RESUMO
PURPOSE: To examine whether a 7-day or 24-h recall period of Perioperative Symptom Assessment for Patients Undergoing Lung Surgery (PSA-Lung) was appropriate for symptom assessment after discharge. METHODS: A total of 377 patients were recruited in a cohort study of patients who underwent lung surgery. We measured patient symptoms daily and weekly using the two recall period versions of the PSA-Lung scale, respectively. The psychometric properties of both versions were calculated. Spearman rank correlation coefficients and kappa (k) coefficients were used to measure the association between items score measured by the two version scales each week. Cohen's d effect size and mixed linear model were used to measure responsiveness to change over time. RESULTS: Spearman rank correlation coefficients between the symptom scores generated by the 7-day and 24-h versions (range 0.48-0.77; all P < 0.05). The correlations increased in patients in stable condition (weekly symptom change < 2). Cronbach's α coefficients for both ratings were > 0.87 and both had good test-retest reliability. The longitudinal analysis and Cohen's d effect sizes showed that both ratings had good ability to detect changes in all items. CONCLUSION: The 7-day retrospective scale was as effective as the 24-h retrospective scale in terms of psychometric performance. In the stage where the patient's symptoms change rapidly, it is recommended to use the 24-h retrospective scale for symptom monitoring. On the contrary, in a stable state, it can be considered to use the 7-day retrospective scale for monitoring to reduce the patient's burden.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to quantify the degree of lumbar spinal stenosis by assessing the anterior and posterior vertebral canal diameter and dural area, determine the sensitivity of the anterior and posterior spinal canal diameter, dural area and dural occupying rate in predicting the postoperative efficacy of oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) for patients with single-stage lumbar spinal stenosis, and identify the corresponding indicators suggesting that OLIF surgery should not be performed. METHODS: In a retrospective analysis of patients who had previously undergone OLIF surgery in our hospital, we included a total of 104 patients with lumbar spinal stenosis who had previously undergone single-stage surgery in our hospital. Three independent observers were employed to measure the anterior and posterior diameter of the spinal canal (AD, mm), dural area (CSA, mm2), the spinal canal area (SCA, mm2), and the ratio of the dural area to the spinal canal area (DM, %) at the disc level with the most severe stenosis on MRI. According to the values of AD and CSA in preoperative MRI, patients were divided into three groups: A, B, and C (Group A: AD > 12 and 100 < CSA ≤ 130, group B: Except A and C, group C: AD ≤ 10 and CSA ≤ 75). Preoperative and postoperative clinical outcome scores (Japanese Orthopaedic Association [JOA] score, VAS score, modified Macnab standard) of 104 patients were statistically. RESULTS: There were significant differences in the preoperative and postoperative clinical correlation scores among the mild, moderate and severe lumbar spinal stenosis groups. The improvement rate of the post treatment JOA score, the difference between the preoperative and postoperative VAS score, and the modified Macnab standard were compared pairwise. There was no statistical significance in the improvement rate of the post treatment JOA score, the difference between the preoperative and postoperative VAS score, and the modified Macnab standard between Group A and Group B (P = 0.125, P = 0.620, P = 0.803). There were statistically significant differences between Group A and Group C and between Group B and Group C in the improvement rate of the JOA score, the difference in the pre- and postoperative VAS score, and the modified Macnab standard. The anterior and posterior vertebral canal diameter and dural area are sensitive predictors of the postoperative efficacy of OLIF surgery for single-stage lumbar spinal stenosis. Moreover, when the anterior and posterior vertebral canal diameter was less than 6.545 mm and the dural area was less than 34.43 mm2, the postoperative effect of OLIF surgery was poor. CONCLUSIONS: All the patients with mild, moderate, and severe lumbar spinal stenosis achieved curative effects after OLIF surgery. Patients with mild and moderate lumbar spinal stenosis had better curative effects, and there was no significant difference between them, while patients with severe lumbar spinal stenosis had poor curative effects. Both the anteroposterior diameter of the spinal canal and the dural area of the spinal canal were sensitive in predicting the curative effect of OLIF surgery for single-stage lumbar spinal stenosis. When the anterior and posterior vertebral canal diameter was less than 6.545 mm and the dural area was less than 34.43 mm2, the postoperative effect of OLIF surgery was poor.
