Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 4 of 4 items for

  • Author or Editor: Mundeep S. Bawa x
Clear All Modify Search
Restricted access

Brittany E. Haws, Benjamin Khechen, Mundeep S. Bawa, Dil V. Patel, Harmeet S. Bawa, Daniel D. Bohl, Adam B. Wiggins, Kaitlyn L. Cardinal, Jordan A. Guntin and Kern Singh

OBJECTIVE

The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) was developed to provide a standardized measure of clinical outcomes that is valid and reliable across a variety of patient populations. PROMIS has exhibited strong correlations with many legacy patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures. However, it is unclear to what extent PROMIS has been used within the spine literature. In this context, the purpose of this systematic review was to provide a comprehensive overview of the PROMIS literature for spine-specific populations that can be used to inform clinicians and guide future work. Specifically, the authors aimed to 1) evaluate publication trends of PROMIS in the spine literature, 2) assess how studies have used PROMIS, and 3) determine the correlations of PROMIS domains with legacy PROs as reported for spine populations.

METHODS

Studies reporting PROMIS scores among spine populations were identified from PubMed/MEDLINE and a review of reference lists from obtained studies. Articles were excluded if they did not report original results, or if the study population was not evaluated or treated for spine-related complaints. Characteristics of each study and journal in which it was published were recorded. Correlation of PROMIS to legacy PROs was reported with 0.1 ≤ |r| < 0.3, 0.3 ≤ |r| < 0.5, and |r| ≥ 0.5 indicating weak, moderate, and strong correlations, respectively.

RESULTS

Twenty-one articles were included in this analysis. Twelve studies assessed the validity of PROMIS whereas 9 used PROMIS as an outcome measure. The first study discussing PROMIS in patients with spine disorders was published in 2012, whereas the majority were published in 2017. The most common PROMIS domain used was Pain Interference. Assessments of PROMIS validity were most frequently performed with the Neck Disability Index. PROMIS domains demonstrated moderate to strong correlations with the legacy PROs that were evaluated. Studies assessing the validity of PROMIS exhibited substantial variability in PROMIS domains and legacy PROs used for comparisons.

CONCLUSIONS

There has been a recent increase in the use of PROMIS within the spine literature. However, only a minority of studies have incorporated PROMIS for its intended use as an outcomes measure. Overall, PROMIS has exhibited moderate to strong correlations with a majority of legacy PROs used in the spine literature. These results suggest that PROMIS can be effective in the assessment and tracking of PROs among spine populations.

Restricted access

Dil V. Patel, Mundeep S. Bawa, Brittany E. Haws, Benjamin Khechen, Andrew M. Block, Sailee S. Karmarkar, Eric H. Lamoutte and Kern Singh

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to determine if the preoperative Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System, Physical Function (PROMIS PF) score is predictive of immediate postoperative patient pain and narcotics consumption or long-term patient-reported outcomes (PROs) following minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF).

METHODS

A prospectively maintained database was retrospectively reviewed. Patients who underwent primary, single-level MIS TLIF for degenerative pathology were identified and grouped by their preoperative PROMIS PF scores: mild disability (score 40–50), moderate disability (score 30–39.9), and severe disability (score 20–29.9). Postoperative pain was quantified using the visual analog scale (VAS), and narcotics consumption was quantified using Oral Morphine Equivalents. PROMIS PF, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey, Physical Component Summary (SF-12 PCS), and VAS back and leg pain were collected preoperatively and at 6-week, 3-month, 6-month, and 12-month follow-up. Preoperative PROMIS PF subgroups were tested for an association with demographic and perioperative characteristics using 1-way ANOVA or chi-square analysis. Preoperative PROMIS PF subgroups were tested for an association with immediate postoperative pain and narcotics consumption in addition to improvements in PROMIS PF, ODI, SF-12 PCS, and VAS back and leg pain by using linear regression controlling for statistically different demographic characteristics.

RESULTS

A total of 130 patients were included in this analysis. Patients were grouped by their preoperative PROMIS PF scores: 15.4% had mild disability, 63.8% had moderate disability, and 20.8% had severe disability. There were no significant differences among the subgroups in terms of age, sex, smoking status, and comorbidity burden. Patients with greater disability were more likely to be obese and to have workers’ compensation insurance. There were no differences among subgroups in regard to operative levels, operative time, estimated blood loss, and hospital length of stay. Patients with greater disability reported higher VAS pain scores and narcotics consumption for postoperative day 0 and postoperative day 1. Patients with greater preoperative disability demonstrated lower PROMIS PF, ODI, SF-12 PCS, and worse VAS pain scores at each postoperative time point.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with worse preoperative disability, as assessed by PROMIS PF, experienced increased pain and narcotics consumption, along with less improvement in long-term PROs. The authors conclude that PROMIS PF is an efficient and accurate instrument that can quickly assess patient disability in the preoperative period and predict both short-term and long-term surgical outcomes.

Restricted access

Brittany E. Haws, Benjamin Khechen, Dil V. Patel, Mundeep S. Bawa, Junyoung Ahn, Daniel D. Bohl, Benjamin C. Mayo, Dustin H. Massel, Jordan A. Guntin, Kaitlyn L. Cardinal and Kern Singh

OBJECTIVE

Local epidural steroid application may be associated with decreased pain and narcotic use in the immediate postoperative period following lumbar discectomy. However, local steroid delivery following lumbar fusion procedures has not been well characterized. This study aims to characterize the effect of local intraoperative depomedrol application on perioperative and postoperative outcomes following a single-level minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF).

METHODS

A prospective, randomized, single-blinded study was performed. A priori power analysis determined that 86 patients were needed to detect a difference of 1 point in the visual analog scale (VAS) pain score between groups. Ninety-three patients were randomized into depomedrol (DEPO) and no depomedrol (NODEPO) cohorts. Prior to surgical closure, DEPO patients received 1 ml depomedrol (80 mg) applied directly to the surgical site by using a Gelfoam carrier. NODEPO patients received 1 ml saline on the same Gelfoam carrier. Perioperative outcomes including acute postoperative pain and narcotic use were assessed for the duration of inpatient stay. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) questionnaires including VAS back and leg pain scores, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were administered preoperatively and at 6-week, 12-week, and 6-month follow-up. Outcomes for DEPO and NODEPO cohorts were compared using linear regression controlled for sex.

RESULTS

Of the 93 patients, 45 (48.4%) were randomized to DEPO and 48 (51.6%) to NODEPO. A greater percentage of DEPO patients were female (53.3% vs 27.1%, p = 0.010). There were no other significant differences in patient baseline characteristics. Similarly, operating time, estimated blood loss, and length of inpatient stay did not differ between cohorts. Patients in the DEPO cohort consumed fewer hourly narcotics on postoperative day 0 (5.3 vs 6.3 oral morphine equivalents/hour, p = 0.034). However, no differences in acute postoperative pain or total narcotics consumption were observed between groups. Preoperative VAS leg scores were statistically different between cohorts (p = 0.027). However, preoperative ODI and VAS back scores did not differ between groups. Additionally, DEPO and NODEPO groups experienced similar improvements in PROs at all postoperative time points.

CONCLUSIONS

Local depomedrol use did not lead to decreases in acute postoperative pain or narcotics consumption after MIS TLIF. Additionally, local depomedrol was not associated with postoperative improvements in PROs. The findings of this randomized trial suggest that surgical and clinical outcomes following MIS TLIF may not be impacted by intraoperative application of depomedrol.

Clinical trial registration no.: NCT03308084 (clinicaltrials.gov)

Restricted access

Brittany E. Haws, Benjamin Khechen, Dil V. Patel, Mundeep S. Bawa, Junyoung Ahn, Daniel D. Bohl, Benjamin C. Mayo, Dustin H. Massel, Jordan A. Guntin, Kaitlyn L. Cardinal and Kern Singh

OBJECTIVE

Local epidural steroid application may be associated with decreased pain and narcotic use in the immediate postoperative period following lumbar discectomy. However, local steroid delivery following lumbar fusion procedures has not been well characterized. This study aims to characterize the effect of local intraoperative depomedrol application on perioperative and postoperative outcomes following a single-level minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF).

METHODS

A prospective, randomized, single-blinded study was performed. A priori power analysis determined that 86 patients were needed to detect a difference of 1 point in the visual analog scale (VAS) pain score between groups. Ninety-three patients were randomized into depomedrol (DEPO) and no depomedrol (NODEPO) cohorts. Prior to surgical closure, DEPO patients received 1 ml depomedrol (80 mg) applied directly to the surgical site by using a Gelfoam carrier. NODEPO patients received 1 ml saline on the same Gelfoam carrier. Perioperative outcomes including acute postoperative pain and narcotic use were assessed for the duration of inpatient stay. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) questionnaires including VAS back and leg pain scores, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were administered preoperatively and at 6-week, 12-week, and 6-month follow-up. Outcomes for DEPO and NODEPO cohorts were compared using linear regression controlled for sex.

RESULTS

Of the 93 patients, 45 (48.4%) were randomized to DEPO and 48 (51.6%) to NODEPO. A greater percentage of DEPO patients were female (53.3% vs 27.1%, p = 0.010). There were no other significant differences in patient baseline characteristics. Similarly, operating time, estimated blood loss, and length of inpatient stay did not differ between cohorts. Patients in the DEPO cohort consumed fewer hourly narcotics on postoperative day 0 (5.3 vs 6.3 oral morphine equivalents/hour, p = 0.034). However, no differences in acute postoperative pain or total narcotics consumption were observed between groups. Preoperative VAS leg scores were statistically different between cohorts (p = 0.027). However, preoperative ODI and VAS back scores did not differ between groups. Additionally, DEPO and NODEPO groups experienced similar improvements in PROs at all postoperative time points.

CONCLUSIONS

Local depomedrol use did not lead to decreases in acute postoperative pain or narcotics consumption after MIS TLIF. Additionally, local depomedrol was not associated with postoperative improvements in PROs. The findings of this randomized trial suggest that surgical and clinical outcomes following MIS TLIF may not be impacted by intraoperative application of depomedrol.

Clinical trial registration no.: NCT03308084 (clinicaltrials.gov)