EUROSPINE 2017 FULL PAPER AWARD: Time to remove our rose-tinted spectacles: a candid appraisal of the relative success of surgery in over 4500 patients with degenerative disorders of the lumbar spine, hip or knee.

PURPOSE: Studies comparing the outcome of spine surgery with that of large-joint replacement report equivocal findings. The patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used in such studies are typically generic and may not be sufficiently sensitive to the successes/failures of treatment. This study compared different indices of "success" in patients undergoing surgery for degenerative disorders of the lumbar spine, hip, or knee, using a validated, multidimensional, and joint-specific PROM. METHODS: Preoperatively and 12 months postoperatively, 4594 patients (3937 lumbar spine, 368 hip, 269 knee) undergoing first-time surgery completed a PROM that included the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) for the affected joint. The latter comprises a set of single items on pain, function, symptom-specific well-being, quality of life, and disability-all in relation to the specified joint problem. Other single-item ratings of treatment success were made 12 months postoperatively. RESULTS: In multiple regression analyses, controlling for confounders, the mean improvement in COMI at 12 months was greatest for the hip patients and lowest for those with degenerative spinal deformity (= the statistical reference group) (p < 0.05). Compared with spinal deformity, the odds of achieving "success" were: higher for hip (OR 4.6; 95% CI 2.5-8.5) and knee (OR 4.0; 95% CI 2.1-7.7) (no difference between spine subgroups) for "satisfaction with care"; higher for hip (OR 16.9; 95% CI 7.3-39.6), knee (OR 6.3; 95% CI 3.4-11.6), degenerative spondylolisthesis (OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.2-2.2), and herniated disc (OR 1.7; 95% CI 1.2-2.4) for "global treatment outcome"; and higher for hip (OR 13.8; 95% CI 8.8-21.6), knee (OR 5.3; 95% CI 3.6-7.8), degenerative spondylolisthesis (OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.3-2.1), and herniated disc (1.5; 95% CI 1.1-2.0) for "patient-acceptable symptom state". Patient-rated complications were the greatest in degenerative spinal deformity (29%) and the lowest in hip (18%). CONCLUSIONS: The current study is the largest of its kind and the first to use a common, but joint-specific instrument to report patient-reported outcomes after surgery for degenerative disorders of the spine, hip, or knee. The findings provide a sobering account of the significantly poorer outcomes after spine surgery compared with large-joint replacement. Further work is required to hone the indications and patient selection criteria for spine surgery. The data should be used to lobby research funding-bodies, governmental agencies, industry, and charitable foundations to invest more in spine research/registries, in the hope of ultimately improving spine outcomes. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Could less be more when assessing patient-rated outcome in spinal stenosis?

STUDY DESIGN: Longitudinal study of the measurement properties of a brief outcome instrument. OBJECTIVE: In patients undergoing surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis, we compared the responsiveness of the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) with that of the condition-specific Swiss Spinal Stenosis Measure (SSM), an instrument developed to assess patients with neurogenic claudication. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The COMI is a validated multidimensional questionnaire for assessing the key outcomes of importance to patients with back problems. Being brief, it is associated with minimal respondent burden and high completion rates. However, for a given pathology, intuitively it may be expected to be less responsive than a condition-specific instrument. METHODS: A total of 91 patients (73±8 yr; 53% males) completed the following questionnaires before surgery: COMI, SSM, Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire, back trouble "Feeling Thermometer," pain numeric rating scale, EuroQoL-visual analogue scale. Twelve months postoperatively, 78/91 (86%) completed all the questionnaires again; they also rated the "global treatment outcome" (GTO; rated 1-5) and SSM "satisfaction with treatment result" (SSM-sat; rated 1-4), which were used as external criteria of treatment success. RESULTS: Scores for the external criteria of success (GTO/SSM-sat) correlated with the change scores (baseline to 12 mo) in COMI (r=0.57) and SSM (r=0.54) to a similar extent. Using receiver operating characteristics, with GTO or SSM-sat dichotomized as external criterion, the area under the curve was similar for the COMI change score (0.86-0.90) and the SSM (sub)scales (0.80-0.90). CONCLUSION: With either SSM-sat or GTO serving as the external criterion, COMI was as responsive as the SSM. The COMI is well able to detect important change in lumbar spinal stenosis and has the added benefit of reducing the response burden for the patient and facilitating outcome comparisons with other spinal pathologies. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.