Differentiating minimum clinically important difference for primary and revision lumbar fusion surgeries

Clinical article

View More View Less
  • 1 Norton Leatherman Spine Center; and
  • 2 University of Louisville School of Public Health and Information Sciences, Louisville, Kentucky
Restricted access

Purchase Now

USD  $45.00

Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $369.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $600.00
Print or Print + Online

Object

Previous studies have reported on the minimum clinically important difference (MCID), a threshold of improvement that is clinically relevant for lumbar degenerative disorders. Recent studies have shown that pre- and postoperative health-related quality of life (HRQOL) measures vary among patients with different diagnostic etiologies. There is also concern that a patient's previous care experience may affect his or her perception of clinical improvement. This study determined if MCID values for the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36), and back and leg pain are different between patients undergoing primary or revision lumbar fusion.

Methods

Prospectively collected preoperative and 1-year postoperative patient-reported HRQOLs, including the ODI, SF-36 physical component summary (PCS), and numeric rating scales (0–10) for back and leg pain, in patients undergoing lumbar spine fusion were analyzed. Patients were grouped into either the primary surgery or revision group. As the most widely accepted MCID values were calculated from the minimum detectable change, this method was used to determine the MCID.

Results

A total of 722 patients underwent primary procedures and 333 patients underwent revisions. There was no statistically significant difference in demographics between the groups. Each group had a statistically significant improvement at 1 year postoperatively compared with baseline. The minimum detectable change–derived MCID values for the primary group were 1.16 for back pain, 1.36 for leg pain, 12.40 for ODI, and 5.21 for SF-36 PCS. The MCID values for the revision group were 1.21 for back pain, 1.28 for leg pain, 11.79 for ODI, and 4.90 for SF-36 PCS. These values are very similar to those previously reported in the literature.

Conclusions

The MCID values were similar for the revision and primary lumbar fusion groups, even when subgroup analysis was done for different diagnostic etiologies, simplifying interpretation of clinical improvement. The results of this study further validate the use of patient-reported HRQOLs to measure clinical effectiveness, as a patient's previous experience with care does not seem to substantially alter an individual's perception of clinical improvement.

Abbreviations used in this paper:HRQOL = health-related quality of life; MCID = minimum clinically important difference; MDC = minimum detectable change; ODI = Oswestry Disability Index; PCS = physical component summary; SF-36 = 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey.

Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $369.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $600.00

Contributor Notes

Address correspondence to: Leah Y. Carreon, M.D., M.Sc., Norton Leatherman Spine Center, 210 East Gray Street, Suite 900, Louisville, Kentucky 40202. email: leah.carreon@nortonhealthcare.org.

Please include this information when citing this paper: published online November 16, 2012; DOI: 10.3171/2012.10.SPINE12727.

  • 1

    Aprill C, & Bogduk N: High-intensity zone: a diagnostic sign of painful lumbar disc on magnetic resonance imaging. Br J Radiol 65:361369, 1992

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2

    Beaton DE, , Bombardier C, , Katz JN, , Wright JG, , Wells G, & Boers M, : Looking for important change/differences in studies of responsiveness. J Rheumatol 28:400405, 2001

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3

    Carreon LY, , Djurasovic M, , Canan CE, , Burke LO, & Glassman SD: SF-6D values stratified by specific diagnostic indication. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37:E804E808, 2012

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    Carreon LY, , Glassman SD, & Howard J: Fusion and nonsurgical treatment for symptomatic lumbar degenerative disease: a systematic review of Oswestry Disability Index and MOS Short Form-36 outcomes. Spine J 8:747755, 2008

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5

    Copay AG, , Glassman SD, , Subach BR, , Berven S, , Schuler TC, & Carreon LY: 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 8:968974, 2008

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6

    Djurasovic M, , Glassman SD, , Dimar JR II, , Howard JM, , Bratcher KR, & Carreon LY: Does fusion status correlate with patient outcomes in lumbar spinal fusion?. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36:404409, 2011

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7

    Fairbank JC, & Pynsent PB: The Oswestry Disability Index. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25:29402952, 2000

  • 8

    Glassman S, , Gornet MF, , Branch C, , Polly D Jr, , Peloza J, & Schwender JD, : MOS short form 36 and Oswestry Disability Index outcomes in lumbar fusion: a multicenter experience. Spine J 6:2126, 2006

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

    Glassman SD, , Carreon LY, , Djurasovic M, , Dimar JR, , Johnson JR, & Puno RM, : Lumbar fusion outcomes stratified by specific diagnostic indication. Spine J 9:1321, 2009

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10

    Guyer RD, , McAfee PC, , Banco RJ, , Bitan FD, , Cappuccino A, & Geisler FH, : Prospective, randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of lumbar total disc replacement with the CHARITE artificial disc versus lumbar fusion: five-year follow-up. Spine J 9:374386, 2009

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11

    Hägg O, , Fritzell P, & Nordwall A: The clinical importance of changes in outcome scores after treatment for chronic low back pain. Eur Spine J 12:1220, 2003

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12

    Jaeschke R, , Singer J, & Guyatt GH: Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 10:407415, 1989

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13

    Lambat M, , Carreon LY, , Campbell MJ, & Glassman SD: Impact of peri-operative complications in lumbar fusion surgery on clinical outcome measures. Spine J 11:Supplement 124S, 2011. (Abstract)

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14

    Lauridsen HH, , Hartvigsen J, , Manniche C, , Korsholm L, & Grunnet-Nilsson N: Responsiveness and minimal clinically important difference for pain and disability instruments in low back pain patients. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 7:82, 2006

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15

    McCaffery M, & Beebe A: Pain: Clinical Manual for Nursing Practice Baltimore, Mosby, 1993

  • 16

    McGirt MJ, , Parker SL, , Adogwa O, , Mendenhall SK, , Sahu DN, & Cheng JS, : Determination of Minimum Clinically Important Difference (MCID) in pain, disability and quality of life after revision fusion for symptomatic pseudoarthrosis. Spine J 11:Supplement 142S143S, 2011. (Abstract)

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17

    Modic MT: Modic type 1 and type 2 changes. J Neurosurg Spine 6:150151, 2007

  • 18

    Modic MT, & Ross JS: Lumbar degenerative disk disease. Radiology 245:4361, 2007

  • 19

    Modic MT, , Steinberg PM, , Ross JS, , Masaryk TJ, & Carter JR: Degenerative disk disease: assessment of changes in vertebral body marrow with MR imaging. Radiology 166:193199, 1988

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20

    Parker SL, , Adogwa O, , Paul AR, , Anderson WN, , Aaronson O, & Cheng JS, : Utility of minimum clinically important difference in assessing pain, disability, and health state after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 14:598604, 2011

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21

    Parker SL, , Mendenhall SK, , Shau DN, , Adogwa O, , Anderson WN, & Devin CJ, : Minimum clinically important difference in pain, disability, and quality of life after neural decompression and fusion for same-level recurrent lumbar stenosis: understanding clinical versus statistical significance. Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 16:471478, 2012

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22

    Petilon JM, , Glassman SD, , Dimar JR, & Carreon LY: Clinical outcomes after lumbar fusion complicated by deep wound infection: a case-control study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37:13701374, 2012

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23

    Rampersaud YR, , Ravi B, , Lewis SJ, , Stas V, , Barron R, & Davey R, : Assessment of health-related quality of life after surgical treatment of focal symptomatic spinal stenosis compared with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. Spine J 8:296304, 2008

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24

    Ware JE, , Snow K, , Kosinski M, & Gandek B: SF-36 Health Survey: Manual and Interpretations Guide Boston, The Health Institute, New England Medical Center, 1993

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25

    Wells G, , Beaton DE, , Shea B, , Boers M, , Simon L, & Strand V, : Minimal clinically important differences: review of methods. J Rheumatol 28:406412, 2001

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 439 273 11
Full Text Views 124 22 1
PDF Downloads 184 24 1
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0