1988
DOI: 10.1302/0301-620x.70b5.2973465
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Assessment of the outcome of low back surgery

Abstract: We aimed to develop a better understanding and method of rating the success or failure of low back surgery by studying 185 patients prospectively. Identical pre-operative and postoperative assessment by an independent observer included pain, disability, physical impairment, psychological distress and illness behaviour. Outcome was assessed by the patient, by the observer and by return to work. There was 96% follow-up at two years. Correlation co-efficients varied considerably between the various measures of ou… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
18
0

Year Published

1990
1990
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
2

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 50 publications
(18 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
0
18
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This is in agreement with the actual findings, as the association between intake of wine and good prognosis could be found in each of the three outcome measure components (pain, impairment, self-assessment) as well as in the sum of them (total rating score). Whatever the type of assessment performed, the reported outcome may tend to represent the patients' actual status rather than any change produced by surgery, thus making the interpretation of the results even more complex [26]. The total score ranges 3-7 (defined as "success" with n = 98) and 8-12 (defined as "failure" with n = 46) were chosen because they represent the two equal halfparts of the outcome measure, and the patients had to be divided in two groups that were not too uneven for the statistical analysis.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This is in agreement with the actual findings, as the association between intake of wine and good prognosis could be found in each of the three outcome measure components (pain, impairment, self-assessment) as well as in the sum of them (total rating score). Whatever the type of assessment performed, the reported outcome may tend to represent the patients' actual status rather than any change produced by surgery, thus making the interpretation of the results even more complex [26]. The total score ranges 3-7 (defined as "success" with n = 98) and 8-12 (defined as "failure" with n = 46) were chosen because they represent the two equal halfparts of the outcome measure, and the patients had to be divided in two groups that were not too uneven for the statistical analysis.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…25 Lost time from work has increased significantly over the past 30 years, while the incidence of low back pain has stayed the same. 24 Estimated total costs for low back pain are approximately $16 billion annually (compensable and noncompensable) in the United States. 24 The distribution of low back compensation costs is skewed: 25% of low back cases account for 95% of the costs.…”
Section: B Back Injuriesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…25 Lost time from work has increased significantly over the past 30 years, while the incidence of low back pain has stayed the same. 26 Estimated total costs for low back pain is approximately 16 billion annually (compensable and noncompensable) in the United States. 24 The distribution of low back compensation costs is skewed: 25 percent of low back cases account for 95% of the costs.…”
Section: B Back Injuriesmentioning
confidence: 99%