A Brief Mind-body Intervention Is Feasible and May Prevent Persistent Pain After Acute Orthopaedic Traumas: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 20% to 50% of patients develop persistent pain after traumatic orthopaedic injuries. Psychosocial factors are an important predictor of persistent pain; however, there are no evidence-based, mind-body interventions to prevent persistent pain for this patient population. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Does the Toolkit for Optimal Recovery after Injury (TOR) achieve a priori feasibility benchmarks in a multisite randomized control trial (RCT)? (2) Does TOR demonstrate a preliminary effect in improving pain, as well as physical and emotional function? METHODS: This pilot RCT of TOR versus a minimally enhanced usual care comparison group (MEUC) was conducted among 195 adults with an acute orthopaedic traumatic injury at risk for persistent pain at four geographically diverse Level 1 trauma centers between October 2021 to August 2023. Fifty percent (97 of 195) of participants were randomized to TOR (mean age 43 ± 17 years; 67% [65 of 97] women) and 50% (98) to MEUC (mean age 45 ± 16 years; 67% [66 of 98] women). In TOR, 24% (23 of 97) of patients were lost to follow-up, whereas in the MEUC, 17% (17 of 98) were lost. At 4 weeks, 78% (76 of 97) of patients in TOR and 95% (93 of 98) in the MEUC completed the assessments; by 12 weeks, 76% (74 of 97) of patients in TOR and 83% (81 of 98) in the MEUC completed the assessments (all participants were still included in the analysis consistent with an intention-to-treat approach). The TOR has four weekly video-administered sessions that teach pain coping skills. The MEUC is an educational pamphlet. Both were delivered in addition to usual care. Primary outcomes were feasibility of recruitment (the percentage of patients who met study criteria and enrolled) and data collection, appropriateness of treatment (the percent of participants in TOR who score above the midpoint on the Credibility and Expectancy Scale), acceptability (the percentage of patients in TOR who attend at least three of four sessions), and treatment satisfaction (the percent of participants in TOR who score above the midpoint on the Client Satisfaction Scale). Secondary outcomes included additional feasibility (including collecting data on narcotics and rescue medications and adverse events), fidelity (whether the intervention was delivered as planned) and acceptability metrics (patients and staff), pain (numeric rating scale), physical function (Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment questionnaire [SMFA], PROMIS), emotional function (PTSD [PTSD Checklist], depression [Center for Epidemiologic Study of Depression]), and intervention targets (pain catastrophizing, pain anxiety, coping, and mindfulness). Assessments occurred at baseline, 4 and 12 weeks. RESULTS: Several outcomes exceeded a priori benchmarks: feasibility of recruitment (89% [210 of 235] of eligible participants consented), appropriateness (TOR: 73% [66 of 90] scored > midpoint on the Credibility and Expectancy Scale), data collection (79% [154 of 195] completed all surveys), satisfaction (TOR: 99% [75 of 76] > midpoint on the Client Satisfaction Scale), and acceptability (TOR: 73% [71 of 97] attended all four sessions). Participation in TOR, compared with the MEUC, was associated with improvement from baseline to postintervention and from baseline to follow-up in physical function (SMFA, baseline to post: -7 [95% CI -11 to -4]; p < 0.001; baseline to follow-up: -6 [95% CI -11 to -1]; p = 0.02), PROMIS (PROMIS-PF, baseline to follow-up: 2 [95% CI 0 to 4]; p = 0.045), pain at rest (baseline to post: -1.2 [95% CI -1.7 to -0.6]; p < 0.001; baseline to follow-up: -1 [95% CI -1.7 to -0.3]; p = 0.003), activity (baseline to post: -0.7 [95% CI -1.3 to -0.1]; p = 0.03; baseline to follow-up: -0.8 [95% CI -1.6 to -0.1]; p = 0.04), depressive symptoms (baseline to post: -6 [95% CI -9 to -3]; p < 0.001; baseline to follow-up: -5 [95% CI -9 to -2]; p < 0.002), and posttraumatic symptoms (baseline to post: -4 [95% CI -7 to 0]; p = 0.03; baseline to follow-up: -5 [95% CI -9 to -1]; p = 0.01). Improvements were generally clinically important and sustained or continued through the 3 months of follow-up (that is, above the minimum clinically important different [MCID] of 7 for the SMFA, the MCID of 3.6 for PROMIS, the MCID of 2 for pain at rest and pain during activity, the MCID of more than 10% change in depressive symptoms, and the MCID of 10 for posttraumatic symptoms). There were treatment-dependent improvements in pain catastrophizing, pain anxiety, coping, and mindfulness. CONCLUSION: TOR was feasible and potentially efficacious in preventing persistent pain among patients with an acute orthopaedic traumatic injury. Using TOR in clinical practice may prevent persistent pain after orthopaedic traumatic injury. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, therapeutic study.

A clinical model to predict postoperative improvement in sub-domains of the modified Japanese Orthopedic Association score for degenerative cervical myelopathy.

PURPOSE: The modified Japanese Orthopedic Association (mJOA) score consists of six sub-domains and is used to quantify the severity of cervical myelopathy. The current study aimed to assess for predictors of postoperative mJOA sub-domains scores following elective surgical management for patients with cervical myelopathy and develop the first clinical prediction model for 12-month mJOA sub-domain scores.Please confirm if the author names are presented accurately and in the correct sequence (given name, middle name/initial, family name). Author 1 Given name: [Byron F.] Last name [Stephens], Author 2 Given name: [Lydia J.] Last name [McKeithan], Author 3 Given name: [W. Hunter] Last name [Waddell], Author 4 Given name: [Anthony M.] Last name [Steinle], Author 5 Given name: [Wilson E.] Last name [Vaughan], Author 6 Given name: [Jacquelyn S.] Last name [Pennings], Author 7 Given name: [Jacquelyn S.] Last name [Pennings], Author 8 Given name: [Scott L.] Last name [Zuckerman], Author 9 Given name: [Kristin R.] Last name [Archer], Author 10 Given name: [Amir M.] Last name [Abtahi] Also, kindly confirm the details in the metadata are correct.Last Author listed should be Kristin R. Archer METHODS: A multivariable proportional odds ordinal regression model was developed for patients with cervical myelopathy. The model included patient demographic, clinical, and surgery covariates along with baseline sub-domain scores. The model was internally validated using bootstrap resampling to estimate the likely performance on a new sample of patients. RESULTS: The model identified mJOA baseline sub-domains to be the strongest predictors of 12-month scores, with numbness in legs and ability to walk predicting five of the six mJOA items. Additional covariates predicting three or more items included age, preoperative anxiety/depression, gender, race, employment status, duration of symptoms, smoking status, and radiographic presence of listhesis. Surgical approach, presence of motor deficits, number of surgical levels involved, history of diabetes mellitus, workers' compensation claim, and patient insurance had no impact on 12-month mJOA scores. CONCLUSION: Our study developed and validated a clinical prediction model for improvement in mJOA scores at 12 months following surgery. The results highlight the importance of assessing preoperative numbness, walking ability, modifiable variables of anxiety/depression, and smoking status. This model has the potential to assist surgeons, patients, and families when considering surgery for cervical myelopathy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Leveraging web-based prediction calculators to set patient expectations for elective spine surgery: a qualitative study to inform implementation.

BACKGROUND: Prediction calculators can help set outcomes expectations following orthopaedic surgery, however effective implementation strategies for these tools are unknown. This study evaluated provider and patient perspectives on clinical implementation of web-based prediction calculators developed using national prospective spine surgery registry data from the Quality Outcomes Database. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews in two health systems, Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC) and Duke University Health System (DUHS) of orthopedic and neurosurgery health care providers (VUMC: n = 19; DUHS: n = 6), health care administrators (VUMC: n = 9; DUHS: n = 9), and patients undergoing elective spine surgery (VUMC: n = 16). Qualitative template analysis was used to analyze interview data, with a focus on end-user perspectives regarding clinical implementation of web-based prediction tools. RESULTS: Health care providers, administrators and patients overwhelmingly supported the use of the calculators to help set realistic expectations for surgical outcomes. Some clinicians had questions about the validity and applicability of the calculators in their patient population. A consensus was that the calculators needed seamless integration into clinical workflows, but there was little agreement on best methods for selecting which patients to complete the calculators, timing, and mode of completion. Many interviewees expressed concerns that calculator results could influence payers, or expose risk of liability. Few patients expressed concerns over additional survey burden if they understood that the information would directly inform their care. CONCLUSIONS: Interviewees had a largely positive opinion of the calculators, believing they could aid in discussions about expectations for pain and functional recovery after spine surgery. No single implementation strategy is likely to be successful, and strategies vary, even within the same healthcare system. Patients should be well-informed of how responses will be used to deliver better care, and concerns over how the calculators could impact payment and liability should be addressed prior to use. Future research is necessary to determine whether use of calculators improves management and outcomes for people seeking a surgical consult for spine pain.

Effect of Severe Distal Tibia, Ankle, and Mid- to Hindfoot Trauma on Meeting Physical Activity Guidelines 18 Months After Injury.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of severe lower extremity trauma on meeting Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans (PAGA) 18 months after injury and perform an exploratory analysis to identify demographic, clinical, and psychosocial factors associated with meeting PAGA. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of observational cohort study. SETTING: A total of 34 United States trauma centers PARTICIPANTS: A total of 328 adults with severe distal tibia, ankle and mid- to hindfoot injuries treated with limb reconstruction (N=328). INTERVENTIONS: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The Paffenbarger Physical Activity Questionnaire was used to assess physical activity levels 18 months after injury. Meeting PAGA was defined as combined moderate- and vigorous-intensity activity ≥150 minutes per week or vigorous-intensity activity ≥75 minutes per week. RESULTS: Fewer patients engaged in moderate- or vigorous-intensity activity after injury compared with before injury (moderate: 44% vs 66%, P<.001; vigorous: 18% vs 29%; P<.001). Patients spent 404±565 minutes per week in combined moderate- to vigorous-intensity activity before injury compared with 224±453 minutes postinjury (difference: 180min per week; 95% confidence interval [CI], 103-256). The adjusted odds of meeting PAGA were lower for patients with depression (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.45; 95% CI, 0.28-0.73), women (AOR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.35-1.00), and Black or Hispanic patients (AOR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.28-0.85). Patients meeting PAGA prior to injury were more likely to meet PAGA after injury (odds ratio, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.20-3.31). CONCLUSIONS: Patients spend significantly less time in moderate- to vigorous-intensity physical activity after injury. Patients with depression are less likely to meet PAGA. Although the causal relationship is unclear, results highlight the importance of screening for depression.

Effect of a Biopsychosocial Intervention or Postural Therapy on Disability and Health Care Spending Among Patients With Acute and Subacute Spine Pain: The SPINE CARE Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Low back and neck pain are often self-limited, but health care spending remains high. Objective: To evaluate the effects of 2 interventions that emphasize noninvasive care for spine pain. Design, Setting, and Participants: Pragmatic, cluster, randomized clinical trial conducted at 33 centers in the US that enrolled 2971 participants with neck or back pain of 3 months' duration or less (enrollment, June 2017 to March 2020; final follow-up, March 2021). Interventions: Participants were randomized at the clinic-level to (1) usual care (n = 992); (2) a risk-stratified, multidisciplinary intervention (the identify, coordinate, and enhance [ICE] care model that combines physical therapy, health coach counseling, and consultation from a specialist in pain medicine or rehabilitation) (n = 829); or (3) individualized postural therapy (IPT), a postural therapy approach that combines physical therapy with building self-efficacy and self-management (n = 1150). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were change in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score at 3 months (range, 0 [best] to 100 [worst]; minimal clinically important difference, 6) and spine-related health care spending at 1 year. A 2-sided significance threshold of .025 was used to define statistical significance. Results: Among 2971 participants randomized (mean age, 51.7 years; 1792 women [60.3%]), 2733 (92%) finished the trial. Between baseline and 3-month follow-up, mean ODI scores changed from 31.2 to 15.4 for ICE, from 29.3 to 15.4 for IPT, and from 28.9 to 19.5 for usual care. At 3-month follow-up, absolute differences compared with usual care were -5.8 (95% CI, -7.7 to -3.9; P < .001) for ICE and -4.3 (95% CI, -5.9 to -2.6; P < .001) for IPT. Mean 12-month spending was $1448, $2528, and $1587 in the ICE, IPT, and usual care groups, respectively. Differences in spending compared with usual care were -$139 (risk ratio, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.87 to 0.997]; P = .04) for ICE and $941 (risk ratio, 1.40 [95% CI, 1.35 to 1.45]; P < .001) for IPT. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with acute or subacute spine pain, a multidisciplinary biopsychosocial intervention or an individualized postural therapy intervention, each compared with usual care, resulted in small but statistically significant reductions in pain-related disability at 3 months. However, compared with usual care, the biopsychosocial intervention resulted in no significant difference in spine-related health care spending and the postural therapy intervention resulted in significantly greater spine-related health care spending at 1 year. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03083886.

Reliability and Validity Evidence of the STarT-Lower Extremity Screening Tool for Patients With Lower Extremity Fracture: A Prospective Study.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether a modified version of the STarT Back Screening Tool in its current structure has adequate properties for use in patients with lower extremity fracture. DESIGN: Single-center, prospective study. SETTING: Level I trauma center. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with lower extremity fracture without a history of chronic pain (N=114), with 93% follow-up. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Six weeks after surgical fixation, individuals completed the Subgroups for Targeted Treatment of Lower Extremity Screening Tool (STarT-LE). A subsample completed the STarT-LE again 1 week later. The following questionnaires were completed at 6 weeks and 6 months: Pain Catastrophizing Scale, Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia, Brief Pain Inventory pain intensity subscale, and PROMIS Depression and Pain Interference computer adaptive testing modules. Reliability was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Cronbach's alpha (α). Convergent validity evidence was measured concurrently using the Spearman ρ correlation between the 6-week STarT-LE and established questionnaires. Predictive validity evidence was evaluated by area under the curve analysis (AUC) using the 6-week STarT-LE total and psychosocial scores and 6-month criterion physical and psychosocial reference standards. RESULTS: The STarT-LE has good test-retest reliability (ICC, 0.85; 95% confidence interval, 0.78-0.91) and acceptable internal consistency (α=0.74). The convergent validity evidence was fair to moderate (ρ, 0.53-0.68; P<.001) and the predictive validity evidence was acceptable to excellent (AUC, 0.73-0.84). CONCLUSIONS: The STarT-LE has adequate properties for use in patients with lower extremity fracture. Future larger scale studies are needed to validate risk cutoffs.

How Many Steps Per Day During the Early Postoperative Period are Associated With Patient-Reported Outcomes of Disability, Pain, and Opioid Use After Lumbar Spine Surgery?

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether early postoperative walking is associated with "best outcome" and no opioid use at 1 year after lumbar spine surgery and establish a threshold for steps/day to inform clinical practice. DESIGN: Secondary analysis from randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Two academic medical centers in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: We enrolled 248 participants undergoing surgery for a degenerative lumbar spine condition (N=248). A total of 212 participants (mean age, 62.8±11.4y, 53.3% female) had valid walking data at baseline. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Disability (Oswestry Disability Index), back and leg pain (Brief Pain Inventory), and opioid use (yes vs no) were assessed at baseline and 1 year after surgery. "Best outcome" was defined as Oswestry Disability Index ≤20, back pain ≤2, and leg pain ≤2. Steps/day (walking) was assessed with an accelerometer worn for at least 3 days and 10 h/d at 6 weeks after spine surgery, which was considered as study baseline. Separate multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted to determine the association between steps/day at 6 weeks and "best outcome" and no opioid use at 1-year. Receiver operating characteristic curves identified a steps/day threshold for achieving outcomes. RESULTS: Each additional 1000 steps/d at 6 weeks after spine surgery was associated with 41% higher odds of achieving "best outcome" (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.15-1.74) and 38% higher odds of no opioid use (95% CI, 1.09-1.76) at 1 year. Walking ≥3500 steps/d was associated with 3.75 times the odds (95% CI, 1.56-9.02) of achieving "best outcome" and 2.37 times the odds (95% CI, 1.07-5.24) of not using opioids. CONCLUSIONS: Walking early after surgery may optimize patient-reported outcomes after lumbar spine surgery. A 3500 steps/d threshold may serve as an initial recommendation during early postoperative counseling.

Role of psychosocial factors on the effect of physical activity on physical function in patients after lumbar spine surgery.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to investigate the longitudinal postoperative relationship between physical activity, psychosocial factors, and physical function in patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery. METHODS: We enrolled 248 participants undergoing surgery for a degenerative lumbar spine condition. Physical activity was measured using a triaxial accelerometer (Actigraph GT3X) at 6-weeks (6wk), 6-months (6M), 12-months (12M) and 24-months (24M) following spine surgery. Physical function (computerized adaptive test domain version of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System) and psychosocial factors (pain self-efficacy, depression and fear of movement) were assessed at preoperative visit and 6wk, 6M, 12M and 24M after surgery. Structural equation modeling (SEM) techniques were utilized to analyze data, and results are represented as standardized regression weights (SRW). Overall SRW were computed across five imputed datasets to account for missing data. The mediation effect of each psychosocial factor on the effect of physical activity on physical function were computed [(SRW for effect of activity on psychosocial factor X SRW for effect of psychosocial factor on function) ÷ SRW for effect of activity on function]. Each SEM model was tested for model fit by assessing established fit indexes. RESULTS: The overall effect of steps per day on physical function (SRW ranged from 0.08 to 0.19, p<0.05) was stronger compared to the overall effect of physical function on steps per day (SRW ranged from non-existent to 0.14, p<0.01 to 0.3). The effect of steps per day on physical function and function on steps per day remained consistent after accounting for psychosocial factors in each of the mediation models. Depression and fear of movement at 6M mediated 3.4% and 5.4% of the effect of steps per day at 6wk on physical function at 12M, respectively. Pain self-efficacy was not a statistically significant mediator. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study suggest that the relationship between physical activity and physical function is stronger than the relationship of function to activity. However, future research is needed to examine whether promoting physical activity during the early postoperative period may result in improvement of long-term physical function. Since depression and fear of movement had a very small mediating effect, additional work is needed to investigate other potential mediating factors such as pain catastrophizing, resilience and exercise self-efficacy.

Statistical and Machine Learning Models for Classification of Human Wear and Delivery Days in Accelerometry Data.

Accelerometers are increasingly being used in biomedical research, but the analysis of accelerometry data is often complicated by both the massive size of the datasets and the collection of unwanted data from the process of delivery to study participants. Current methods for removing delivery data involve arduous manual review of dense datasets. We aimed to develop models for the classification of days in accelerometry data as activity from human wear or the delivery process. These models can be used to automate the cleaning of accelerometry datasets that are adulterated with activity from delivery. We developed statistical and machine learning models for the classification of accelerometry data in a supervised learning context using a large human activity and delivery labeled accelerometry dataset. Model performances were assessed and compared using Monte Carlo cross-validation. We found that a hybrid convolutional recurrent neural network performed best in the classification task with an F1 score of 0.960 but simpler models such as logistic regression and random forest also had excellent performance with F1 scores of 0.951 and 0.957, respectively. The best performing models and related data processing techniques are made publicly available in the R package, Physical Activity.

Early postoperative physical activity and function: a descriptive case series study of 53 patients after lumbar spine surgery.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this prospective case series study was to compare changes in early postoperative physical activity and physical function between 6 weeks and 3 and 6 months after lumbar spine surgery. METHODS: Fifty-three patients (mean [95% confidence interval; CI] age = 59.2 [56.2, 62.3] years, 64% female) who underwent spine surgery for a degenerative lumbar condition were assessed at 6 weeks and 3- and 6-months after surgery. The outcomes were objectively-measured physical activity (accelerometry) and patient-reported and objective physical function. Physical activity was assessed using mean steps/day and time spent in moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) over a week. Physical function measures included Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), 12-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12), Timed Up and Go (TUG), and 10-Meter Walk (10 MW). We compared changes over time in physical activity and function using generalized estimating equations with robust estimator and first-order autoregressive covariance structure. Proportion of patients who engaged in meaningful physical activity (e.g., walked at least 4400 and 6000 steps/day or engaged in at least 150 min/week in MVPA) and achieved clinically meaningful changes in physical function were compared at 3 and 6 months. RESULTS: After surgery, 72% of patients initiated physical therapy (mean [95%CI] sessions =8.5 [6.6, 10.4]) between 6 weeks and 3 months. Compared to 6 weeks post-surgery, no change in steps/day or time in MVPA/week was observed at 3 or 6 months. From 21 to 23% and 9 to 11% of participants walked at least 4400 and 6000 steps/day at 3 and 6 months, respectively, while none of the participants spent at least 150 min/week in MVPA at these same time points. Significant improvements were observed on ODI, SF-12, TUG and 10 MW (p <  0.05), with over 43 to 68% and 62 to 87% achieving clinically meaningful improvements on these measures at 3 and 6 months, respectively. CONCLUSION: Limited improvement was observed in objectively-measured physical activity from 6 weeks to 6 months after spine surgery, despite moderate to large function gains. Early postoperative physical therapy interventions targeting physical activity may be needed.

Prediction of Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) using PROMIS-29 in a national sample of lumbar spine surgery patients.

PURPOSE: The primary purpose was to examine the measurement properties of the PROMIS-29 to better understand its use in patients undergoing spine surgery. A secondary objective was to calculate a predictive equation between PROMIS-29 and ODI, to allow clinicians and researchers to determine a predicted ODI score based on PROMIS short form scores. METHODS: 719 patients with PROMIS v2.0 and ODI responses were queried from the quality outcomes database. Validity was assessed using coefficient omega, ceiling/floor effects, and confirmatory factor analysis. Multivariable regression predicting ODI scores from PROMIS-29 domains was used to create a predictive equation. Predicted ODI scores were plotted against ODI scores to determine how well PROMIS-29 domains predicted ODI. RESULTS: Results showed good reliability and validity of PROMIS-29 in patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery: convergent and discriminant validity, low floor/ceiling effects, and unidimensional domains. The conversion equation used 6 PROMIS-29 domains (ODI% =  37.847- 1.475*[PFraw] + 1.842*[PAINraw] + 0.557*[SDraw] - 0.642*[SRraw] + 0.478*[PIraw] + 0.295*[DEPraw]). Correlation between the predicted and actual ODI scores was R = 0.88, R2 = 0.78, suggesting that the equation predicted ODI scores that are strongly correlated with actual ODI scores. CONCLUSIONS: Good measurement properties support the use of PROMIS-29 in spine surgery patients. Findings suggest accurate ODI scores can be derived from PROMIS-29 domains. Clinicians who want to move from ODI to PROMIS-29 can use this equation to obtain estimated ODI scores when only collecting PROMIS-29. These results support the idea that PROMIS-29 domains have the potential to replace disease-specific traditional PROMs.

Which Is the Best Outcome Measure for Rotator Cuff Tears?

BACKGROUND: The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Form (ASES), the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI), and the shortened Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (quickDASH) are patient-reported upper extremity-specific outcome scales currently used to evaluate patients with rotator cuff tears. This heterogeneity does not allow for a uniform metric for research and patient care. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: Our objective was to determine psychometric properties (reliability, convergent and discriminant validity, and responsiveness) of five commonly used outcome instruments (the ASES, the SPADI, the quickDASH, the SF-12, and the EuroQol-5D) in a longitudinal study of patients undergoing treatment for rotator cuff tears. METHODS: From February 2011 through June 2015, 120 patients completed a standardized history, the five outcome scales under study, a physical examination, and an MRI. Of these, 47 (39%) were lost to followup before 18 months, and another 24 (20%) were accounted for at 18 months but had missing data at one or more of the earlier prespecified followup intervals (3, 6, or 12 months). Reliability (the reproducibility of an outcome instrument between subjects; tested by Cronbach's alpha), convergent and discriminant validity (determining which outcome measures correlate most strongly with others; tested by Spearman's correlation coefficients), and responsiveness (the change in outcome scales over time based on percent improvement in shoulder functionality using the minimal clinically important difference [MCID] and the subjective shoulder value) were calculated. RESULTS: All outcomes measures had a Cronbach's alpha above 0.70 (range, 0.74-0.94) and therefore were considered reliable. Convergent validity was demonstrated as the upper extremity-specific measures (SPADI, ASES, and quickDASH) were more strongly correlated with each other (rho = 0.74-0.81; p < 0.001) than with any of the other measures. Discriminant validity was demonstrated because the Spearman's correlation coefficients were stronger for the relationships between upper extremity measures compared with the correlations between upper extremity measures and general health measures for 53 of the 54 correlations that were compared. Both internal and external responsiveness of the measures was supported. Patients who achieved the MCID and at least a 30% change on the subjective shoulder value had more positive change in scores over time compared with those who did not. Mixed model linear regressions revealed that all three upper extremity-specific measures had a group by time interaction for the MCID, indicating that patients who achieved the MCID had greater change over time compared with those who did not achieve the MCID. Results showed that the measure with the best discrimination between groups, or best internal responsiveness, was the ASES (beta = -8.26, 95% confidence interval [CI], -11.39 to -5.14; p < 0.001; η = 0.089) followed by the SPADI (beta = 6.88, 95% CI, 3.78-9.97; p < 0.001; η = 0.088) then the quickDASH (beta = 3.43, 95% CI, 0.86-6.01; p = 0.009, η = 0.027). Measures with the best external responsiveness followed the same pattern of results. CONCLUSIONS: All the upper extremity-specific scales had acceptable psychometric properties. Correlations were high and thus only one upper extremity-specific instrument is needed for outcome assessment. Given the overall psychometric assessment, we recommend SPADI be the shoulder-specific instrument used to assess outcomes in patients with rotator cuff tears. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, diagnostic study.

Physical therapy versus natural history in outcomes of rotator cuff tears: the Rotator Cuff Outcomes Workgroup (ROW) cohort study.

BACKGROUND: We compared the outcomes of patients who performed physical therapy versus those who did not in a longitudinal cohort of patients undergoing nonoperative treatment of rotator cuff tears. We also assessed whether there was a dose effect in which the pain and functional outcomes in patients performing physical therapy plateaued. METHODS: From February 2011 to June 2015, a multicenter cohort of patients with rotator cuff tears undergoing nonoperative treatment completed a detailed health and demographic questionnaire and the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) at baseline and 3, 6, 12, and 18 months. Longitudinal mixed models were used to assess whether physical therapy in the first 3 months predicted SPADI scores and dose effect. RESULTS: Among the 55 patients in our cohort, the performance of physical therapy within the first 3 months predicted better SPADI scores versus nonperformance of physical therapy at 3 months (P = .02). Scores were similar between groups at 6, 12, and 18 months. A threshold of 16 physical therapy sessions was observed for pain and functional improvement during follow-up, after which significant improvement was not seen. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who performed physical therapy within the first 3 months had statistically significant improvements in pain and function as measured by the SPADI score at 3 months compared with patients who did not report performing physical therapy. Depending on the minimal clinically important difference used for the SPADI score, our results could be interpreted as meeting the minimal clinically important difference threshold or not. Improvement in outcomes was observed up to 16 sessions of physical therapy, after which outcomes plateaued.

Acute Kidney Injury and Subsequent Frailty Status in Survivors of Critical Illness: A Secondary Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Acute kidney injury frequently complicates critical illness and is associated with high morbidity and mortality. Frailty is common in critical illness survivors, but little is known about the impact of acute kidney injury. We examined the association of acute kidney injury and frailty within a year of hospital discharge in survivors of critical illness. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study. SETTING: Medical/surgical ICU of a U.S. tertiary care medical center. PATIENTS: Three hundred seventeen participants with respiratory failure and/or shock. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Acute kidney injury was determined using Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes stages. Clinical frailty status was determined using the Clinical Frailty Scale at 3 and 12 months following discharge. Covariates included mean ICU Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score as well as baseline comorbidity (i.e., Charlson Comorbidity Index), kidney function, and Clinical Frailty Scale score. Of 317 patients, 243 (77%) had acute kidney injury and one in four patients with acute kidney injury was frail at baseline. In adjusted models, acute kidney injury stages 1, 2, and 3 were associated with higher frailty scores at 3 months (odds ratio, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.14-3.24; odds ratio, 2.40; 95% CI, 1.31-4.42; and odds ratio, 4.41; 95% CI, 2.20-8.82, respectively). At 12 months, a similar association of acute kidney injury stages 1, 2, and 3 and higher Clinical Frailty Scale score was noted (odds ratio, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.11-3.14; odds ratio, 1.81; 95% CI, 0.94-3.48; and odds ratio, 2.76; 95% CI, 1.34-5.66, respectively). In supplemental and sensitivity analyses, analogous patterns of association were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Acute kidney injury in survivors of critical illness predicted worse frailty status 3 and 12 months postdischarge. These findings have important implications on clinical decision making among acute kidney injury survivors and underscore the need to understand the drivers of frailty to improve patient-centered outcomes.

Pain and Its Long-term Interference of Daily Life After Critical Illness.

BACKGROUND: Persistent pain likely interferes with quality of life in survivors of critical illness, but data are limited on its prevalence and risk factors. We sought to determine the prevalence of persistent pain after critical illness and its interference with daily life. Additionally, we sought to determine if intensive care unit (ICU) opioid exposure is a risk factor for its development. METHODS: In a cohort of adult medical and surgical ICU survivors, we used the brief pain inventory (BPI) to assess pain intensity and pain interference of daily life at 3 and 12 months after hospital discharge. We used proportional odds logistic regression with Bonferroni correction to evaluate the independent association of ICU opioid exposure with BPI scores, adjusting for potential confounders including age, preadmission opioid use, frailty, surgery, severity of illness, and durations of delirium and sepsis while in the ICU. RESULTS: We obtained BPI outcomes in 295 patients overall. At 3 and 12 months, 77% and 74% of patients reported persistent pain symptoms, respectively. The median (interquartile range) pain intensity score was 3 (1, 5) at both 3 and 12 months. Pain interference with daily life was reported in 59% and 62% of patients at 3 and 12 months, respectively. The median overall pain interference score was 2 (0, 5) at both 3 and 12 months. ICU opioid exposure was not associated with increased pain intensity at 3 months (odds ratio [OR; 95% confidence interval], 2.12 [0.92-4.93]; P = .18) or 12 months (OR, 2.58 [1.26-5.29]; P = .04). ICU opioid exposure was not associated with increased pain interference of daily life at 3 months (OR, 1.48 [0.65-3.38]; P = .64) or 12 months (OR, 1.46 [0.72-2.96]; P = .58). CONCLUSIONS: Persistent pain is prevalent after critical illness and frequently interferes with daily life. Increased ICU opioid exposure was not associated with worse pain symptoms. Further studies are needed to identify modifiable risk factors for persistent pain in the critically ill and the effects of ICU opioids on patients with and without chronic pain.

Do psychosocial interventions improve rehabilitation outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction? A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the role of psychosocial interventions in improving patient-reported clinical outcomes, including return to sport/activity, and intermediary psychosocial factors after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. METHODS: MEDLINE/PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Web of Science were searched from each database's inception to March 2017 for published studies in patients after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Studies were included if they reported on the effects of a postoperative psychosocial intervention on a patient-reported clinical measure of disability, function, pain, quality of life, return to sport/activity, or intermediary psychosocial factor. Data were extracted using a standardized form and summary effects from each article were compiled. The methodological quality of randomized trials was assessed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database Scale and scores greater than 5/10 were considered high quality. RESULTS: A total of 893 articles were identified from the literature search. Of these, four randomized trials ( N = 210) met inclusion criteria. The four articles examined guided imagery and relaxation, coping modeling, and visual imagery as postoperative psychosocial interventions. Methodological quality scores of the studies ranged from 5 to 9. There were inconsistent findings for the additive benefit of psychosocial interventions for improving postoperative function, pain, or self-efficacy and limited evidence for improving postoperative quality of life, anxiety, or fear of reinjury. No study examined the effects of psychosocial interventions on return to sport/activity. CONCLUSION: Overall, there is limited evidence on the efficacy of postoperative psychosocial interventions for improving functional recovery after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

Are Psychosocial Factors Associated With Patient-reported Outcome Measures in Patients With Rotator Cuff Tears? A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Psychosocial factors are key determinants of health and can influence patient-reported outcomes after rotator cuff tears. However, to our knowledge, a systematic review of published studies has not been conducted to determine the degree of consistency and strength of the relationship between psychosocial factors and patient-reported outcomes in this patient population. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Are psychosocial factors associated with patient-reported measures at initial clinical presentation in patients with rotator cuff tears? (2) Are psychosocial factors associated with patient-reported outcomes after treatment in patients with rotator cuff tears? METHODS: A systematic review of cross-sectional and prospective observational studies was performed in MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Web of Science from each database's inception to June 2016. We included studies examining associations between psychosocial factors and patient-reported measures in patients with rotator cuff tears. We excluded studies not reporting on this relationship, involving patients with nonspecific shoulder pain, and written in a language other than English. Two independent reviewers performed the search, extracted information, and assessed methodological quality. Study quality was assessed using the Methodological Items for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) criteria. The primary outcomes for the review were associations between each psychosocial factor and patient-reported measures of function or disability, pain, or quality of life. Associations were interpreted based on significance, strength, and direction of the relationship. A total of 10 studies (five cross-sectional and five prospective) in 1410 patients (age range, 46-62 years, 60% [571 of 958] men) were included in the review. Pooling of results for meta-analyses was not possible as a result of study heterogeneity. RESULTS: Weak to moderate cross-sectional associations were found for emotional or mental health with function or disability and pain in multiple studies. Lower emotional or mental health function was associated with greater pain or disability or lower physical function at initial evaluation. Only one psychosocial factor (patient expectation) was weak to moderately associated with patient-reported outcomes after treatment in more than one study. In the two studies that examined expectations, the higher the expectation of benefit, the greater the perceived benefit after surgical intervention. CONCLUSIONS: At the initial evaluation of patients with rotator cuff tear, there was an association between self-reported function and pain and emotional or mental health. However, these factors were not associated with patient-reported outcomes after intervention. This finding could be attributed to the lack of large prospective studies in this area or complex phenotypes within this patient population. Preoperative patient expectation is an important predictor of patient-reported outcomes in patients after rotator cuff surgery and may be a modifiable target for enhancing recovery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

A predictive model and nomogram for predicting return to work at 3 months after cervical spine surgery: an analysis from the Quality Outcomes Database.

OBJECTIVEBack pain and neck pain are two of the most common causes of work loss due to disability, which poses an economic burden on society. Due to recent changes in healthcare policies, patient-centered outcomes including return to work have been increasingly prioritized by physicians and hospitals to optimize healthcare delivery. In this study, the authors used a national spine registry to identify clinical factors associated with return to work at 3 months among patients undergoing a cervical spine surgery.METHODSThe authors queried the Quality Outcomes Database registry for information collected from April 2013 through March 2017 for preoperatively employed patients undergoing cervical spine surgery for degenerative spine disease. Covariates included demographic, clinical, and operative variables, and baseline patient-reported outcomes. Multiple imputations were used for missing values and multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to identify factors associated with higher odds of returning to work. Bootstrap resampling (200 iterations) was used to assess the validity of the model. A nomogram was constructed using the results of the multivariable model.RESULTSA total of 4689 patients were analyzed, of whom 82.2% (n = 3854) returned to work at 3 months postoperatively. Among previously employed and working patients, 89.3% (n = 3443) returned to work compared to 52.3% (n = 411) among those who were employed but not working (e.g., were on a leave) at the time of surgery (p < 0.001). On multivariable logistic regression the authors found that patients who were less likely to return to work were older (age > 56-65 years: OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.57-0.85, p < 0.001; age > 65 years: OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.43-0.97, p = 0.02); were employed but not working (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.20-0.29, p < 0.001); were employed part time (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.42-0.76, p < 0.001); had a heavy-intensity (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.32-0.54, p < 0.001) or medium-intensity (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.46-0.76, p < 0.001) occupation compared to a sedentary occupation type; had workers' compensation (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.28-0.53, p < 0.001); had a higher Neck Disability Index score at baseline (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.51-0.70, p = 0.017); were more likely to present with myelopathy (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.42-0.63, p < 0.001); and had more levels fused (3-5 levels: OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.35-0.61, p < 0.001). Using the multivariable analysis, the authors then constructed a nomogram to predict return to work, which was found to have an area under the curve of 0.812 and good validity.CONCLUSIONSReturn to work is a crucial outcome that is being increasingly prioritized for employed patients undergoing spine surgery. The results from this study could help surgeons identify at-risk patients so that preoperative expectations could be discussed more comprehensively.

Defining the minimum clinically important difference for grade I degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: insights from the Quality Outcomes Database.

OBJECTIVE Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) play a pivotal role in defining the value of surgical interventions for spinal disease. The concept of minimum clinically important difference (MCID) is considered the new standard for determining the effectiveness of a given treatment and describing patient satisfaction in response to that treatment. The purpose of this study was to determine the MCID associated with surgical treatment for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. METHODS The authors queried the Quality Outcomes Database registry from July 2014 through December 2015 for patients who underwent posterior lumbar surgery for grade I degenerative spondylolisthesis. Recorded PROs included scores on the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), EQ-5D, and numeric rating scale (NRS) for leg pain (NRS-LP) and back pain (NRS-BP). Anchor-based (using the North American Spine Society satisfaction scale) and distribution-based (half a standard deviation, small Cohen's effect size, standard error of measurement, and minimum detectable change [MDC]) methods were used to calculate the MCID for each PRO. RESULTS A total of 441 patients (80 who underwent laminectomies alone and 361 who underwent fusion procedures) from 11 participating sites were included in the analysis. The changes in functional outcome scores between baseline and the 1-year postoperative evaluation were as follows: 23.5 ± 17.4 points for ODI, 0.24 ± 0.23 for EQ-5D, 4.1 ± 3.5 for NRS-LP, and 3.7 ± 3.2 for NRS-BP. The different calculation methods generated a range of MCID values for each PRO: 3.3-26.5 points for ODI, 0.04-0.3 points for EQ-5D, 0.6-4.5 points for NRS-LP, and 0.5-4.2 points for NRS-BP. The MDC approach appeared to be the most appropriate for calculating MCID because it provided a threshold greater than the measurement error and was closest to the average change difference between the satisfied and not-satisfied patients. On subgroup analysis, the MCID thresholds for laminectomy-alone patients were comparable to those for the patients who underwent arthrodesis as well as for the entire cohort. CONCLUSIONS The MCID for PROs was highly variable depending on the calculation technique. The MDC seems to be a statistically and clinically sound method for defining the appropriate MCID value for patients with grade I degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Based on this method, the MCID values are 14.3 points for ODI, 0.2 points for EQ-5D, 1.7 points for NRS-LP, and 1.6 points for NRS-BP.

The Relationship between Total Fibroid Burden and First Trimester Bleeding and Pain.

BACKGROUND: Few studies comment on the association between fibroids and symptoms among pregnant women. These studies generally are retrospective and do not to assess the influence of number of tumours or their volume on risk of symptoms. METHODS: Right from the Start is a prospective cohort that enrolled pregnant women from the southeastern USA between 2000 and 2012. In the first trimester, all participants had standardised ultrasounds to determine the presence or absence of fibroids. Symptoms were queried in a telephone survey. We used polytomous logistic regression to model odds of bleeding, pain, or both symptoms in relation to increasing total fibroid number and volume among white and black women. RESULTS: Among 4509 participants, the prevalence of fibroids was 11%. Among those reporting symptoms (70%), 11% reported only bleeding, 59% reported only pain, and 30% reported both symptoms. After adjusting for age, race, parity, hypertension, smoking, alcohol use, and study site, increasing number of fibroids was associated with pain [odds ratio (OR) 1.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00, 1.33] and both symptoms [OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.08, 1.45] but not with bleeding among all women. Fibroid volume was not associated with symptoms among black women, but white women with the smallest fibroid volumes were more likely to report both symptoms than those without fibroids [OR 1.79, 95% CI 1.17, 2.72]. CONCLUSIONS: Very large tumours are not requisite for experiencing symptoms, as small fibroids and increasing number of tumours are associated with pain and both symptoms.