Top

European Spine Journal

Published in:

01-01-2012 | Original Article

How do idiopathic scoliosis patients who improve after surgery differ from those who do not exceed a minimum detectable change?

Authors: Joan Bago, Francisco Javier Sanchez Perez-Grueso, Ferran Pellise, Esther Les

Published in: European Spine Journal | Issue 1/2012

Abstract

Introduction

The minimum detectable change (MDC) of the SRS-22 subtotal score is 6.8 points. With the use of this value, patients who have undergone surgery for idiopathic scoliosis can be dichotomized into two groups: the successful (S) group (those who have reached or exceeded this limit) and the unsuccessful (Un-S) group (those in whom the change was smaller). The aim of this study was to analyze the clinical and radiological differences between these patient groups, as well as those related to the surgical technique.

Material and Methods

The study included 91 patients (77 women and 14 men, mean age 18.1 years). All patients completed the SRS-22 questionnaire preoperatively and at follow-up (mean 45.6 months). In addition, radiological and surgical data were collected: levels instrumented, number of fused vertebrae, and use of thoracoplasty.

Results

Based on the MDC of the SRS-22 subtotal score, patients were assigned to the Un-S group (44 cases, 48.4%) or S group (47 cases). Groups were similar in age, sex, number of fused vertebrae, percentage of patients who underwent thoracoplasty, and the upper and lower instrumented levels. The magnitude of the major curve and percentage of correction after surgery were also similar (Un-S group 62.3º, 53.2%; S group 64.3º, 49.9%). As compared to Un-S group, S patients had a poorer preop score in all the SRS-22 domains, and a clinically significant postop improvement in pain, perceived body image, mental health, and subtotal score. In contrast, the Un-S group showed a worsening of pain, function, mental health, and subtotal score, and a clinically nonsignificant improvement in perceived body image on the follow-up questionnaire. There were no significant differences in the satisfaction domain score between groups (4.36 vs. 4.62). On ROC curve analysis, a preop subtotal score of 74 points predicted allocation to the S or Un-S group at follow-up with 79% sensitivity and 76% specificity.

Conclusion

The preop subtotal score of the SRS-22 is a good predictor of the clinical response to surgery.

Greenhalgh J (2009) The applications of PROs in clinical practice: what are they, do they work, and why? Qual Life Res 18(1):115–123PubMedCrossRef

Asher MA, Lai SM, Burton D, Manna B (2003) Discrimination validity of the scoliosis research society-22 patient questionnaire: relationship to idiopathic scoliosis curve pattern and curve size. Spine 28(1):74–78PubMedCrossRef

Bagó J, Pérez-Grueso FJS, Les E, Hernández P, Pellisé F (2009) Minimal important differences of the SRS-22 Patient Questionnaire following surgical treatment of idiopathic scoliosis. Eur Spine J 18(12):1898–1904PubMedCrossRef

van der Roer N, Ostelo RWJG, Bekkering GE, van Tulder MW, de Vet HCW (2006) Minimal clinically important change for pain intensity, functional status, and general health status in patients with nonspecific low back pain. Spine 31(5):578–582PubMedCrossRef

Asher MA, Lai SM, Glattes RC, Burton DC, Alanay A, Bago J (2006) Refinement of the SRS-22 Health-Related Quality of Life questionnaire Function domain. Spine 31(5):593–597PubMedCrossRef

Lenke LG, Betz RR, Harms J, Bridwell KH, Clements DH, Lowe TG, Blanke K (2001) Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a new classification to determine extent of spinal arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 83-A(8):1169–1181PubMed

Carreon LY, Sanders JO, Diab M, Sucato DJ, Sturm PF, Glassman SD, the Spinal Deformity Study Group (2010) The minimum clinically important difference in Scoliosis Research Society-22 Appearance, Activity, and Pain Domains after surgical correction of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 35(23):2079–2083PubMed

Bridwell KH, Berven S, Glassman S, Hamill C, Horton WC, Lenke LG, Schwab F, Baldus C, Shainline M (2007) Is the SRS-22 instrument responsive to change in adult scoliosis patients having primary spinal deformity surgery? Spine 32(20):2220–2225PubMedCrossRef

Howard A, Donaldson S, Hedden D, Stephens D, Alman B, Wright J (2007) Improvement in quality of life following surgery for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 32(24):2715–2718PubMedCrossRef

10.

Climent JM, Reig A, Sanchez J, Roda C (1995) Construction and validation of a specific quality of life instrument for adolescents with spine deformities. Spine 20(18):2006–2011PubMedCrossRef

11.

Climent JM, Bago J, Ey A, Perez-Grueso FJ, Izquierdo E (2005) Validity of the Spanish version of the Scoliosis Research Society-22 (SRS-22) patient questionnaire. Spine 30(6):705–709PubMedCrossRef

12.

Sanders JO, Carreon LY, Sucato DJ, Sturm PF, Diab M, Spinal Deformity Study Group (2010) Preoperative and perioperative factors effect on adolescent idiopathic scoliosis surgical outcomes. Spine 35:1867–1871PubMedCrossRef

13.

Takayama K, Nakamura H, Matsuda H (2009) Quality of life in patients treated surgically for scoliosis: longer than sixteen-year follow-up. Spine 34(20):2179–2184PubMedCrossRef

14.

Bago J, Climent JM, Ey A, Perez-Grueso FJ, Izquierdo E (2004) The Spanish version of the SRS-22 patient questionnaire for idiopathic scoliosis: transcultural adaptation and reliability analysis. Spine 29(15):1676–1680PubMedCrossRef

15.

Verma K, Lonner B, Hoashi JS, Lafage V, Dean L, Engel I, Goldstein Y (2010) Demographic factors affect Scoliosis Research Society-22 performance in healthy adolescents: a comparative baseline for adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 35(24):2134–2139PubMedCrossRef

16.

Schünemann HJ, Akl EA, Guyatt GH (2006) Interpreting the results of patient reported outcome measures in clinical trials: the clinician’s perspective. Health Qual Life Outcomes 4:62PubMedCrossRef

17.

Brozek JL, Guyatt GH, Schünemann HJ (2006) How a well-grounded minimal important difference can enhance transparency of labelling claims and improve interpretation of a patient reported outcome measure. Health Qual Life Outcomes 4:69PubMedCrossRef

18.

Copay AG, Subach BR, Glassman SD, Polly DW, Schuler TC (2007) Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods. Spine J 7(5):541–546PubMedCrossRef

19.

Turner D, Schünemann HJ, Griffith LE, Beaton DE, Griffiths AM, Critch JN, Guyatt GH (2010) The minimal detectable change cannot reliably replace the minimal important difference. J Clin Epidemiol 63(1):28–36PubMedCrossRef

20.

Revicki D, Hays RD, Cella D, Sloan J (2008) Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 61(2):102–109PubMedCrossRef

21.

Carragee EJ (2010) The rise and fall of the “minimum clinically important difference”. Spine J 10(4):283–284PubMedCrossRef

22.

Gatchel RJ, Lurie JD, Mayer TG (2010) Minimal clinically important difference. Spine 35(19):1739–1743PubMedCrossRef

23.

Guyatt G, Schunemann H (2007) How can quality of life researchers make their work more useful to health workers and their patients? Qual Life Res 16(7):1097–1105PubMedCrossRef

24.

Lonstein JE, Carlson JM (1984) The prediction of curve progression in untreated idiopathic scoliosis during growth. J Bone Joint Surg Am 66(7):1061–1071PubMed

25.

Bago J, Perez-Grueso F, Les E, Hernandez P, Pellise F, Fernandez-Baillo N, Villanueva C, Garcia A (2009) Clinical outcome of surgery for idiopathic scoliosis. Evaluation by satisfaction with treatment and overall perceived effect. Eur Spine J 18:139–140CrossRef

Title: How do idiopathic scoliosis patients who improve after surgery differ from those who do not exceed a minimum detectable change?
Authors: Joan Bago
Francisco Javier Sanchez Perez-Grueso
Ferran Pellise
Esther Les
Publication date: 01-01-2012
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: European Spine Journal / Issue 1/2012
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-011-2017-x

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

How do idiopathic scoliosis patients who improve after surgery differ from those who do not exceed a minimum detectable change?

Abstract

Introduction

Material and Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Introduction

Material and Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2012

Erratum to: Minimally invasive lateral transpsoas approach with advanced neurophysiologic monitoring for lumbar interbody fusion

Responsiveness of the Oswestry Disability Index and the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire in Italian subjects with sub-acute and chronic low back pain

The growing spine: how spinal deformities influence normal spine and thoracic cage growth

Spinal growth modulation using a novel intravertebral epiphyseal device in an immature porcine model

Predicting the peak growth velocity in the individual child: validation of a new growth model

The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure’s semi-structured interview: its applicability to lumbar spinal fusion patients. A prospective randomized clinical study