Need for Two-Year Patient-Reported Outcomes Score for Lumbar Spine Surgery Is Procedure-Specific

Analysis From a Prospective Longitudinal Spine Registry

Elliott J. Kim, Silky Chotai, Kristin R. Archer, Mohamad Bydon, Anthony L. Asher, Clinton J. Devin

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

STUDY DESIGN.: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data OBJECTIVE.: The aim of this study was to determine whether 1-year patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can accurately assess effective care for patients undergoing surgery for degenerative lumbar spine disease SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA.: Prospective longitudinal PROs registries provide a means to accurately assess outcomes and determine the relative effectiveness of various spine treatments. Obtaining long-term PROs can be costly and challenging. METHODS.: Patients enrolled into a prospective registry who underwent lumbar spine surgery for degenerative disease were included. Baseline, 1-year, and 2-year Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores were captured. Previously published minimum clinically important difference (MCID) for ODI (14.9) was used. Multivariable linear regression model was created to derive model-estimated 2-year ODI scores. Absolute differences between 1-year and 2-year ODI were compared to absolute differences between 2-year and model-estimated 2-year ODI. Concordance rates in achieving MCID at 1-year and 2-year and predictive values were calculated. RESULTS.: A total of 868 patients were analyzed. One-year ODI scores differed from 2-year scores by an absolute difference of 9.7?±?8.9 points and predictive model-estimated 2-year scores differed from actual 2-year scores by 8.8?±?7.3 points. The model-estimated 2-year ODI was significantly different than actual 1-year ODI in assessing actual 2-year ODI for all procedures (P?=?0.001) except for primary (P?=?0.932) and revision microdiscectomy (P?=?0.978) and primary laminectomy (P?=?0.267). The discordance rates of achieving or not achieving MCID for ODI ranged from 8% to 27%. Concordance rate was about 90% for primary and revision microdiscectomy. The positive and negative predictive value of 1-year ODI to predict 2-year ODI was 83% and 67% for all procedures and 92% and 67% for primary and 100% and 86% for revision microdiscectomy respectively. CONCLUSION.: One-year disability outcomes can potentially estimate 2-year outcomes for patient populations, but cannot reliably predict 2-year outcomes for individual patients, except for patients undergoing primary and revision microdiscectomy.Level of Evidence: 4

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalSpine
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Jan 31 2017

Fingerprint

Registries
Spine
Linear Models
Laminectomy
Patient Care
Patient Reported Outcome Measures
Population
Therapeutics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
  • Clinical Neurology

Cite this

Need for Two-Year Patient-Reported Outcomes Score for Lumbar Spine Surgery Is Procedure-Specific : Analysis From a Prospective Longitudinal Spine Registry. / Kim, Elliott J.; Chotai, Silky; Archer, Kristin R.; Bydon, Mohamad; Asher, Anthony L.; Devin, Clinton J.

In: Spine, 31.01.2017.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Kim, Elliott J. ; Chotai, Silky ; Archer, Kristin R. ; Bydon, Mohamad ; Asher, Anthony L. ; Devin, Clinton J. / Need for Two-Year Patient-Reported Outcomes Score for Lumbar Spine Surgery Is Procedure-Specific : Analysis From a Prospective Longitudinal Spine Registry. In: Spine. 2017.
@article{59f625c5827e4b5fafc8557c9daa81ab,
title = "Need for Two-Year Patient-Reported Outcomes Score for Lumbar Spine Surgery Is Procedure-Specific: Analysis From a Prospective Longitudinal Spine Registry",
abstract = "STUDY DESIGN.: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data OBJECTIVE.: The aim of this study was to determine whether 1-year patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can accurately assess effective care for patients undergoing surgery for degenerative lumbar spine disease SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA.: Prospective longitudinal PROs registries provide a means to accurately assess outcomes and determine the relative effectiveness of various spine treatments. Obtaining long-term PROs can be costly and challenging. METHODS.: Patients enrolled into a prospective registry who underwent lumbar spine surgery for degenerative disease were included. Baseline, 1-year, and 2-year Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores were captured. Previously published minimum clinically important difference (MCID) for ODI (14.9) was used. Multivariable linear regression model was created to derive model-estimated 2-year ODI scores. Absolute differences between 1-year and 2-year ODI were compared to absolute differences between 2-year and model-estimated 2-year ODI. Concordance rates in achieving MCID at 1-year and 2-year and predictive values were calculated. RESULTS.: A total of 868 patients were analyzed. One-year ODI scores differed from 2-year scores by an absolute difference of 9.7?±?8.9 points and predictive model-estimated 2-year scores differed from actual 2-year scores by 8.8?±?7.3 points. The model-estimated 2-year ODI was significantly different than actual 1-year ODI in assessing actual 2-year ODI for all procedures (P?=?0.001) except for primary (P?=?0.932) and revision microdiscectomy (P?=?0.978) and primary laminectomy (P?=?0.267). The discordance rates of achieving or not achieving MCID for ODI ranged from 8{\%} to 27{\%}. Concordance rate was about 90{\%} for primary and revision microdiscectomy. The positive and negative predictive value of 1-year ODI to predict 2-year ODI was 83{\%} and 67{\%} for all procedures and 92{\%} and 67{\%} for primary and 100{\%} and 86{\%} for revision microdiscectomy respectively. CONCLUSION.: One-year disability outcomes can potentially estimate 2-year outcomes for patient populations, but cannot reliably predict 2-year outcomes for individual patients, except for patients undergoing primary and revision microdiscectomy.Level of Evidence: 4",
author = "Kim, {Elliott J.} and Silky Chotai and Archer, {Kristin R.} and Mohamad Bydon and Asher, {Anthony L.} and Devin, {Clinton J.}",
year = "2017",
month = "1",
day = "31",
doi = "10.1097/BRS.0000000000002087",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Spine",
issn = "0362-2436",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Need for Two-Year Patient-Reported Outcomes Score for Lumbar Spine Surgery Is Procedure-Specific

T2 - Analysis From a Prospective Longitudinal Spine Registry

AU - Kim, Elliott J.

AU - Chotai, Silky

AU - Archer, Kristin R.

AU - Bydon, Mohamad

AU - Asher, Anthony L.

AU - Devin, Clinton J.

PY - 2017/1/31

Y1 - 2017/1/31

N2 - STUDY DESIGN.: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data OBJECTIVE.: The aim of this study was to determine whether 1-year patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can accurately assess effective care for patients undergoing surgery for degenerative lumbar spine disease SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA.: Prospective longitudinal PROs registries provide a means to accurately assess outcomes and determine the relative effectiveness of various spine treatments. Obtaining long-term PROs can be costly and challenging. METHODS.: Patients enrolled into a prospective registry who underwent lumbar spine surgery for degenerative disease were included. Baseline, 1-year, and 2-year Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores were captured. Previously published minimum clinically important difference (MCID) for ODI (14.9) was used. Multivariable linear regression model was created to derive model-estimated 2-year ODI scores. Absolute differences between 1-year and 2-year ODI were compared to absolute differences between 2-year and model-estimated 2-year ODI. Concordance rates in achieving MCID at 1-year and 2-year and predictive values were calculated. RESULTS.: A total of 868 patients were analyzed. One-year ODI scores differed from 2-year scores by an absolute difference of 9.7?±?8.9 points and predictive model-estimated 2-year scores differed from actual 2-year scores by 8.8?±?7.3 points. The model-estimated 2-year ODI was significantly different than actual 1-year ODI in assessing actual 2-year ODI for all procedures (P?=?0.001) except for primary (P?=?0.932) and revision microdiscectomy (P?=?0.978) and primary laminectomy (P?=?0.267). The discordance rates of achieving or not achieving MCID for ODI ranged from 8% to 27%. Concordance rate was about 90% for primary and revision microdiscectomy. The positive and negative predictive value of 1-year ODI to predict 2-year ODI was 83% and 67% for all procedures and 92% and 67% for primary and 100% and 86% for revision microdiscectomy respectively. CONCLUSION.: One-year disability outcomes can potentially estimate 2-year outcomes for patient populations, but cannot reliably predict 2-year outcomes for individual patients, except for patients undergoing primary and revision microdiscectomy.Level of Evidence: 4

AB - STUDY DESIGN.: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data OBJECTIVE.: The aim of this study was to determine whether 1-year patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can accurately assess effective care for patients undergoing surgery for degenerative lumbar spine disease SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA.: Prospective longitudinal PROs registries provide a means to accurately assess outcomes and determine the relative effectiveness of various spine treatments. Obtaining long-term PROs can be costly and challenging. METHODS.: Patients enrolled into a prospective registry who underwent lumbar spine surgery for degenerative disease were included. Baseline, 1-year, and 2-year Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores were captured. Previously published minimum clinically important difference (MCID) for ODI (14.9) was used. Multivariable linear regression model was created to derive model-estimated 2-year ODI scores. Absolute differences between 1-year and 2-year ODI were compared to absolute differences between 2-year and model-estimated 2-year ODI. Concordance rates in achieving MCID at 1-year and 2-year and predictive values were calculated. RESULTS.: A total of 868 patients were analyzed. One-year ODI scores differed from 2-year scores by an absolute difference of 9.7?±?8.9 points and predictive model-estimated 2-year scores differed from actual 2-year scores by 8.8?±?7.3 points. The model-estimated 2-year ODI was significantly different than actual 1-year ODI in assessing actual 2-year ODI for all procedures (P?=?0.001) except for primary (P?=?0.932) and revision microdiscectomy (P?=?0.978) and primary laminectomy (P?=?0.267). The discordance rates of achieving or not achieving MCID for ODI ranged from 8% to 27%. Concordance rate was about 90% for primary and revision microdiscectomy. The positive and negative predictive value of 1-year ODI to predict 2-year ODI was 83% and 67% for all procedures and 92% and 67% for primary and 100% and 86% for revision microdiscectomy respectively. CONCLUSION.: One-year disability outcomes can potentially estimate 2-year outcomes for patient populations, but cannot reliably predict 2-year outcomes for individual patients, except for patients undergoing primary and revision microdiscectomy.Level of Evidence: 4

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85011298943&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85011298943&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/BRS.0000000000002087

DO - 10.1097/BRS.0000000000002087

M3 - Article

JO - Spine

JF - Spine

SN - 0362-2436

ER -