Patient-reported outcome measure clustering after surgery for adult symptomatic lumbar scoliosis

View More View Less
  • 1 Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri;
  • | 2 Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia;
  • | 3 Denver International Spine Center, Denver, Colorado;
  • | 4 Department of Neurological Surgery, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina; and
  • | 5 Och Spine Hospital, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, New York
Restricted access

Purchase Now

USD  $45.00

Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $376.00

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

USD  $612.00
Print or Print + Online

OBJECTIVE

Adult symptomatic lumbar scoliosis (ASLS) is a widespread and debilitating subset of adult spinal deformity. Although many patients benefit from operative treatment, surgery entails substantial cost and risk for adverse events. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are patient-centered tools used to evaluate the appropriateness of surgery and to assist in the shared decision-making process. Framing realistic patient expectations should include the possible functional limitation to improvement inherent in surgical intervention, such as multilevel fusion to the sacrum. The authors’ objective was to predict postoperative ASLS PROMs by using clustering analysis, generalized longitudinal regression models, percentile analysis, and clinical improvement analysis of preoperative health-related quality-of-life scores for use in surgical counseling.

METHODS

Operative results from the combined ASLS cohorts were examined. PROM score clustering after surgery investigated limits of surgical improvement. Patients were categorized by baseline disability (mild, moderate, moderate to severe, or severe) according to preoperative Scoliosis Research Society (SRS)–22 and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores. Responder analysis for patients achieving improvement meeting the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) standards was performed using both fixed-threshold and patient-specific values (MCID = 30% of remaining scale, SCB = 50%). Best (top 5%), worst (bottom 5%), and median scores were calculated across disability categories.

RESULTS

A total of 171/187 (91%) of patients with ASLS achieved 2-year follow-up. Patients rarely achieved a PROM ceiling for any measure, with 33%–43% of individuals clustering near 4.0 for SRS domains. Patients with severe baseline disability (< 2.0) SRS-pain and SRS-function scores were often left with moderate to severe disability (2.0–2.9), unlike patients with higher (≥ 3.0) initial PROM values. Patients with mild disability according to baseline SRS-function score were unlikely to improve. Crippling baseline ODI disability (> 60) commonly left patients with moderate disability (median ODI = 32). As baseline ODI disability increased, patients were more likely to achieve MCID and SCB (p < 0.001). Compared to fixed threshold values for MCID and SCB, patient-specific values were more sensitive to change for patients with minimal ODI baseline disability (p = 0.008) and less sensitive to change for patients with moderate to severe SRS subscore disability (p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that ASLS surgeries have a limit to possible improvement, probably due to both baseline disability and the effects of surgery. The most disabled patients often had moderate to severe disability (SRS < 3, ODI > 30) at 2 years, emphasizing the importance of patient counseling and expectation management.

ABBREVIATIONS

ASD = adult spinal deformity; ASLS = adult symptomatic lumbar scoliosis; HRQOL = health-related quality of life; MCID = minimum clinically important difference; ODI = Oswestry Disability Index; PROM = patient-reported outcome measure; SCB = substantial clinical benefit; SRS = Scoliosis Research Society.

Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $376.00

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

USD  $612.00
  • 1

    Ames CP, Scheer JK, Lafage V, et al. Adult spinal deformity: epidemiology, health impact, evaluation, and management. Spine Deform. 2016;4(4):310322.

  • 2

    Passias PG, Jalai CM, Worley N, et al. Adult spinal deformity: national trends in the presentation, treatment, and perioperative outcomes from 2003 to 2010. Spine Deform. 2017;5(5):342350.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3

    Kebaish KM, Neubauer PR, Voros GD, Khoshnevisan MA, Skolasky RL. Scoliosis in adults aged forty years and older: prevalence and relationship to age, race, and gender. Spine (Phila Pa 1976).2011;36(9):731736.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    Bess S, Line B, Fu KM, et al. The health impact of symptomatic adult spinal deformity: comparison of deformity types to united states population norms and chronic diseases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976).2016;41(3):224233.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5

    Pellisé F, Vila-Casademunt A, Ferrer M, et al. Impact on health related quality of life of adult spinal deformity (ASD) compared with other chronic conditions. Eur Spine J. 2015;24(1):311.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6

    Kelly MP, Lurie JD, Yanik EL, et al. Operative versus nonoperative treatment for adult symptomatic lumbar scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2019;101(4):338352.

  • 7

    Liu S, Schwab F, Smith JS, et al. Likelihood of reaching minimal clinically important difference in adult spinal deformity: a comparison of operative and nonoperative treatment. Ochsner J. 2014;14(1):6777.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8

    Bridwell KH, Glassman S, Horton W, et al. Does treatment (nonoperative and operative) improve the two-year quality of life in patients with adult symptomatic lumbar scoliosis: a prospective multicenter evidence-based medicine study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976).2009;34(20):21712178.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

    Moal B, Lafage V, Smith JS, et al. Clinical improvement through surgery for adult spinal deformity: what can be expected and who is likely to benefit most?. Spine Deform. 2015;3(6):566574.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10

    McCarthy IM, Hostin RA, O’Brien MF, et al. Analysis of the direct cost of surgery for four diagnostic categories of adult spinal deformity. Spine J. 2013;13(12):18431848.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11

    McCarthy IM, Hostin RA, Ames CP, et al. Total hospital costs of surgical treatment for adult spinal deformity: an extended follow-up study. Spine J. 2014;14(10):23262333.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12

    Smith HE, Rihn JA, Brodke DS, et al. Spine care: evaluation of the efficacy and cost of emerging technology. Am J Med Qual. 2009;24(6)(suppl):25S31S.

  • 13

    Smith JS, Shaffrey CI, Kelly MP, et al. Effect of serious adverse events on health-related quality of life measures following surgery for adult symptomatic lumbar scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976).2019;44(17):12111219.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14

    Carreon LY, Glassman SD, Lurie J, et al. Cost-effectiveness of operative versus nonoperative treatment of adult symptomatic lumbar scoliosis an intent-to-treat analysis at 5-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976).2019;44(21):14991506.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15

    Berliner JL, Brodke DJ, Chan V, SooHoo NF, Bozic KJ. Can preoperative patient-reported outcome measures be used to predict meaningful improvement in function after TKA?. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017;475(1):149157.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16

    Berliner JL, Brodke DJ, Chan V, SooHoo NF, Bozic KJ. John Charnley Award: Preoperative patient-reported outcome measures predict clinically meaningful improvement in function after THA. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016;474(2):321329.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17

    Rihn JA, Currier BL, Phillips FM, Glassman SD, Albert TJ. Defining the value of spine care. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2013;21(7):419426.

  • 18

    Porter ME. What is value in health care?. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(26):24772481.

  • 19

    Noonan VK, Lyddiatt A, Ware P, et al. Montreal Accord on Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) use series—Paper 3: Patient-reported outcomes can facilitate shared decision-making and guide self-management. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;89:125135.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20

    Barry MJ, Edgman-Levitan S. Shared decision making—pinnacle of patient-centered care. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(9):780781.

  • 21

    Kang DG, Baldus C, Glassman SD, Shaffrey CI, Lurie JD, Bridwell KH. Neurologic deficits have a negative impact on patient-related outcomes in primary presentation adult symptomatic lumbar scoliosis surgical treatment at one-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976).2017;42(7):479489.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22

    Chapman TM Jr, Baldus CR, Lurie JD, et al. Baseline patient-reported outcomes correlate weakly with radiographic parameters: a multicenter, prospective NIH adult symptomatic lumbar scoliosis study of 286 patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976).2016;41(22):17011708.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23

    Spratt KF. Patient-level minimal clinically important difference based on clinical judgment and minimally detectable measurement difference: a rationale for the SF-36 physical function scale in the SPORT intervertebral disc herniation cohort. Spine (Phila Pa 1976).2009;34(16):17221731.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24

    Fairbank JCT, Pynsent PB. The Oswestry Disability Index. Spine (Phila Pa 1976).2000;25(22):29402952.

  • 25

    Breitenseher MJ, Eyb RP, Matzner MP, Trattnig S, Kainberger FM, Imhof H. MRI of unfused lumbar segments after spondylodesis. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1996;20(4):583587.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26

    Crawford CH III, Glassman SD, Bridwell KH, Berven SH, Carreon LY. The minimum clinically important difference in SRS-22R total score, appearance, activity and pain domains after surgical treatment of adult spinal deformity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976).2015;40(6):377381.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27

    Hägg O, Fritzell P, Nordwall A. The clinical importance of changes in outcome scores after treatment for chronic low back pain. Eur Spine J. 2003;12(1):1220.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28

    Glassman SD, Copay AG, Berven SH, Polly DW, Subach BR, Carreon LY. Defining substantial clinical benefit following lumbar spine arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90(9):18391847.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 29

    Crawford CH III, Glassman SD, Bridwell KH, Carreon LY. The substantial clinical benefit threshold for SRS-22R domains after surgical treatment of adult spinal deformity. Spine Deform. 2016;4(5):373377.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 30

    Little DG, MacDonald D. The use of the percentage change in Oswestry Disability Index score as an outcome measure in lumbar spinal surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976).1994;19(19):21392143.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 31

    Austevoll IM, Gjestad R, Grotle M, et al. Follow-up score, change score or percentage change score for determining clinical important outcome following surgery? An observational study from the Norwegian registry for spine surgery evaluating patient reported outcome measures in lumbar spinal stenosis and lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2019;20(1):31.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 32

    Dworkin RH, Turk DC, Farrar JT, et al. Core outcome measures for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain. 2005;113(1-2):919.

  • 33

    Ostelo RWJG, Deyo RA, Stratford P, et al. Interpreting change scores for pain and functional status in low back pain: towards international consensus regarding minimal important change. Spine (Phila Pa 1976).2008;33(1):9094.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 34

    Hahn GJ, Meeker WQ. Statistical Intervals: A Guide for Practitioners. John Wiley & Sons;1991.

  • 35

    Acaroglu E, Yavuz AC, Guler UO, et al. A decision analysis to identify the ideal treatment for adult spinal deformity: is surgery better than non-surgical treatment in improving health-related quality of life and decreasing the disease burden?. Eur Spine J. 2016;25(8):23902400.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 36

    Smith JS, Lafage V, Shaffrey CI, et al. Outcomes of operative and nonoperative treatment for adult spinal deformity: a prospective, multicenter, propensity-matched cohort assessment with minimum 2-year follow-up. Neurosurgery. 2016;78(6):851861.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 37

    Whitebird RR, Solberg LI, Norton CK, Ziegenfuss JY, Asche SE, Grossman ES. What outcomes matter to patients after joint or spine surgery?. J Patient Cent Res Rev. 2020;7(2):157164.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 38

    Copay AG, Subach BR, Glassman SD, Polly DW Jr, Schuler TC. Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods. Spine J. 2007;7(5):541546.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 39

    Chung AS, Copay AG, Olmscheid N, Campbell D, Walker JB, Chutkan N. Minimum clinically important difference: current trends in the spine literature. Spine (Phila Pa 1976).2017;42(14):10961105.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 40

    Hey HWD, Luo N, Chin SY, et al. The predictive value of preoperative health-related quality-of-life scores on postoperative patient-reported outcome scores in lumbar spine surgery. Global Spine J. 2018;8(2):156163.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 41

    Ames CP, Smith JS, Pellisé F, et al. Development of deployable predictive models for minimal clinically important difference achievement across the commonly used health-related quality of life instruments in adult spinal deformity surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976).2019;44(16):11441153.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 42

    Khor S, Lavallee D, Cizik AM, et al. Development and validation of a prediction model for pain and functional outcomes after lumbar spine surgery. JAMA Surg. 2018;153(7):634642.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 43

    McGirt MJ, Sivaganesan A, Asher AL, Devin CJ. Prediction model for outcome after low-back surgery: individualized likelihood of complication, hospital readmission, return to work, and 12-month improvement in functional disability. Neurosurg Focus. 2015;39(6):E13.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 44

    Pellisé F, Serra-Burriel M, Smith JS, et al. Development and validation of risk stratification models for adult spinal deformity surgery. J Neurosurg Spine. 2019;31(4):587599.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 45

    Line B, Bess S, Lafage V, et al. Counseling guidelines for anticipated postsurgical improvements in pain, function, mental health, and self-image for different types of adult spinal deformity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976).2020;45(16):11181127.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 44 44 44
Full Text Views 21 21 21
PDF Downloads 29 29 29
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0