Definitions of Unfavorable Surgical Outcomes and Their Risk Factors Based on Disability Score After Spine Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

Overview

Journal BMC Musculoskelet Disord

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialties Orthopedics
Physiology

Date 2020 May 10

PMID 32384932

Citations 8

Authors

Gang-Un Kim

Jiwon Park

Ho-Joong Kim

Feng Shen

Jaewoo Cho

Bong-Soon Chang

Choon-Ki Lee

Heoung-Jae Chun

Jin S Yeom

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

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.

Citing Articles

Severe Preoperative Disability Is Associated With Greater Mental Health Improvements Following Surgery for Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: A Cohort Matched Analysis.

Khosla I, Anwar F, Roca A, Medakkar S, Loya A, Kaul A Neurospine. 2024; 21(1):253-260.

PMID: 38317557 PMC: 10992647. DOI: 10.14245/ns.2347080.540.

Time to achievement of minimum clinically important difference after lumbar decompression.

Nie J, Federico V, Hartman T, Zheng E, Oyetayo O, MacGregor K Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2023; 165(9):2625-2631.

PMID: 37488399 DOI: 10.1007/s00701-023-05709-0.

The Role of Surgical Prehabilitation During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Beyond.

Hunter T, Sarno D, Jumreornvong O, Esparza R, Flores L, Silver J Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2023; 34(3):523-538.

PMID: 37419529 PMC: 10070767. DOI: 10.1016/j.pmr.2023.03.002.

Factors associated with incomplete clinical improvement in patients undergoing transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy for lumbar disc herniation.

Jitpakdee K, Liu Y, Kim Y, Kotheeranurak V, Kim J Eur Spine J. 2023; 32(8):2700-2708.

PMID: 36917301 DOI: 10.1007/s00586-023-07636-1.

The Effects of Body Composition Characteristics on the Functional Disability in Patients with Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.

Kim Y, Lee C, Oh H, Son J, Doo A J Clin Med. 2023; 12(2).

PMID: 36675541 PMC: 9862629. DOI: 10.3390/jcm12020612.

References

Mannion A, Brox J, Fairbank J . Comparison of spinal fusion and nonoperative treatment in patients with chronic low back pain: long-term follow-up of three randomized controlled trials. Spine J. 2013; 13(11):1438-48. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2013.06.101. View

Triebel J, Snellman G, Sanden B, Stromqvist F, Robinson Y . Women do not fare worse than men after lumbar fusion surgery: Two-year follow-up results from 4,780 prospectively collected patients in the Swedish National Spine Register with lumbar degenerative disc disease and chronic low back pain. Spine J. 2016; 17(5):656-662. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2016.11.001. View

Carragee E, Cheng I . Minimum acceptable outcomes after lumbar spinal fusion. Spine J. 2010; 10(4):313-20. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2010.02.001. View

Pearson A, Lurie J, Tosteson T, Zhao W, Abdu W, Weinstein J . Who should have surgery for spinal stenosis? Treatment effect predictors in SPORT. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012; 37(21):1791-802. PMC: 3758127. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182634b04. View

Fairbank J, Pynsent P . The Oswestry Disability Index. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000; 25(22):2940-52; discussion 2952. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-200011150-00017. View

Kim H, Park J, Kang K, Chang B, Lee C, Kang S . Determination of the Optimal Cutoff Values for Pain Sensitivity Questionnaire Scores and the Oswestry Disability Index for Favorable Surgical Outcomes in Subjects With Lumbar Spinal Stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015; 40(20):E1110-6. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001023. View

Dionne C, von Korff M, Koepsell T, Deyo R, Barlow W, Checkoway H . Formal education and back pain: a review. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2001; 55(7):455-68. PMC: 1731944. DOI: 10.1136/jech.55.7.455. View

Kim H, Kim S, Kang K, Chang B, Lee C, Yeom J . Influence of educational attainment on pain intensity and disability in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: mediation effect of pain catastrophizing. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014; 39(10):E637-44. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000267. View

Cobo Soriano J, Sendino Revuelta M, Fuente M, Cimarra Diaz I, Martinez Urena P, Deglane Meneses R . Predictors of outcome after decompressive lumbar surgery and instrumented posterolateral fusion. Eur Spine J. 2010; 19(11):1841-8. PMC: 2989260. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-010-1284-2. View

10.

Katz J, Stucki G, Lipson S, Fossel A, Grobler L, Weinstein J . Predictors of surgical outcome in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1999; 24(21):2229-33. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-199911010-00010. View

11.

Watters 3rd W, Baisden J, Gilbert T, Kreiner S, Resnick D, Bono C . Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: an evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine J. 2007; 8(2):305-10. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2007.10.033. View

12.

Zadro J, Shirley D, Pinheiro M, Sanchez-Romera J, Perez-Riquelme F, Ordonana J . Does educational attainment increase the risk of low back pain when genetics are considered? A population-based study of Spanish twins. Spine J. 2016; 17(4):518-530. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2016.10.021. View

13.

Weinstein J, Tosteson T, Lurie J, Tosteson A, Blood E, Hanscom B . Surgical versus nonsurgical therapy for lumbar spinal stenosis. N Engl J Med. 2008; 358(8):794-810. PMC: 2576513. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa0707136. View

14.

Copay A, Glassman S, Subach B, Berven S, Schuler T, Carreon L . Minimum clinically important difference in lumbar spine surgery patients: a choice of methods using the Oswestry Disability Index, Medical Outcomes Study questionnaire Short Form 36, and pain scales. Spine J. 2008; 8(6):968-74. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2007.11.006. View

15.

Weinstein J, Tosteson T, Lurie J, Tosteson A, Blood E, Herkowitz H . Surgical versus nonoperative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis four-year results of the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010; 35(14):1329-38. PMC: 3392200. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181e0f04d. View

16.

Staartjes V, Siccoli A, de Wispelaere M, Schroder M . Patient-reported outcomes unbiased by length of follow-up after lumbar degenerative spine surgery: Do we need 2 years of follow-up?. Spine J. 2018; 19(4):637-644. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2018.10.004. View

17.

Ammendolia C, Schneider M, Williams K, Zickmund S, Hamm M, Stuber K . The physical and psychological impact of neurogenic claudication: the patients' perspectives. J Can Chiropr Assoc. 2017; 61(1):18-31. PMC: 5381486. View

18.

Katz J, Harris M . Clinical practice. Lumbar spinal stenosis. N Engl J Med. 2008; 358(8):818-25. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMcp0708097. View

19.

Schizas C, Theumann N, Burn A, Tansey R, Wardlaw D, Smith F . Qualitative grading of severity of lumbar spinal stenosis based on the morphology of the dural sac on magnetic resonance images. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010; 35(21):1919-24. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181d359bd. View

20.

Chotai S, Devin C, Archer K, Bydon M, McGirt M, Nian H . Effect of patients' functional status on satisfaction with outcomes 12 months after elective spine surgery for lumbar degenerative disease. Spine J. 2017; 17(12):1783-1793. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2017.05.027. View