The use of the Core Yellow Flags Index for the assessment of psychosocial distress in patients undergoing surgery of the cervical spine.

BACKGROUND: Psychosocial distress (the presence of yellow flags) has been linked to poor outcomes in spine surgery. The Core Yellow Flags Index (CYFI), a short instrument assessing the 4 main yellow flags, was developed for use in patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery. This study evaluated its ability to predict outcome in patients undergoing cervical spine surgery. METHODS: Patients with degenerative spinal disorders (excluding myelopathy) operated in one centre, from 2015 to 2019, were asked to complete the CYFI at baseline and the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) at baseline and 3 and 12 months after surgery. The relationship between CYFI and COMI scores at baseline as well as the predictive ability of the CYFI on the COMI follow-up scores were tested using structural equation modelling. RESULTS: From 731 eligible patients, 547 (61.0 ± 12.5 years; 57.2% female) completed forms at all three timepoints. On a cross-sectional basis, preoperative CYFI and COMI scores were highly correlated (ß = 0.54, in men and 0.51 in women; each p < 0.001). CYFI added significantly and independently to the prediction of COMI at 3 months' FU in men (ß = 0.36) and 12 months' FU in men and women (both ß = 0.20) (all p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The CYFI had a low to moderate but significant and independent association with cervical spine surgery outcomes. Implementing the CYFI in the preoperative workup of these patients could help refine outcome predictions and better manage patient expectations.

Spine Surgeon Assessments of Patient Psychological Distress are Inaccurate and Bias Treatment Recommendations.

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: This study determined (1) the surgeon accuracy of psychological assessment in patients in spine clinic, (2) the impact of psychological distress on surgical recommendation, and (3) the correlation between patient-reported disability and psychological distress. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Psychological distress is common among patients presenting for spine surgery. Surgeon estimations of patients' distress may influence treatment recommendations, but little is known as to whether these assessments accurately mirror patient-perceived psychological distress. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A sample of new patients was recruited from an academic spine center. Prior to their initial consultation, patients completed the Modified Somatic Perception Questionnaire and Zung Depression Index to assess mental and physical manifestations of distress, which generated a Distress and Risk Assessment Method (DRAM) score of N (normal), R (at risk), or D (distressed). The Oswestry Disability Index and Neck Disability Index scores were also collected. Surgeons provided their estimates of the DRAM score after the visit and indicated their surgery recommendation. RESULTS: Of 296 patients, 40.5% reported some level of psychological distress (DRAM=R) and 15.9% had a high level of distress (DRAM=D). All three surgeons' ability to accurately assess the participant DRAM score was poor, with an overall kappa of 0.13 (0.08-0.18), biased toward underestimating the patient's true level of psychological distress. Patients rated as normal (N) by the surgeon were 3.78 times more likely to be recommended for surgery compared to those assessed as distressed (D) ( P =0.007). Patients with higher DRAM scores had higher Oswestry Disability Index ( P =0.008) and Neck Disability Index ( P =0.005) scores compared to those with lower DRAM scores. CONCLUSIONS: Spine surgeons have limited ability to detect psychological profiles in patients, with a tendency to underestimate levels of distress. The finding that these inaccurate assessments influence surgical recommendations underscores the importance of limiting surgeon bias in the decision-making process. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic Level 2.

Patient Satisfaction Following Minimally Invasive and Open Surgeries for Adult Spinal Deformity.

BACKGROUND: Patient satisfaction has become an important variable in assessing outcomes after spine surgery. Although minimally invasive surgery (MIS) techniques have become popular owing to reduced perioperative complications compared with open deformity surgery, whether patient-reported postoperative satisfaction differ between the 2 surgical approaches is unclear. The aim of this study was to characterize postoperative patient-reported outcomes (PRO) in patients who underwent open surgery or MIS for adult spinal deformity (ASD). METHODS: PRO scores were prospectively collected for patients undergoing deformity correction surgery between 2016 and 2018. Inclusion criteria were age >18 years, ASD, and completed PRO surveys. Patient demographic, clinical, and radiographic data and PRO survey responses were analyzed. A post hoc analysis comparing patients who were satisfied with their outcome and those who were unsatisfied was performed. RESULTS: Forty patients who underwent operative management of ASD (19 in the open surgery group and 21 in the MIS group) met the criteria for inclusion in this study. Patients in the MIS group reported higher mental health and self-image scores at 6 months; however, at the 12-month follow-up, both the open surgery and MIS groups reported minimal clinically important differences in back pain, leg pain, and functional status. Patient satisfaction scores did not differ based on surgical approach or intraoperative complications. CONCLUSIONS: PRO after open surgery and after MIS for ASD reflected successful outcomes with significant improvements in PRO survey scores but with subtle differences in the postoperative recovery process. The MIS group reported faster recovery with earlier improvement in self-image and mental health scores, which may stem from correction of smaller deformities. At the 12-month follow-up, postoperative satisfaction was high for the majority of patients in both groups.

Functional Ability Classification Based on Moderate and Severe Kinesophobia and Demoralization Scores in Degenerative Spine Patients.

STUDY DESIGN: A prospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To assess the relationship of fear avoidance and demoralization on gait and balance and determine a threshold score for the Tampa Scale for Kinesophobia (TSK) and the Demoralization Scale (DS) that identifies spine patients with gait and balance dysfunction amplified by underlying psychological factors. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Fear avoidance and demoralization are crucial components of mental health that impact the outcomes in spine surgery. However, interpreting their effect on patient function remains challenging. Further establishing this correlation and identifying a threshold of severity can aid in identifying patients in whom a portion of their altered gait and balance may be amplified by underlying psychologic distress. METHODS: Four hundred five symptomatic spine patients were given the TSK and DS questionnaires. Patient's gait and balance were tested with a human motion capture system. A TSK score of 41 and a DS score of 30 were chosen as thresholds to classify moderate versus severe dysfunction based on literature and statistical analysis. RESULTS: Higher TSK and DS scores were correlated with worse walking speed (P < 0.001), longer stride time (P = 0.001), decreased stride length (P < 0.048), and wider step width (<0.001) during gait as well as increased sway across planes (P = 0.001) during standing balance. When classified by TSK scores >41, patients with more severe fear avoidance had slower walking speed (P < 0.001), longer stride time (P = 0.001), shorter stride length (P = 0.004), increased step width (P < 0.001), and increased sway (P = 0.001) compared with their lower scoring counterparts. Similarly, patients with DS > 30 had slower walking speed (P = 0.012), longer stride time (P = 0.022), and increased sway (P = 0.003) compared with their lower scoring counterparts. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that fear avoidance and demoralization directly correlate with worsening gait and balance. Furthermore, patients with TSK > 41 and DS > 30 have more underlying psychological factors that contribute to significantly worse function compared with lower scoring peers. Understanding this relationship and using these guidelines can help identify and treat patients whose gait dysfunction may be amplified by psychologic distress.Level of Evidence: 3.

Impact of New Motor Deficit on HRQOL After Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery: Subanalysis From Scoli Risk 1 Prospective Study.

STUDY DESIGN: International, multicenter, prospective, longitudinal observational cohort. OBJECTIVE: To assess how new motor deficits affect patient reported quality of life scores after adult deformity surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Adult spinal deformity surgery is associated with high morbidity, including risk of new postoperative motor deficit. It is unclear what effect new motor deficit has on Health-related Quality of Life scores (HRQOL) scores. METHODS: Adult spinal deformity patients were enrolled prospectively at 15 sites worldwide. Other inclusion criteria included major Cobb more than 80°, C7-L2 curve apex, and any patient undergoing three column osteotomy. American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) scores and standard HRQOL scores were recorded pre-op, 6 weeks, 6 months, and 2 years. RESULTS: Two hundred seventy two complex adult spinal deformity (ASD) patients enrolled. HRQOL scores were worse for patients with lower extremity motor score (LEMS). Mean HRQOL changes at 6 weeks and 2 years compared with pre-op for patients with motor worsening were: ODI (+12.4 at 6 weeks and -4.7 at 2 years), SF-36v2 physical (-4.5 at 6 weeks and +2.3 at 2 years), SRS-22r (0.0 at 6 weeks and +0.4 at 2 years). Mean HRQOL changes for motor-neutral patients were: ODI (+0.6 at 6 weeks and -12.1 at 2 years), SF-36v2 physical (-1.6 at 6 weeks and +5.9 at 2 years), and SRS-22r (+0.4 at 6 weeks and +0.7 at 2 years). For patients with LEMS improvement, mean HRQOL changes were: ODI (-0.6 at 6 weeks and -16.3 at 2 years), SF-36v2 physical (+1.0 at 6 weeks and +7.0 at 2 years), and SRS-22r (+0.5 at 6 weeks and +0.9 at 2 years). CONCLUSION: In the subgroup of deformity patients who developed a new motor deficit, total HRQOLs and HRQOL changes were negatively impacted. Patients with more than 2 points of LEMS worsening had the worst changes, but still showed overall HRQOL improvement at 6 months and 2 years compared with pre-op baseline.Level of Evidence: 3.

Concordance Between Patients' and Surgeons' Expectations of Lumbar Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Longitudinal cohort. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to measure concordance between patients' and surgeons' preoperative expectations of lumbar surgery, and determine which member of the dyad more closely predicted fulfillment of expectations, defined as patient-reported status postoperatively. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Concordant patient-surgeon expectations reflect effective communication and should foster better outcomes. METHODS: Preoperatively patients and surgeons completed identical surveys measuring expectations for improvement in symptoms and physical/psychosocial function. Responses ranged from "complete improvement" to "do not have this expectation"; scores for each survey ranged from 0 to 100 (greatest expectations). Concordance between pairs of patient-surgeon scores was measured with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Postoperatively, fulfillment of expectations was measured from patient-reported amount of improvement received and was calculated as the proportion of patient-reported postoperative score relative to patient-reported preoperative score, and surgeon-reported preoperative score (range 0 [no expectations fulfilled] to >1.2 [expectations surpassed]). Clinical measures included patient-reported spine-related disability. RESULTS: For 402 patient-surgeon pairs, mean survey scores were 73 ±â€Š19 (patients) and 57 ±â€Š16 (surgeons); 84% of patients had higher scores than surgeons, mainly due to expecting complete improvement, whereas surgeons expected a lot/moderate/little improvement. The ICC for the entire sample was .31 (fair agreement); for subgroups, the greatest difference in ICC was for patients with more spine-related disability (ICC = .10, 95% confidence interval [CI]:0.00-0.23) versus less disability (ICC = .46, 95% CI: 0.34-0.56). 96% of patients were contacted ≥2.0 years postoperatively. Proportions of expectations fulfilled were 0.79 (0-3.00) (patients) and 1.01 (0-2.29) (surgeons). Thus patients were less likely to anticipate subsequent postoperative status (odds ratio [OR] 0.34, 95% CI 0.25-0.45) versus surgeons who were more likely to anticipate patient-reported postoperative status (OR 2.98, 95% CI: 2.22-4.00). CONCLUSION: Concordance between patients' and surgeons' expectations was fair; due mostly to patients expecting complete improvement whereas surgeons expected a lot/moderate/little improvement. Compared to patients' expectations, surgeons' expectations more closely coincided with patient-reported fulfillment of expectations 2 years postoperatively.Level of Evidence: 1.

Psychological predictors of quality of life after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for degenerative cervical spine disease.

We aimed to identify independent psychological predictors of quality of life (QOL) and functional outcome after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for degenerative cervical spine disease. We prospectively included patients undergoing ACDF for degenerative cervical disc herniation and stenosis. Patients completed a structured psychological assessment including the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (ADS-K), Post-Traumatic Stress Scale-10 (PTSS-10), State Trait Anxiety Inventory-State Anxiety and - Trait Anxiety (STAI-S and STAI-T) and Anxiety Sensitivity Index-3 (ASI-3) before surgery, after 3 and 12 months. Outcome measures included EuroQol-5D (EQ), Short Form-36 (SF-36) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores. Of 104 included patients who underwent ACDF between March 2013 and November 2017, 92 completed follow-up after 3 and 12 months. The mean Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores for neck pain (- 1.4; p < .001) and arm pain (- 1.8; p = .031) significantly decreased by 12 months. QOL scores significantly increased by 3 months (EQ: + 0.2; p < .001; SF-36 PCS: + 6.2; p < .001; SF-36 MCS: + 2.5; p = .044), a benefit which was retained at 12 months. Linear regression analyses identified statistically significant predictors in preoperative ASI-3, SF-36 MCS and STAI-S for postoperative QOL and ODI scores. There is a benefit for patients in terms of quality of life and function after undergoing surgery for degenerative cervical spine disease. With the ASI-3, SF-36 MCS and STAI-S there exist some predictors for postoperative QOL and ODI scores.

Influence of Hand Grip Strength on Surgical Outcomes After Surgery for Adult Spinal Deformity.

STUDY DESIGN: A prospective observational study. OBJECTIVE: This study was done to examine the influence of hand grip strength (HGS) on surgical outcomes of adult spinal deformity (ASD) patients. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: No study has investigated the relation between hand grip strength and treatment outcome of adult spinal deformity correction surgery. METHODS: A total of 78 consecutive patients who underwent adult spinal deformity correction surgery were included in this study. Patients were assigned to either the high HGS (≥ 26 kg for men and ≥ 18 kg for women, n = 26) or the low HGS (< 26 kg for men and < 18 kg for women, n = 52) based on their preoperative measurements. The Oswestry disability index (ODI), EQ-5D, and visual analog scale (VAS) for back pain were assessed preoperatively, and 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months postoperatively. The primary outcome measure was ODI scores 12 months after surgery. The secondary outcome measures included the overall ODI scores, EQ-5D, and VAS for back pain, assessed at each time point during the 12-months follow-up. RESULTS: The ODI score at 12 months after surgery was significantly lower in the high HGS group than the low HGS group (P < 0.001), which was best predicted by a multivariate regression model including age, gender, BMI, HGS, and preoperative ODI scores. The overall ODI score, EQ-5D, and VAS for back pain had better outcomes in the high HGS group across each follow-up assessment (P < 0.001 for all follow-ups), while they improved significantly with time after surgery in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with higher preoperative HGS displayed better surgical outcomes, in terms of disability and health-related quality of life at 12 months after reconstructive spinal surgery for ASD. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.

The Association Between Physicians' Communication and Patient-Reported Outcomes in Spine Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVE: Determine the association between satisfaction with physician communication and patient-reported outcomes in the inpatient spine surgery setting. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) surveys measure the patient experience of care and influence reimbursement for hospital systems and providers in the United States. It is not known whether patient satisfaction with physician communication is associated with better outcomes after spine surgery. Therefore, we evaluated the association between patient satisfaction with physician communication on the HCAHPS survey and improvements in validated patient-reported outcomes measures in a spine surgery population. METHODS: HCAHPS responses were obtained for patients undergoing elective cervical or lumbar spine surgery from 2013 to 2015. Patient-reported health status measures were the primary outcomes, including EuroQol Five Dimensions (EQ-5D), Pain Disability Questionnaire (PDQ), and Visual Analog Scores for Back and Neck Pain (VAS-BP/NP). The association between satisfaction with communication and preoperative to 1 year postoperative changes in each health status measure was evaluated utilizing multivariable linear regression models. RESULTS: Our study included 648 patients, of which, 479 (74.4%) created our satisfied cohort. Demographically, our two cohorts were similar with regards to preoperative clinical measures; however, the satisfied cohort had a higher self-rating of their mental health (P < 0.01), and overall health (P < 0.01). After adjusting for clinically relevant confounders, our results demonstrated no significant association between satisfaction with physician communication and improvement in EQ-5D (P = 0.312), PDQ (P = 0.498), or VAS pain scores (P = 0.592). CONCLUSION: Patient satisfaction with physician communication was not associated with 1-year postoperative improvement in EQ-5D, PDQ, and VAS-Pain after spine surgery. These findings do not diminish the importance of effective communication between doctor and patient, but instead suggest that within the spine surgery setting, using only patient experience data may not accurately reflect the true quality of care received during their inpatient stay. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Electronic Communication Patterns Could Reflect Preoperative Anxiety and Serve as an Early Complication Warning in Elective Spine Surgery Patients with Affective Disorders: A Retrospective Analysis of a Cohort of 1199 Elective Spine Patients.

OBJECTIVE: The analysis of perioperative electronic patient portal (EPP) communication may provide risk stratification and insight for complication prevention in patients with affective disorders (ADs). We aimed to understand how patterns of EPP communication in patients with AD relate to preoperative narcotic use, surgical outcomes, and readmission rates. METHODS: The records of adult patients who underwent elective spinal surgery between January 2010 and August 2017 at a single institution were retrospectively reviewed for analysis. Primary outcomes included preoperative narcotic use, the number of perioperative EPP messages sent, rates of perioperative complications, hospital length of stay, emergency department (ED) visits within 6 weeks, and readmissions within 30 days after surgery. RESULTS: A total of 1199 patients were included in the analysis. Patients with an AD were more likely to take narcotics before surgery (51.69% vs. 41%, P < 0.001) and to have active EPP accounts (75.36% vs. 69.75%, P = 0.014) compared with controls. They were also more likely to send postoperative messages (38.89% vs. 32.75%, P = 0.030) and tended to send more messages (0.67 vs. 0.48, P = 0.034). The AD group had higher rates of postoperative complications (8.21% vs. 3.98%, P = 0.001), ED visits (4.99% vs. 2.43%, P = 0.009), and readmissions postoperatively (2.49% vs. 1.38%, P = 0.049). CONCLUSIONS: AD patients have specific patterns of perioperative EPP communication. They are at a higher risk of postoperative complications. Addressing these concerns early may prevent more serious morbidity and avoid unnecessary ED visits and readmissions, thus reducing costs and improving patient care.

Psychosocial Mechanisms of Cognitive-Behavioral-Based Physical Therapy Outcomes After Spine Surgery: Preliminary Findings From Mediation Analyses.

OBJECTIVE: Changing Behavior through Physical Therapy (CBPT), a cognitive-behavioral-based program, has been shown to improve outcomes after lumbar spine surgery in patients with a high psychosocial risk profile; however, little is known about potential mechanisms associated with CBPT treatment effects. The purpose of this study was to explore potential mediators underlying CBPT efficacy after spine surgery. METHODS: In this secondary analysis, 86 participants were enrolled in a randomized trial comparing a postoperative CBPT (n = 43) and education program (n = 43). Participants completed validated questionnaires at 6 weeks (baseline) and 3 and 6 months following surgery for back pain (Brief Pain Inventory), disability (Oswestry Disability Index), physical health (12-Item Short-Form Health Survey), fear of movement (Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia), pain catastrophizing (Pain Catastrophizing Scale), and pain self-efficacy (Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire). Parallel multiple mediation analyses using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) were conducted to examine whether 3- and 6-month changes in fear of movement, pain catastrophizing, and pain self-efficacy mediate treatment outcome effects at 6 months. RESULTS: Six-month changes, but not 3-month changes, in fear of movement and pain self-efficacy mediated postoperative outcomes at 6 months. Specifically, changes in fear of movement mediated the effects of CBPT treatment on disability (indirect effect = -2.0 [95% CI = -4.3 to 0.3]), whereas changes in pain self-efficacy mediated the effects of CBPT treatment on physical health (indirect effect = 3.5 [95% CI = 1.2 to 6.1]). CONCLUSIONS: This study advances evidence on potential mechanisms underlying cognitive-behavioral strategies. Future work with larger samples is needed to establish whether these factors are a definitive causal mechanism. IMPACT: Fear of movement and pain self-efficacy may be important mechanisms to consider when developing and testing psychologically informed physical therapy programs.

Evaluation of Health-related Quality of Life Improvement in Patients Undergoing Spine Versus Adult Reconstructive Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of outcomes in single-level spine and primary hip and knee arthroplasty patients. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare baseline and postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing spine surgery procedures with total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) to further define outcomes in orthopedic surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Computer-adaptive Patient Reported Outcome Information System (PROMIS) allows for standardized assessment of the health-related quality of life across different disease states. METHODS: Patients who underwent spine surgery (anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, cervical disc replacement, lumbar laminectomy, microscopic lumbar discectomy, transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion or adult reconstruction surgery [THA, TKA]) were grouped. Mean Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), Baseline (BL), and 6-month PROMIS scores of physical function, pain interference, and pain intensity were determined. Paired t tests compared differences in CCI, BL, 6 months, and change in PROMIS scores for spine and adult reconstruction procedures. RESULTS: A total of 304 spine surgery patients (age = 58.1 ±â€Š15.6; 42.9% female) and 347 adult reconstruction patients (age = 62.9 ±â€Š11.8; 54.1% Female) were compared. Spine surgery groups had more disability and pain at baseline than adult reconstruction patients according to physical function ([21.0, 22.2, 9.07, 12.6, 10.4] vs. [35.8, 35.0], respectively, P < 0.01), pain interference ([80.1, 74.1, 89.6, 92.5, 90.6] vs. [64.0, 63.9], respectively, P < 0.01), and pain intensity ([53.0, 53.1, 58.3, 58.5, 56.1] vs. [53.4, 53.8], respectively, P < 0.01). At 6 months, spine surgery patients remained more disabled and had more pain compared to adult reconstruction patients. Over the 6-month timespan, spine patients experienced greater improvements than adult reconstruction patients in terms of physical function ([+8.7, +22.2, +9.7, +12.9, +12.1] vs. [+5.3, +3.9], respectively, P < 0.01) and pain interference scores ([-15.4,-28.1, -14.7, -13.1, -12.3] vs. [-8.3, -6.0], respectively, P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Spinal surgery patients had lower BL and 6-month PROMIS scores, but greater relative improvement in PROMIS scores compared to adult reconstruction patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Prevalence and risk factors of postoperative delirium after spinal surgery: a meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Postoperative delirium (POD) was common after spinal surgery, but the main findings in previous studies remained conflicting. This current meta-analysis was aimed at exploring the prevalence and risk factors of POD after spinal surgery. METHODS: PubMed and Embase were searched from inception to June 2019. Studies which reported the prevalence and risk factors of POD after spinal surgery were included. STATA version 12.0 was employed to analyze the pooled data. Statistical heterogeneity across included studies was identified using the I2 statistics. RESULTS: A total of 28 studies with 588,732 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence of POD after spinal surgery was 0.85% (95%CI, 0.83-0.88%) with substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 97.3%). The central nervous system disorder (OR 4.73; 95%CI, 4.30-5.19) was a strong predictor for POD, whereas age (OR 1.16; 95%CI, 1.05-2.47; I2 = 99.2%) and blood loss (OR 1.10; 95%CI, 1.01-1.20; I2 = 93.3%) were weaker predictors. The funnel plot and statistical tests suggested that there existed potential publication bias, but the trim and fill method indicated that the pooled prevalence basically kept stable after adding two "missing" studies. CONCLUSIONS: The pooled POD after spinal surgery ranges from 0.83 to 0.88%. The central nervous system disorder, age, and blood loss were potential risk factors for POD.

Lower Satisfaction After Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery in Japan Than in the United States Despite Similar SRS-22 Pain and Function Scores: A Propensity-Score Matched Analysis.

STUDY DESIGN: A multicenter retrospective case series. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of a surgical treatment for adult spinal deformity (ASD) in the United States (US) with those in Japan (JP) in a matched cohort. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Surgical outcomes of thoracic-lumbar-sacral (TLS) spinal fusions in adult spinal deformity ASD patients who live in Asian countries are poorly understood. METHODS: A total of 300 surgically treated ASDs of age more than 50 years with the lowest instrumented vertebra at the pelvis and a minimum follow-up of 2 years (2y) were consecutively included. Patients were propensity-score matched for age, sex, levels fused, and 2y postop sagittal spinal alignment. Demographic, surgical, and radiographic parameters were compared between the US and JP groups. RESULTS: A total of 186 patients were matched by propensity score and were almost identical within these parameters: age (US vs. JP: 66 ±â€Š8 vs. 65 ±â€Š7 yr), sex (females: 90% vs. 89%), levels fused (10 ±â€Š3 vs. 10 ±â€Š2), 2y C7 sagittal vertical axis (C7SVA) (5 ±â€Š5 vs. 5 ±â€Š4 cm), 2y Pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis (9 ±â€Š15° vs. 9 ±â€Š15°), and 2y pelvic tilt (PT) (25 ±â€Š10° vs. 24 ±â€Š10°). Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores and Scoliosis Research Society patient questionnaire ((SRS-22) function and pain scores were similar at 2y between the US and JP groups (ODI: 27 ±â€Š19% vs. 28 ±â€Š14%, P = 0.72; SRS-22 function: 3.6 ±â€Š0.9 vs. 3.6 ±â€Š0.7, P = 0.54; SRS-22 pain: 3.6 ±â€Š1.0 vs. 3.8 ±â€Š0.8, P = 0.11). However, significantly lower satisfaction was observed in JP than in the US (SRS-22 satisfaction: 4.3 ±â€Š0.9 vs. 4.0 ±â€Š0.8, P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Surgical treatment for ASD was similarly effective in patients in the US and in JP. However, satisfaction scores were lower in JP compared with the US. Differences in lifestyle and cultural expectations may impact patient satisfaction following ASD surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Personal and physical factors affecting the decision of patients to opt for spinal surgery: A case-control study.

STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective case-control study. OBJECTIVES: To explore the personal and physical factors influencing the decision of patients to opt for spinal surgery. METHODS: The medical records of patients who attended the Spine Nurse Clinic of a hospital in Hong Kong in the year 2017 were retrieved and reviewed. Comparisons were made of the physical symptoms, myelopathy, sensory deficits, and level of disability of patients who decided to undergo spinal surgery (case) and those who did not (control). RESULTS: Among the 122 medical records that were reviewed, it was found that 102 (83.6%) patients decided to undergo spinal surgery (case) while 20 (16.4%) chose not to (control). The patients in the case group were more likely to be unemployed than those in the control group (67% vs. 35%, p = 0.01), to have higher scores in primary pain (4.75 vs. 2.6, p = 0.003), higher scores in radiated pain (4.4 vs. 2.55, p = 0.021), a higher level of disability as reflected in a higher Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score (41.6 vs. 30.9, p = 0.021), and a lower Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score (13.7 vs. 15.6, p = 0.008). Point biserial correlation showed that exercise tolerance was associated with the decision to undergo the surgery. A multiple regression analysis of the factors predictive of the decision to opt for spinal surgery showed that these factors were: unemployment (OR = 5.42, 95% CI: 1.689-17.44, p = 0.005); severe primary pain (OR = 3.83, 95% CI: 1.241-11.832, p = 0.02); and the presence of radicular symptoms (OR = 5.372, 95% CI: 1.704-16.93, p = 0.004). CONCLUSION: The results of this study showed that besides physical factors such as pain radiation and disability level, which influenced the decision of patients to take the surgical option, patients who were unemployed were also more likely to choose surgery. This indicates that patients were worried about the possible impact of surgery on their employment, or on their ability to continue to work. It is important that patients be given a clear picture of the expected outcomes of their surgery, and that the information needs of patients regarding the surgery be explored and addressed.

A Qualitative Descriptive Study of Patient Experiences of Pain Before and After Spine Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to describe the preoperative and postoperative experiences of spine surgery from the patient's perspective to help inform behavioral health services provided before, during, and after hospitalization. SETTING: Single urban academic tertiary care hospital. METHODS: Semistructured interviews with 14 adults who underwent spine surgery. Interview transcriptions were analyzed using content analysis by three investigators to identify emergent themes. RESULTS: Three broad domains with associated themes emerged from the analysis: 1) preoperative experience-preparation, worries, and expectations; 2) recovery process-activity and pain management strategies; and 3) postoperative support in recovery-family and social support. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this qualitative descriptive study can be used to guide future perioperative behavioral health services for patients undergoing spinal surgery. Establishing realistic expectations of spine surgery and a comprehensive pain management plan are essential for adequate preoperative preparation. Furthermore, family involvement in the preoperative preparation for surgery is important for support of the patient during the recovery process.

Characteristics and Predictors of HCAHPS Nonresponse After Spine Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To assess nonresponder biases for the HCAHPS survey following spine surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey is a publicly reported patient satisfaction survey. In addition to having the potential of impacting a hospital's reputation, it is directly linked to government reimbursement. However, it is known that a minority of patients return this survey, and it is expected that there are nonresponder biases. METHODS: All adult inpatient spine surgery patients at a single institution between January 2013 and August 2017 at a single institution were selected for retrospective analysis. Patient demographics and perioperative outcomes were assessed as potential predictors of not returning HCAHPS surveys. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. RESULTS: Of 5517 spine surgeries analyzed, 1505 (27.3%) patients returned the HCAHPS survey. Response rate was variable based on patient characteristics (with statistically significant differences based on age, functional status, race, and American Society of Anesthesiologists score) but not variable based on anatomic region of the spine surgery. Multivariate analysis revealed that patients who did not return the HCAHPS survey were more likely to be black/African American (OR = 2.8, P < 0.001), have a higher American Society of Anesthesiologists score (OR 1.76, P < 0.001), and have had a major adverse event (OR = 1.66; P = 0.001), minor adverse event (OR = 2.50; P < 0.001), discharged to a destination other than home (OR = 2.16, P < 0.001), hospital readmission (OR = 2.58; P < 0.001), and a long hospital length of stay (OR = 1.28, P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: For spine surgery patients, patient characteristics and perioperative outcomes were found to be significantly associated with the nonresponder bias for HCAHPS surveys. Although the potential resultant bias in HCAHPS scores cannot be directly determined, this must be considered in interpreting the results of such satisfaction surveys given that less than one-third of patients actually completed this survey in the study population. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Utility of Anxiety/Depression Domain of EQ-5D to Define Psychological Distress in Spine Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Prospective patient-reported outcomes (PROs) registries are central to emerging evidence-driven reform models. These registries entail significant operator and responder burden to capture PROs data. It is important to limit the number of PROs administered. We sought to determine whether the anxiety/depression domain of EQ-5D could be used to define preoperative psychological distress in patients undergoing elective spine surgery. METHODS: Patients undergoing elective spine surgery and enrolled into a prospective registry were analyzed. The 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey Mental Component Summary, Zung depression scale, Modified Somatic Perception Questionnaire, and EQ-5D were completed. The anxiety/depression domain of EQ-5D was used to define psychological distress; responses were captured as 1) not anxious or depressed, 2) moderately anxious or depressed, or 3) extremely anxious or depressed. Univariate correlation and proportional odds logistic regression analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Of 2470 included patients undergoing elective spine surgery, 45% (n = 1109) reported no psychological distress, 47% (n = 1168) reported moderate psychological distress, and 8% (n = 193) reported extreme psychological distress on EQ-5D. Psychological distress on EQ-5D had positive correlation with Zung depression scale (P < 0.0001, r = 0.620) and Modified Somatic Perception Questionnaire (P < 0.0001, r = 0.450) and negative correlation with 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey Mental Component Summary (P < 0.0001, r = -0.662). In proportional odds logistic regression models, EQ-5D psychological distress had significant correlations with 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey Mental Component Summary (P < 0.0001, C-index = 0.831), Zung depression scale (P < 0.0001, C-index = 0.802), and Modified Somatic Perception Questionnaire (P < 0.0001, C-index = 0.711). CONCLUSIONS: The anxiety/depression domain of EQ-5D could be used to categorize preoperative psychological distress. Spine registries could use this information to potentially limit the number of validated PROs administered.

A scoping review of biopsychosocial risk factors and co-morbidities for common spinal disorders.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this review was to identify risk factors, prognostic factors, and comorbidities associated with common spinal disorders. METHODS: A scoping review of the literature of common spinal disorders was performed through September 2016. To identify search terms, we developed 3 terminology groups for case definitions: 1) spinal pain of unknown origin, 2) spinal syndromes, and 3) spinal pathology. We used a comprehensive strategy to search PubMed for meta-analyses and systematic reviews of case-control studies, cohort studies, and randomized controlled trials for risk and prognostic factors and cross-sectional studies describing associations and comorbidities. RESULTS: Of 3,453 candidate papers, 145 met study criteria and were included in this review. Risk factors were reported for group 1: non-specific low back pain (smoking, overweight/obesity, negative recovery expectations), non-specific neck pain (high job demands, monotonous work); group 2: degenerative spinal disease (workers' compensation claim, degenerative scoliosis), and group 3: spinal tuberculosis (age, imprisonment, previous history of tuberculosis), spinal cord injury (age, accidental injury), vertebral fracture from osteoporosis (type 1 diabetes, certain medications, smoking), and neural tube defects (folic acid deficit, anti-convulsant medications, chlorine, influenza, maternal obesity). A range of comorbidities was identified for spinal disorders. CONCLUSION: Many associated factors for common spinal disorders identified in this study are modifiable. The most common spinal disorders are co-morbid with general health conditions, but there is a lack of clarity in the literature differentiating which conditions are merely comorbid versus ones that are risk factors. Modifiable risk factors present opportunities for policy, research, and public health prevention efforts on both the individual patient and community levels. Further research into prevention interventions for spinal disorders is needed to address this gap in the literature.