Evaluation of health-related quality of life in patients candidate for spine and other musculoskeletal surgery

Patients' experience on waiting for spinal arthrodesis: a qualitative study

PURPOSE

A number of studies have explored patients' subjective experience of waiting for spinal surgery, however, they did so through an investigation conducted post-operatively. Thus, the aim of this study was to explore the experience of patients while still on the waitlist for lumbar spinal arthrodesis.

METHODS

This qualitative study of semi-structured interviews was conducted at an orthopedic research institute in Italy. The interview track was developed by a team of professionals (physiotherapists, orthopedic surgeon, psychologist) and consisted of 40 questions. Fifteen patients, 10 females and 5 males aged between 23 and 80 years, waiting for spinal arthrodesis were interviewed. The interviews were performed, transcribed and analyzed by the multiprofessional team through thematic analysis using a reflexive approach.

RESULTS

Five main themes were generated: (1) Impact of persistent pain on patients' physical and psychological functioning; (2) Fear of the unknown and uncertainties; (3) Hope and regaining normality; (4) The impact of the unpredictability of the waiting time; (5) Need for better communication and information on the care pathway. Two minor themes were also produced.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings highlighted that patients on the waiting list for spinal arthrodesis need more certainty about waiting times, better communication with hospital staff, more thorough information about their care pathway. This could help patients feel more confident and may lead to more adequate expectations before surgery.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study protocol was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov database on 14/03/2022 with ID number NCT06323694.

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.

Thoughts and concerns of patients at hospital discharge after lumbar spine surgery. A qualitative study

PURPOSE

The increased rate of surgical interventions point to the necessity to investigate the patient's experience from a biopsychosocial perspective. The aim of this study was to investigate the thoughts and concerns of patients undergoing spinal surgery for lumbar degenerative disease at the time of their discharge from hospital.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 28 patients. The questions investigated possible concerns associated to discharging them home. A content analysis was performed by a multidisciplinary group to identify the main themes that emerged from the interviews.

RESULTS

The patients were satisfied with the surgeons' preoperative explanations and description of expected prognosis. However, they were disappointed with the lack of information at hospital discharge, in particular regarding practical and behavioral recommendations. The patients expressed clear concerns about being left alone to deal with possible complications or difficulties they may encounter when returning home.

CONCLUSION

This study underlined the patients' need for a comprehensive psychological guidance and possibly a person of reference during the post-operative process. Discussing discharge with the patient was emphasized as an important issue to improve patients' compliance to the recovery process itself. Putting these elements into practice should help spine surgeons to manage better hospital discharge.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONA comprehensive discussion with the patient at the time of hospital discharge is clearly stressed as an important issue to improve patients' adherence to the recovery process.The patients complained of a lack of information when returning home, in particular regarding practical and behavioral recommendations.The patients expressed clear concerns about possible complications or difficulties they may encounter when returning home and they expressed their need to know whom they can contact for help if needed.A better understanding of the thoughts and concerns of patients undergoing spinal surgery at the time of their discharge from hospital should help spine surgeons to improve the management of hospital discharge and the post-operative recovery.

Reliability and Validity of Adapted Russian Version of Hospital for Special Surgery Lumbar Spine Surgery Expectations Survey

Background: Patients' expectations are an important determinant in their decision to undergo lumbar spinal surgery-particularly their expectations of recovery after surgery. The Hospital for Special Surgery Lumbar Spine Surgery Expectations Survey (HSS-LSSES) is one tool used to assess this; however, the original version was only available in English. Objective: We sought to evaluate the reliability and validity of a translated and adapted Russian-language version of the HSS-LSSES. Methods: This was a prospective study of 91 patients with degenerative disc disease who underwent lumbar spine surgery with instrumented fixation at a single institution in Saint Petersburg, Russia. Patients were recruited between December 2019 and February 2021 and asked about their expectations of surgery with a translated and adapted Russian version of the HSS-LSSES. To analyze construct validity, participants also completed disease-specific and general quality-of-life scales (Oswestry Disability Index, European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions, and 36-item Short-Form Health Survey). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs; 2-way random effects model, absolute agreement) were used to determine test-retest reliability of the total score of the Russian HSS-LSSES. Internal consistency was evaluated through the estimation of Cronbach's alpha between the test and retest response of the questionnaire. Results: The test-retest stability of the Russian HSS-LSSES evaluated through the estimation of ICC was found to have good stability. The instrument was shown to have high internal consistency. Conclusion: This study demonstrates that a translated and adapted Russian version of HSS-LSSES had good internal consistency, reliability, construct validity, and no floor and ceiling effects. Therefore, we recommend its use as a tool for evaluating Russian-speaking patients' expectations before lumbar spine surgery.

Association of Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act with access to elective spine surgical care

OBJECTIVE

The Affordable Care Act expanded Medicaid eligibility in many states, improving access to some forms of elective healthcare in the United States. Whether this effort increased access to elective spine surgical care is unknown. This study's objective was to evaluate the impact of Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act on the volume and payer mix of elective spine surgery in the United States.

METHODS

This study evaluated elective spine surgical procedures performed from 2011 to 2016 and included in the all-payer State Inpatient Databases of 10 states that expanded Medicaid access in 2014, as well as 4 states that did not expand Medicaid access. Adult patients aged 18-64 years who underwent elective spine surgery were included. The authors used a quasi-experimental difference-in-difference design to evaluate the impact of Medicaid expansion on hospital procedure volume and payer mix, independent of time-dependent trends. Subgroup analysis was conducted that stratified results according to cervical fusion, thoracolumbar fusion, and noninstrumented surgery.

RESULTS

The authors identified 218,648 surgical procedures performed in 10 Medicaid expansion states and 118,693 procedures performed in 4 nonexpansion states. Medicaid expansion was associated with a 17% (95% CI 2%-35%, p = 0.03) increase in mean hospital spine surgical volume and a 23% (95% CI -0.3% to 52%, p = 0.054) increase in Medicaid volume. Privately insured surgical volumes did not change significantly (incidence rate ratio 1.13, 95% CI -5% to 34%, p = 0.18). The increase in Medicaid volume led to a shift in payer mix, with the proportion of Medicaid patients increasing by 6.0 percentage points (95% CI 4.1-7.0, p < 0.001) and the proportion of private payers decreasing by 6.7 percentage points (95% CI 4.5-8.8, p < 0.001). Although the magnitude of effects varied, these trends were similar across procedure subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act was associated with an economically and statistically significant increase in spine surgery volume and the proportion of surgical patients with Medicaid insurance, indicating improved access to care.

Quality of Life in Patients Undergoing Spine Surgery: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

STUDY DESIGN

Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE

Despite the increasing importance of tracking clinical outcomes using valid patient-reported outcome measures, most providers do not routinely obtain baseline preoperative health-related quality of life (HRQoL) data in patients undergoing spine surgery, precluding objective outcomes analysis in individual practices. We conducted a meta-analysis of pre- and postoperative HRQoL data obtained from the most commonly published instruments to use as reference values.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and an institutional registry for studies reporting EQ-5D, SF-6D, and Short Form-36 Physical Component Summary scores in patients undergoing surgery for degenerative cervical and lumbar spinal conditions published between 2000 and 2014. Observational data was pooled meta-analytically using an inverse variance-weighted, random-effects model, and statistical comparisons were performed.

RESULTS

Ninety-nine articles were included in the final analysis. Baseline HRQoL scores varied by diagnosis for each of the 3 instruments. On average, postoperative HRQoL scores significantly improved following surgical intervention for each diagnosis using each instrument. There were statistically significant differences in baseline utility values between the EQ-5D and SF-6D instruments for all lumbar diagnoses.

CONCLUSIONS

The pooled HRQoL values presented in this study may be used by practitioners who would otherwise be precluded from quantifying their surgical outcomes due to a lack of baseline data. The results highlight differences in HRQoL between different degenerative spinal diagnoses, as well as the discrepancy between 2 common utility-based instruments. These findings emphasize the need to be cognizant of the specific instruments used when comparing the results of outcome studies.

EUROSPINE 2017 FULL PAPER AWARD: Time to remove our rose-tinted spectacles: a candid appraisal of the relative success of surgery in over 4500 patients with degenerative disorders of the lumbar spine, hip or knee

PURPOSE

Studies comparing the outcome of spine surgery with that of large-joint replacement report equivocal findings. The patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used in such studies are typically generic and may not be sufficiently sensitive to the successes/failures of treatment. This study compared different indices of "success" in patients undergoing surgery for degenerative disorders of the lumbar spine, hip, or knee, using a validated, multidimensional, and joint-specific PROM.

METHODS

Preoperatively and 12 months postoperatively, 4594 patients (3937 lumbar spine, 368 hip, 269 knee) undergoing first-time surgery completed a PROM that included the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) for the affected joint. The latter comprises a set of single items on pain, function, symptom-specific well-being, quality of life, and disability-all in relation to the specified joint problem. Other single-item ratings of treatment success were made 12 months postoperatively.

RESULTS

In multiple regression analyses, controlling for confounders, the mean improvement in COMI at 12 months was greatest for the hip patients and lowest for those with degenerative spinal deformity (= the statistical reference group) (p < 0.05). Compared with spinal deformity, the odds of achieving "success" were: higher for hip (OR 4.6; 95% CI 2.5-8.5) and knee (OR 4.0; 95% CI 2.1-7.7) (no difference between spine subgroups) for "satisfaction with care"; higher for hip (OR 16.9; 95% CI 7.3-39.6), knee (OR 6.3; 95% CI 3.4-11.6), degenerative spondylolisthesis (OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.2-2.2), and herniated disc (OR 1.7; 95% CI 1.2-2.4) for "global treatment outcome"; and higher for hip (OR 13.8; 95% CI 8.8-21.6), knee (OR 5.3; 95% CI 3.6-7.8), degenerative spondylolisthesis (OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.3-2.1), and herniated disc (1.5; 95% CI 1.1-2.0) for "patient-acceptable symptom state". Patient-rated complications were the greatest in degenerative spinal deformity (29%) and the lowest in hip (18%).

CONCLUSIONS

The current study is the largest of its kind and the first to use a common, but joint-specific instrument to report patient-reported outcomes after surgery for degenerative disorders of the spine, hip, or knee. The findings provide a sobering account of the significantly poorer outcomes after spine surgery compared with large-joint replacement. Further work is required to hone the indications and patient selection criteria for spine surgery. The data should be used to lobby research funding-bodies, governmental agencies, industry, and charitable foundations to invest more in spine research/registries, in the hope of ultimately improving spine outcomes. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Instruments used in the assessment of expectation toward a spine surgery: an integrative review

OBJECTIVE

To identify and describe the instruments used to assess patients' expectations toward spine surgery.

METHOD

An integrative review was carried out in the databases PubMed, CINAHL, LILACS and PsycINFO.

RESULTS

A total of 4,402 publications were identified, of which 25 met the selection criteria. Of the studies selected, only three used tools that had confirmed validity and reliability to be applied; in five studies, clinical scores were used, and were modified for the assessment of patients' expectations, and in 17 studies the researchers developed scales without an adequate description of the method used for their development and validation.

CONCLUSION

The assessment of patients' expectations has been methodologically conducted in different ways. Until the completion of this integrative review, only two valid and reliable instruments had been used in three of the selected studies.

OBJETIVO

Identificar e descrever os instrumentos usados para avaliar a expectativa dos pacientes diante do tratamento cirúrgico da coluna vertebral.

MÉTODO

Revisão Integrativa realizada nas bases de dados PubMed, CINAHL, LILACS e PsycINFO.

RESULTADOS

Identificamos 4.402 publicações, das quais 25 atenderam aos critérios de seleção. Dos estudos selecionados, apenas em três os autores utilizaram instrumentos que possuíam validade e confiabilidade confirmadas para serem aplicados; em cinco estudos foram utilizados escores clínicos, modificados para a avaliação das expectativas dos pacientes, e em dezessete os pesquisadores elaboraram escalas sem adequada descrição do método usado para o seu desenvolvimento e validação.

CONCLUSÃO

A avaliação das expectativas dos pacientes tem sido metodologicamente conduzida de diferentes maneiras. Até a finalização desta revisão integrativa, apenas dois instrumentos, válidos e confiáveis, haviam sido utilizados em três dos estudos selecionados.

HEALTH-RELATED QUALITY OF LIFE AND EXPECTATIONS OF SPINAL STENOSIS PATIENTS TOWARDS THE SURGICAL TREATMENT

ABSTRACT The objective of this cross-sectional analytical study was to compare health-related quality of life, presence of anxiety and depression symptoms, and functional limitation according to the location of the spinal stenosis; and to describe patients' expectations toward the surgical treatment. Thirty-two patients with lumbar stenosis and 22 with cervical stenosis participated in the study. Comparison of health-related quality of life showed statistically significant differences in pain and functional capacity dimensions. There were no statistically significant differences regarding anxiety and depression symptoms. The mean functional limitation was 53.2% (SD=11.9%) for the group with lumbar stenosis and 40.2% (SD=17.5%) for the group with cervical stenosis. Most participants expected great improvement of the symptoms after the surgical treatment. In the preoperative period, expectations of improvement are high and should be discussed with the health staff, since in clinical practice, this improvement is not always achieved with the surgical treatment.

Oxford Shoulder Score: A Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Validation Study of the Persian Version in Iran

BACKGROUND

Oxford shoulder score is a specific 12-item patient-reported tool for evaluation of patients with inflammatory and degenerative disorders of the shoulder. Since its introduction, it has been translated and culturally adapted in some Western and Eastern countries. The aim of this study was to translate the Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) in Persian and to test its validity and reliability in Persian speaking population in Iran.

METHODS

One hundred patients with degenerative or inflammatory shoulder problem participated in the survey in 2012. All patients completed the Persian version of OSS, Persian DASH and the SF-36 for testing validity. Randomly, 37 patients filled out the Persian OSS again three days after the initial visit to assess the reliability of the questionnaire.

RESULTS

Cronbach's alpha coefficient was 0.93. The intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.93. In terms of validity, there was a significant correlation between the Persian OSS and DASH and SF-36 scores (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The Persian version of the OSS proved to be a valid, reliable, and reproducible tool as demonstrated by high Cronbach's alpha and Pearson's correlation coefficients. The Persian transcript of OSS is administrable to Persian speaking patients with shoulder condition and it is understandable by them.

Quality of life after en bloc resection of tumors in the mobile spine

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Little has been reported regarding the patient-centered quality-of-life (QOL) outcomes after en bloc spondylectomy (ES). Despite lower local recurrence rates, it is unknown whether outcomes justify the surgical morbidity.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to report on patient QOL after ES as measured by validated instruments and to identify factors that may predict better postoperative QOL.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a retrospective case-control study (Level III).

PATIENT SAMPLE

Thirty-five consecutive patients with mobile spine tumors were included. Twenty-seven patients underwent en bloc resection, whereas 8 patients received definitive radiation and no surgery. Minimum follow-up was 6 months (median, 32 months).

OUTCOME MEASURES

The outcome measures were European Quality Group 5-Dimensional Questionnaire (EQ5D), four Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) short-form metrics, Neck Disability Index, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI).

METHODS

We performed statistical comparisons between the surgery and radiation groups, of the general US population, and within the study group itself to identify predictors of higher QOL scores.

RESULTS

We identified a significant difference in QOL between the surgery and radiation groups in only one instrument, PROMIS pain interference, with surgery having more pain interference (15.7 vs. 10.1, p=.04). For most metrics, including EQ5D, pain interference, pain behavior, and ODI, scores were around one standard deviation worse than the US population mean. Multivariable linear regression for each instrument demonstrated that preoperative factors such as better performance status, tumor location in the cervical spine, lack of mechanical back or neck pain, and shorter fusion span were independently predictive of better QOL scores. Postoperative factors such as poor performance status, chronic narcotic use, and local recurrence were more dominant than preoperative factors in predicting worse QOL.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients may experience more pain interference after surgery as opposed to definitive radiotherapy, but we did not identify a difference for most metrics. Quality of life in our study group was significantly worse than the general population for most metrics. Cervical tumors, lack of mechanical pain, better baseline performance status, and less extensive surgery predict better QOL after surgery.