How well can the clinician appraise the patient's perception of the severity and impact of their back problem?

PURPOSE: A main concern of patients with back problems is pain and its impact on function and quality of life. These are subjective phenomena, and should be probed during the clinical consultation so that the physician can ascertain the extent of the problem. This study evaluated the agreement between clinicians' and patients' independent ratings of patient status on the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI). METHODS: This was an analysis of the data from 5 spine specialists and 108 patients, in two centres. Prior to the consultation, the patient completed the COMI. After the consultation, the clinician (blind to the patient's version) also completed a COMI. Concordance was assessed by % agreement, Kappa values, Bland-Altman plots, Spearman rank, Intraclass Correlation Coefficients and comparisons of mean values, as appropriate. RESULTS: Agreement regarding the "main problem" (back pain, leg/buttock pain, sensory disturbances, other) was 83%, Kappa = 0.70 (95%CI 0.58-0.81). Moderate/strong correlations were found between the doctors' and patients' COMI-item ratings (0.48-0.74; p < 0.0001), although compared with the patients' ratings the doctors systematically underestimated absolute values for leg pain (p = 0.002) and dissatisfaction with symptom state (p = 0.002), and overestimated how much the patient's function was impaired (p = 0.029). CONCLUSION: The doctors were able to ascertain the location of the main problem and the multidimensional outcome score with good accuracy, but some individual domains were systematically underestimated (pain, symptom-specific well-being) or overestimated (impairment of function). More detailed/direct questioning on these domains during the consultation might deliver a better appreciation of the impact of the back problem on the patient's daily life.

Impact of radiologic variables on item responses of ODI, SRS22 and SF-36. in adult spinal deformity patients: differential item functioning (DIF) analysis results from a multi-center database.

PURPOSE: To determine if responses given to each question of the Scoliosis Research Society-22 (SRS22), Oswestry disability index (ODI) and Short Form-36 (SF-36) questionnaires are influenced by the radiological parameters. METHODS: Patients enrolled in a multi-centre prospectively collected adult spinal deformity database who had complete SRS22, ODI and SF-36 data at baseline and at one-year follow-up were analysed. The presence of a differential item function of each question within each score in relation to radiological parameters was analysed using a mixed Rasch model with the radiological threshold value(s) determined. RESULTS: Of those patients analysed (n = 1745; 1406 female, average age 51.0 ± 19.8 years), 944 were surgically and 801 were non-surgically treated. For the SRS22, questions (Q) 3, 5 and 18 were sensitive to almost all radiological parameters and the overall score was found sensitive to the Cobb angle. For the ODI, Q3, 6, 9 and 10 were not sensitive to any radiologic parameters whereas Q4 and 5 were sensitive to most. In contrast, only 3 of the SF-36 items were sensitive to radiological parameters. CONCLUSIONS: 78% of the SRS-22, 60% of the ODI and 8% of the questions in the SF-36 are sensitive to radiological parameters. Sagittal imbalance is independently associated with a poor overall outcome, but affects mental status and function more than pain and self-image. The assembly of questions responsive to radiological parameters may be useful in establishing a connection between changes in radiologic parameters and HRQL.

Does neck pain as chief complaint influence the outcome of cervical total disc replacement?

PURPOSE: We investigated whether outcomes after cervical total disc replacement (cTDR) are influenced by preoperative neck pain as the chief complaint. METHODS: This was a retrospective study using data in our local spine surgery outcomes database, linked to EUROSPINE Spine Tango Registry. Patients completed questionnaires at baseline enquiring about the "chief complaint" [neck pain (NP), arm/shoulder pain (AP) or neurological deficits (ND)] and including the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI); these were completed again at 24 months postoperatively, along with a rating of "global treatment outcome" (on a five-point scale, later dichotomized as "good" or "poor"). Differences in outcomes between the groups were examined using ANOVA. Multivariable regression analysis examined the effect of the chief pain location on 24-month outcomes, controlling for age, gender, comorbidity, baseline pain and COMI scores. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty-nine consecutive patients were included, with a chief complaint of NP in 31%, AP in 38% and ND in 31%. The chief complaint groups did not differ in relation to their baseline COMI scores or their reductions in score from before surgery to 24 months after surgery (reduction: NP group, 4.4 ± 2.9 points; AP group, 4.7 ± 2.7; ND group, 4.3 ± 2.9; p = 0.78). Similarly, the percentage of patients reporting a "good global treatment outcome" at 24 months postoperatively did not differ between the groups (NP, 79%; AP, 77%; ND, 85%; p = 0.64). The findings were consistent when controlling for possible confounders in multiple regression. CONCLUSIONS: Having neck pain as opposed to arm pain or neurological deficits as preoperative chief complaint had no significant impact on clinical outcome after cTDR. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Adult degenerative scoliosis: comparison of patient-rated outcome after three different surgical treatments.

PURPOSE: Few studies have examined the effectiveness of surgical treatment for adult degenerative scoliosis (ADS) using validated patient-orientated outcome instruments. This study reports patient outcomes in a large, consecutive series of patients being treated for ADS by simple decompression (D), short fusion (SF), or long fusion (LF). METHODS: Our local spine surgery database (part of the Eurospine Spine Tango Registry) was used to acquire the data from patients with ADS undergoing D, SF or LF. Preoperatively and at 12 and 24 months follow-up (FU), patients completed the multidimensional Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI; 0-10); at FU, satisfaction and global outcome were rated on a five-point Likert scale and dichotomised as "good" and "poor", and patient-rated complications were recorded. RESULTS: 173 patients took part (81 D, 53 SF, 39 LF). Compared with the two fusion groups, the D group was significantly older, had more comorbidity, and had more leg pain than back pain (each p < 0.05). There were significant differences among the groups for operation duration, blood loss and general complications (each p < 0.05), in each case with the LF group showing the greatest values and the D group the lowest values. However, patient-rated complications were not significantly different between the groups (p > 0.89). Further surgery within the 2-year follow-up was required in 7 % of the D group, 15 % in SF and 28 % in LF. All groups benefited significantly from surgery with no significant differences (p > 0.05) between them: improvement in COMI after 24 months was 2.9 ± 2.8 points for D, 3.1 ± 3.3 points for SF and 3.2 ± 3.1 points for LF; a "good global outcome" was recorded for 69, 74 and 76 % patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the complexity of the disease, patient-orientated outcomes after surgery for ADS were similar to those previously reported using the same outcome instruments in patients with lumbar stenosis and degenerative spondylolisthesis. The use of D, SF and LF for ADS yielded similarly good results from the patient's perspective. This most likely reflects careful and appropriate patient selection. Further analyses are warranted to identify baseline variables predicting the 26-31 % cases in each group with a poor outcome.

The bothersomeness of patient self-rated "complications" reported 1 year after spine surgery.

PURPOSE: The last few decades have witnessed a paradigm shift in the assessment of outcome in spine surgery, with patient-centred questionnaires superseding traditional surgeon-based assessments. The assessment of complications after surgery and their impact on the patient has not enjoyed this same enlightened approach. This study sought to quantify the incidence and bothersomeness of patient-rated complications 1 year after surgery. METHODS: Patients with lumbar degenerative disorders, operated with the goal of pain relief between October 2006 and September 2010, completed a questionnaire 1 year postoperatively enquiring about complications arising as a consequence of their operation. They rated the bothersomeness of any such complications on a 5-point scale. Global outcome of surgery and satisfaction at the 12-month follow-up were also rated on 5-point Likert scales. The multidimensional Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) was completed preoperatively and at the 12-month follow-up. RESULTS: Of 2,282 patients completing the questionnaire (92% completion rate), 687 (30.1%) reported complications, most commonly sensory disturbances (36% of those with complications) or ongoing/new pain (26%), followed by motor problems (8%), pain plus neurological disturbances (11%), and problems with wound healing (6%). The corresponding "bothersomeness" ratings for these were: 1% not at all, 23% slightly, 27% moderately, 31% very, and 18% extremely bothersome. The greater the bothersomeness, the worse the global outcome (Rho = 0.51, p < 0.0001), patient satisfaction (Rho = 0.44, p < 0.0001) and change in COMI score (Rho = 0.52, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Most complications reported by the patient are perceived to be at least moderately bothersome and hence are not inconsequential. Complications and their severity should be assessed from both the patient's and the surgeon's perspectives--not least to better understand the reasons for poor outcome and dissatisfaction with treatment.

Fusionless posterior hemivertebra resection in a 2-year-old child with 16 years follow-up.

PURPOSE: We present the case of a 2-year-old patient with congenital scoliosis due to a lumbar hemivertebra. The current gold standard treatment of such an abnormality would be hemivertebra resection and short level posterior spinal fusion. However, due to the young age of the patient, we considered that application of a fusionless solution might offer advantages in terms of retaining normal segmental motion and the potential for growth. METHODS: The incarcerated hemivertebra was resected and the facet joints of the neighbouring vertebrae were joined to create a new functional motion segment and correct the kyphoscoliotic deformity. Transpedicular screws were inserted on the convex side in L2 and L3 and a tension band was applied. RESULTS: 16 years after the surgery, the patient was completely pain-free, motion of the lumbar spine was preserved and the physiological curvatures were maintained. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge a fusionless surgical solution for the treatment of a hemivertebra has never been described before. Although this is only a single case, the good result with a long follow-up suggests the technique is worthwhile considering when planning the treatment of a lumbar hemivertebra in very young children.

To fuse or not to fuse in lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis: do baseline symptoms help provide the answer?

INTRODUCTION: Clinical symptoms in lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis (LDS) vary from predominantly radiating pain to severe mechanical low back pain. We examined whether the outcome of surgery for LDS varied depending on the predominant baseline symptom and the treatment administered [decompression with fusion (D&F) or decompression alone (D)]. METHODS: 213 consecutive patients (69 ± 9 years; 155f, 58 m) participated. Inclusion criteria were LDS, maximum three affected levels, no previous surgery at the affected level, and D (N = 56) or D&F (N = 157) as the operative procedure. Pre-op and at 12 months' follow-up (FU), patients completed the multidimensional Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) including 0-10 leg-pain (LP) and LBP scales. At 12 months' FU, patients rated global outcome which was then dichotomised into "good" and "poor". RESULTS: Pre-operatively, LBP and COMI scores were significantly worse (p < 0.05) in the D&F group than in the D group. The improvement in COMI at 12 months' FU was significantly greater for D&F than for D (p < 0.001) and was not influenced by the patient's declared "main problem" at baseline (back pain, leg pain, or neurological disturbances) (p > 0.05). There was a higher proportion (p = 0.01) of "good" outcomes at 12 months' FU in D&F (86%) than in D (70%). Multiple regression analysis, controlling for possible confounders, revealed treatment group to be the only significant predictor of outcome (adding fusion = better outcome). DISCUSSION: Our study indicated that LDS patients showed better patient-based outcome with instrumented fusion and decompression than with decompression alone, regardless of baseline symptoms. This may be due to the fact that the underlying slippage as the cause of the stenosis is better addressed with fusion.

The outcome of decompression surgery for lumbar herniated disc is influenced by the level of concomitant preoperative low back pain.

Decompression surgery is a common and generally successful treatment for lumbar disc herniation (LDH). However, clinical practice raises some concern that the presence of concomitant low back pain (LBP) may have a negative influence on the overall outcome of treatment. This prospective study sought to examine on how the relative severity of LBP influences the outcome of decompression surgery for LDH. The SSE Spine Tango System was used to acquire the data from 308 patients. Inclusion criteria were LDH, first-time surgery, maximum 1 affected level, and decompression as the only procedure. Before and 12 months after surgery, patients completed the multidimensional Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI; includes 0-10 leg/buttock pain (LP) and LBP scales); at 12 months, global outcome was rated on a Likert scale and dichotomised into "good" and "poor" groups. In the "good" outcome group, mean baseline LP was 2.8 (SD 3.1) points higher than LBP; in the "poor" group, the corresponding value was 1.1 (SD 2.9) (p < 0.001 between groups). Significantly fewer patients with back pain as their "main problem" had a good outcome (69% good) when compared with those who reported leg/buttock pain (84% good) as the main problem (p = 0.04). In multivariate regression analyses (controlling for age, gender, co-morbidity), baseline LBP intensity was a significant predictor of the 12-month COMI score, and of the global outcome (each p < 0.05) (higher LBP, worse outcome). In conclusion, patients with more back pain showed significantly worse outcomes after decompression surgery for LDH. This finding fits with general clinical experience, but has rarely been quantified in the many predictor studies conducted to date. Consideration of the severity of concomitant LBP in LDH may assist in establishing realistic patient expectations before the surgery.

Microdiscectomy compared with standard discectomy: an old problem revisited with new outcome measures within the framework of a spine surgical registry.

Studies comparing the relative merits of microdiscectomy and standard discectomy report conflicting results, depending on the outcome measure of interest. Most trials are small, and few have employed validated, multidimensional patient-orientated outcome measures, considered essential in outcomes research. In the present study, data were collected prospectively from six surgeons participating in a surgical registry. Inclusion criteria were: lumbar/lumbosacral degenerative disease; discectomy/sequestrectomy without additional fusion/stabilisation; German or English-speaking. Before and 3 and 12 months after surgery, patients completed the Core Outcome Measures Index comprising questions on leg/buttock pain, back pain, back-related function, symptom-specific well-being, general quality-of-life, and social and work disability. At follow-up, they rated overall satisfaction, global outcome, and perceived complications. Compliance with the registry documentation was excellent: 87% for surgeons (surgery forms), 91% for patients (for 12 months follow-up). 261 patients satisfied the inclusion criteria (225 microdiscectomy, 36 standard discectomy). The standard discectomy group had significantly greater blood-loss than the microdiscectomy (P < 0.05). There were no group differences in the proportion of surgical complications or duration of hospital stay (P > 0.05). The groups did not differ in relation to any of the patient-orientated outcomes or individual outcome domains (P > 0.05). Though not equivalent to an RCT, the study included every single eligible patient in our Spine Center and allowed surgeons to use their regular procedure; it hence had extremely high external validity (relevance/generalisability). There was no clinically relevant difference in outcome after lumbar disc excision dependent on the use of the microscope. The decision to use the microscope should rest with the surgeon.

Clinical applications of bone graft substitutes in spine surgery: consideration of mineralized and demineralized preparations and growth factor supplementation.

Bone graft substitutes may be broadly classified as mineralized and demineralized preparations. This article reviews the basic science and biology underlying each preparation. A review of the clinical and experimental applications of each preparation follows. The text concludes with a review of growth factors as biological supplements.

Acute biomechanical and histological effects of intradiscal electrothermal therapy on human lumbar discs.

STUDY DESIGN: Human cadaver lumbar spines were used to assess the acute effects of intradiscal electrothermal therapy in vitro. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether intradiscal electrothermal therapy produces acute changes in disc histology and motion segment stability. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Intradiscal electrothermal therapy has been introduced as an alternative for the treatment of discogenic low back pain. Several hypothesized mechanisms for the effect of intradiscal electrothermal therapy have been suggested including shrinkage of the nucleus or sealing of the anulus fibrosus by contraction of collagen fibers, and thermal ablation of sensitive nerve fibers in the outer anulus. METHODS: Intradiscal electrothermal therapy was performed with the Spinecath by Oratec on 19 fresh, frozen human lumbar cadaver specimens. In a separate study, eight specimens were tested biomechanically and instrumented to map the thermal distribution, whereas five specimens were tested only biomechanically, both before and after intradiscal electrothermal therapy. Six additional specimens were heated with intradiscal electrothermal therapy, and the resulting canal was backfilled with a silicone rubber compound to allow colocalization of the catheter and anular architecture. RESULTS: A consistent pattern of increased motion and decreased stiffness was observed. For the specimens in which only biomechanical measurements were taken, a 10% increase in the motion, on the average, at 5 Nm torque was observed after intradiscal electrothermal therapy. No apparent alteration of the anular architecture was observed around the catheter site in the intradiscal electrothermal therapy-treated discs. CONCLUSION: The data from this study suggest that the temperatures developed during intradiscal electrothermal therapy are insufficient to alter collagen architecture or stiffen the treated motion segment acutely.