Criteria for failure and worsening after surgery for lumbar disc herniation: a multicenter observational study based on data from the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery

Werner, David Andreas Thomas; Grotle, Margreth; Gulati, Sasha; Austevoll, Ivar Magne; Lønne, Greger; Nygaard, Øystein P.

doi:10.1007/s00586-017-5185-5

Cited by 29 publications

(53 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…13 The patient-rated benefit of the operation was rated on the GPE at follow-up. 11,14 The response alternatives were as follows: 1 ¼ "completely recovered," 2 ¼ "much better," 3 ¼ "somewhat better," 4 ¼ "no change," 5 ¼ "somewhat worse," 6 ¼ "much worse," and 7 ¼ "worse than ever. "…”

Section: Patient-reported Outcome Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Can a Successful Outcome After Surgery for Lumbar Disc Herniation Be Defined by the Oswestry Disability Index Raw Score?

Werner

Grotle

Gulati

et al. 2019

Global Spine Journal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Study Design: Prospective multicenter cohort study. Objective: To investigate (1) the discriminative ability and cutoff estimates for success 12 months after surgery for lumbar disc herniation on the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) raw score compared with a change and a percentage change score and (2) to what extent these clinical outcomes depend on the baseline disability. Methods: A total of 6840 patients operated for lumbar disc herniation from the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery (NORspine) were included. In receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses, a global perceived effect (GPE) scale (1-7) was used an external anchor. Success was defined as categories 1-2, “completely recovered” and “much better.” Cutoffs for success for subgroups with different preoperative disability were also estimated. Results: When defining success after surgery for lumbar disc herniation, the accuracy (sensitivity, specificity, area under the curve, 95% CI) for the ODI raw score (0.83, 0.87, 0.930, 0.924-0.937) was comparable to the ODI percentage change score (0.85, 0.85, 0.925, 0.918-0.931), and higher than the ODI change score (0.79, 0.73, 0.838, 0.830-0.852). The cutoff for success was highly dependent on the amount of baseline disability (low-high), with cutoffs ranging from 13 to 28 for the ODI raw score and 39% to 66% for ODI percentage change. The ODI change score (points) was not as accurate. Conclusion: The 12-month ODI raw score, like the ODI percentage change score, can define a successful outcome with excellent accuracy. Adjustment for the baseline ODI score should be performed when comparing outcomes across groups, and one should consider using cutoffs according to preoperative disability (low, medium, high ODI scores).

show abstract

Section: Patient-reported Outcome Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…18,19 Results Baseline characteristics of both respondents and nonrespondents of this patient population have been shown and discussed in a previous study. 11 Characteristics of the study population are listed in Table 1. Follow-up data after 12 months were available for 6840 (69%) out of 9930 of patients.…”

Section: Statisticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can a Successful Outcome After Surgery for Lumbar Disc Herniation Be Defined by the Oswestry Disability Index Raw Score?

Werner

Grotle

Gulati

et al. 2019

Global Spine Journal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The MCID for the SF-36 pain component was reached by 73.2% of the patients in the satisfaction group 5, and by 63.7% of the patients in the group 4+5. It should be noted that the use of the SF-36 pain component to evaluate treatment results is not widespread in the literature; most often, the reported scores are based on the visual analogue scale (VAS) 21,22,9,23,8 and numerical rating scale (NRS) 13,24,7,10,12 . However, a few authors have recently been opting for the SF-36 pain component 25 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Since there is an occasional improvement in only some of them 6 , the subjective satisfaction of each patient regarding the results of the surgery should also be analyzed. International 7,8,9,10 and Brazilian 11 literature reports results on each of the subtypes of DLD separately. However, the patients often present different clinical conditions at the same time, including disc herniation and stenosis, stenosis in one level and spondylolisthesis in another, and so on.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of surgery on pain, disability, and quality of life of patients with degenerative lumbar disease: Brazilian data

Rohrmoser¹,

Brasil²,

Gago

et al. 2019

Arq. Neuro-Psiquiatr.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To study the impact of surgery on pain, disability, quality of life, and patient satisfaction in a sample of patients with Degenerative Lumbar Disease (DLD). Methods: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. Comparison between pre and postoperative (6 – 12 months) ODI and SF-36, plus postoperative Patient Satisfaction Index. Results: From a total of 216 patients included, improvement was observed in average scores of pain (201.2%), disability (39.7%), physical quality of life (42%), and mental quality of life (37.8%). Among these patients, 57.7% reached or surpassed the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for ODI, 57.7% for the SF-36 pain component, 59.7% for the SF-36 physical component summary, and 50.5% achieved or surpassed the MCID for the SF-36 mental component summary. Conclusions: Surgery produced a significantly positive impact on pain, disability, and quality of life of patients. Overall, 82.5% of the patients were satisfied.

show abstract

“…Although prospective patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), completed both preoperatively and at follow-up, are currently accepted as outcome measures in both clinical studies and in clinical practice [2][3][4], there are limitations and questions regarding the interpretation of the results. Many studies testify to the difficulty associated with determining how large a change in a certain score needs to be before it can be considered relevant for the patient and/or the caregiver [5,6].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The value of patient global assessment in lumbar spine surgery: an evaluation based on more than 90,000 patients

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ResultsThe correlation coefficients for GA vs. the scorechanges were lower than for GA vs final scores. For VAS they ranged for the different diagnosis groups from 0.33 to 0.61 and from 0.50 to 0.79, respectively. For ODI, the corresponding values ranged from 0.43 to 0.65 and 0.63 to 0.76; for the EQ-5D from 0.32 to 0.45 and 0.54 to 0.71. Further, GA showed a somewhat stronger correlation to pain-specific PROMs than to quality-of-life PROMs. Conclusions The single-item outcome measure global assessment (GA) appears to be a feasible overall patientreported outcome measure (PROM) and a useful reference for interpreting the scores of patient-reported outcome measures.

show abstract

Criteria for failure and worsening after surgery for lumbar disc herniation: a multicenter observational study based on data from the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery

Cited by 29 publications

References 43 publications

Can a Successful Outcome After Surgery for Lumbar Disc Herniation Be Defined by the Oswestry Disability Index Raw Score?

Can a Successful Outcome After Surgery for Lumbar Disc Herniation Be Defined by the Oswestry Disability Index Raw Score?

Impact of surgery on pain, disability, and quality of life of patients with degenerative lumbar disease: Brazilian data

The value of patient global assessment in lumbar spine surgery: an evaluation based on more than 90,000 patients

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About