Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Neurosurgery: A Review of the Current Literature

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) play an important role in the evaluation of health outcomes, quality of life, and satisfaction, and have been successfully utilized in many areas of clinical medicine and surgical practice. The prevalence of PROMs in neurosurgery is not known.

OBJECTIVE

To review the PROMs that have been utilized in the published neurosurgery literature to date.

METHODS

Articles were searched in MEDLINE, EMBASE, HMIC Health Management Information Consortium, PsycARTICLES, and PsycINFO using search terms related to neurosurgery and PROMs, published from 1806 to August 2016. A total of 268 articles were identified that were stratified by the inclusion and exclusion criteria leading to a total of 137 articles. Twenty-six PROMs, involving both adult and pediatric populations, were identified.

RESULTS

A large number of generic and disease-specific PROMs are used in the neurosurgical literature. Generic PROMs are usually nonspecific measures of health status. Disease-specific PROMs may not address issues relevant to neurosurgical procedures. There are very few neurosurgery-specific PROMs that take into account the impact of a neurosurgical procedure on a specific condition.

CONCLUSION

PROMs that currently feature in the neurosurgical literature may not address the specific outcomes relevant to neurosurgical practice. There is an emergent need for generic and disease-specific PROMs to be validated in neurosurgical patients and neurosurgery-specific PROMs developed to address unmet needs of patients undergoing neurosurgical procedures.

Can patient-reported profiles avoid unnecessary referral to a spine surgeon? An observational study to further develop the Nijmegen Decision Tool for Chronic Low Back Pain

INTRODUCTION

Chronic Low Back Pain (CLBP) is a heterogeneous condition with lack of diagnostic clarity. Therapeutic interventions show small effects. To improve outcomes by targeting interventions it is recommended to develop a triage system to surgical and non-surgical treatments based on treatment outcomes. The objective of the current study was to develop and internally validate prognostic models based on pre-treatment patient-reported profiles that identify patients who either respond or do not respond to two frequently performed treatments (lumbar spine surgery and multidisciplinary pain management program).

METHODS

A consecutive cohort study in a secondary referral spine center was performed. The study followed the recommendations of the PROGRESS framework and was registered in the Dutch Trial Register (NTR5946). Data of forty-seven potential pre-consultation (baseline) indicators predicting 'response' or 'non-response' at one-year follow-up for the two treatments were obtained to develop and validate four multivariable logistic regression models. The source population consisted of 3,410 referred CLBP-patients. Two treatment cohorts were defined: elective 'spine surgery' (n = 217 [6.4%]) and multidisciplinary bio-psychosocial 'pain management program' (n = 171 [5.0%]). Main inclusion criteria were age ≥18, CLBP (≥6 months), and not responding to primary care treatment. The primary outcome was functional ability: 'response' (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI] ≤22) and 'non-response' (ODI ≥41).

RESULTS

Baseline indicators predictive of treatment outcome were: degree of disability (all models), ≥2 previous spine surgeries, psychosocial complaints, age (onset <20 or >50), and patient expectations of treatment outcomes. The explained variances were low for the models predicting response and non-response to pain management program (R2 respectively 23% and 26%) and modest for surgery (R2 30% and 39%). The overall performance was acceptable (c-index; 0.72-0.83), the model predicting non-response to surgery performed best (R2 = 39%; c-index = 0.83).

CONCLUSION

This study was the first to identify different patient-reported profiles that predict response to different treatments for CLBP. The model predicting 'non-response' to elective lumbar spine surgery performed remarkably well, suggesting that referrals of these patients to a spine surgeon could be avoided. After external validation, the patient-reported profiles could potentially enhance timely patient triage to the right secondary care specialist and improve decision-making between clinican and patient. This could lead to improved treatment outcomes, which results in a more efficient use of healthcare resources.

Performance Indicators in Spine Surgery

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

OBJECTIVE

To elucidate how performance indicators are currently used in spine surgery.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act has given significant traction to the idea that healthcare must provide value to the patient through the introduction of hospital value-based purchasing. The key to implementing this new paradigm is to measure this value notably through performance indicators.

METHODS

MEDLINE, CINAHL Plus, EMBASE, and Google Scholar were searched for studies reporting the use of performance indicators specific to spine surgery. We followed the Prisma-P methodology for a systematic review for entries from January 1980 to July 2016. All full text articles were then reviewed to identify any measure of performance published within the article. This measure was then examined as per the three criteria of established standard, exclusion/risk adjustment, and benchmarking to determine if it constituted a performance indicator.

RESULTS

The initial search yielded 85 results among which two relevant studies were identified. The extended search gave a total of 865 citations across databases among which 15 new articles were identified. The grey literature search provided five additional reports which in turn led to six additional articles. A total of 27 full text articles and reports were retrieved and reviewed. We were unable to identify performance indicators. The articles presenting a measure of performance were organized based on how many criteria they lacked. We further examined the next steps to be taken to craft the first performance indicator in spine surgery.

CONCLUSION

The science of performance measurement applied to spine surgery is still in its infancy. Current outcome metrics used in clinical settings require refinement to become performance indicators. Current registry work is providing the necessary foundation, but requires benchmarking to truly measure performance.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

1.

Do Former Smokers Exhibit a Distinct Profile Before and After Lumbar Spine Surgery?

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective longitudinal cohort.

OBJECTIVES

To determine if former smokers undergoing lumbar spine surgery have distinct baseline and postoperative patient-reported outcomes (PROs) compared with never smokers and current smokers.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Smoking has known deleterious effects on patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery. However, former smokers have not been extensively evaluated. There are few studies regarding the relationship between pack-years or duration of smoking cessation, and subsequent clinical outcome.

METHODS

Patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery at three Quality Outcomes Database participating sites were identified. Demographic, surgical and PRO data including pre-op and 12-month post-op back and leg pain scores, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and EuroQOL-5D were collected. Smoking status was assessed from individual medical records. Three cohorts, never smokers, former smokers and current smokers, were compared. Association between PROs and quantitative smoking history and duration of pre-op smoking cessation were evaluated in the former smokers.

RESULTS

Of 1187 eligible cases, 843 (71%) had complete data, with 477 never, 250 former, and 116 current smokers. Among patients who had a fusion, baseline and 12-month post-op PROs were significantly different between cohorts, with former smokers having intermediate scores between current and never smokers. In the decompression only group, 12-month ODI was worse in the Current smokers, but overall the effects were much less pronounced. There was a significant negative correlation between smoke-free days before surgery and baseline back pain, ODI, 12-month leg pain and ODI and improvement in ODI. However, the correlation coefficients were small.

CONCLUSION

Former smokers have distinct baseline and 12-month post-op PROs that are intermediate between those of never smokers and current smokers. Smoking cessation does not entirely mitigate the negative effects of smoking on baseline and postoperative PROs for patients undergoing lumbar fusion surgery. This effect is less pronounced in patients undergoing decompression alone.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2.

Telephone-Based Intervention to Improve Rehabilitation Engagement After Spinal Stenosis Surgery: A Prospective Lagged Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Spine surgery outcomes are variable. Patients who participate in and take responsibility for their recovery have improved health outcomes. Interventions to increase patient involvement in their care may improve health outcomes after a surgical procedure. We conducted a prospective interventional trial to compare the effectiveness of health behavior change counseling with usual care to improve health outcomes after lumbar spine surgical procedures.

METHODS

In this study, 122 patients with lumbar spinal stenosis undergoing a decompression surgical procedure from December 2009 through August 2012 were enrolled. Participants were assigned, according to enrollment date, to health behavior change counseling or usual care. Health behavior change counseling is a brief, telephone-based intervention intended to increase rehabilitation engagement through motivational interviewing strategies that elicit and strengthen motivation for change. Health behavior change counseling was designed to identify patients with low patient activation, to maximize postoperative rehabilitation engagement, to decrease pain and disability, and to improve functional recovery. Participants were assessed before the surgical procedure and for 3 years after the surgical procedure for pain intensity (Brief Pain Inventory), disability (Oswestry Disability Index), and physical health (12-Item Short-Form Health Survey, version 2). Differences in changes in health outcomes after the surgical procedure were compared between the health behavior change counseling group and the usual care group.

RESULTS

By 12 months, health behavior change counseling participants reported significantly greater reductions in pain intensity (p = 0.008) and disability (p = 0.028) and significantly greater improvement in physical health compared with usual care participants (p = 0.025). These differences were attenuated by 24 and 36 months after the surgical procedure. Early improvements in health outcomes were mediated by improvements in physical therapist-rated engagement and self-reported attendance at physical therapy sessions in the health behavior change counseling group.

CONCLUSIONS

Health behavior change counseling improved health outcomes during the first 12 months after the surgical procedure through changes in rehabilitation engagement. Wider use of health behavior change counseling may lead to improved outcomes not only after lumbar spine surgery but also in other conditions for which rehabilitation is key to recovery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Women fare best following surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: a comparison of the most and least satisfied patients utilizing data from the Quality Outcomes Database

OBJECTIVE

The American Association of Neurological Surgeons launched the Quality Outcomes Database (QOD), a prospective longitudinal registry that includes demographic, clinical, and patient-reported outcome (PRO) data, to measure the safety and quality of neurosurgical procedures, including spinal surgery. Differing results from recent randomized controlled trials have established a need to clarify the groups that would most benefit from surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. In the present study, the authors compared patients who were the most and the least satisfied following surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of a prospective, national longitudinal registry including patients who had undergone surgery for grade 1 degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. The most and least satisfied patients were identified based on an answer of “1” and “4,” respectively, on the North American Spine Society (NASS) Satisfaction Questionnaire 12 months postoperatively. Baseline demographics, clinical variables, surgical parameters, and outcomes were collected. Patient-reported outcome measures, including the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) for back pain, NRS for leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and EQ-5D (the EuroQol health survey), were administered at baseline and 3 and 12 months after treatment.

RESULTS

Four hundred seventy-seven patients underwent surgery for grade 1 degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis in the period from July 2014 through December 2015. Two hundred fifty-five patients (53.5%) were the most satisfied and 26 (5.5%) were the least satisfied. Compared with the most satisfied patients, the least satisfied ones more often had coronary artery disease (CAD; 26.9% vs 12.2%, p = 0.04) and had higher body mass indices (32.9 ± 6.5 vs 30.0 ± 6.0 kg/m2, p = 0.02). In the multivariate analysis, female sex (OR 2.9, p = 0.02) was associated with the most satisfaction. Notably, the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class, smoking, psychiatric comorbidity, and employment status were not significantly associated with satisfaction. Although there were no significant differences at baseline, the most satisfied patients had significantly lower NRS back and leg pain and ODI scores and a greater EQ-5D score at 3 and 12 months postoperatively (p < 0.001 for all).

CONCLUSIONS

This study revealed that some patient factors differ between those who report the most and those who report the least satisfaction after surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Patients reporting the least satisfaction tended to have CAD or were obese. Female sex was associated with the most satisfaction when adjusting for potential covariates. These findings highlight several key factors that could aid in setting expectations for outcomes following surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.

Effect of patients' functional status on satisfaction with outcomes 12 months after elective spine surgery for lumbar degenerative disease

BACKGROUND

Comprehensive assessment of quality of care includes patient-reported outcomes, safety of care delivered, and patient satisfaction. The impact of the patient-reported Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores at baseline and 12 months on satisfaction with outcomes following spine surgery is not well documented.

PURPOSE

This study aimed to determine the impact of patient disability (ODI) scores at baseline and 12 months on satisfaction with outcomes following surgery.

STUDY DESIGN

Analysis of prospectively collected longitudinal web-based multicenter data.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Patients undergoing elective surgery for degenerative lumbar disease were entered into a prospective multicenter registry.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome measures were ODI, North American Spine Society satisfaction (NASS) questionnaire.

METHODS

Baseline and 12-month ODI scores were recorded. Satisfaction at 12 months after surgery was measured using NASS questionnaire. Multivariable proportional odds logistic regression analysis was conducted to determine the impact of baseline and 12-month ODI on satisfaction with outcomes.

RESULTS

Of the total 5,443 patients, 64% (n=3,460) were satisfied at a level where surgery met their expectations (NASS level 1) at 12 months after surgery. After adjusting for all baseline and surgery-specific variables, the 12-month ODI score had the highest impact (Wald χ²=1,555, 86% of the total χ²) on achieving satisfaction with outcomes compared with baseline ODI scores (Wald χ²=93, 5% of the total χ²). The level of satisfaction decreases with increasing 12-month ODI score. Greater change in ODI is required to achieve a better satisfaction level when the patient starts with a higher baseline ODI score.

CONCLUSION

Absolute 12-month ODI following surgery had a significant association on satisfaction with outcomes 12 months after surgery. Patients with higher baseline ODI required a larger change in ODI score to achieve satisfaction. No single measure can be used as a sole yardstick to measure quality of care after spine surgery. Satisfaction may be used in conjunction with baseline and 12-month ODI scores to provide an assessment of the quality of spine surgery provided in a patient centric fashion.

The association between the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey and real-world clinical outcomes in lumbar spine surgery

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

The patient experience of care as measured by the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey is currently used to determine hospital reimbursement. The current literature inconsistently demonstrates an association between patient satisfaction and surgical outcomes.

PURPOSE

To determine whether patient satisfaction with hospital experience is associated with better clinical outcomes in lumbar spine surgery.

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective cohort study conducted at a single institution.

PATIENT SAMPLE

A total of 249 patients who underwent lumbar spine surgery between 2013 and 2015 and completed the HCAHPS survey.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Self-reported health status measures, including the EuroQol 5 Dimensions (EQ-5D), Pain Disability Questionnaire (PDQ), and visual analog score for back pain (VAS-BP).

METHODS

All patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery between 2013 and 2015 who completed an HCAHPS survey were studied. Patients were excluded from the study if they had been diagnosed with spinal malignancy, scoliosis, or had less than 1 year of follow-up. Patients who selected a 9 or 10 overall hospital rating (OHR) on HCAHPS were placed in the satisfied group, and the remaining patients comprised the unsatisfied group. The primary outcomes of this study include patient-reported health status measures such as EQ-5D, PDQ, and VAS-BP. No funds were received in support of this study, and the authors report no conflict of interest-associated biases.

RESULTS

Our study population consisted of 249 patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery. Of these, 197 (79%) patients selected an OHR of 9 or 10 on the HCAHPS survey and were included in the satisfied group. The only preoperative characteristics that differed significantly between the twogroups were gender, a diagnosis of degenerative disc disease (DDD), heavy preoperative narcotic use, and a diagnosis of chronic renal failure. At 1 year follow-up, no statistically significant differences in EQ-5D, PDQ, or VAS-BP were observed. After using multivariable linear regression models to assess the association between patient satisfaction and pre- to 1-year postoperative changes in health status measures, selecting a top-box OHR was not found to be significantly associated with change in either EQ-5D (beta=0.055 [95% confidence interval {CI}: -0.035 to 0.145]), PDQ (beta=-9.013 [95% CI: -23.782 to 5.755]), or VAS-BP (beta=-0.849 [95% CI: -2.125 to 0.426]). These results suggest high satisfaction with the hospital experience may not necessarily correlate with favorable clinical outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Top-box OHR was not associated with pre- to 1-year postoperative improvement in EQ-5D, PDQ, and VAS-BP. Although the associations between high satisfaction and improvement in health status did not reach statistical significance, the best estimates from our multivariable models reflect greater clinical improvement with top-box satisfaction. Future studies should seek to investigate whether HCAHPS are a reliable indicator of quality care in lumbar spine surgery.

Are patient-reported outcomes predictive of patient satisfaction 5 years after anterior cervical spine surgery?

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Patient satisfaction is becoming an increasing common proxy for surgical quality; however, the correlation between patient satisfaction and surgical outcomes 2 and 5 years after anterior cervical surgery has not been evaluated.

PURPOSE

The study aimed to determine if patient satisfaction is predicted by improvement in patient-reported outcomes (PRO) 2 and 5 years after anterior cervical spine surgery.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data.

PATIENT SAMPLE

The sample included patients enrolled in the Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption clinical trial comparing total disc replacement with Mobi-C cervical artificial disc and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The outcome measures were visual analog scale (VAS) neck pain score, Neck Disability Index (NDI), and Short-Form 12-Item scores, as well as patient satisfaction.

METHODS

Receiver operating characteristic curves were used to determine if improvement in different PRO metrics can accurately identify patient satisfaction. Additionally, a logistic regression analysis was performed on the results at 24 months and 60 months to identify independent predictors of patient satisfaction. This research was supported by LDR (Zimmer Biomet) 13785 Research Boulevard - Suite 200 Austin, TX 78750.

RESULTS

Data were available for 512 patients at 60 months. At 24 months postoperatively, NDI score improvement (area under the curve [AUC]=0.806), absolute NDI score (AUC=0.823), and absolute VAS neck pain score (AUC=0.808) were all excellent predictors of patient satisfaction. At 60 months postoperatively, NDI score improvement (AUC=0.815), absolute NDI score (AUC=0.839), VAS neck pain score improvement (AUC=0.803), and absolute VAS neck pain score (AUC=0.861) were all excellent predictors of patient satisfaction.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients undergoing one- and two-level anterior cervical spine surgery, between 2 and 5 years postoperatively, patient satisfaction is significantly predicted by PROs, including the VAS neck score and the NDI.

An analysis from the Quality Outcomes Database, Part 1. Disability, quality of life, and pain outcomes following lumbar spine surgery: predicting likely individual patient outcomes for shared decision-making

OBJECTIVE Quality and outcomes registry platforms lie at the center of many emerging evidence-driven reform models. Specifically, clinical registry data are progressively informing health care decision-making. In this analysis, the authors used data from a national prospective outcomes registry (the Quality Outcomes Database) to develop a predictive model for 12-month postoperative pain, disability, and quality of life (QOL) in patients undergoing elective lumbar spine surgery. METHODS Included in this analysis were 7618 patients who had completed 12 months of follow-up. The authors prospectively assessed baseline and 12-month patient-reported outcomes (PROs) via telephone interviews. The PROs assessed were those ascertained using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), EQ-5D, and numeric rating scale (NRS) for back pain (BP) and leg pain (LP). Variables analyzed for the predictive model included age, gender, body mass index, race, education level, history of prior surgery, smoking status, comorbid conditions, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, symptom duration, indication for surgery, number of levels surgically treated, history of fusion surgery, surgical approach, receipt of workers' compensation, liability insurance, insurance status, and ambulatory ability. To create a predictive model, each 12-month PRO was treated as an ordinal dependent variable and a separate proportional-odds ordinal logistic regression model was fitted for each PRO. RESULTS There was a significant improvement in all PROs (p < 0.0001) at 12 months following lumbar spine surgery. The most important predictors of overall disability, QOL, and pain outcomes following lumbar spine surgery were employment status, baseline NRS-BP scores, psychological distress, baseline ODI scores, level of education, workers' compensation status, symptom duration, race, baseline NRS-LP scores, ASA score, age, predominant symptom, smoking status, and insurance status. The prediction discrimination of the 4 separate novel predictive models was good, with a c-index of 0.69 for ODI, 0.69 for EQ-5D, 0.67 for NRS-BP, and 0.64 for NRS-LP (i.e., good concordance between predicted outcomes and observed outcomes). CONCLUSIONS This study found that preoperative patient-specific factors derived from a prospective national outcomes registry significantly influence PRO measures of treatment effectiveness at 12 months after lumbar surgery. Novel predictive models constructed with these data hold the potential to improve surgical effectiveness and the overall value of spine surgery by optimizing patient selection and identifying important modifiable factors before a surgery even takes place. Furthermore, these models can advance patient-focused care when used as shared decision-making tools during preoperative patient counseling.

Predictors of extended length of stay, discharge to inpatient rehab, and hospital readmission following elective lumbar spine surgery: introduction of the Carolina-Semmes Grading Scale

OBJECTIVE Extended hospital length of stay (LOS), unplanned hospital readmission, and need for inpatient rehabilitation after elective spine surgery contribute significantly to the variation in surgical health care costs. As novel payment models shift the risk of cost overruns from payers to providers, understanding patient-level risk of LOS, readmission, and inpatient rehabilitation is critical. The authors set out to develop a grading scale that effectively stratifies risk of these costly events after elective surgery for degenerative lumbar pathologies. METHODS The Quality and Outcomes Database (QOD) registry prospectively enrolls patients undergoing surgery for degenerative lumbar spine disease. This registry was queried for patients who had undergone elective 1- to 3-level lumbar surgery for degenerative spine pathology. The association between preoperative patient variables and extended postoperative hospital LOS (LOS ≥ 7 days), discharge status (inpatient facility vs home), and 90-day hospital readmission was assessed using stepwise multivariate logistic regression. The Carolina-Semmes grading scale was constructed using the independent predictors for LOS (0-12 points), discharge to inpatient facility (0-18 points), and 90-day readmission (0-6 points), and its performance was assessed using the QOD data set. The performance of the grading scale was then confirmed separately after using it in 2 separate neurosurgery practice sites (Carolina Neurosurgery & Spine Associates [CNSA] and Semmes Murphey Clinic). RESULTS A total of 6921 patients were analyzed. Overall, 290 (4.2%) patients required extended LOS, 654 (9.4%) required inpatient facility care/rehabilitation on hospital discharge, and 474 (6.8%) were readmitted to the hospital within 90 days postdischarge. Variables that remained as independently associated with these unplanned events in multivariate analysis included age ≥ 70 years, American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Classification System class > III, Oswestry Disability Index score ≥ 70, diabetes, Medicare/Medicaid, nonindependent ambulation, and fusion. Increasing point totals in the Carolina-Semmes scale effectively stratified the incidence of extended LOS, discharge to facility, and readmission in a stepwise fashion in both the aggregate QOD data set and when subsequently applied to the CNSA/Semmes Murphey practice groups. CONCLUSIONS The authors introduce the Carolina-Semmes grading scale that effectively stratifies the risk of prolonged hospital stay, need for postdischarge inpatient facility care, and 90-day hospital readmission for patients undergoing first-time elective 1- to 3-level degenerative lumbar spine surgery. This grading scale may be helpful in identifying patients who may require additional resource utilization within a global period after surgery.

Impact of preoperative diagnosis on patient satisfaction following lumbar spine surgery

OBJECTIVE

Patient satisfaction is a commonly used metric in the current health care environment. While factors that affect patient satisfaction following spine surgery are complex, the authors of this study hypothesized that specific diagnostic groups of patients are more likely to be satisfied after spine surgery and that this is reflected in patient-reported outcome measures. The purpose of this study was to determine if the preoperative diagnosis—disc herniation, stenosis, spondylolisthesis, adjacent segment degeneration, or mechanical disc collapse—would impact patient satisfaction following surgery.

METHODS

Patients enrolled in the Quality Outcomes Database, formerly known as the National Neurosurgery Quality and Outcomes Database (N2QOD), completed patient-reported outcome measures, including the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) for back pain (NRS-BP) and leg pain (NRS-LP) preoperatively and 1-year postoperatively. Patients were stratified by diagnosis and by their response to the satisfaction question: 1) surgery met my expectations; 2) I did not improve as much as I hoped, but I would undergo the same operation for the same results; 3) surgery helped, but I would not undergo the same operation for the same results; or 4) I am the same or worse as compared with before surgery.

RESULTS

A greater proportion of patients with primary disc herniation or spondylolisthesis reported that surgery met expectations (66% and 67%, respectively), followed by recurrent disc herniation and stenosis (59% and 60%, respectively). A smaller proportion of patients who underwent surgery for adjacent segment degeneration or mechanical disc collapse had their expectations met (48% and 41%, respectively). The percentage of patients that would undergo the same surgery again, by diagnostic group, was as follows: disc herniation 88%, recurrent disc herniation 79%, spondylolisthesis 86%, stenosis 82%, adjacent segment disease 75%, and mechanical collapse 73%. Regardless of diagnosis, mean improvement and ultimate 1-year postoperative ODI, NRS-BP, and NRS-LP reflected patient satisfaction.

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative diagnosis was predictive of patient satisfaction following spine surgery. The mean change in and 1-year ODI, NRS-BP, and NRS-LP reflected patient satisfaction regardless of preoperative diagnosis.

Surgical Resection of Intradural Extramedullary Spinal Tumors: Patient Reported Outcomes and Minimum Clinically Important Difference

STUDY DESIGN

Analysis of prospectively collected longitudinal web-based registry data.

OBJECTIVE

To determine relative validity, responsiveness, and minimum clinically important difference (MCID) thresholds in patients undergoing surgery for intradural extramedullary (IDEM) spinal tumors.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are vital in establishing the value of care in spinal pathology. There is limited availability of prospective, quality studies reporting PROs for IDEM spine tumors.

METHODS

. A total of 40 patients were analyzed. Baseline, postoperative 3-month, and 12-month PROs were recorded: Oswestry Disability Index or Neck disability Index (ODI/NDI), Quality of life EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D), Short Form-12 (SF-12), Numeric Rating Scale (NRS)-pain scores. Responders were defined as those who achieved a level of improvement one or two, after surgery, on health transition index (HTI) of SF-36. Receiver-operating characteristic curves were generated to assess the validity of PROs, and the difference between standardized response means (SRMs) in responders versus nonresponders was utilized to determine the relative responsiveness of each PRO measure. MCID thresholds were derived using previously reported minimal detectable change approach.

RESULTS

A significant improvement across all PROs at 3-months and 12-months follow up was noted. The derived MCID thresholds were 13.9 points: ODI/NDI, 0.14 quality adjusted life years: EQ-5D, 2.8 points: SF-12PCS and 10.7 points: SF-12MCS, 1.9 points: NRS-back/neck pain, and 1.8 points: NRS-leg/arm pain. SF-12PCS was most accurate discriminator of meaningful improvement (area under the curve, AUC-0.83) and most responsive (SRM-1.36) to postoperative improvement. EQ-5D, ODI/NDI, NRS-pain scores were all accurate discriminator (AUC-0.7-0.8) and responsive measures (0.97-0.67) of meaningful postoperative improvement. SF-12MCS was neither a valid discriminator (AUC-0.48) nor a responsive measure (SRM: -1.5) of outcome.

CONCLUSION

Surgical resection of IDEM spinal tumors provides significant and sustained improvement in quality of life, general health, disability, and pain at 12-month after surgery. The surgically resected IDEM-specific clinically meaningful thresholds are reported. All the PROs reported in this study can accurately discriminate responders and nonresponder based on SF-36 HTI index except for SF-12 MCS.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

Factors Associated with Patient-Initiated Telephone Calls After Spine Surgery

BACKGROUND

Telephone calls play a significant role in the follow-up care of postoperative patients. However, further data are needed to identify the determinants of patient-initiated telephone calls after surgery because these factors may also highlight potential areas of improvement in patient satisfaction and during the hospital discharge process. Therefore, the goal of this study is to determine the number of postoperative patient telephone calls within 14 days after surgery and establish the factors associated with patient-initiated calls and reasons for calling.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review of all spine surgeries performed at our institution from January 1, 2014, through January 2, 2015, was completed. Patient demographics, perioperative and operative variables, and telephone encounter data were collected. The primary outcome was a patient-initiated telephone call within 14 days after surgery. Secondary outcomes included reporting and analyzing the reasons for patient phone calls, analyzing which procedures were associated with the most telephone calls, and conducting a multivariate analysis to determine independent risk factors for patient calls.

RESULTS

Of the 488 patients who underwent surgical procedures, 222 patients (45.7%) made a telephone call within 14 days after surgery. There were 61 patients (27.48%) who called regarding pain control and 54 patients (23.87%) who called with bathing/dressing/wound questions. Other common categories include the following: other (21.17%), medication problems (15.77%), weight-bearing status/activity restrictions (5.14%), fever (3.15%), bowel management (1.35%), work notes (1.35%), and anticoagulation questions (0.45%). Factors associated with a telephone call within 14 days postoperatively included increased body mass index (P = 0.031), lower number of comorbidities (P = 0.043), telephone call within 2 weeks prior to surgery (P = 0.027), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score of 2 (P = 0.036), discharge disposition to home (P = 0.003), and elective procedure (P = 0.006). Multivariate analysis revealed that fusion procedures (odds ratio [OR], 2.16; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05-4.45; P = 0.037) and ASA score of 3-4 (OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.31-0.96, P = 0.036) were independently associated with increased and decreased propensity, respectively, toward making a phone call within 2 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

Postoperative patient-initiated telephone calls within 14 days after spine surgery are very common, occurring after almost one half of all procedures. By evaluating such determinants, patient care can be improved by better addressing patient needs during and prior to discharge to prevent potential unnecessary postoperative calls and improve patient satisfaction.

The Service-Profit Chain in Spine Surgery

Medicine has always been a service industry (as opposed to a manufacturing industry), as there is a shift from volume to value in health care, this point is becoming increasingly important. The delivery of good care extends beyond the technical aspects of performing a complex operation or prescribing the right type of medicine. Intuitively physicians have always understood the value of the physician-patient relationship, and its correlation to a good outcome. As patients are increasingly being forced to spend a greater portion of their personal income on health care through high-deductible plans and larger co-pays, physicians have to differentiate themselves through the delivery of great service beyond the delivery of superior health outcomes. Understanding the service-profit chain can help physicians succeed in the transition to a value-based health care system.