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.

Development of the "Core Yellow Flags Index" (CYFI) as a brief instrument for the assessment of key psychological factors in patients undergoing spine surgery.

BACKGROUND: Depression, anxiety, catastrophising, and fear-avoidance beliefs are key "yellow flags" (YFs) that predict a poor outcome in back patients. Most surgeons acknowledge the importance of YFs but have difficulty assessing them due to the complexity of the instruments used for their measurement and time constraints during consultations. We performed a secondary analysis of existing questionnaire data to develop a brief tool to enable the systematic evaluation of YFs and then tested it in clinical practice. METHODS: The following questionnaire datasets were available from a total of 932 secondary/tertiary care patients (61 ± 16 years; 51% female): pain catastrophising (N = 347); ZUNG depression (N = 453); Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (anxiety subscale) (N = 308); fear-avoidance beliefs (N = 761). The single item that best represented the full-scale score was identified, to form the 4-item "Core Yellow Flags Index" (CYFI). 2422 patients (64 ± 16 years; 54% female) completed CYFI and a Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) before lumbar spine surgery, and a COMI 3 and 12 months later (FU). RESULTS: The item-total correlation for each item with its full-length questionnaire was: 0.77 (catastrophising), 0.67 (depression), 0.69 (anxiety), 0.68 (fear-avoidance beliefs). Cronbach's α for the CYFI was 0.79. Structural equation modelling showed CYFI uniquely explained variance (p < 0.001) in COMI at both the 3- and 12-month FUs (ß = 0.11 (women), 0.24 (men); and ß = 0.13 (women), ß = 0.14 (men), respectively). CONCLUSION: The 4-item CYFI proved to be a simple, practicable tool for routinely assessing key psychological attributes in spine surgery patients and made a relevant contribution in predicting postoperative outcome. CYFI's items were similar to those in the "STarT Back screening tool" used in primary care to triage patients into treatment pathways, further substantiating its validity. Wider use of CYFI may help improve the accuracy of predictive models derived using spine registry data.

Assessment of outcome in patients undergoing surgery for intradural spinal tumor using the multidimensional patient-rated Core Outcome Measures Index and the modified McCormick Scale.

OBJECT The aim of this study was to evaluate outcome in patients undergoing surgical treatment for intradural spinal tumor using a patient-oriented, self-rated, outcome instrument and a physician-based disease-specific instrument. METHODS Prospectively collected data from 63 patients with intradural spinal tumor were analyzed in relation to scores on the multidimensional patient-rated Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) and the physician-rated modified McCormick Scale, before and at 3 and 12 months after surgery. RESULTS There was no statistically significant difference between the scores on the modified McCormick Scale preoperatively and at the 3-month follow-up, though there was a trend for improvement (p = 0.073); however, comparisons between the scores determined preoperatively and at the 12-month follow-up, as well as 3- versus 12-month follow-ups, showed a statistically significant improvement in each case (p < 0.004). The COMI scores for axial pain, peripheral pain, and back-related function showed a significant reduction (p < 0.001) from before surgery to 3 months after surgery, and thereafter showed no further change (p > 0.05) up to 12 months postoperatively. In contrast, the overall COMI score, "worst pain," quality of life, and social disability not only showed a significant reduction from before surgery to 3 months after surgery (p < 0.001), but also a further significant reduction up to 12 months postoperatively (p < 0.001). The scores for work disability showed no significant improvement from before surgery to the 3-month follow-up (p > 0.05), but did show a significant improvement (p = 0.011) from 3 months to 12 months after surgery. At the 3- and 12-month follow-ups, 85.2% and 83.9% of patients, respectively, declared that the surgical procedure had helped/helped a lot; 95.1% and 95.2%, respectively, declared that they were satisfied/very satisfied with their care. CONCLUSIONS COMI is a feasible tool to use in the evaluation of baseline symptoms and outcome in patients undergoing surgery for intradural spinal tumor. COMI was able to detect changes in outcome at 3 months after surgery (before changes were apparent on the modified McCormick Scale) and on later postoperative follow-up. The COMI subdomains are valuable for monitoring the patient's reintegration into society and the work environment. The addition of an item that specifically covers neurological deficits may further increase the value of COMI in patients with spinal tumors.

The assessment of complications after spine surgery: time for a paradigm shift?

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Recent years have witnessed a shift in the assessment of spine surgical outcomes with a greater focus on the patient's perspective. However, this approach has not been widely extended to the assessment of complications. PURPOSE: The present study sought to quantify the patient-rated impact/severity of complications of spine surgery and directly compare the incidences of surgeon-rated and patient-reported complications. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective study of patients undergoing surgery for painful degenerative lumbar disorders, being operated in the Spine Center of an orthopedic hospital. PATIENT SAMPLE: A total of 2,303 patients (mean [standard deviation] age, 61.9 [15.1] years; 1,136 [49.3%] women and 1,167 [50.7%] men). PATIENTS: Core Outcome Measures Index, self-rated complications, bothersomeness of complications, global treatment outcome, and satisfaction. Surgeons: Spine Tango surgery and follow-up documentation forms registering surgical details and complications. METHODS: PATIENTS completed questionnaires before and 3 months after surgery. Surgeons documented complications before discharge and at the first postoperative follow-up, 6 to 12 weeks after surgery. RESULTS: In total, 615 out of 2,303 (27%) patients reported complications, with "bothersomeness" ratings of 1%, not at all; 22%, slightly; 26%, moderately; 34%, very; and 17%, extremely bothersome. PATIENTS most commonly reported sensory disturbances (35% of those reporting a complication) or ongoing/new pain (27%) followed by wound healing problems (11%) and motor disturbances (8%). The surgeons documented complications in 19% of patients. There was a minimal overlap regarding the presence or absence of complications in any given patient. CONCLUSIONS: Most complications reported by the patient are perceived to be at least moderately bothersome and are, hence, not inconsequential. Surgeons reported lower complication rates than the patients did, and there was only moderate agreement between the ratings of the two. As with treatment outcome, complications and their severity should be assessed from both the patient's and the surgeon's perspectives.

Ratings of global outcome at the first post-operative assessment after spinal surgery: how often do the surgeon and patient agree?

Patient-orientated questionnaires are becoming increasingly popular in the assessment of outcome and are considered to provide a less biased assessment of the surgical result than traditional surgeon-based ratings. The present study sought to quantify the level of agreement between patients' and doctors' global outcome ratings after spine surgery. 1,113 German-speaking patients (59.0 +/- 16.6 years; 643 F, 470 M) who had undergone spine surgery rated the global outcome of the operation 3 months later, using a 5-point scale: operation helped a lot, helped, helped only little, didn't help, made things worse. They also rated pain, function, quality-of-life and disability, using the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI), and their satisfaction with treatment (5-point scale). The surgeon completed a SSE Spine Tango Follow-up form, blind to the patient's evaluation, rating the outcome with the McNab criteria as excellent, good, fair, and poor. The data were compared, in terms of (1) the correlation between surgeons' and patients' ratings and (2) the proportions of identical ratings, where the doctor's "excellent" was considered equivalent to the patient's "operation helped a lot", "good" to "operation helped", "fair" to "operation helped only little" and "poor" to "operation didn't help/made things worse". There was a significant correlation (Spearman Rho = 0.57, p < 0.0001) between the surgeons' and patients' ratings. Their ratings were identical in 51.2% of the cases; the surgeon gave better ratings than the patient ("overrated") in 25.6% cases and worse ratings ("underrated") in 23.2% cases. There were significant differences between the six surgeons in the degree to which their ratings matched those of the patients, with senior surgeons "overrating" significantly more often than junior surgeons (p < 0.001). "Overrating" was significantly more prevalent for patients with a poor self-rated outcome (measured as global outcome, COMI score, or satisfaction with treatment; each p < 0.001). In a multivariate model controlling for age and gender, "low satisfaction with treatment" and "being a senior surgeon" were the most significant unique predictors of surgeon "overrating" (p < 0.0001; adjusted R (2) = 0.21). Factors with no unique significant influence included comorbidity (ASA score), first time versus repeat surgery, one-level versus multilevel surgery. In conclusion, approximately half of the patient's perceptions of outcome after spine surgery were identical to those of the surgeon. Generally, where discrepancies arose, there was a tendency for the surgeon to be slightly more optimistic than the patient, and more so in relation to patients who themselves declared a poor outcome. This highlights the potential bias in outcome studies that rely solely on surgeon ratings of outcome and indicates the importance of collecting data from both the patient and the surgeon, in order to provide a balanced view of the outcome of spine surgery.