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.

Evaluation of "appropriate use criteria" for surgical decision-making in lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. A controlled, multicentre, prospective observational study.

INTRODUCTION: Selecting patients with lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis (LDS) for surgery is difficult. Appropriate use criteria (AUC) have been developed to clarify the indications for LDS surgery but have not been evaluated in controlled studies. METHODS: This prospective, controlled, multicentre study involved 908 patients (561 surgical and 347 non-surgical controls; 69.5 ± 9.7y; 69% female), treated as per normal clinical practice. Their appropriateness for surgery was afterwards determined using the AUC. They completed the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) at baseline and 12 months' follow-up. Multiple regression adjusting for confounders evaluated the influence of appropriateness designation and treatment received on the 12-month COMI and achievement of MCIC (≥ 2.2-point-reduction). RESULTS: As per convention, appropriate (A) and uncertain (U) groups were combined for comparison with the inappropriate (I) group. For the adjusted 12-month COMI, the benefit of surgery relative to non-surgical care was not significantly greater for the A/U than the I group (p = 0.189). There was, however, a greater treatment effect of surgery for those with higher baseline COMI (p = 0.035). The groups' adjusted probabilities of achieving MCIC were: 83% (A/U, receiving surgery), 71% (I, receiving surgery), 50% (A/U, receiving non-surgical care), and 32% (I, receiving non-surgical care). CONCLUSIONS: A/U patients receiving surgery had the highest chances of achieving MCIC, but the AUC were not able to identify which patients had a greater treatment effect of surgery relative to non-surgical care. The identification of other characteristics that predict a greater treatment effect of surgery, in addition to baseline COMI, is required to improve decision-making.

Evaluation of the Clinical and Radiographic Degenerative Spondylolisthesis (CARDS) classification system as a guide to surgical technique selection.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The role of fusion in degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) is controversial. The Clinical and Radiographic Degenerative Spondylolisthesis (CARDS) classification system was developed to assist surgeons in surgical technique selection based on individual patient characteristics. This system has not been clinically validated as a guide to surgical technique selection. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine if outcomes vary with different surgical techniques across the CARDS categories. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Prospective cohort study performed at one Swiss and one American spine center. PATIENT SAMPLE: Five hundred eight patients with DS undergoing surgical treatment. OUTCOME MEASURES: Core Outcomes Measure Index (COMI) at 3 months and 12 months postoperatively. METHODS: Patients undergoing surgery for DS were enrolled at 2 institutions and classified according to the CARDS system using dynamic radiographs. The Core Outcome Measure Index (COMI) was completed preoperatively, and 3 and 12 months postoperatively. Surgical technique was classified as uninstrumented (decompression alone or decompression with uninstrumented fusion) or instrumented (decompression with pedicle screw instrumentation with or without interbody fusion). Unadjusted analyses and mixed effect models compared COMI scores between the two surgery technique groups (uninstrumented vs instrumented), stratified by CARDS category over time. Reoperation rates were also compared between the surgery technique groups stratified by CARDS category. Partial funding was given through NASS grant for clinical research. RESULTS: Five hundred five out of 508 patients enrolled in the study had sufficient data to be classified according to CARDS. Seven percent were classified as CARDS A, 28% as CARDS B, 48% as CARDS C, and 17% as CARDS D (CARDS A most "stable," CARDS D least "stable"). One hundred and thirty-three patients (26%) underwent decompression alone, 30 (6%) underwent decompression and uninstrumented fusion, 42 (8%) underwent decompression and posterolateral instrumented fusion, and 303 (60%) underwent decompression with posterolateral and interbody instrumented fusion. Patients in the least "stable" categories tended to be less likely to be treated with an uninstrumented technique (CARDS D 19% vs 32% for the other categories, p=.10). There were no significant differences in 3 or 12-month COMI scores between surgical technique groups stratified by CARDS category in the unadjusted or adjusted analyses. In the unadjusted analyses, there was a trend towards less improvement in 12-month COMI change score in the CARDS D patients in the uninstrumented group compared to the instrumented group (-2.7 vs -4.1, p=.10). Reoperation rates were not significantly different between the surgical technique groups stratified by CARDS category. CONCLUSIONS: In general, outcomes for uninstrumented and instrumented surgical techniques were similar across the CARDS categories. Surgeons likely took factors included in CARDS into account during surgical technique selection. This resulted in a low number of CARDS D (n=15) patients being treated with uninstrumented techniques, which limited the statistical power of this analysis. As such, this study does not validate CARDS as a useful classification system for surgical technique selection in DS.

Association between the appropriateness of surgery, according to appropriate use criteria, and patient-rated outcomes after surgery for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis.

INTRODUCTION: Treatment failures in spine surgery are often attributable to poor patient selection and the application of inappropriate treatment. We used published appropriate use criteria (AUC) to evaluate the appropriateness of surgery in a large group of patients operated for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis (LDS) and to evaluate its association with outcome. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected outcome data from patients operated in our Spine Centre, 2005-2012. Appropriateness of surgery was judged based on the AUC. Patients had completed the multidimensional Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) before surgery and at 3 months' and 1, 2 and 5 years' follow-up (FU). RESULTS: In total, 448 patients (69.8 ± 9.6 years; 323 (72%) women) were eligible for inclusion and the AUC could be applied in 393 (88%) of these. Surgery was considered appropriate (A) in 234 (59%) of the patients, uncertain/equivocal (U) in 90 (23%) and inappropriate (I) in 69 (18%). A/U patients had significantly (p < 0.05) greater improvements in COMI than I patients at each FU time point. The minimal clinically important change (MCIC) score for COMI was reached by 82% A, 76% U and 54% I patients at 1-year FU (p < 0.001, I vs A and U); the odds of achieving MCIC were 3-4 times greater in A/U patients than in I patients. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest a relationship between appropriateness of surgery for LDS and the improvements in COMI score after surgery. The findings require confirmation in prospective studies that also include a control group of non-operated patients.

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.