Top

European Spine Journal

Published in:

Open Access 01-09-2019 | Leg Pain | Original Article

Follow-up of degenerative lumbar spine surgery—PROMs stabilize after 1 year: an equivalence study based on Swespine data

Authors: C. Parai, O. Hägg, B. Lind, H. Brisby

Published in: European Spine Journal | Issue 9/2019

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the outcome of degenerative lumbar spine surgery in a credible way, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) should be assessed after an adequate follow-up period. Most authors/journals consider a follow-up period of less than two years to be too short. The purpose of this study was to explore the possibility of restricting follow-up to one year.

Methods

Adult patients operated between 1998 and 2017 were retrieved from Swespine (Lumbar Disc Herniation n = 31,314, Lumbar Spinal Stenosis n = 53,043 and Degenerative Disc Disease n = 14,375). The proportion reaching the minimal important change (MIC) in Visual Analogue Scale for pain (VAS_BACK/LEG), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the quality-of-life measure EQ-5D_INDEX at 1 and 2 years, respectively, was calculated. The single-item questions such as Global Assessment (GA_BACK/LEG) and Satisfaction were analysed by the McNemar test. Threshold values for a successful outcome based on the final scores of each PROM at 1 and 2 years post-surgery were also defined.

Results

For all the three diagnostic groups, the differences in proportions reaching MIC of each PROM at 1 and 2 years were below 2%. Global Assessment and Satisfaction with outcome at one year remained at 2 years. There were no important differences of threshold values of treatment success based on final scores

Conclusion

No clinically important changes in PROMs appeared between 1 and 2 years after surgery for degenerative lumbar conditions, demonstrating that a follow-up period of 1 year as opposed to 2 years is sufficient in effectiveness studies if PROMs are to be used as outcome variables.

Graphical abstract

These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Available only for authorised users

Fekete T, Loibl M, Jeszenszky D, Haschtmann D, Banczerowski P, Kleinstück F, Becker H, Porchet F, Mannion A (2018) How does patient-rated outcome change over time following the surgical treatment of degenerative disorders of the thoracolumbar spine? Eur Spine J 27(3):700–708. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-017-5358-2 CrossRefPubMed

Adogwa O, Elsamadicy AA, Han JL, Cheng J, Karikari I, Bagley CA (2016) Do measures of surgical effectiveness at 1 year after lumbar spine surgery accurately predict 2-year outcomes? J Neurosurg Spine 25(6):689–696. https://doi.org/10.3171/2015.8.Spine15476 CrossRefPubMed

<Report_2014_Swespine_Engl_ver_141204.pdf>

Stromqvist B, Fritzell P, Hagg O, Jonsson B (2009) The Swedish Spine Register: development, design and utility. Eur Spine J 18(Suppl 3):294–304. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-009-1043-4 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Parai C, Hagg O, Lind B, Brisby H (2018) The value of patient global assessment in lumbar spine surgery: an evaluation based on more than 90,000 patients. Eur Spine J 27(3):554–563. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-017-5331-0 CrossRefPubMed

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(21):2375–2380CrossRefPubMed

Fairbank JC, Couper J, Davies JB, O'Brien JP (1980) The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy 66(8):271–273PubMed

EuroQol (1990) A new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 16(3):199–208CrossRef

Hagg O, Fritzell P, Oden A, Nordwall A (2002) Simplifying outcome measurement: evaluation of instruments for measuring outcome after fusion surgery for chronic low back pain. Spine 27(11):1213–1222CrossRefPubMed

10.

Vet HCWd (2011) Measurement in medicine: a practical guide. Practical guides to biostatistics and epidemiology. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRef

11.

Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, Bouter LM, de Vet HC (2010) The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Qual Life Res 19(4):539–549. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9606-8 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Altman DG (1991) Practical statistics for medical research. Chapman and Hall, London

13.

Glassman SD, Schwab F, Bridwell KH, Shaffrey C, Horton W, Hu S (2009) Do 1-year outcomes predict 2-year outcomes for adult deformity surgery? Spine J 9(4):317–322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2008.06.450 CrossRefPubMed

14.

Kim EJ, Chotai S, Archer KR, Bydon M, Asher AL, Devin CJ (2017) Need for two-year patient-reported outcomes score for lumbar spine surgery is procedure-specific: analysis from a prospective longitudinal spine registry. Spine 42(17):1331–1338. https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000002087 CrossRefPubMed

15.

King MT (2011) A point of minimal important difference (MID): a critique of terminology and methods. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 11(2):171–184. https://doi.org/10.1586/erp.11.9 CrossRefPubMed

16.

Terwee CB, Roorda LD, Dekker J, Bierma-Zeinstra SM, Peat G, Jordan KP, Croft P, de Vet HC (2010) Mind the MIC: large variation among populations and methods. J Clin Epidemiol 63(5):524–534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.08.010 CrossRefPubMed

17.

van Hooff ML, Mannion AF, Staub LP, Ostelo RW, Fairbank JC (2016) Determination of the Oswestry Disability Index score equivalent to a "satisfactory symptom state" in patients undergoing surgery for degenerative disorders of the lumbar spine-a Spine Tango registry-based study. Spine J 16(10):1221–1230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2016.06.010 CrossRefPubMed

18.

Tubach F, Ravaud P, Baron G, Falissard B, Logeart I, Bellamy N, Bombardier C, Felson D, Hochberg M, van der Heijde D, Dougados M (2005) Evaluation of clinically relevant states in patient reported outcomes in knee and hip osteoarthritis: the patient acceptable symptom state. Ann Rheumatic Dis 64(1):34–37. https://doi.org/10.1136/ard.2004.023028 CrossRef

19.

Forsth P, Michaelsson K, Sanden B (2013) Does fusion improve the outcome after decompressive surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis? A two-year follow-up study involving 5390 patients. Bone Joint J 95-b(7):960–965. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.95b7.30776 CrossRefPubMed

20.

Forsth P, Olafsson G, Carlsson T, Frost A, Borgstrom F, Fritzell P, Ohagen P, Michaelsson K, Sanden B (2016) A randomized, controlled trial of fusion surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. N Engl J Med 374(15):1413–1423. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1513721 CrossRefPubMed

21.

Solberg TK, Sorlie A, Sjaavik K, Nygaard OP, Ingebrigtsen T (2011) Would loss to follow-up bias the outcome evaluation of patients operated for degenerative disorders of the lumbar spine? Acta Orthop 82(1):56–63. https://doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2010.548024 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Hojmark K, Stottrup C, Carreon L, Andersen MO (2016) Patient-reported outcome measures unbiased by loss of follow-up. Single-center study based on DaneSpine, the Danish spine surgery registry. Eur Spine J 25(1):282–286. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-4127-3 CrossRefPubMed

Title: Follow-up of degenerative lumbar spine surgery—PROMs stabilize after 1 year: an equivalence study based on Swespine data
Authors: C. Parai
O. Hägg
B. Lind
H. Brisby
Publication date: 01-09-2019
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Keywords: Leg Pain
Leg Pain
Lumbar Disc Herniation
Lumbar Disc Herniation
Spinal Stenosis
Published in: European Spine Journal / Issue 9/2019
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-019-05989-0

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Follow-up of degenerative lumbar spine surgery—PROMs stabilize after 1 year: an equivalence study based on Swespine data

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Graphical abstract

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Graphical abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 9/2019

Answer to the letter to the editor of Y. Li et al. concerning “Intraosseous basivertebral nerve ablation for the treatment of chronic low back pain: a prospective randomized double-blind sham-controlled multi-center study” by Fischgrund JS, et al. [Eur Spine J; (2018) 27(5): 1146–1156]

The importance of level stratification for quantitative MR studies of lumbar intervertebral discs: a cross-sectional analysis in 101 healthy adults

Characterization of trunk motion in adolescents with right thoracic idiopathic scoliosis

Letter to the editor concerning “Head to pelvis alignment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients both in and out of brace” by Vergari C, Courtois I, Ebermeyer E, Pietton R, Bouloussa H, Vialle R, Skalli W (Eur Spine J; 2019: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-019-05981-8)

Criteria for surgical reduction in high-grade lumbosacral spondylolisthesis based on quality of life measures

Immediate postoperative coronal imbalance in Lenke 5 and Lenke 6 adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: Is it predictable?