Clinically important deterioration in patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery: a choice of evaluation methods using the Oswestry Disability Index, 36-Item Short Form Health Survey, and pain scales

Clinical article

Jeffrey L. Gum M.D.1, Steven D. Glassman M.D.1,2, and Leah Y. Carreon M.D., M.Sc.2
View More View Less
  • 1 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Louisville School of Medicine;
  • | 2 Norton Leatherman Spine Center, Louisville, Kentucky
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

Object

Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) measures have become the mainstay for outcome appraisal in spine surgery. Clinically meaningful interpretation of HRQOL improvement has centered on the minimum clinically important difference (MCID). The purpose of this study was to calculate clinically important deterioration (CIDET) thresholds and determine a CIDET value for each HRQOL measure for patients undergoing lumbar fusion.

Methods

Seven hundred twenty-two patients (248 males, 127 smokers, mean age 60.8 years) were identified with complete preoperative and 1-year postoperative HRQOLs including the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), and numeric rating scales (0–10) for back and leg pain following primary, instrumented, posterior lumbar fusion. Anchor-based and distribution-based methods were used to calculate CIDET for each HRQOL. Anchor-based methods included change score, change difference, and receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. The Health Transition Item, an independent item of the SF-36, was used as the external anchor. Patients who responded “somewhat worse” and “much worse” were combined and compared with patients responding “about the same.” Distribution-based methods were minimum detectable change and effect size.

Results

Diagnoses included spondylolisthesis (n = 332), scoliosis (n = 54), instability (n = 37), disc pathology (n = 146), and stenosis (n = 153). There was a statistically significant change (p < 0.0001) for each HRQOL measure from preoperatively to 1-year postoperatively. Only 107 patients (15%) reported being “somewhat worse” (n = 81) or “much worse” (n = 26). Calculation methods yielded a range of CIDET values for ODI (0.17–9.06), SF-36 physical component summary (−0.32 to 4.43), back pain (0.02–1.50), and leg pain (0.02–1.50).

Conclusions

A threshold for clinical deterioration was difficult to identify. This may be due to the small number of patients reporting being worse after surgery and the variability across methods to determine CIDET thresholds. Overall, it appears that patients may interpret the absence of change as deterioration.

Abbreviations used in this paper:

CIDET = clinically important deterioration; HRQOL = health-related quality of life; HTI = Health Transition Item; MCID = minimal clinically important difference; MCS = mental component summary; ODI = Oswestry Disability Index; PCS = physical component summary; ROC = receiver operating characteristic; SF-36 = 36-Item Short Form Health Survey.

Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $376.00

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

USD  $612.00
  • 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, et al.: Looking for important change/differences in studies of responsiveness. J Rheumatol 28:400405, 2001

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3

    Campbell H, , Rivero-Arias O, , Johnston K, , Gray A, , Fairbank J, & Frost H: Responsiveness of objective, disease-specific, and generic outcome measures in patients with chronic low back pain: an assessment for improving, stable, and deteriorating patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31:815822, 2006

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    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
  • 5

    Copay AG, , Martin MM, , Subach BR, , Carreon LY, , Glassman SD, & Schuler TC, et al.: Assessment of spine surgery outcomes: inconsistency of change amongst outcome measurements. Spine J 10:291296, 2010

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6

    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 7:541546, 2007

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7

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

  • 8

    Fitzpatrick R, , Davey C, , Buxton MJ, & Jones DR: Evaluating patient-based outcome measures for use in clinical trials. Health Technol Assess 2:iiv, 174, 1998

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

    Glassman S, , Gornet MF, , Branch C, , Polly D Jr, , Peloza J, & Schwender JD, et al.: 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
  • 10

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

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11

    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 90:18391847, 2008

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12

    Grevitt M, , Khazim R, , Webb J, , Mulholland R, & Shepperd J: The short form-36 health survey questionnaire in spine surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Br 79:4852, 1997

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13

    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
  • 14

    Hays RD, & Woolley JM: The concept of clinically meaningful difference in health-related quality-of-life research. How meaningful is it?. Pharmacoeconomics 18:419423, 2000

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15

    Imagama S, , Kawakami N, , Tsuji T, , Ohara T, , Matsubara Y, & Kanemura T, et al.: Perioperative complications and adverse events after lumbar spinal surgery: evaluation of 1012 operations at a single center. J Orthop Sci 16:510515, 2011

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16

    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
  • 17

    Jensen MP, , Chen C, & Brugger AM: Postsurgical pain outcome assessment. Pain 99:101109, 2002

  • 18

    Kulkarni AV: Distribution-based and anchor-based approaches provided different interpretability estimates for the Hydrocephalus Outcome Questionnaire. J Clin Epidemiol 59:176184, 2006

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19

    Mannion AF, , Porchet F, , Kleinstück FS, , Lattig F, , Jeszenszky D, & Bartanusz V, et al.: The quality of spine surgery from the patient's perspective: part 2. Minimal clinically important difference for improvement and deterioration as measured with the Core Outcome Measures Index. Eur Spine J 18:Suppl 3 374379, 2009

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20

    McDowell I, & Newell C: Measuring Health: A Guide to Rating Scales and Questionnaires ed. 2 New York, Oxford University Press, 1996

  • 21

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

  • 22

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

  • 23

    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
  • 24

    Samsa G, , Edelman D, , Rothman ML, , Williams GR, , Lipscomb J, & Matchar D: Determining clinically important differences in health status measures: a general approach with illustration to the Health Utilities Index Mark II. Pharmacoeconomics 15:141155, 1999

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25

    Taylor SJ, , Taylor AE, , Foy MA, & Fogg AJB: Responsiveness of common outcome measures for patients with low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 24:18051812, 1999

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26

    Ware JE Jr, & Sherbourne CD: The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 30:473483, 1992

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27

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

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28

    Wright JG: Interpreting health-related quality of life scores: the simple rule of seven may not be so simple. Med Care 41:597598, 2003

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 29

    Wyrwich KW, , Nienaber NA, , Tierney WM, & Wolinsky FD: Linking clinical relevance and statistical significance in evaluating intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. Med Care 37:469478, 1999

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 30

    Wyrwich KW, , Tierney WM, & Wolinsky FD: Further evidence supporting an SEM-based criterion for identifying meaningful intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol 52:861873, 1999

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 518 128 12
Full Text Views 175 14 0
PDF Downloads 198 16 0
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0