Change in Patient-Reported Outcome Measures as Predictors of Revision Lumbar Decompression Procedures

Screening patients requiring secondary lumbar surgery for degenerative lumbar spine diseases: a nationwide sample cohort study

This study aims to identify healthcare costs indicators predicting secondary surgery for degenerative lumbar spine disease (DLSD), which significantly impacts healthcare budgets. Analyzing data from the National Health Insurance Service-National Sample Cohort (NHIS-NSC) database of Republic of Korea (ROK), the study included 3881 patients who had surgery for lumbar disc herniation (LDH), lumbar spinal stenosis without spondylolisthesis (LSS without SPL), lumbar spinal stenosis with spondylolisthesis (LSS with SPL), and spondylolysis (SP) from 2006 to 2008. Patients were categorized into two groups: those undergoing secondary surgery (S-group) and those not (NS-group). Surgical and interim costs were compared, with S-group having higher secondary surgery costs ($1829.59 vs $1618.40 in NS-group, P = 0.002) and higher interim costs ($30.03; 1.86% of initial surgery costs vs $16.09; 0.99% of initial surgery costs in NS-group, P < 0.0001). The same trend was observed in LDH, LSS without SPL, and LSS with SPL (P < 0.0001). Monitoring interim costs trends post-initial surgery can effectively identify patients requiring secondary surgery.

Association between spinal manipulative therapy and lumbar spine reoperation after discectomy: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Patients who undergo lumbar discectomy may experience ongoing lumbosacral radiculopathy (LSR) and seek spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) to manage these symptoms. We hypothesized that adults receiving SMT for LSR at least one year following lumbar discectomy would be less likely to undergo lumbar spine reoperation compared to matched controls not receiving SMT, over two years' follow-up.

METHODS

We searched a United States network of health records (TriNetX, Inc.) for adults aged ≥ 18 years with LSR and lumbar discectomy ≥ 1 year previous, without lumbar fusion or instrumentation, from 2003 to 2023. We divided patients into two cohorts: (1) chiropractic SMT, and (2) usual care without chiropractic SMT. We used propensity matching to adjust for confounding variables associated with lumbar spine reoperation (e.g., age, body mass index, nicotine dependence), calculated risk ratios (RR), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and explored cumulative incidence of reoperation and the number of SMT follow-up visits.

RESULTS

Following propensity matching there were 378 patients per cohort (mean age 61 years). Lumbar spine reoperation was less frequent in the SMT cohort compared to the usual care cohort (SMT: 7%; usual care: 13%), yielding an RR (95% CIs) of 0.55 (0.35-0.85; P = 0.0062). In the SMT cohort, 72% of patients had ≥ 1 follow-up SMT visit (median = 6).

CONCLUSIONS

This study found that adults experiencing LSR at least one year after lumbar discectomy who received SMT were less likely to undergo lumbar spine reoperation compared to matched controls not receiving SMT. While these findings hold promise for clinical implications, they should be corroborated by a prospective study including measures of pain, disability, and safety to confirm their relevance. We cannot exclude the possibility that our results stem from a generalized effect of engaging with a non-surgical clinician, a factor that may extend to related contexts such as physical therapy or acupuncture.

REGISTRATION

Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/vgrwz ).

Perioperative Predictors in Patients Undergoing Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Minimum Clinically Important Difference Achievement

OBJECTIVE

To identify perioperative predictors of minimum clinically important difference (MCID) for patients undergoing lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) for the patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function (PROMIS-PF), visual analog scale (VAS) back, VAS leg, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9).

METHODS

Patients undergoing LLIF were identified through retrospective review of a single-surgeon database. Overall MCID achievement was determined as the number of unique patients achieving ΔPROM thresholds of PROMIS-PF = 4.5, VAS back = 2.1, VAS leg = 2.8, ODI = 14.9, and PHQ-9 = 3.0 over a 2-year postoperative period. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression were used to determine perioperative predictors for MCID achievement.

RESULTS

Two-hundred and ninety patients were identified. For PROMIS-PF MCID achievement, increased preoperative PROMIS-PF and postoperative day (POD) 1 VAS pain were significant negative predictors. For VAS back, primary fusion with revision decompression was a negative predictor, whereas increased preoperative VAS back score was a positive predictor of MCID achievement. For VAS leg, increased preoperative VAS leg score was a positive predictor. For ODI, increased POD 0 VAS pain score was a negative predictor, whereas increased preoperative ODI was a positive predictor. For PHQ-9, increased preoperative PHQ-9 score was a positive predictor.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients undergoing LLIF, perioperative predictors for MCID achievement were highly dependent on PROM. Preoperative PROM was the most consistent perioperative predictor for achieving MCID. Increased acute postoperative pain and primary fusion after failed index decompression were significant predictors of failing to achieve MCID. Surgeons may use these findings in prognostication and management of postoperative expectations.