Determining minimal clinically important difference estimates following surgery for degenerative conditions of the lumbar spine: analysis of the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network (CSORN) registry.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: There is significant variability in minimal clinically important difference (MCID) criteria for lumbar spine surgery that suggests population and primary pathology specific thresholds may be required to help determine surgical success when using patient reported outcome measures (PROMs). PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to estimate MCID thresholds for 3 commonly used PROMs after surgical intervention for each of 4 common lumbar spine pathologies. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Observational longitudinal study of patients from the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network (CSORN) national registry. PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients undergoing surgery from 2015 to 2018 for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS; n = 856), degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS; n = 591), disc herniation (DH; n = 520) or degenerative disc disease (DDD n = 185) were included. OUTCOME MEASURES: PROMs were collected presurgery and 1-year postsurgery: the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and back and leg Numeric Pain Rating Scales (NPRS). At 1-year, patients reported whether they were 'Much better'/'Better'/'Same'/'Worse'/'Much worse' compared to before their surgery. Responses to this item were used as the anchor in analyses to determine surgical MCIDs for benefit ('Much better'/'Better') and substantial benefit ('Much better'). METHODS: MCIDs for absolute and percentage change for each of the 3 PROMs were estimated using a receiving operating curve (ROC) approach, with maximization of Youden's index as primary criterion. Area under the curve (AUC) estimates, sensitivity, specificity and correct classification rates were determined. All analyses were conducted separately by pathology group. RESULTS: MCIDs for ODI change ranged from -10.0 (DDD) to -16.9 (DH) for benefit, and -13.8 (LSS) to -22.0 (DS,DH) for substantial benefit. MCID for back and leg NPRS change were -2 to -3 for each group for benefit and -4.0 for substantial benefit for all groups on back NPRS. MCID estimates for percentage change varied by PROM and pathology group, ranging from -11.1% (ODI for DDD) to -50.0% (leg NPRS for DH) for benefit and from -40.0% (ODI for DDD) to -66.6% (leg NPRS for DH) for substantial benefit. Correct classification rates for all MCID thresholds ranged from 71% to 89% and were relatively lower for absolute vs percent change for those with high or low presurgical scores. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the use of generic MCID thresholds across pathologies in lumbar spine surgery is not recommended. For patients with relatively low or high presurgery PROM scores, MCIDs based on percentage change, rather than absolute change, appear generally preferable. These findings have applicability in clinical and research settings, and are important for future surgical prognostic work.

Prospective analysis of adverse events in surgical treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Surgical adverse event (AE) monitoring is imprecise, of uncertain validity, and tends toward underreporting. Reports focus on specific procedures rather than outcomes in the context of presenting diagnosis. Specific intraoperative (intraop) or postoperative (postop) AEs that may be independently associated with degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) have never been reported. PURPOSE: The primary purpose was to assess the AE profile of surgically treated patients with L4-L5 DS. The secondary goal was to identify potential risk factors that correlate with those AEs. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Prospective cohort and academic quaternary spine center. PATIENT SAMPLE: Ninety-two patients with L4-L5 DS were treated surgically, discharged from Vancouver General Hospital between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2010. OUTCOME MEASURES: Incidence rates and odds ratios. METHODS: Prospective AE data were analyzed using univariate analyses, forward selection regression models, and Spearman correlation coefficients. Results were compared with outcomes reported in the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial. RESULTS: No AEs were seen in 57.6% of patients, one AE in 17.4%, and two or more AEs in 17.4%. Dural tears (6.5%) and intraop bone-implant interface failure requiring revision (3.3%) were the most common intraop AEs. Postoperatively, the most frequent AEs were urinary tract infection (10.9%), delirium (5.4%), neuropathic pain (4.4%), deep wound infection (3.3%), and superficial wound infection (3.3%). The odds of an intraop AE increased by 9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 1-18) per year of age at admission. Adjusted Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) did not correlate with number of AEs experienced. The odds of postop delirium correlated with CCI (odds ratio [OR] 3.39, 95% CI 1.12-10.24) and dural tear (OR 35.84, 95% CI 1.72-747.45). Length of stay was statistically significant and was influenced by two or more AEs, CCI, postop loss of correction, cerebrospinal fluid leak, deep wound infection, noninfected wound drainage, and gender. CONCLUSIONS: Risk of intraop AEs, but not postop AEs, increased with increasing age. Having multiple comorbidities does not predispose to more AEs. Infections predominate among the postop AEs. Patients at increased risk of delirium or of having an increased length of hospital stay may more easily be predicted. Studies specifically designed to prospectively assess AEs have the potential to more accurately identify postop AE rates.