Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Spine Journal 10/2017

Open Access 01-10-2017 | Original Article

Criteria for failure and worsening after surgery for lumbar disc herniation: a multicenter observational study based on data from the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery

Authors: David A. T. Werner, Margreth Grotle, Sasha Gulati, Ivar M. Austevoll, Greger Lønne, Øystein P. Nygaard, Tore K. Solberg

Published in: European Spine Journal | Issue 10/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

In clinical decision-making, it is crucial to discuss the probability of adverse outcomes with the patient. A large proportion of the outcomes are difficult to classify as either failure or success. Consequently, cutoff values in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for “failure” and “worsening” are likely to be different from those of “non-success”. The aim of this study was to identify dichotomous cutoffs for failure and worsening, 12 months after surgical treatment for lumbar disc herniation, in a large registry cohort.

Methods

A total of 6840 patients with lumbar disc herniation were operated and followed for 12 months, according to the standard protocol of the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery (NORspine). Patients reporting to be unchanged or worse on the Global Perceived Effectiveness (GPE) scale at 12-month follow-up were classified as “failure”, and those considering themselves “worse” or “worse than ever” after surgery were classified as “worsening”. These two dichotomous outcomes were used as anchors in analyses of receiver operating characteristics (ROC) to define cutoffs for failure and worsening on commonly used PROMs, namely, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), the EuroQuol 5D (EQ-5D), and Numerical Rating Scales (NRS) for back pain and leg pain.

Results

“Failure” after 12 months for each PROM, as an insufficient improvement from baseline, was (sensitivity and specificity): ODI change <13 (0.82, 0.82), ODI% change <33% (0.86, 0.86), ODI final raw score >25 (0.89, 0.81), NRS back-pain change <1.5 (0.74, 0.86), NRS back-pain % change <24 (0.85, 0.81), NRS back-pain final raw score >5.5 (0.81, 0.87), NRS leg-pain change <1.5 (0.81, 0.76), NRS leg-pain % change <39 (0.86, 0.81), NRS leg-pain final raw score >4.5 (0.91, 0.85), EQ-5D change <0.10 (0.76, 0.83), and EQ-5D final raw score >0.63 (0.81, 0.85). Both a final raw score >48 for the ODI and an NRS >7.5 were indicators for “worsening” after 12 months, with acceptable accuracy.

Conclusion

The criteria with the highest accuracy for defining failure and worsening after surgery for lumbar disc herniation were an ODI percentage change score <33% for failure and a 12-month ODI raw score >48. These cutoffs can facilitate shared decision-making among doctors and patients, and improve quality assessment and comparison of clinical outcomes across surgical units. In addition to clinically relevant improvements, we propose that rates of failure and worsening should be included in reporting from clinical trials.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Baker DJ, PPB, FCT (1990) The Oswestry Disability Index revisited: its reliability, repeatability and validity, and a comparison with the St Thomas’s Disability Index. Back pain. New approaches to rehabilitation and education. 174–186 Baker DJ, PPB, FCT (1990) The Oswestry Disability Index revisited: its reliability, repeatability and validity, and a comparison with the St Thomas’s Disability Index. Back pain. New approaches to rehabilitation and education. 174–186
2.
go back to reference Mp J, Karoly P (1992) Self-report scales and procedures for assessing pain in adults. In: DC T, Melzack R (eds) Handbook of pain assessment. The Guilford Press, New York, pp 135–151 Mp J, Karoly P (1992) Self-report scales and procedures for assessing pain in adults. In: DC T, Melzack R (eds) Handbook of pain assessment. The Guilford Press, New York, pp 135–151
6.
go back to reference Copay AG, Subach BR, Glassman SD et al (2007) Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods. Spine J 7:541–546CrossRefPubMed Copay AG, Subach BR, Glassman SD et al (2007) Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods. Spine J 7:541–546CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Glassman SD, Copay AG, Berven SH et al (2008) Defining substantial clinical benefit following lumbar spine arthrodesis. J Bone Jt Surg Am 90:1839–1847CrossRef Glassman SD, Copay AG, Berven SH et al (2008) Defining substantial clinical benefit following lumbar spine arthrodesis. J Bone Jt Surg Am 90:1839–1847CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Copay AG, Martin MM, Subach BR et al (2010) Assessment of spine surgery outcomes: inconsistency of change amongst outcome measurements. Spine J 10:291–296CrossRefPubMed Copay AG, Martin MM, Subach BR et al (2010) Assessment of spine surgery outcomes: inconsistency of change amongst outcome measurements. Spine J 10:291–296CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Solberg T, Johnsen LG, Nygaard OP, Grotle M (2013) Can we define success criteria for lumbar disc surgery? Estimates for a substantial amount of improvement in core outcome measures. Acta Orthop 84:196–201CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Solberg T, Johnsen LG, Nygaard OP, Grotle M (2013) Can we define success criteria for lumbar disc surgery? Estimates for a substantial amount of improvement in core outcome measures. Acta Orthop 84:196–201CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
go back to reference Copay AG, Glassman SD, Subach BR et al (2008) 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 8:968–974. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2007.11.006 CrossRefPubMed Copay AG, Glassman SD, Subach BR et al (2008) 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 8:968–974. doi:10.​1016/​j.​spinee.​2007.​11.​006 CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference van Kampen DA, Willems WJJ, van Beers LWAH et al (2013) Determination and comparison of the smallest detectable change (SDC) and the minimal important change (MIC) of four-shoulder patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). J Orthop Surg Res 8:40. doi:10.1186/1749-799X-8-40 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral van Kampen DA, Willems WJJ, van Beers LWAH et al (2013) Determination and comparison of the smallest detectable change (SDC) and the minimal important change (MIC) of four-shoulder patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). J Orthop Surg Res 8:40. doi:10.​1186/​1749-799X-8-40 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
go back to reference Deyo RA, Mirza SK (2009) The case for restraint in spinal surgery: does quality management have a role to play? EurSpine J 18(Suppl 3):331–337 Deyo RA, Mirza SK (2009) The case for restraint in spinal surgery: does quality management have a role to play? EurSpine J 18(Suppl 3):331–337
18.
go back to reference Mannion AF, Porchet F, Kleinstück FS et al (2009) 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 18:374–379. doi:10.1007/s00586-009-0931-y CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Mannion AF, Porchet F, Kleinstück FS et al (2009) 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 18:374–379. doi:10.​1007/​s00586-009-0931-y CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
21.
go back to reference Ruyter KW (2015) REK sør-øst Knut W. Ruyter 22845518 24.06.2015 Ruyter KW (2015) REK sør-øst Knut W. Ruyter 22845518 24.06.2015
22.
go back to reference Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, Williams A (1996) The time trade-off method: results from a general population study. Heal Econ 5:141–154CrossRef Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, Williams A (1996) The time trade-off method: results from a general population study. Heal Econ 5:141–154CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Solberg TK, Olsen JA, Ingebrigtsen T et al (2005) Health-related quality of life assessment by the EuroQol-5D can provide cost-utility data in the field of low-back surgery. Eur Spine J 14:1000–1007CrossRefPubMed Solberg TK, Olsen JA, Ingebrigtsen T et al (2005) Health-related quality of life assessment by the EuroQol-5D can provide cost-utility data in the field of low-back surgery. Eur Spine J 14:1000–1007CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Kamper SJ, Ostelo RW, Knol DL et al (2010) Global Perceived Effect scales provided reliable assessments of health transition in people with musculoskeletal disorders, but ratings are strongly influenced by current status. J Clin Epidemiol 63:760–766CrossRefPubMed Kamper SJ, Ostelo RW, Knol DL et al (2010) Global Perceived Effect scales provided reliable assessments of health transition in people with musculoskeletal disorders, but ratings are strongly influenced by current status. J Clin Epidemiol 63:760–766CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference Hojmark K, Stottrup C, Carreon L, Andersen MO (2015) Patient-reported outcome measures unbiased by loss of follow-up. Single-center study based on DaneSpine, the Danish spine surgery registry. Eur spine J Off Publ Eur Spine Soc Eur Spinal Deform Soc Eur Sect Cerv Spine Res Soc. doi:10.1007/s00586-015-4127-3 Hojmark K, Stottrup C, Carreon L, Andersen MO (2015) Patient-reported outcome measures unbiased by loss of follow-up. Single-center study based on DaneSpine, the Danish spine surgery registry. Eur spine J Off Publ Eur Spine Soc Eur Spinal Deform Soc Eur Sect Cerv Spine Res Soc. doi:10.​1007/​s00586-015-4127-3
26.
go back to reference Solberg TK, Sorlie A, Sjaavik K et al (2011) Would loss to follow-up bias the outcome evaluation of patients operated for degenerative disorders of the lumbar spine?: a study of responding and non-responding cohort participants from a clinical spine surgery registry. Acta Orthop 82:56–63. doi:10.3109/17453674.2010.548024 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Solberg TK, Sorlie A, Sjaavik K et al (2011) Would loss to follow-up bias the outcome evaluation of patients operated for degenerative disorders of the lumbar spine?: a study of responding and non-responding cohort participants from a clinical spine surgery registry. Acta Orthop 82:56–63. doi:10.​3109/​17453674.​2010.​548024 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
27.
go back to reference de Vet HC, Ostelo RW, Terwee CB et al (2007) Minimally important change determined by a visual method integrating an anchor-based and a distribution-based approach. Qual Life Res 16:131–142CrossRefPubMed de Vet HC, Ostelo RW, Terwee CB et al (2007) Minimally important change determined by a visual method integrating an anchor-based and a distribution-based approach. Qual Life Res 16:131–142CrossRefPubMed
28.
go back to reference Terwee CB, Bot SD, De Boer MR et al (2007) Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 60:34–42CrossRefPubMed Terwee CB, Bot SD, De Boer MR et al (2007) Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 60:34–42CrossRefPubMed
30.
go back to reference Weinstein JN, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD et al (2006) Surgical vs nonoperative treatment for lumbar disk herniation: the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT): a randomized trial. JAMA 296:2441–2450CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Weinstein JN, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD et al (2006) Surgical vs nonoperative treatment for lumbar disk herniation: the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT): a randomized trial. JAMA 296:2441–2450CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
33.
go back to reference Porchet F, Bartanusz V, Kleinstueck FS et al (2009) Microdiscectomy compared with standard discectomy: an old problem revisited with new outcome measures within the framework of a spine surgical registry. Eur Spine J 18(Suppl 3):360–366CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Porchet F, Bartanusz V, Kleinstueck FS et al (2009) Microdiscectomy compared with standard discectomy: an old problem revisited with new outcome measures within the framework of a spine surgical registry. Eur Spine J 18(Suppl 3):360–366CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
35.
go back to reference Mannion AF, Junge A, Elfering A et al (2009) Great expectations: really the novel predictor of outcome after spinal surgery? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:1590–1599CrossRef Mannion AF, Junge A, Elfering A et al (2009) Great expectations: really the novel predictor of outcome after spinal surgery? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:1590–1599CrossRef
38.
go back to reference Ferreira ML, Herbert RD, Ferreira PH et al (2012) A critical review of methods used to determine the smallest worthwhile effect of interventions for low back pain. J Clin Epidemiol 65:253–261CrossRefPubMed Ferreira ML, Herbert RD, Ferreira PH et al (2012) A critical review of methods used to determine the smallest worthwhile effect of interventions for low back pain. J Clin Epidemiol 65:253–261CrossRefPubMed
39.
go back to reference Roder C, Chavanne A, Mannion AF et al (2005) SSE Spine Tango–content, workflow, set-up. www.eurospine.org-Spine Tango. Eur Spine J 14:920–924CrossRefPubMed Roder C, Chavanne A, Mannion AF et al (2005) SSE Spine Tango–content, workflow, set-up. www.eurospine.org-Spine Tango. Eur Spine J 14:920–924CrossRefPubMed
40.
go back to reference Kleinstuck FS, Grob D, Lattig F et al (2009) The influence of preoperative back pain on the outcome of lumbar decompression surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:1198–1203CrossRef Kleinstuck FS, Grob D, Lattig F et al (2009) The influence of preoperative back pain on the outcome of lumbar decompression surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:1198–1203CrossRef
41.
go back to reference Gum JL, Glassman SD, Carreon LY (2013) 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. J Neurosurg Spine 19:564–568. doi:10.3171/2013.8.SPINE12804 CrossRefPubMed Gum JL, Glassman SD, Carreon LY (2013) 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. J Neurosurg Spine 19:564–568. doi:10.​3171/​2013.​8.​SPINE12804 CrossRefPubMed
43.
go back to reference Elkan P (2016) Similar result after non-elective and elective surgery for lumbar disc herniation : an observational study based on the SweSpine register. Eur Spine J. doi:10.1007/s00586-016-4419-2 Elkan P (2016) Similar result after non-elective and elective surgery for lumbar disc herniation : an observational study based on the SweSpine register. Eur Spine J. doi:10.​1007/​s00586-016-4419-2
44.
go back to reference Mannion AF, Elfering A (2006) Predictors of surgical outcome and their assessment. Eur Spine J 15(Suppl 1):S93–108CrossRefPubMed Mannion AF, Elfering A (2006) Predictors of surgical outcome and their assessment. Eur Spine J 15(Suppl 1):S93–108CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Criteria for failure and worsening after surgery for lumbar disc herniation: a multicenter observational study based on data from the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery
Authors
David A. T. Werner
Margreth Grotle
Sasha Gulati
Ivar M. Austevoll
Greger Lønne
Øystein P. Nygaard
Tore K. Solberg
Publication date
01-10-2017
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Spine Journal / Issue 10/2017
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-017-5185-5

Other articles of this Issue 10/2017

European Spine Journal 10/2017 Go to the issue

Editorial

Editorial