Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Spine Journal
Published in: European Spine Journal 3/2017

01-03-2017 | Review Article

Do we have the right PROMs for measuring outcomes in lumbar spinal surgery?

Authors: O. M. Stokes, A. A. Cole, L. M. Breakwell, A. J. Lloyd, C. M. Leonard, M. Grevitt

Published in: European Spine Journal | Issue 3/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have become an important part of routine auditing of outcomes in spinal surgery in the UK. PROMs can be used to help assess the quality of care provided by surgical units by determining the comparative health status of patients, before and after surgery. This study was designed to review the PROMs used to assess outcomes in spinal surgery and to determine if they are fit for the purpose.

Methods

A systematic literature search was undertaken to identify studies that reported PROMs data following lumbar spinal surgery. The PROMs that were used in each study were recorded and a separate search was undertaken to determine the evidence regarding the validity of each measure.

Results

The initial search identified 1142 abstracts, which were reduced through de-duplication, filtering and review to 58 articles, which were retrieved and reviewed in full. The search identified that the majority of studies used either the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), SF-36, Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) and EQ-5D along with visual analogue scales or numeric rating scales for back and leg pain.

Conclusions

The consistent use of PROMs supports the comparison of outcomes from different studies, although there was minimal evidence regarding the specificity and sensitivity of these measures for use with lumbar spinal patients. Our review highlights the need to determine a consensus regarding the use and reporting of outcome measures within the lumbar spine literature.
Literature
1.
2.
Schluessmann E, Diel P, Aghayev E et al (2009) On behalf of School of the SWISSspine Registry Group SWISSspine: a nationwide registry for health technology assessment of lumbar disc prostheses. Eur Spine J. 18:851–861CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
3.
Röder C, Chavanne A, Mannion AF, Grob D, Aebi M (2005) SSE Spine tango—content, workflow, set-up. www.eurospine.org—Spine tango. Eur Spine J 14:920–924CrossRefPubMed
4.
5.
The EuroQol Group (1990) EuroQol-a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 16:199–208CrossRef
6.
7.
8.
Jenkinson C, Stewart-Brown S, Peterson S, Paice C (1999) Assessment of the SF-36 version 2 in the United Kingdom. J Epidemiol Commun Health 53:46–50CrossRef
9.
Grevitt M, Khazim R, Webb J, Mulholland R, Shepperd J (1997) The short form-36 health survey questionnaire in spine surgery. J Bone Jt Surgery 79(B(1)):48–52CrossRef
10.
Mueller B, Carreon LY, Glassman SD (2013) Comparison of the EuroQol-5D with the Oswestry Disability Index, back and leg pain scores in patients with degenerative lumbar spine pathology. Spine 38:757–761CrossRefPubMed
11.
Roland M, Morris R (1983) A study of the natural history of back pain. Part I: development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low-back pain. Spine 8:141–144CrossRefPubMed
12.
Roland M, Fairbank J (2000) The Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire. Spine 25:3115–3124CrossRefPubMed
13.
Zanoli G, Stromqvist B, Jonsson B (2001) Visual analog scales for interpretation of back and leg pain intensity in patients operated for degenerative lumbar spine disorders. Spine 26:2375–2380CrossRefPubMed
14.
Hawker GA, Mian S, Kendzerska T, French M (2011) Measures of adult pain. Arthritis Care Res 63:S240–S252CrossRef
15.
Fairbank J, Couper J, Davies J, O’Brien JP (1980) The Oswestry low back pain questionnaire. Physiotherapy 66:271–273PubMed
16.
Beurskens A, deVet HCW, Koke AJA (1996) Responsiveness of functional status in low back pain: a comparison of different instruments. Pain 65:71–76CrossRefPubMed
17.
Fisher K, Johnson M (1997) Validation of the Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire, its sensitivity as a measure of change following treatment and its relationship with other aspects of the chronic pain experience. Physiother Theory Pract 13:67–80CrossRef
18.
Kopec JA, Esdaile JM, Abrahamowicz M, Abenhaim L, Wood-Dauphinee S, Lamping DL et al (1996) The Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale: conceptualization and development. J Clin Epidemiol 49:151–161CrossRefPubMed
19.
Bergner M, Bobbitt RA, Carter WB et al (1981) The sickness impact profile: development and final revision of a health status measure. Med Care 19:787–805CrossRefPubMed
20.
Williamson A, Hoggart B (2005) Pain: a review of three commonly used pain rating scales. J Clin Nurs 14:798–804CrossRefPubMed
21.
Childs JD, Piva SR, Fritz J (2005) Responsiveness of the numeric pain rating scale in patients with low back pain. Spine 30:1331–1334CrossRefPubMed
22.
Deyo R, Battie M, Beurskens A, Bombardier C, Croft P, Koes B, Malmivaara A, Roland M, Korff M, Waddell G (1998) Outcome measures for low back pain research. A proposal for standardized use. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 23:2003–2013CrossRef
23.
Mannion AF, Porchet F, Kleinstück FS, Lattig F, Jeszenszky D, Bartanusz V, Dvorak J, Grob D (2009) The quality of spine surgery from the patient’s perspective. Part 1: the Core Outcome Measures Index in clinical practice. Eur Spine J 18(Suppl 3):367–373CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
24.
Mannion AF, Elfering A, Staerkle R, Junge A, Grob D, Semmer NK, Jacobshagen N, Dvorak J, Boos N (2005) Outcome assessment in low back pain: how low can you go? Eur Spine J 14:1014–1026CrossRefPubMed
25.
Stucki G, Daltroy LH, Liang MH, Lipson SJ, Fossel AH, Katz JN (1996) Measurement properties of a self-administered outcome measure in lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 21:796–803CrossRefPubMed
26.
Pratt RK, Fairbank JC, Virr A (2002) The reliability of the Shuttle Walking Test, the Swiss Spinal Stenosis Questionnaire, the Oxford Spinal Stenosis Score, and the Oswestry Disability Index in the assessment of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 27(1):84–91CrossRefPubMed
27.
Comer CM, Conaghan PG, Tennant A (2011) Internal construct validity of the Swiss Spine Stenosis Questionnaire: Rasch analysis of a disease-specific outcome measure for lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36(23):1969–1976CrossRef
28.
Daltroy LH, Cats-Baril WL, Katz JN, Fossel AH, Liang MH (1996) The North American spine society lumbar spine outcome assessment instrument: reliability and validity tests. Spine 21(6):741–748CrossRefPubMed
29.
Sarasqueta C, Gabaldon O, Iza I, Béland F, Paz PM (2005) Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the NASS outcomes instrument in Spanish patients with low back pain. Eur Spine J 14(6):586–594CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
30.
Stoll T, Huber E, Bachmann S, Baumeler HR, Mariacher S, Rutz M, Schneider W, Spring H, Aeschlimann A, Stucki G, Steiner W (2004) Validity and sensitivity to change of the NASS questionnaire for patients with cervical spine disorders. Spine 29(24):2851–2855CrossRefPubMed
31.
Beyer F et al (2013) Percutaneous interspinous spacer versus open decompression: a 2-year follow-up of clinical outcome and quality of life. Eur Spine J 22(9):2015–2021CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
32.
Kleinstueck FS et al (2012) To fuse or not to fuse in lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis: do baseline symptoms help provide the answer? Eur Spine J 21(2):268–275CrossRefPubMed
33.
Kleinstueck FS et al (2011) The outcome of decompression surgery for lumbar herniated disc is influenced by the level of concomitant preoperative low back pain. Eur Spine J 20(7):1166–1173CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
34.
Sobottke R et al (2010) Clinical outcomes and quality of life 1 year after open microsurgical decompression or implantation of an interspinous stand-alone spacer. Minim Invasive Neurosurg 53(4):179–183CrossRefPubMed
35.
Grob D et al (2010) A comparison of outcomes of cervical disc arthroplasty and fusion in everyday clinical practice: surgical and methodological aspects. Eur Spine J 19(2):297–306CrossRefPubMed
36.
Kleinstück FS et al (2009) The influence of preoperative back pain on the outcome of lumbar decompression surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34(11):1198–1203CrossRef
37.
Rothman M, Burke L, Erickson P, Leidy NK, Patrick DL, Petrie CD (2009) Use of existing patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments and their modification: the ISPOR good research practices for evaluating and documenting content validity for the use of existing instruments and their modification PRO task force report. Value Health 12:1075–1083CrossRefPubMed
38.
Stratford P, Binkley J (1997) Measurement properties of the RM-18: a modified version of the Roland–Morris Disability Scale. Spine 22:2416–2421CrossRefPubMed
39.
Patrick D, Deyo R, Atlas S et al (1995) Assessing health-related quality of life inpatients with sciatica. Spine 20:1899–1909CrossRefPubMed
40.
Underwood M, Barnett A, Vicker M (1999) Evaluation of two time-specific back pain outcome measures. Spine 24:1104–1112CrossRefPubMed
41.
Walsh TL, Hanscom B, Lurie JD, Weinstein JN (2003) Is a condition-specific instrument for patients with low back pain/leg symptoms really necessary? Spine 28:607–615PubMed
42.
Garratt A, Moffett J, Farrin A (2001) Responsiveness of generic and specific measures of health outcome in low back pain. Spine 26:71–77CrossRefPubMed
43.
Rihn JA, Berven S, Allen T, Phillips FM, Currier BL, Glassman SD et al (2009) Defining value in spine care. Am J Med Qual 24:4S–14SCrossRefPubMed
44.
Hägg O, Fritzell P, Nordwall A (2003) The clinical importance of changes in outcome scores after treatment for chronic low back pain. Eur Spine J 12:12–20PubMed
45.
Haefeli M, Elfering A, Aebi M, Freeman BJ, Fritzell P, Guimaraes Consciencia J et al (2008) What comprises a good outcome in spinal surgery? A preliminary survey among spine surgeons of the SSE and European spine patients. Eur Spine J 17:104–116CrossRefPubMed
46.
Godil SS, Parker SL, Zuckerman SL, Mendenhall SK, Glassman SD, McGirt MJ (2014) Accurately measuring the quality and effectiveness of lumbar surgery in registry efforts: determining the most valid and responsive instruments. Spine J. 14:2885–2891CrossRefPubMed
47.
Clement RC, Welander A, Stowell C, Cha TD, Chen JL, Davies M, Fairbank JC, Foley KT, Gehrchen M, Hagg O, Jacobs WC (2015) A proposed set of metrics for standardized outcome reporting in the management of low back pain. Acta orthopaedica. 86(5):523–533CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
48.
Turk DC, Dworkin RH, Allen RR, Bellamy N, Brandenburg N, Carr DB, Cleeland C, Dionne R, Farrar JT, Galer BS, Hewitt DJ, Jadad AR, Katz NP, Kramer LD, Manning DC, McCormick CG, McDermott MP, McGrath P, Quessy S, Rappaport BA, Robinson JP, Royal MA, Simon L, Stauffer JW, Stein W, Tollett J, Witter J (2003) Core outcome domains for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain 106:337–345CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Do we have the right PROMs for measuring outcomes in lumbar spinal surgery?
Authors
O. M. Stokes
A. A. Cole
L. M. Breakwell
A. J. Lloyd
C. M. Leonard
M. Grevitt
Publication date
01-03-2017
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Spine Journal / Issue 3/2017
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4938-x

Other articles of this Issue 3/2017

European Spine Journal 3/2017 Go to the issue

Original Article

Robotic-guided sacro-pelvic fixation using S2 alar-iliac screws: feasibility and accuracy

Review Article

Is reduction better than arthrodesis in situ in surgical management of low-grade spondylolisthesis? A system review and meta analysis

Original Article

Postoperative changes in sacropelvic junction in short-segment angular kyphosis versus Scheuermann kyphosis

Original Article

Radiation exposure using the O-arm® surgical imaging system

Original Article

Outcome of L5 radiculopathy after reduction and instrumented transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion of high-grade L5–S1 isthmic spondylolisthesis and the role of intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring

Original Article

Is a drain tube necessary for minimally invasive lumbar spine fusion surgery?