Jared C. Tishelman, Dennis Vasquez-Montes, David S. Jevotovsky, Nicholas Stekas, Michael J. Moses, Raj J. Karia, Thomas Errico, Aaron J. Buckland, and Themistocles S. Protopsaltis
The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) has become increasingly popular due to computer adaptive testing methodology. This study aims to validate the association between PROMIS and legacy outcome metrics and compare PROMIS to legacy metrics in terms of ceiling and floor effects and questionnaire burden.
A retrospective review of an outcomes database was performed at a single institution from December 2016 to April 2017. Inclusion criteria were age > 18 years and a chief complaint of back pain or neck pain. The PROMIS computer adaptive testing Pain Interference, Physical Function (PF), and Pain Intensity domains; Oswestry Disability Index (ODI); Neck Disability Index (NDI); and visual analog scale (VAS) back, VAS leg, VAS neck, and VAS arm were completed in random order. PROMIS was compared to legacy metrics in terms of the average number of questions needed to complete each questionnaire and the score distributions in the lower and higher bounds of scores.
A total of 494 patients with back pain and 130 patients with neck pain were included. For back pain, ODI showed a strong correlation with PROMIS-PF (R = −0.749, p < 0.001), Pain Intensity (R = 0.709, p < 0.001), and Pain Interference (R = 0.790, p < 0.001) domains. Additionally, the PROMIS Pain Intensity domain correlated to both VAS back and neck pain (R = 0.642, p < 0.001 for both). PROMIS-PF took significantly fewer questions to complete compared to the ODI (4.123 vs 9.906, p < 0.001). When assessing for instrument sensitivity, neither survey presented a significant ceiling and floor effect in the back pain population (ODI: 0.40% and 2.63%; PROMIS-PF: 0.60% and 1.41%). In the neck pain cohort, NDI showed a strong correlation with PROMIS-PF (R = 0.771, p < 0.001). Additionally, PROMIS Pain Intensity correlated to VAS neck (R = 0.642, p < 0.001). The mean number of questions required to complete the questionnaire was much lower for PROMIS-PF compared to NDI (4.417 vs 10, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences found in terms of ceiling and floor effects for neck complaints (NDI: 2.3% and 6.92%; PROMIS-PF: 0.00% and 5.38%) or back complaints (ODI: 0.40% and 2.63%; PROMIS-PF: 1.41% and 0.60%).
PROMIS correlates strongly with traditional disability measures in patients with back pain and neck pain. For both back and neck pain, the PROMIS-PF required patients to answer significantly fewer questions to achieve similar granularity. There were no significant differences in ceiling and floor effects for NDI or ODI when compared with the PROMIS-PF instrument.
Themistocles S. Protopsaltis, Nicholas Stekas, Justin S. Smith, Alexandra Soroceanu, Renaud Lafage, Alan H. Daniels, Han Jo Kim, Peter G. Passias, Gregory M. Mundis Jr., Eric O. Klineberg, D. Kojo Hamilton, Munish Gupta, Virginie Lafage, Robert A. Hart, Frank Schwab, Douglas C. Burton, Shay Bess, Christopher I. Shaffrey, and Christopher P. Ames
Cervical deformity (CD) patients have severe disability and poor health status. However, little is known about how patients with rigid CD compare with those with flexible CD. The main objectives of this study were to 1) assess whether patients with rigid CD have worse baseline alignment and therefore require more aggressive surgical corrections and 2) determine whether patients with rigid CD have similar postoperative outcomes as those with flexible CD.
This is a retrospective review of a prospective, multicenter CD database. Rigid CD was defined as cervical lordosis (CL) change < 10° between flexion and extension radiographs, and flexible CD was defined as a CL change ≥ 10°. Patients with rigid CD were compared with those with flexible CD in terms of cervical alignment and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) at baseline and at multiple postoperative time points. The patients were also compared in terms of surgical and intraoperative factors such as operative time, blood loss, and number of levels fused.
A total of 127 patients met inclusion criteria (32 with rigid and 95 with flexible CD, 63.4% of whom were females; mean age 60.8 years; mean BMI 27.4); 47.2% of cases were revisions. Rigid CD was associated with worse preoperative alignment in terms of T1 slope minus CL, T1 slope, C2–7 sagittal vertical axis (cSVA), and C2 slope (C2S; all p < 0.05). Postoperatively, patients with rigid CD had an increased mean C2S (29.1° vs 22.2°) at 3 months and increased cSVA (47.1 mm vs 37.5 mm) at 1 year (p < 0.05) compared with those with flexible CD. Patients with rigid CD had more posterior levels fused (9.5 vs 6.3), fewer anterior levels fused (1 vs 2.0), greater blood loss (1036.7 mL vs 698.5 mL), more 3-column osteotomies (40.6% vs 12.6%), greater total osteotomy grade (6.5 vs 4.5), and mean osteotomy grade per level (3.3 vs 2.1) (p < 0.05 for all). There were no significant differences in baseline HRQOL scores, the rate of distal junctional kyphosis, or major/minor complications between patients with rigid and flexible CD. Both rigid and flexible CD patients reported significant improvements from baseline to 1 year according to the numeric rating scale for the neck (−2.4 and −2.7, respectively), Neck Disability Index (−8.4 and −13.3, respectively), modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association score (0.1 and 0.6), and EQ-5D (0.01 and 0.05) (p < 0.05). However, HRQOL changes from baseline to 1 year did not differ between rigid and flexible CD patients.
Patients with rigid CD have worse baseline cervical malalignment compared with those with flexible CD but do not significantly differ in terms of baseline disability. Rigid CD was associated with more invasive surgery and more aggressive corrections, resulting in increased operative time and blood loss. Despite more extensive surgeries, rigid CD patients had equivalent improvements in HRQOL compared with flexible CD patients. This study quantifies the importance of analyzing flexion-extension images, creating a prognostic tool for surgeons planning CD correction, and counseling patients who are considering CD surgery.