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.

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.

Validity of a single-item measure to assess leg or back pain as the predominant symptom in patients with degenerative disorders of the lumbar spine.

PURPOSE: Recent studies suggest that the location of predominant pain (back or leg) can be a significant predictor of the outcome of surgery for degenerative spinal disorders. However, others challenge the notion that the predominant symptom can be reliably identified. This study examined the validity of a single item used to determine the most troublesome symptom. METHODS: A total of 2,778 patients with degenerative disorders of the lumbar spine scheduled for surgery with the goal of pain relief completed a questionnaire enquiring as to their most troublesome symptom ["main symptom"; back pain (BACK) or leg/buttock pain (LEG)]. They also completed separate 0-10 graphic rating scales for back pain (LBP) and leg/buttock pain (LP) intensity. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis was used to determine the accuracy with which the "LP minus LBP" score was able to classify patients into their declared "main symptom" group. Sub-studies evaluated the test-retest reliability of the patients' self-rated pain scores (N = 45) and the agreement between the main symptom declared by the patient in the questionnaire and that documented by the surgeon after the clinical consultation (N = 118). RESULTS: Test-retest reliability of the back and leg pain scores was good (ICC2,1 of 0.8 for each), as was patient-surgeon agreement regarding the main symptom (BACK or LEG) (κ value 0.79). In the BACK group, the mean values for pain intensity were 7.3 ± 2.0 (LBP) and 5.2 ± 2.9 (LP); in the LEG group, they were 4.3 ± 2.9 (LBP) and 7.5 ± 1.9 (LP). The area under the curve for the ROC was 0.95 (95 % CI 0.94-0.95), indicating excellent discrimination between the BACK and LEG groups based on the "LP minus LBP" scores. A cutoff score >0.0 for "LP minus LBP" score gave optimal sensitivity and specificity for indicating membership of the LEG group (sensitivity 79.1%, specificity 95.7%). CONCLUSIONS: The responses on the single item for the "main symptom" were in good agreement with the differential ratings on the 0-10 pain scales for LBP and LP intensity. The cutoff >0 for "LP minus LBP" for classifying patients as LEG pain predominant seemed appropriate and suggests good concurrent validity for the single-item measure. The single item may be of use in sub-grouping patients with the same disorder (e.g. spondylolisthesis) or as an indication in surgical decision-making.

Validity and responsiveness of the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) for the neck.

PURPOSE: Patient-orientated outcome questionnaires are essential to evaluate treatment success. To compare different treatments, hospitals, and surgeons, standardised questionnaires are required. The present study examined the validity and responsiveness of the Core Outcome Measurement Index for neck pain (COMI-neck), a short, multidimensional outcome instrument. METHODS: Questionnaires were completed by patients with degenerative problems of the cervical spine undergoing cervical disc arthroplasty before (N = 89) and 3 months after (N = 75) surgery. The questionnaires comprised the EuroQol-Five Dimension (EQ-5D), the North American Spine Society Cervical Spine Outcome Assessment Instrument (NASS-cervical) and the COMI-neck. RESULTS: The COMI and NASS-cervical scores displayed no notable floor or ceiling effects at any time point whereas for the EQ-5D, the highest values [corrected] were reached in around 32.5% of patients at follow-up. With one exception (symptom-specific well-being), the individual COMI items and the COMI summary score correlated to the expected extent (R = 0.4-0.8) with the scores of the chosen reference questionnaires. The area under the curve (AUC) generated by ROC analysis was significantly higher for the COMI (0.96) than for any other instrument/subscale when self reported treatment outcome was used as the external criterion, dichotomised as "good" (operation helped a lot/helped) versus "poor" (operation helped only a little/didn't help/made things worse). The COMI had a high effect size (standardised response mean; SRM) (2.34) for the good global outcome group and a low SRM for the poor outcome group (0.34). The EQ-5D and the NASS-cervical lacked this ability to differentiate between the two groups, showing less distinct SRMs for good and poor outcome groups. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence that the COMI-neck is a valid and responsive questionnaire in the population of patients examined. Further investigations should examine its applicability in other patient groups with less severe neck pain or undergoing other treatment modalities.

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 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.

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.