Discrepancies in recommendations for return to regular activities after cervical spine surgery: A survey study

Background

The recommended timing for returning to common activities after cervical spine surgery varies widely among physicians based on training background and personal opinion, without clear guidelines or consensus. The purpose of this study was to analyze spine surgeons' responses about the recommended timing for returning to common activities after different cervical spine procedures.

Methods

This was a survey study including 91 spine surgeons. The participants were asked to complete an anonymous online survey. Questions regarding their recommended time for returning to regular activities (showering, driving, biking, running, swimming, sedentary work, and nonsedentary work) after anterior cervical decompression and fusion (ACDF), cervical disc replacement (CDR), posterior cervical decompression and fusion (PCDF), and laminoplasty were included. Comparisons of recommended times for return to activities after each surgical procedure were made based on surgeons' years in practice.

Results

For ACDF and PCDF, there were no statistically significant differences in recommended times for return to any activity when stratified by years in practice. When considering CDR, return to non-sedentary work differed between surgeons in practice for 10 to 15 years, who recommended return at 3 months, and all other groups of surgeons, who recommended 6 weeks. Laminoplasty surgery yielded the most variability in activity recommendations, with earlier recommended return (6 weeks) to biking, non-sedentary work, and sedentary work in the most experienced surgeon group (>15 years in practice) than in all other surgeon experience groups (3 months).

Conclusions

We observed significant variability in surgeon recommendations for return to regular activities after cervical spine surgery.

Measuring Value in Spine Care Using the PROMIS-Preference Scoring System

BACKGROUND

A transition to value-based care requires a thorough understanding of the costs and impacts of various interventions on patients' overall health utility. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) has gained popularity and is frequently used to assess physical, mental, and social health domains in clinical and research settings. To assess health utility, the PROMIS-Preference (PROPr) score, a societal preference-based measure, has been proposed to produce a single estimate of health utility. We determined the psychometric properties (validity and responsiveness) of the PROPr score as a health state utility measure in patients undergoing spine surgery. We hypothesized that PROPr score would be lower in the presence of comorbid conditions and lower socioeconomic status and in those with more severe pain-related disability and would be responsive to changes in health status following spine surgery.

METHODS

In this prospective cohort study, 904 adults presented for cervical (n = 359) and/or lumbar (n = 622) conditions, and 624 underwent surgery, from August 2019 through January 2022. To assess concurrent validity, we correlated the PROPr score with Neck Disability Index (NDI)/Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) values. To assess known-groups validity, we regressed the PROPr score on participant age, sex, pain-related disability, and social determinants of health. To assess responsiveness, we used an anchor-based approach, evaluating change from preoperatively to 6 and 12 months postoperatively anchored by the Patient Global Impression of Change. A p level of <0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

The median overall preoperative PROPr score was 0.20 (interquartile range [IQR], 0.10 to 0.32; range, -0.02 to 0.95). The PROPr score was associated with higher educational attainment (p = 0.01), higher household income (p < 0.001), and a greater number of comorbid conditions (p = 0.04). The median PROPr score decreased (worse health utility) with greater disability (NDI, 0.44 [none] to 0.09 [severe/complete], p < 0.001; ODI, 0.57 [none] to 0.08 [severe/complete], p < 0.001). The change in the median PROPr score differed in participants who rated their postoperative health as improved (0.17) compared with little or no change (0.04; p < 0.001) or worse (-0.06; p = 0.025) at 6 months and in those who rated their health as improved (0.15) compared with little or no change (0.02; p < 0.001) or worse (-0.05; p = 0.043) at 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

The PROPr score is a valid and responsive preference-based assessment of health utility for patients undergoing spine surgery. It can be calculated from PROMIS outcome data.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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

Development and Validation of Cervical Prediction Models for Patient-Reported Outcomes at 1 Year After Cervical Spine Surgery for Radiculopathy and Myelopathy

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected registry data.

OBJECTIVE

To develop and validate prediction models for 12-month patient-reported outcomes of disability, pain, and myelopathy in patients undergoing elective cervical spine surgery.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Predictive models have the potential to be utilized preoperatively to set expectations, adjust modifiable characteristics, and provide a patient-centered model of care.

METHODS

This study was conducted using data from the cervical module of the Quality Outcomes Database. The outcomes of interest were disability (Neck Disability Index:), pain (Numeric Rating Scale), and modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association score for myelopathy. Multivariable proportional odds ordinal regression models were developed for patients with cervical radiculopathy and myelopathy. Patient demographic, clinical, and surgical covariates as well as baseline patient-reported outcomes scores were included in all models. The models were internally validated using bootstrap resampling to estimate the likely performance on a new sample of patients.

RESULTS

Four thousand nine hundred eighty-eight patients underwent surgery for radiculopathy and 2641 patients for myelopathy. The most important predictor of poor postoperative outcomes at 12-months was the baseline Neck Disability Index score for patients with radiculopathy and modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association score for patients with myelopathy. In addition, symptom duration, workers' compensation, age, employment, and ambulatory and smoking status had a statistically significant impact on all outcomes (P < 0.001). Clinical and surgical variables contributed very little to predictive models, with posterior approach being associated with higher odds of having worse 12-month outcome scores in both the radiculopathy and myelopathy cohorts (P < 0.001). The full models overall discriminative performance ranged from 0.654 to 0.725.

CONCLUSIONS

These predictive models provide individualized risk-adjusted estimates of 12-month disability, pain, and myelopathy outcomes for patients undergoing spine surgery for degenerative cervical disease. Predictive models have the potential to be used as a shared decision-making tool for evidence-based preoperative counselling.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures and Health-Related Quality-of-Life Scores of Patients Undergoing Anatomic Total Shoulder Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) scores are required for cost-effectiveness and health-care value analysis. We evaluated HRQoL scores and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in patients with advanced glenohumeral osteoarthritis treated with anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty to establish values of HRQoL scores that can be used for cost-effectiveness and value analysis and to assess relationships between HRQoL scores and shoulder and upper-extremity PROMs.

METHODS

We analyzed 143 patients (143 shoulders) with glenohumeral osteoarthritis treated with anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty; 92 patients had 1-year follow-up. Preoperative and postoperative functional outcomes were assessed with the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score, the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, the Simple Shoulder Test (SST), and a visual analog scale (VAS) for shoulder pain and function. Health utility was assessed with the EuroQol-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D), Short Form-6 Dimensions (SF-6D), and VAS Quality of Life (VAS QoL). HRQoL score validity was determined through correlations between the PROMs and HRQoL scores. The responsiveness of HRQoL scores was measured through the effect size and the standardized response mean.

RESULTS

There were significant improvements in all PROMs and HRQoL scores (p < 0.001) at 1 year after the surgical procedure. The changes in VAS QoL (very weak to moderate), EQ-5D (weak), and SF-6D (weak) were significantly correlated (p < 0.05) with the changes in PROMs, demonstrating comparably acceptable validity. There were large effect sizes in the VAS QoL (1.843), EQ-5D (1.186), and SF-6D (1.084) and large standardized response mean values in the VAS QoL (1.622), EQ-5D (1.230), and SF-6D (1.083), demonstrating responsiveness. The effect sizes of all PROMs were larger than those of the HRQoL scores.

CONCLUSIONS

PROMs and HRQoL scores are not interchangeable, and studies of the cost-effectiveness and value of shoulder arthroplasty should incorporate both shoulder and upper-extremity PROMs and HRQoL scores. The findings of this study provide data on HRQoL scores that are specific to the treatment of advanced glenohumeral osteoarthritis with anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty and can be used for future cost-effectiveness and value analysis studies.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Financial Aspects of Cervical Disc Arthroplasty: A Narrative Review of Recent Literature

Recently, there has been significant interest in understanding the cost-effectiveness of treatments in spine surgery as health care systems in the United States move toward value-based care and alternative payment models. Previous studies have shown comparable outcomes of cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) and anterior cervical discectomy fusion; however, there is a lack of consensus on the cost-effectiveness of CDA to support full adoption. Evidence of the limitations of these cost-analysis studies also exists in the literature, including industry funding, potential selection bias, and varying methods of calculating value. The goal of this narrative review is to provide an overview of the cost-effectiveness of CDA compared with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, and potential limitations with cost-analysis studies in spine surgery.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures and Health-Related Quality-of-Life Scores of Patients Undergoing Anatomic Total Shoulder Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) scores are required for cost-effectiveness and health-care value analysis. We evaluated HRQoL scores and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in patients with advanced glenohumeral osteoarthritis treated with anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty to establish values of HRQoL scores that can be used for cost-effectiveness and value analysis and to assess relationships between HRQoL scores and shoulder and upper-extremity PROMs.

METHODS

We analyzed 145 patients (145 shoulders) with glenohumeral osteoarthritis treated with anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty; 93 patients had 1-year follow-up. Preoperative and postoperative functional outcomes were assessed with the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score, the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, the Simple Shoulder Test (SST), and a visual analog scale (VAS) for shoulder pain and function. Health utility was assessed with the EuroQol-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D), Short Form-6 Dimensions (SF-6D), and VAS Quality of Life (VAS QoL). HRQoL score validity was determined through correlations between the PROMs and HRQoL scores. The responsiveness of HRQoL scores was measured through the effect size and the standardized response mean.

RESULTS

There were significant improvements in all PROMs and HRQoL scores (p < 0.001) at 1 year after the surgical procedure. The changes in VAS QoL and EQ-5D were significantly correlated (weak to moderate) with the changes in all PROMs except the SST, demonstrating comparably acceptable validity. The VAS QoL had a large effect size (1.833) and standardized response mean (1.603), and the EQ-5D also had a large effect size (1.163) and standardized response mean (1.228), demonstrating responsiveness. The effect sizes of all PROMs were larger than those of the HRQoL scores. The change in SF-6D had only a moderate effect size and standardized response mean and was not significantly correlated with the change in any of the PROMs.

CONCLUSIONS

PROMs and HRQoL scores are not interchangeable, and studies of the cost-effectiveness and value of shoulder arthroplasty should incorporate both shoulder and upper-extremity PROMs and HRQoL scores. The findings of this study provide data on HRQoL scores that are specific to the treatment of advanced glenohumeral osteoarthritis with anatomic total shoulder replacement and can be used for future cost-effectiveness and value analysis studies.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Development of a Modified Cervical Deformity Frailty Index: A Streamlined Clinical Tool for Preoperative Risk Stratification

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective review.

OBJECTIVE

Develop a simplified frailty index for cervical deformity (CD) patients.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

To improve preoperative risk stratification for surgical CD patients, a CD frailty index (CD-FI) incorporating 40 health deficits was developed. While novel, the CD-FI is clinically impractical due to the large number of factors needed for its calculation. To increase clinical utility, a simpler, modified CD-FI (mCD-FI) is necessary.

METHODS

CD patients (C2-C7 Cobb>10°, CL>10°, cSVA>4 cm, or CBVA>25°) >18 year with preoperative CD-FI component factors. Pearson bivariate correlation assessed relationships between component deficits of the CD-FI and overall CD-FI score. Top deficits contributing to CD-FI score were included in multiple stepwise regression models. Deficits from model with largest R were dichotomized, and the mean score of all deficits calculated, resulting in mCD-FI score from 0 to 1. Patients were stratified by mCD-FI: Not Frail (NF, <0.3), Frail (0.3-0.5), Severely Frail (SF, >0.5). Means comparison tests established correlations between frailty category and clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

Included: 121 CD patients (61 ± 11 yr, 60%F). Multiple stepwise regression models identified 15 deficits as responsible for 86% of the variation in CD-FI; these factors were used to construct the mCD-FI. Overall, mean mCD-FI was 0.31 ± 0.14. Breakdown of patients by mCD-FI category: NF: 47.9%, Frail: 46.3%, SF: 5.8%. Compared with NF and Frail, SF patients had the longest inpatient hospital stays (P = 0.042), as well as greater baseline neck pain (P = 0.033), inferior Neck Disability Index scores (P<0.001) and inferior EQ-5D scores (P < 0.001). Frail patients had higher odds of superficial infection (OR:1.1[1.0-1.2]), and SF patients had increased odds of mortality (OR:8.3[1.3-53.9]).

CONCLUSION

Increased frailty, assessed by mCD-FI, correlated with increased length of stay, neck pain, and decreased health-related quality of life. Frail patients were at greater risk for infection, and severely frail patients had greater odds of mortality. This relationship between frailty and clinical outcomes suggests that mCD-FI offers clinical utility as a preoperative risk stratification tool.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

Spine Registries: Where Do We Stand?

To curb the unsustainable rise in health care costs, novel payment models are being explored which focus on value rather than volume. Underlying this reform is an accurate understanding of costs and outcomes. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the Institute of Medicine, and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality have specifically advocated for the use of registries to help define the real-world effectiveness of surgical interventions to help guide health care reform. Registries can help define value by documenting surgical efficacy, and specifically by reporting patient-based outcome measures. Over the past 10 years, several spine registries have been initiated and some others have expanded. These are providing a repository of evidence for surgical value. Herein, we will review the components of a well-designed registry and provide examples of such registries and their impact on health care delivery.

Application and measurement properties of EQ-5D to measure quality of life in patients with upper extremity orthopaedic disorders: a systematic literature review

INTRODUCTION

The EuroQol-5 Dimension (EQ-5D) is the most widely used generic instrument to measure quality of life (QoL), yet its application in upper extremity orthopaedics as well as its measurement properties remain largely undefined. We implemented a systematic literature review to provide an overview of the application of EQ-5D in patients with upper extremity disorders and analyse its measurement properties.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane and Scopus databases for clinical studies including orthopaedic patients with surgical interventions of the upper extremity who completed the EQ-5D. For all included studies, the use of EQ-5D and quantitative QoL data were described. Validation studies of EQ-5D were assessed according to COSMIN guidelines and standard measurement properties were examined.

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies were included in the review, 19 of which investigated patients with an intervention carried out at the shoulder region. In 15 studies, EQ-5D assessed QoL as the primary outcome. Utility index scores in non-trauma patients generally improved postoperatively, whereas trauma patients did not regain their recalled pre-injury QoL levels. EQ-5D measurement properties were reported in three articles on proximal humerus fractures and carpal tunnel syndrome. Positive ratings were seen for construct validity (Spearman correlation coefficient ≥ 0.70 with the Short Form (SF)-12 or SF-6D health surveys) and reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient ≥ 0.77) with intermediate responsiveness (standardised response means: 0.5-0.9). However, ceiling effects were identified with 16-48% of the patients scoring the maximum QoL. The methodological quality of the three articles varied from fair to good.

CONCLUSIONS

For surgical interventions of the upper extremity, EQ-5D was mostly applied to assess QoL as a primary outcome in patients with shoulder disorders. Investigations of the measurement properties were rare, but indicate good reliability and validity as well as moderate responsiveness in patients with upper extremity conditions.

Heterogeneity of Reporting Outcomes in the Spine Surgery Literature

STUDY DESIGN

Review of spine surgery literature between 2005 and 2014 to assess the reporting of patient outcomes by determining the variability of use of patient outcomes metrics in the following categories: pain and disability, patient satisfaction, readmission, and depression.

OBJECTIVE

Expose the heterogeneity of outcomes reporting and discuss current initiatives to create more homogenous outcomes databases.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

There has been a recent focus on the reporting of quality metrics associated with spine surgery outcomes. However, little consensus exists on the optimal metrics that should be used to measure spine surgery outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A PubMed search of all spine surgery manuscripts from January 2005 through December 2014 was performed. Linear regression analyses were performed on individual metrics as well as outcomes categories as a fraction of total papers reviewing surgical outcomes.

RESULTS

Outcomes reporting has increased significantly between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2014 [175/2871 (6.1%) vs. 764/5603 (13.6%), respectively; P<0.001; R=98.1%]. For the category of pain and disability reporting, Visual Analog Score demonstrated a statistically significant decrease in use from 2005 through 2014 [56/76 (73.7%) vs. 300/520 (57.7%), respectively; P<0.001], whereas Oswestry Disability Index increased significantly in use [19/76 (25.0%) vs. 182/520 (35.0%), respectively; P<0.001]. For quality of life, EuroQOL-5 Dimensions increased significantly in use between 2005 and 2014 [4/23 (17.4%) vs. 30/87 (34.5%), respectively; P<0.01]. In contrast, use of 36 Item Short Form Survey significantly decreased [19/23 (82.6%) vs. 57/87 (65.5%), respectively; P<0.01]. For depression, only the Zung Depression Scale underwent a significant increase in usage between 2005 and 2014 [0/0 (0%) vs. 7/13 (53.8%), respectively; P<0.01].

CONCLUSIONS

Although spine surgery outcome reporting has increased significantly over the past 10 years, there remains considerable heterogeneity in regards to individual outcomes metrics utilized. This heterogeneity makes it difficult to compare outcomes across studies and to accurately extrapolate outcomes to clinical practice.

Validation of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) computerized adaptive tests in cervical spine surgery

OBJECTIVE The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS), which is funded by the National Institutes of Health, is a set of adaptive, responsive assessment tools that measures patient-reported health status. PROMIS measures have not been validated for surgical patients with cervical spine disorders. The objective of this project is to evaluate the validity (e.g., convergent validity, known-groups validity, responsiveness to change) of PROMIS computer adaptive tests (CATs) for pain behavior, pain interference, and physical function in patients undergoing cervical spine surgery. METHODS The legacy outcome measures Neck Disability Index (NDI) and SF-12 were used as comparisons with PROMIS measures. PROMIS CATs, NDI-10, and SF-12 measures were administered prospectively to 59 consecutive tertiary hospital patients who were treated surgically for degenerative cervical spine disorders. A subscore of NDI-5 was calculated from NDI-10 by eliminating the lifting, headaches, pain intensity, reading, and driving sections and multiplying the final score by 4. Assessments were administered preoperatively (baseline) and postoperatively at 6 weeks and 3 months. Patients presenting for revision surgery, tumor, infection, or trauma were excluded. Participants completed the measures in Assessment Center, an online data collection tool accessed by using a secure login and password on a tablet computer. Subgroup analysis was also performed based on a primary diagnosis of either cervical radiculopathy or cervical myelopathy. RESULTS Convergent validity for PROMIS CATs was supported with multiple statistically significant correlations with the existing legacy measures, NDI and SF-12, at baseline. Furthermore, PROMIS CATs demonstrated known-group validity and identified clinically significant improvements in all measures after surgical intervention. In the cervical radiculopathy and myelopathic cohorts, the PROMIS measures demonstrated similar responsiveness to the SF-12 and NDI scores in the patients who self-identified as having postoperative clinical improvement. PROMIS CATs required a mean total of 3.2 minutes for PROMIS pain behavior (mean ± SD 0.9 ± 0.5 minutes), pain interference (1.2 ± 1.9 minutes), and physical function (1.1 ± 1.4 minutes) and compared favorably with 3.4 minutes for NDI and 4.1 minutes for SF-12. CONCLUSIONS This study verifies that PROMIS CATs demonstrate convergent and known-groups validity and comparable responsiveness to change as existing legacy measures. The PROMIS measures required less time for completion than legacy measures. The validity and efficiency of the PROMIS measures in surgical patients with cervical spine disorders suggest an improvement over legacy measures and an opportunity for incorporation into clinical practice.

Surgery for degenerative cervical myelopathy: a patient-centered quality of life and health economic evaluation

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) represents the most common cause of non-traumatic spinal cord impairment in adults. Surgery has been shown to improve neurologic symptoms and functional status, but it is costly. As sustainability concerns in the field of health care rise, the value of care has come to the forefront of policy decision-making. Evidence for both health-related quality of life outcomes and financial expenditures is needed to inform resource allocation decisions.

PURPOSE

This study aimed to estimate the lifetime incremental cost-utility of surgical treatment for DCM.

DESIGN/SETTING

This is a prospective observational cohort study at a Canadian tertiary care facility.

PATIENT SAMPLE

We recruited all patients undergoing surgery for DCM at a single center between 2005 and 2011 who were enrolled in either the AOSpine Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy (CSM)-North America study or the AOSpine CSM-International study.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Health utility was measured at baseline and at 6, 12, and 24 months following surgery using the Short Form-6D (SF-6D) health utility score. Resource expenditures were calculated on an individual level, from the hospital payer perspective over the 24-month follow-up period. All costs were obtained from a micro-cost database maintained by the institutional finance department and reported in Canadian dollars, inflated to January 2015 values.

METHODS

Quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gains for the study period were determined using an area under the curve calculation with a linear interpolation estimate. Lifetime incremental cost-to-utility ratios (ICUR) for surgery were estimated using a Markov state transition model. Structural uncertainty arising from lifetime extrapolation and the single-arm cohort design of the study were accounted for by constructing two models. The first included a highly conservative assumption that individuals undergoing nonoperative management would not experience any lifetime neurologic decline. This constraint was relaxed in the second model to permit more general parameters based on the established natural history. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were employed to account for parameter uncertainty. All QALY gains and costs were discounted at a base of 3% per annum. Statistical significance was set at the .05 level.

RESULTS

The analysis included 171 patients; follow-up was 96.5%. Mean age was 58.2±12.0 years and baseline health utility was 0.56±0.14. Mean QALY gained over the 24-month study period was 0.139 (95% confidence interval: 0.109-0.170, p<.001) and the mean 2-year cost of treatment was $19,217.82±12,404.23. Cost associated with the operation comprised 65.7% of the total. The remainder was apportioned over presurgical preparation and postsurgical recovery. Three patients required a reoperation over the 2-year follow-up period. The costs of revision surgery represented 1.85% of the total costs. Using the conservative model structure, the estimated lifetime ICUR of surgical intervention was $20,547.84/QALY gained, with 94.7% of estimates falling within the World Health Organization definition of "very cost-effective" ($54,000 CAD). Using the more general model structure, the estimated lifetime ICUR of surgical intervention was $11,496.02/QALY gained, with 97.9% of estimates meeting the criteria to be considered "very cost-effective."

CONCLUSIONS

Surgery for DCM is associated with a significant quality of life improvement. The intervention is cost-effective and, from the perspective of the hospital payer, should be supported.

Surgical Resection of Intradural Extramedullary Spinal Tumors: Patient Reported Outcomes and Minimum Clinically Important Difference

STUDY DESIGN

Analysis of prospectively collected longitudinal web-based registry data.

OBJECTIVE

To determine relative validity, responsiveness, and minimum clinically important difference (MCID) thresholds in patients undergoing surgery for intradural extramedullary (IDEM) spinal tumors.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are vital in establishing the value of care in spinal pathology. There is limited availability of prospective, quality studies reporting PROs for IDEM spine tumors.

METHODS

. A total of 40 patients were analyzed. Baseline, postoperative 3-month, and 12-month PROs were recorded: Oswestry Disability Index or Neck disability Index (ODI/NDI), Quality of life EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D), Short Form-12 (SF-12), Numeric Rating Scale (NRS)-pain scores. Responders were defined as those who achieved a level of improvement one or two, after surgery, on health transition index (HTI) of SF-36. Receiver-operating characteristic curves were generated to assess the validity of PROs, and the difference between standardized response means (SRMs) in responders versus nonresponders was utilized to determine the relative responsiveness of each PRO measure. MCID thresholds were derived using previously reported minimal detectable change approach.

RESULTS

A significant improvement across all PROs at 3-months and 12-months follow up was noted. The derived MCID thresholds were 13.9 points: ODI/NDI, 0.14 quality adjusted life years: EQ-5D, 2.8 points: SF-12PCS and 10.7 points: SF-12MCS, 1.9 points: NRS-back/neck pain, and 1.8 points: NRS-leg/arm pain. SF-12PCS was most accurate discriminator of meaningful improvement (area under the curve, AUC-0.83) and most responsive (SRM-1.36) to postoperative improvement. EQ-5D, ODI/NDI, NRS-pain scores were all accurate discriminator (AUC-0.7-0.8) and responsive measures (0.97-0.67) of meaningful postoperative improvement. SF-12MCS was neither a valid discriminator (AUC-0.48) nor a responsive measure (SRM: -1.5) of outcome.

CONCLUSION

Surgical resection of IDEM spinal tumors provides significant and sustained improvement in quality of life, general health, disability, and pain at 12-month after surgery. The surgically resected IDEM-specific clinically meaningful thresholds are reported. All the PROs reported in this study can accurately discriminate responders and nonresponder based on SF-36 HTI index except for SF-12 MCS.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

Impact of old age on patient-report outcomes and cost utility for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion surgery for degenerative spine disease

PURPOSE

With growing older population and increasing rates of cervical spinal surgery, it is vital to understand the value of cervical surgery in this population. We set forth to determine the cost utility following anterior cervical decompression and fusion (ACDF) for degenerative disease in older patients.

METHODS

Patients undergoing ACDF for degenerative diseases were enrolled into prospective longitudinal registry. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were recorded at baseline, 1-year, and 2-year postoperatively. Two-year medical resource utilization, missed work, and health-state values [quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)] were assessed to compute cost per QALY gained. Patients were dichotomized based on age: <65 years (younger) and ≥65 years (older) to compare the cost utility in these age groups.

RESULTS

Total 218 (87%) younger patients and 33 (13%) older patients who underwent ACDF were analyzed. Both the groups demonstrated a significant improvement in PROs 2-year following surgery. The older patients had a lower mean cumulative gain in QALYs compared to younger patients at 1 year (0.141 vs. 0.28, P = 0.05) and 2 years (0.211 vs. 0.424, P = 0.04). There was no significant difference in the mean total 2-year cost between older [$21,041 (95% CI $18,466-$23,616)] and younger [$22,669 (95% CI $$21,259-$24,079)] patients (P = 0.27). Two-year cost per QALY gained in older vs. younger patients was ($99,720/QALYs gained vs. ($53,464/QALYs gained, P = 0.68).

CONCLUSION

ACDF surgery provided a significant gain in health-state utility in older patients with degenerative cervical pathology, with a mean cumulative 2-year cost per QALY gained of $99,720/QALY. While older patients have a slightly higher cost utility compared to their younger counterparts, surgery in the older cohort does provide a significant improvement in pain, disability, and quality-of-life outcomes.