (P < .0001), but showed no significant difference in achieving MCID (P = .22) or return to work (P = .07). Baseline numeric rating scale-leg pain and symptom duration were most important predictors of achieving MCID and change in EQ-5D. Predominant symptom was not found to be an important determinant of return to work. Worker's compensation was found to be most important determinant of satisfaction and return to work.

CONCLUSION

Predominant symptom location is a significant determinant of functional outcomes following spine surgery. However, pain severity and duration have higher predictive importance. Return to work is more dependent on sociodemographic features as compared to symptom characteristics.

Why are patients dissatisfied after spine surgery when improvements in disability and pain are clinically meaningful?

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Studies have found that most patients are satisfied after spine surgery, with rates ranging from 53% to 90%. Patient satisfaction appears to be closely related to achieving clinical improvement in pain and disability after surgery. While the majority of the literature has focused on patients who report both satisfaction and clinical improvement in disability and pain, there remains an important subpopulation of patients who have clinically relevant improvement but report being dissatisfied with surgery.

PURPOSE

To examine why patients who achieve clinical improvement in disability or pain also report dissatisfaction at 1-year after spinal surgery.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective analysis of prospective data from a national spine registry, the Quality Outcomes Database.

PATIENT SAMPLE

There were 34,076 participants undergoing elective surgery for degenerative spine pathology who had clinical improvement in disability or pain.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Satisfaction with surgery was assessed with 1-item from the North American Spine Society lumbar spine outcome assessment. Participants with answer choices other than "treatment met my expectations" were classified as dissatisfied.

METHODS

Patients completed a baseline and 12-month postoperative assessment to evaluate disability, pain, and satisfaction. Clinical improvement was defined as patients who achieved a 30% or greater improvement in spine-related disability (Oswestry/Neck Disability Index) or extremity pain (11-point Numeric Rating Scale) from baseline to 12-month after surgery. A generalized linear mixed model was used to predict the odds of the patient being dissatisfied 1-year after surgery from demographic, clinical and surgical characteristics, postoperative complications and revision, and return to work and previous physical activity. Random effects were included to model the effect of both site and surgeon on dissatisfaction. Sensitivity analyses were conducted on samples who achieved 30% or greater improvement in (1) disability only, (2) axial (back/neck) pain only, (3) extremity (leg/arm)pain only, (4) both disability and axial pain, and (5) both disability and extremity pain. Results showed the same pattern of findings across all samples.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight percent of patients were classified as dissatisfied with their spine surgery and 72% classified as satisfied. For patients with clinical improvement in disability or extremity pain at 1-year, significant predictors of higher odds of dissatisfaction included baseline psychological distress, current smoking status, workers compensation claim, lower education, higher ASA grade, lumbar versus cervical procedure, and increased axial pain, major complication within 30 days, and revision surgery within 12-months. The most important contributors to dissatisfaction were return to work and return to previous physical activity, with the odds of dissatisfaction being over 2 times and 4 times higher for these variables. Site and surgeon explained 3.8% of the variance in dissatisfaction, with more of the variance attributed to site than to surgeon.

CONCLUSIONS

Several modifiable factors, including psychological distress, current smoking status, and failure to return to work and physical activity, helped explain why patients report being dissatisfied with surgery despite clinical improvement in disability or pain. The findings of this study have the potential to help providers identify at-risk patients, set realistic expectations during preoperative counseling, and implement postoperative management strategies. A multidisciplinary approach to rehabilitation that includes functional goal setting or restoration may help to improve patients psychological distress as well as return to work and previous physical activity after spine surgery.

Measuring clinically relevant improvement after lumbar spine surgery: is it time for something new?

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Minimum clinically important difference (MCID) for patient-reported outcome measures is commonly used to assess clinical improvement. However, recent literature suggests that an absolute point-change may not be an effective or reliable marker of response to treatment for patients with low or high baseline patient-reported outcome scores. The multitude of established MCIDs also makes it difficult to compare outcomes across studies and different spine surgery procedures.

PURPOSE

To determine whether a 30% reduction from baseline in disability and pain is a valid method for determining clinical improvement after lumbar spine surgery.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective analysis of prospective data from a national spine registry, the Quality Outcomes Database.

PATIENT SAMPLE

There were 23,280 participants undergoing elective lumbar spine surgery for degenerative disease who completed a baseline and follow-up assessment at 12 months.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Patient-reported disability (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI]), back and leg pain (11-point Numeric Rating Scale [NRS]), and satisfaction (NASS scale).

METHODS

Patients completed baseline and a 12-month postoperative assessment to evaluate the outcomes of disability, pain, and satisfaction. The change in ODI and NRS pain scores was categorized as met (≥30%) or not met (<30%) percent reduction MCID. The 30% reduction from baseline was compared with a wide range of well-established absolute point-change MCID values. The relationship between 30% reduction and absolute change values and satisfaction were primarily compared using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, area under the curve (AUROC), and logistic regression analyses. Analyses were conducted for overall scores and for disability and pain severity categories and by surgical procedure.

RESULTS

Thirty percent reduction in ODI and back and leg pain predicted satisfaction with more accuracy than absolute point-change values for the total population and across all procedure categories (p<.001), except for when compared with the highest absolute point-change threshold for leg pain (3.5-point reduction). The largest AUROC differences, in favor of 30% reduction, were found for the lowest disability (ODI 0-20%: 21.8%) and bed-bound disability (ODI 81%-100%: 13.9%) categories. For pain, there was a 3.4%-12.4% and 1.3%-9.8% AUROC difference for no/mild back and leg pain (NRS 0-4), respectively, in favor of a 30% reduction threshold.

CONCLUSIONS

A 30% reduction MCID either outperformed or was similar to absolute point-change MCID values. Results indicate that a 30% reduction (baseline to 12 months after surgery) in disability and pain is a valid method for determining clinically relevant improvement in a broad spine surgery population. Furthermore, a 30% reduction was most accurate for patients in the lowest and highest disability and lowest pain severity categories. A 30% reduction MCID allows for a standard cut-off for disability and pain that can be used to compare outcomes across various spine surgery procedures.

Definitions of unfavorable surgical outcomes and their risk factors based on disability score after spine surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis

Background

Risk factors for unfavorable surgical outcomes are dependent on the definitions of the unfavorable surgical outcomes. The aims of this study were to compare risk factors for each unfavorable surgical outcome according to two different definitions of “unfavorable” surgical outcomes after surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) as well as compare the clinical course from the preoperative period to 3 years postoperatively between cases with favorable and unfavorable outcomes according to the two different definitions.

Methods

Overall, 295 patients who underwent spine surgery for LSS and a follow-up evaluation at 3 years postoperatively were enrolled and divided into favorable and unfavorable groups, based on two different definitions for unfavorable surgical outcomes, as evaluated at 12 months postoperatively: the patient-reported outcome (PRO) and minimal clinically important difference (MCID) methods. In the PRO method, patients with a postoperative Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score > 22 were considered as having an “unfavorable” outcome, whereas in the MCID method, those with a postoperative ODI score that changed < 12.8 points from the preoperative value were classified as having an “unfavorable” outcome. As a primary outcome, risk factors for unfavorable surgical outcomes according to each definition were investigated at 12 months postoperatively.

Results

In the PRO method, female sex (P = 0.011; odds ratio (OR): 2.340), elementary school attainment (vs. university attainment; P = 0.035; OR: 2.875), and higher preoperative ODI score (P = 0.028; OR: 2.340) were associated with higher odds for an unfavorable surgical outcome. In the MCID method, a higher preoperative ODI score was associated with higher odds (P <  0.001; OR: 0.920) of a favorable surgical outcome. In the PRO method, the favorable outcome group demonstrated significantly lower visual analog scale for back and leg pain and lower ODI scores than the unfavorable outcome group at 3 years postoperatively, whereas in the MCID method, clinical outcomes were not different between the two groups at 3 years postoperatively.

Conclusion

A higher preoperative ODI score may be a risk factor for postoperative ODI > 22 after surgery for LSS. It may also be associated with higher odds for improvements in the ODI score of > 12.8.

Predictors of patient dissatisfaction at 1 and 2 years after lumbar surgery

OBJECTIVE

As compensation transitions from a fee-for-service to pay-for-performance healthcare model, providers must prioritize patient-centered experiences. Here, the authors' primary aim was to identify predictors of patient dissatisfaction at 1 and 2 years after lumbar surgery.

METHODS

The Michigan Spine Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MSSIC) was queried for all lumbar operations at the 1- and 2-year follow-ups. Predictors of patients' postoperative contentment were identified per the North American Spine Surgery (NASS) Patient Satisfaction Index, wherein satisfied patients were assigned a score of 1 ("the treatment met my expectations") or 2 ("I did not improve as much as I had hoped, but I would undergo the same treatment for the same outcome") and unsatisfied patients were assigned a score of 3 ("I did not improve as much as I had hoped, and I would not undergo the same treatment for the same outcome") or 4 ("I am the same or worse than before treatment"). Multivariable Poisson generalized estimating equation models were used to report adjusted risk ratios (RRadj).

RESULTS

Among 5390 patients with a 1-year follow-up, 22% reported dissatisfaction postoperatively. Dissatisfaction was predicted by higher body mass index (RRadj =1.07, p < 0.001), African American race compared to white (RRadj = 1.51, p < 0.001), education level less than high school graduation compared to a high school diploma or equivalent (RRadj = 1.25, p = 0.008), smoking (RRadj = 1.34, p < 0.001), daily preoperative opioid use > 6 months (RRadj = 1.22, p < 0.001), depression (RRadj = 1.31, p < 0.001), symptom duration > 1 year (RRadj = 1.32, p < 0.001), previous spine surgery (RRadj = 1.32, p < 0.001), and higher baseline numeric rating scale (NRS)-back pain score (RRadj = 1.04, p = 0.002). Conversely, an education level higher than high school graduation, independent ambulation (RRadj = 0.90, p = 0.039), higher baseline NRS-leg pain score (RRadj = 0.97, p = 0.013), and fusion surgery (RRadj = 0.88, p = 0.014) decreased dissatisfaction.Among 2776 patients with a 2-year follow-up, 22% reported dissatisfaction postoperatively. Dissatisfaction was predicted by a non-white race, current smoking (RRadj = 1.26, p = 0.004), depression (RRadj = 1.34, p < 0.001), symptom duration > 1 year (RRadj = 1.47, p < 0.001), previous spine surgery (RRadj = 1.28, p < 0.001), and higher baseline NRS-back pain score (RRadj = 1.06, p = 0.003). Conversely, at least some college education (RRadj = 0.87, p = 0.035) decreased the risk of dissatisfaction.

CONCLUSIONS

Both comorbid conditions and socioeconomic circumstances must be considered in counseling patients on postoperative expectations. After race, symptom duration was the strongest predictor of dissatisfaction; thus, patient-centered measures must be prioritized. These findings should serve as a tool for surgeons to identify at-risk populations that may need more attention regarding effective communication and additional preoperative counseling to address potential barriers unique to their situation.

Predictors of patient satisfaction following 1- or 2-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: insights from the Quality Outcomes Database

OBJECTIVE

Patient satisfaction with treatment outcome is gaining an increasingly important role in assessing the value of surgical spine care delivery. Nationwide data evaluating the predictors of patient satisfaction in elective cervical spine surgery are lacking. The authors sought to decipher the impacts of the patient, surgical practice, and surgeon on satisfaction with outcome following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF).

METHODS

The authors queried the Quality Outcomes Database for patients undergoing 1- to 2-level ACDF for degenerative spine disease since 2013. Patient satisfaction with the surgical outcome as measured by the North American Spine Society (NASS) scale comprised the primary outcome. A multivariable proportional odds logistic regression model was constructed with adjustments for baseline patient characteristics and surgical practice and surgeon characteristics as fixed effects.

RESULTS

A total of 4148 patients (median age 54 years, 48% males) with complete 12-month NASS satisfaction data were analyzed. Sixty-seven percent of patients answered that "surgery met their expectations" (n = 2803), while 20% reported that they "did not improve as much as they had hoped but they would undergo the same operation for the same results" (n = 836). After adjusting for a multitude of patient-specific as well as hospital- and surgeon-related factors, the authors found baseline Neck Disability Index (NDI) score, US geographic region of hospital, patient race, insurance status, symptom duration, and Workers' compensation status to be the most important predictors of patient satisfaction. The discriminative ability of the model was satisfactory (c-index 0.66, overfitting-corrected estimate 0.64).

CONCLUSIONS

The authors' results found baseline NDI score, patient race, insurance status, symptom duration, and Workers' compensation status as well as the geographic region of the hospital to be the most important predictors of long-term patient satisfaction after a 1- to 2-level ACDF. The findings of the present analysis further reinforce the role of preoperative discussion with patients on setting treatment goals and realistic expectations.

Physical Function and Quality of Life After Resection of Mobile Spine Chondrosarcoma

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES

(1) To assess patient-reported outcomes-physical function, pain, and quality of life-in patients who underwent resection of a mobile spine chondrosarcoma. (2) To assess complications (90 days), readmissions, reoperations, oncological outcomes, and neurologic status.

METHODS

Thirty-three patients with spinal conventional chondrosarcoma resection between 1984 and 2014 at one hospital were included. The primary outcome measures were-minimally 6 months after surgery-the EuroQol 5 Dimensions (EQ5D), PROMIS-Physical Function, PROMIS-Pain Intensity, and Oswestry (ODI) Disability Index, or Neck (NDI) Disability established in 14 out of 20 alive (70.0%) patients. Complications, readmission, reoperations, oncological outcomes, and neurological status were reported for the complete cohort of 33 patients.

RESULTS

After spine chondrosarcoma resection, patients (n = 14) reported worse physical function (median 43, range 22-61, P = .026), worse quality of life (median EQ5D 0.70, range 0.04-1, P = .022), and comparable pain intensity (median 47, range 31-56, P = .362) when compared with US general population values. The median NDI/ODI was 25 (range 0-72) indicating mild to moderate disability. Patients undergoing reoperation had worse patient-reported outcomes than those who did not. Eighteen (55.5%) out of 33 patients suffered complications (90 days), 14 (42.4%) had unplanned readmission, and 13 (39.4%) underwent reoperation. Intralesional resection was associated with increased readmission, reoperation, and recurrence rate.

CONCLUSIONS

Chondrosarcoma affects quality of life and physical function and its treatment frequently results in complications and reoperations. Our findings can be used to inform future patients about expected outcomes.

Predictive Model for Medical and Surgical Readmissions Following Elective Lumbar Spine Surgery: A National Study of 33,674 Patients

STUDY DESIGN

This study retrospectively analyzes prospectively collected data.

OBJECTIVE

Here we aim to develop predictive models for 3-month medical and surgical readmission after elective lumbar surgery, based on a multi-institutional, national spine registry.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Unplanned readmissions place considerable stress on payers, hospitals, and patients. Medicare data reveals a 30-day readmission rate of 7.8% for lumbar-decompressions and 13.0% for lumbar-fusions, and hospitals are now being penalized for excessive 30-day readmission rates by virtue of the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program.

METHODS

The Quality and Outcomes Database (QOD) was queried for patients undergoing elective lumbar surgery for degenerative diseases. The QOD prospectively captures 3-month readmissions through electronic medical record (EMR) review and self-reported outcome questionnaires. Distinct multivariable logistic regression models were fitted for surgery-related and medical readmissions adjusting for patient and surgery-specific variables.

RESULTS

Of the total 33,674 patients included in this study 2079 (6.15%) reported at least one readmission during the 90-day postoperative period. The odds of medical readmission were significantly higher for older patients, males versus females, African Americans versus Caucasion, those with higher American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, diabetes, coronary artery disease, higher numbers of involved levels, anterior only or anterior-posterior versus posterior approach; also, for patients who were unemployed compared with employed patients and those with high baseline Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). The odds of surgery-related readmission were significantly greater for patients with a higher body mass index (BMI), a higher ASA grade, female versus male, and African Americans versus Caucasians; also, for patients with severe depression, more involved spinal levels, anterior-only surgical approaches and higher baseline ODI scores.

CONCLUSION

In this study we present internally validated predictive models for medical and surgical readmission after elective lumbar spine surgery. These findings set the stage for targeted interventions with a potential to reduce unnecessary readmissions, and also suggest that medical and surgical readmissions be treated as distinct clinical events.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

THE IMPORTANCE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING IN PREDICTING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF LUMBAR SPINE SURGERY

ABSTRACT Objective: The result of treatment of patients with degenerative disc diseases is partly determined by the psychological characteristics of the patients. The aim of this study was to examine the correlations between the psychological scales scores in patients with degenerative lumbar disc diseases and the effectiveness of surgical treatment. Methods: The efficacy of the operation and patients’ satisfaction were compared with the preoperative psychological characteristics, according to the questionnaires and scales (BBQ Symonds, Zung Scale, FABQ, PCI, BBQ Catastrophization). Results: In patients with neurogenic intermittent claudication syndrome without significant pain, the operative treatment depended significantly on the value of the BBQ Symonds scale (p = 0.016). In patients with severe radicular pain in the lower extremity, the effectiveness of the operation depended significantly on the value of the subscale “protection” of the PCI questionnaire (p = 0.04), the ODI index filled out before the operation (p = 0.0). In patients with lumbar syndrome, the effectiveness of operation depended significantly on the value of the PCI questionnaire as a whole (p = 0.042) and its subscores “rest” (p = 0.028), the index of the Oswestry filled out before the operation (p = 0.035). Conclusion: The effectiveness of the operation of degenerative lumbar disc diseases is associated with the results of preoperative psychological testing. It has been established that the BBQ Symonds scale, PCI protection and rest subscales, and the ODI questionnaire are the most significant; these psychological scales have the power to predict the effectiveness of surgical treatment. Level of Evidence II; Therapeutic Study - Investigating the Results of Treatment.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PARAMETERS OF THE LUMBAR FACET JOINTS IN A LONG-TERM POSTOPERATIVE OUTCOME

ABSTRACT Objective: To analyze the impact of the relationship between tropism and angulation of the lower lumbar facet joints on a remote clinical outcome after dynamic and rigid surgical interventions. Methods: Patients with degenerative diseases of the lower lumbar spine were subdivided into three groups, according to the method of surgical treatment: 1) (n=48) the use of an artificial prosthesis intervertebral disc (IVD); 2) (n=42) the use of interbody fusion combined with transpedicular and transfacet stabilization; 3) (n=51) the use of interbody fusion and bilateral transpedicular stabilization. Analysis was performed of the remote clinical parameters and neuroimaging characteristics before the operation was performed. Results: When analyzing clinical and instrumental parameters, a significant correlation was found between the long-term outcomes of surgical treatment on the VAS and Oswestry scales and the neuroimaging data on angulation and tropism of the facet joints (FJ). Conclusions: The data obtained testify to the importance of preoperative diagnosis of tropism and angulation of the lower lumbar facet joint, which enables differentiated surgical tactics to be selected, and remote clinical outcomes to be optimized. In the presence of neuroimaging parameters of Facet Joint angulation of less than 600, regardless of the presence of tropism, it is possible to perform total arthroplasty of IVD. When neuroimaging parameters of Facet Joint angulation of more than 600 are detected, rigid stabilization of the operated segment is recommended, while in the absence of tropism of Facet Joints, a contralateral transfacetal fixation is possible; in the presence of tropism, it is expedient to perform bilateral transpedicular stabilization. Level of Evidence II; Prognostic Studies—Investigating the Effect of a Patient Characteristic on the Outcome of Disease.