How the science of practice will improve evidence-based care

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.

Neurosurgical Study Design: Past and Future

Clinical trials are performed to determine the safety, efficacy, or effectiveness of a medical or surgical intervention. A clinical trial is, by definition, prospective in nature with a uniform treatment of a defined patient cohort. The outcomes assessment should also be uniform. Often a control group is included. At present, the number of neurosurgical clinical trials is increasing, and the study designs have become more sophisticated. Historically, the standard of neurosurgical care has evolved from the findings from many case series and retrospective comparative studies. However, in the present report, we have focused exclusively on prospective clinical trials. An urgent need exists to understand how clinical trials have been performed in the past and how they can be improved to advance our neurosurgical practice. In the present review, we have discussed the barriers, successes, and failures regarding prospective clinical trials in neurosurgery with an outlook to the future.

Clinical Trials of Microsurgery for Cerebral Aneurysms: Past and Future

BACKGROUND

New findings and research regarding the microsurgical treatment of intracerebral aneurysms (IAs) continue to advance even in the era of endovascular therapies. Research in the past 2 decades has continued to revolve around the question of whether open surgery or endovascular treatment is preferable. The answer remains both complex and in flux.

OBJECTIVE

This review focuses on microsurgery, reflects on the research decisions of previous landmark studies, and proposes future study designs that may further our understanding of IAs and how best to treat them.

RESULTS

The future of IA research may include a combination of pragmatic trials, artificial intelligence integrated tools, and mining of large data sets, in addition to the publication of high-quality single-center studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The future will likely emphasize testing innovative techniques, looking at granular patient data, and considering every patient encounter as a potential source of knowledge, creating a system in which data are updated daily because each patient interaction contributes to answering important research questions.