[Not Available]

External Validation of the Timed Up and Go Test as Measure of Objective Functional Impairment in Patients With Lumbar Degenerative Disc Disease

BACKGROUND

The Timed Up and Go (TUG) test is the most commonly applied objective measure of functional impairment in patients with lumbar degenerative disc disease (DDD).

OBJECTIVE

To demonstrate external content validity of the TUG test.

METHODS

Consecutive adult patients, scheduled for elective lumbar spine surgery, were screened for enrollment into a prospective observational study. Disease severity was estimated by patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs; Visual Analog Scales [VAS], Core Outcome Measures Index [COMI] back, Zurich Claudication Questionnaire [ZCQ]) and the TUG test. Pearson correlation coefficients (PCCs) were used to describe the relationship between logarithmic TUG test raw values and PROMs.

RESULTS

A total of 70 patients (mean age 55.9 ± 15.4 yr; 38.6% female; 27.1% previous spine surgery; 28.6% lower extremity motor deficits) with lumbar disc herniation (50%), lumbar spinal stenosis (34.3%), or instability requiring spinal fusion (15.7%) were included. The mean TUG test time was 10.8 ± 4.4 s; age- and sex-adjusted objective functional impairment (OFI) T-score was 134.2 ± 36.9. A total of 12 (17.1%) patients had mild, 14 (20%) moderate, and 9 (12.9%) severe OFI, while 35 (50%) had TUG test results within the normal population range (no OFI). PCCs between TUG test time and VAS back pain were r = 0.37 (P = .002), VAS leg pain r = 0.37 (P = .002), COMI back r = 0.50 (P < .001), ZCQ symptom severity r = 0.41 (P < .001), and ZCQ physical function r = 0.36 (P = .002).

CONCLUSION

This external validation demonstrated similar OFI rates and PCCs between logarithmic TUG test results and PROMs compared to the original article from 2016. These findings support the TUG test being a quick, easy-to-use objective test, which provides the physician with a robust estimate of pain and functional impairment.

Patients undergoing surgery for lumbar degenerative spinal disorders favor smartphone-based objective self-assessment over paper-based patient-reported outcome measures

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Smartphone-based applications enable new prospects to monitor symptoms and assess functional outcome in patients with lumbar degenerative spinal disorders. However, little is known regarding patient acceptance and preference towards new modes of digital objective outcome assessment.

PURPOSE

To assess patient preference of an objective smartphone-based outcome measure compared to conventional paper-based subjective methods of outcome assessment.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective observational cohort study.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Fourty-nine consecutive patients undergoing surgery for lumbar degenerative spinal disorder.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Patients completed a preference survey to assess different methods of outcome assessment. A 5-level Likert scale ranged from strong disagreement (2 points) over neutral (6 points) to strong agreement (10 points) was used.

METHODS

Patients self-determined their objective functional impairment using the 6-minute Walking Test application (6WT-app) and completed a set of paper-based patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) before and 6 weeks after surgery. Patients were then asked to rate the methods of outcome assessment in terms of suitability, convenience, and responsiveness to their symptoms.

RESULTS

The majority of patients considered the 6WT-app a suitable instrument (median 8.0, interquartile range [IQR] 4.0). Patients found the 6WT more convenient (median 10.0, IQR 2.0) than the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ; median 8.0, IQR 4.0, p=.019) and Core Outcome Measure Index (COMI; median 8.0, IQR 4.0, p=.007). There was good agreement that the 6WT-app detects change in physical performance (8.0, IQR 4.0). 78 % of patients considered the 6WT superior in detecting differences in symptoms (vs. 22% for PROMs). Seventy-six percent of patients would select the 6WT over the other, 18% the ZCQ and 6% the COMI. Eighty-two percent of patients indicated their preference to use a smartphone app for the assessment and monitoring of their spine-related symptoms in the future.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients included in this study favored the smartphone-based evaluation of objective functional impairment over paper-based PROMs. Involving patients more actively by means of digital technology may increase patient compliance and satisfaction as well as diagnostic accuracy.

Objective measures of functional impairment for degenerative diseases of the lumbar spine: a systematic review of the literature

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

The accurate determination of a patient's functional status is necessary for therapeutic decision-making and to critically appraise treatment efficacy. Current subjective patient-reported outcome measure (PROM)-based assessments have limitations and can be complimented by objective measures of function.

PURPOSE

To systematically review the literature and provide an overview on the available objective measures of function for patients with degenerative diseases of the lumbar spine.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Systematic review of the literature.

METHODS

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed. Two reviewers independently searched the PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and SCOPUS databases for permutations of the words "objective," "assessment," "function," "lumbar," and "spine" including articles on human subjects with degenerative diseases of the lumbar spine that reported on objective measures of function, published until September 2018. Risk of bias was not assessed. No funding was received. The authors report no conflicts of interest.

RESULTS

Of 2,389 identified articles, 82 were included in the final analysis. There was a significant increase of 0.12 per year in the number of publications dealing with objective measures of function since 1989 (95% CI 0.08-0.16, p<.001). Some publications studied multiple diagnoses and objective measures. The United States was the leading nation in terms of scientific output for objective outcome measures (n=21; 25.6%), followed by Switzerland (n=17; 20.7%), Canada, Germany, and the United Kingdom (each n=6; 7.3%). Our search revealed 21 different types of objective measures, predominantly applied to patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (n=67 publications; 81.7%), chronic/unspecific low back pain (n=28; 34.2%) and lumbar disc herniation (n=22; 26.8%). The Timed-Up-and-Go test was the most frequently applied measure (n=26 publications; 31.7%; cumulative number of reported subjects: 5,181), followed by the Motorized Treadmill Test (n=25 publications; 30.5%, 1,499 subjects) and with each n=9 publications (11.0%) the Five-Repetition Sit-To-Stand test (955 subjects), as well as accelerometry analyses (336 subjects). The reliability and validity of many of the less-applied objective measures was uncertain. There was profound heterogeneity in their application and interpretation of results.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical studies on patients with lumbar degenerative diseases increasingly employ objective measures of function, which offer high potential for improving the quality of outcome measurement in patient-care and research. This review provides an overview on available options. Our findings call for an agreement and standardization in terms of test selection, conduction and analysis to facilitate comparison of results across cohorts.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019122622.

Objective functional assessment using the “Timed Up and Go” test in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis

OBJECTIVE

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are standard of care for the assessment of functional impairment. Subjective outcome measures are increasingly complemented by objective ones, such as the “Timed Up and Go” (TUG) test. Currently, only a few studies report pre- and postoperative TUG test assessments in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).

METHODS

A prospective two-center database was reviewed to identify patients with LSS who underwent lumbar decompression with or without fusion. The subjective functional status was estimated using PROMs for pain (visual analog scale [VAS]), disability (Roland-Morris Disability Index [RMDI] and Oswestry Disability Index [ODI]), and health-related quality of life (HRQoL; 12-Item Short-Form Physical Component Summary [SF-12 PCS] and the EQ-5D) preoperatively, as well as on postoperative day 3 (D3) and week 6 (W6). Objective functional impairment (OFI) was measured using age- and sex-standardized TUG test results.

RESULTS

Sixty-four patients (n = 32 [50%] male, mean age 66.8 ± 11.7 years) were included. Preoperatively, they reported a mean VAS back pain score of 4.1 ± 2.7, VAS leg pain score of 5.4 ± 2.7, RMDI of 10.4 ± 5.3, ODI of 41.9 ± 16.2, SF-12 PCS score of 32.7 ± 8.3, and an EQ-5D index of 0.517 ± 0.226. The preoperative rates of severe, moderate, and mild OFI were 4.7% (n = 3), 12.5% (n = 8), and 7.8% (n = 5), respectively, and the mean OFI T-score was 116.3 ± 23.7. At W6, 60 (93.8%) of 64 patients had a TUG test result within the normal population range (no OFI); 3 patients (4.7%) had mild and 1 patient (1.6%) severe OFI. The mean W6 OFI T-score was significantly decreased (103.1 ± 13.6; p < 0.001). Correspondingly, the PROMs showed a decrease in subjective VAS back pain (1.6 ± 1.7, p < 0.001) and leg pain (1.0 ± 1.8, p < 0.001) scores, disability (RMDI 5.3 ± 4.7, p < 0.001; ODI 21.3 ± 16.1, p < 0.001), and increase in HRQoL (SF-12 PCS 40.1 ± 8.3, p < 0.001; EQ-5D 0.737 ± 0.192, p < 0.001) at W6. The W6 responder status (clinically meaningful improvement) ranged between 81.3% (VAS leg pain) and 29.7% (EQ-5D index) of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The TUG test is a quick and easily applicable tool that reliably measures OFI in patients with LSS. Objective tests incorporating longer walking time should be considered if OFI is suspected but fails to be proven by the TUG test, taking into account that neurogenic claudication may not clinically manifest during the brief TUG examination. Objective tests do not replace the subjective PROM-based assessment, but add valuable information to a comprehensive patient evaluation.