Current Trends in the Use of Patient-Reported Outcome Instruments in Degenerative Cervical Spine Surgery

Does PROMIS Identify Recall Accuracy and Bias in Elective Spine Surgery Patients?

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective study (level II evidence).

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to assess recall accuracy and bias through PROMIS-PF (physical function) and PI (pain interference) scores in patients undergoing cervical or lumbar spine surgery.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have improved quantitative data availability; however, the interpretation of results may remain susceptible to confounding factors including recall accuracy. No studies to date have reported the accuracy of patient recall using PROMIS outcomes in spine patients.

METHODS

Patients who underwent elective lumbar or cervical spine surgery were identified at a single tertiary, academic institution. PROMIS-PF and PI CAT (computer adaptive tests) were administered preoperatively. After a minimum 2-year follow-up, patients were administered these questionnaires and asked to answer with their recalled preoperative status. Recall accuracy was assessed by comparing recalled and actual baseline PROMIS scores. Regression analyses were conducted to evaluate the agreement between actual and recalled scores. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to determine potential demographic and temporal sources of bias.

RESULTS

Lumbar surgery patients recalled significantly worse preoperative function (Δ -1.5, 95% CI (-2.8 to -0.3), P<0.05) and severe pain [Δ 2.1, 95% CI (0.5-3.6), P<0.01] than reported before surgery. Patients in the cervical cohort, in contrast, were more accurate in recall for both domains [PF Δ 1.8, 95% (CI -1.4 to 5.0), P>0.05 and PI Δ 0.0, 95% CI (-3.0 to 3.0), P>0.05]. The correlation between recalled and actual scores was moderate in both cohorts. Demographic and temporal variables did not significantly influence recall accuracy. Lumbar cohort patients who met PI MCID were more likely to accurately recall baseline pain scores.

CONCLUSION

Recall inaccuracy is present in patients who undergo spine surgery; however, patients on average recall significantly worse preoperative status as measured by PROMIS PF and PI scores. Accurate recollection of preoperative status may influence patient perception of care.

PATIENT-REPORTED SURVEY TO ASSESS CLINICAL STATUS AND SURGICAL OUTCOME AFTER ANTERIOR CERVICAL DISCECTOMY AND FUSION USING AN ALLOGRAFT WITH A FIXED ANGLE OF INCLINATION

Degenerative cervical disc disease can be surgically treated by various procedures, one of which is anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). It is used to stabilize the spine and decompress neural structures of the spinal canal. However, measuring its impact on postoperative clinical status and surgical outcome is difficult. That is the reason why patient-reported surveys are commonly used to assess clinical status and surgical outcomes. To evaluate the surgical outcomes of ACDF with an allograft with a fixed angle of inclination at one cervical level, we conducted a prospective study on 60 patients over one year. We used a structured patient-reported survey based on the visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Odom questionnaire. Most patients experienced significant reduction in pain intensity in their arms and neck after undergoing ACDF with a carbon wedged-shaped allograft with a fixed inclination angle of 7º. This improvement was equally represented across all age groups and levels of the cervical spine operated on. Most patients also experienced a decrease in postoperative disability, as measured by the ODI, regardless of their age or the level of the cervical spine operated on. The majority of them rated their outcomes as either excellent or good, which was true across all age groups and levels of the cervical spine. In conclusion, patient-reported clinical status and outcome surveys are valuable and easy-to-perform tools for evaluating the quality of life of patients suffering from degenerative cervical disc disease after ACDF with a carbon cage having a fixed inclination angle.

Rehabilitation to Improve Outcomes after Cervical Spine Surgery: Narrative Review

PURPOSE

The increasing elderly patient population is contributing to the rising worldwide load of cervical spinal disorders, which is expected to result in a global increase in the number of surgical procedures in the foreseeable future. Cervical rehabilitation plays a crucial role in optimal recovery after cervical spine surgeries. Nevertheless, there is no agreement in the existing research regarding the most suitable postsurgical rehabilitation program. Consequently, this review assesses the ideal rehabilitation approach for adult patients following cervical spine operations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This review covers activities of daily living and encompasses diverse treatment methods, including physiotherapy, specialized tools, and guidance for everyday activities. The review is organized under three headings: (1) historical perspectives, (2) patient-reported functional outcomes, and (3) general and disease-specific rehabilitation.

RESULTS

Rehabilitation programs are determined on the basis of patient-reported outcomes, performance tests, and disease prognosis. CSM requires strengthening of the neck and shoulder muscles that have been surgically invaded. In contrast, the CCI requires mobility according to the severity of the spinal cord injury and functional prognosis. The goal of rehabilitation for CCTs, as for CCIs, is to achieve ambulation, but the prognosis and impact of cancer treatment must be considered.

CONCLUSIONS

Rehabilitation of the cervical spine after surgery is essential for improving physical function and the ability to perform daily activities and enhancing overall quality of life. The rehabilitation process should encompass general as well as disease-specific exercises. While current rehabilitation protocols heavily focus on strengthening muscles, they often neglect the crucial aspect of spinal balance. Therefore, giving equal attention to muscle reinforcement and the enhancement of spinal balance following surgery on the cervical spine is vital.

Values derived from patient reported outcomes in spine surgery: a systematic review of the minimal clinically important difference, substantial clinical benefit, and patient acceptable symptom state

PURPOSE

While patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) define value in spine surgery, several values such as minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) help guide the interpretation of PROMs and identify thresholds of clinical significance. Significant variation exists in reported values and their calculation, so the primary objective of this study was to systematically review the spine surgery literature for metrics of clinical significance derived from PROMs.

METHODS

We conducted a query of PubMed/MEDLINE and Scopus databases from inception to January 1, 2023, for studies that derived quantitative metrics (e.g., SCB, MCID, PASS) from PROMs in the setting of spine surgery with minimum 1-year follow-up. Details regarding the specific PROMs were collected including which PROM was measured, whether anchor- or distribution-based methods were utilized, the specific calculations, and the recommended value for a given PROM based on all evaluated calculations.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven studies of 21,780 patients were included. The most commonly evaluated PROM-derived value was the MCID (n = 28), followed by PASS (n = 6) and SCB (n = 4). Twenty-one studies only utilized anchor-based calculations, 15 utilized both anchor-based and distribution-based methods, and one only utilized distribution-based calculations. The most commonly evaluated legacy PROMs were the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) (N = 11, MCID range 4-20) and visual analog scale back pain (N = 5, MCID range 0.5-4.6). All 10 studies that derived SCB or PASS utilized the receiver operating characteristic methods. Among the six studies deriving a PASS value, four only evaluated ODI, identifying PASS ranging from 5 to 22.

CONCLUSION

While calculated measures of clinical significance such as MCID, PASS, and SCB exist, significant heterogeneity exists in the current literature. Current shortcomings include a wide variability of reported value thresholds across the literature, and limited applicability to more heterogenous patient populations than the targeted cohorts included in published investigations. Continued investigations that apply these methods to heterogenous, large-scale populations can help increase generalizability and validity of these measures.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Trends in Patient-Reported Outcomes After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review

Background

Despite the prevalence of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to evaluate results after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, there exists little standardization in how these metrics are reported, which can make wider comparisons difficult.

Purpose

To systematically review the literature on ACL reconstruction and report on the variability and temporal trends in PRO utilization.

Study Design

Systematic review.

Methods

We queried the PubMed Central and MEDLINE databases from inception through August 2022 to identify clinical studies reporting ≥1 PRO after ACL reconstruction. Only studies with ≥50 patients and a mean 24-month follow-up were considered for inclusion. Year of publication, study design, PROs, and reporting of return to sport (RTS) were documented.

Results

Across 510 studies, 72 unique PROs were identified, the most common of which were the International Knee Documentation Committee score (63.3%), Tegner Activity Scale (52.4%), Lysholm score (51.0%), and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (35.7%). Of the identified PROs, 89% were utilized in <10% of studies. The most common study designs were retrospective (40.6%), prospective cohort (27.1%), and prospective randomized controlled trials (19.4%). Some consistency in PROs was observed among randomized controlled trials, with the most common PROs being the International Knee Documentation Committee score (71/99, 71.7%), Tegner Activity Scale (60/99, 60.6%), and Lysholm score (54/99, 54.5%). The mean number of PROs reported per study across all years was 2.89 (range, 1-8), with an increase from 2.1 (range, 1-4) in studies published before 2000 to 3.1 (range, 1-8) in those published after 2020. Only 105 studies (20.6%) discretely reported RTS rates, with more studies utilizing this metric after 2020 (55.1%) than before 2000 (15.0%).

Conclusion

There exists marked heterogeneity and inconsistency regarding which validated PROs are used in studies related to ACL reconstruction. Significant variability was observed, with 89% of measures being reported in <10% of studies. RTS was discretely reported in only 20.6% of studies. Greater standardization of outcomes reporting is required to better promote objective comparisons, understand technique-specific outcomes, and facilitate value determination.

Wide Variability in Patient-Reported Outcomes Measures After Fusion for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study is to review outcomes reporting methodology in studies evaluating fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis.

METHODS

A systematic review of PubMed and Embase databases was conducted from January 2007 to June 2017 for English language studies with minimum of 2 years postoperative follow-up reporting outcomes after fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis. Two reviewers assessed each study; those meeting inclusion criteria were examined for pertinent data. Outcome measures were categorized into relevant domains: pain/symptomatology, function/disability, and surgical satisfaction. Return to work reporting was also recorded.

RESULTS

Of 123 studies meeting inclusion criteria, 76% included posterior-only fusion, 32% included posterior/transforaminal interbody fusion, and 5% included anterior/lateral interbody fusion (non-mutually exclusive). There was significant variation in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) used-studies reported 31 unique PROs assessing at least one domain: 22 evaluating pain, 23 evaluating function, and 3 evaluating surgical satisfaction. Most commonly utilized PROs were the Oswestry Disability Index (73% of studies), Visual Analog Scale (55%), and 36-Item Short Form Survey (32%). The remaining 28 measures were used in 14% of studies or fewer. PROs specific to symptoms of lumbar spinal stenosis, such as the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire, were only used rarely (7/123 studies). Only 14% of studies reported on time to return to work.

CONCLUSIONS

The literature surrounding fusion in the setting of lumbar stenosis is characterized by substantial variability in outcomes reporting. Very few studies utilized measures specific to lumbar spinal stenosis. Efforts to standardize outcomes reporting would facilitate comparisons of surgical interventions.

Comparing functioning in spinal cord injury and in chronic spinal pain with two ICF-based instruments: WHODAS 2.0 and the WHO minimal generic data set covering functioning and health

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether the two briefest validated ICF-based (International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health) tools can detect differences between different spinal conditions.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING

University hospital rehabilitation clinic.

SUBJECTS

A total of 84 patients with spinal cord injury and 81 with chronic spinal pain.

MAIN MEASURES

Disability evaluated using self-reported and proxy 12-item WHODAS 2.0 ((World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule), and physician-rated WHO minimal generic data set covering functioning and health.

FINDINGS

The two measures used showed severe disability in both patient populations, those with spinal cord injury (mean age 47.5 years, SD 13.2) and those with chronic spinal pain (mean age 47.2 years, SD 9.5), WHODAS patient sum being 18.4 (SD 9.6) versus 22.0 (SD 9.0), P < 0.05, and the WHO generic data set 15.6 (SD 4.4) versus 14.2 (SD 3.7), P < 0.01, respectively. Correlations between patient and proxy ratings and between the two disability scales were mostly strong. Severe restrictions were found in the working ability of both the populations, in mobility of patients with spinal cord injury and in pain function of patients with chronic spinal pain. In this tertiary clinic patient population, patients with spinal pain perceived more problems in emotional and cognitive functions, and in participation than patients with spinal cord injury.

CONCLUSIONS

Both scales were able to find differences between two patient populations with severe disability.

The Correlation Between PROMIS Pain Interference and VAS Pain in Ambulatory Orthopedic Patients

The purpose of this study was to investigate the correlation of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Pain Interference (PI) score with traditionally collected visual analog scale (VAS) scores and to determine the influence of patient demographics on PROMIS PI and VAS scores. Patient demographics were collected, and PROMIS PI, PROMIS Physical Function (PF), and VAS questionnaires were distributed to 215 patients in orthopedic ambulatory clinics. The primary outcome was correlation between PROMIS PI and VAS questionnaires. The statistical method of seemingly unrelated regressions was used to identify significant predictors and strengths of correlation between PROMIS PI and conventional forms. The PROMIS PI score was highly correlated to conventional pain and functional scores, with each standard deviation increase in PROMIS PI score predicting a 16-point increase for pain-related VAS scores (current pain, pain at rest, pain during activity, pain at night), an 18-point decrease in satisfaction of function score, and a 6-point decrease in general health score. Each standard deviation increase in PROMIS PF score for black patients predicted a reduction of 11 points for current pain, 10 points for pain at rest, 10 points for pain during activity, and 12 points for pain at night scores. The PROMIS PI score consistently predicts changes in VAS pain scores and can be considered a useful, standardized tool for measuring pain for clinical and research purposes. [Orthopedics. 2018; 41(6):e813-e819.].

Trends in the use of patient-reported outcome instruments in neurosurgical adult thoracolumbar deformity and degenerative disease literature

Objective:

Shifting national healthcare trends place increased emphasis on patient-centered care and value-based outcomes, and thus, patient-reported outcome instruments (PROIs) are often used. We sought to characterize the trends in PROI use over the past decade with regard to thoracolumbar degenerative spine disease and spinal deformity in major neurosurgical journals.

Methods:

Articles were screened for PROI use through a PubMed search among five major neurosurgical journals from 2006 to 2016. Articles focusing on adult thoracolumbar deformity and degenerative disease were selected with stringent criteria to further characterize PROI use.

Results:

A total of 29 different PROIs were used among 102 articles identified from 2006 to 2016 using our search strategy. Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine contained the most articles utilizing PROIs with 35.3% of all articles meeting search criteria. The most frequently used PROIs were Oswestry Disability Index, visual analog scale, and the European Quality of Life Five-dimension questionnaire used in 79.4%, 59.8%, and 29.4% of articles, respectively. Linear regression identified a significant increase in the number of articles employing PROIs from 2006 to 2016 (Y = 1.85, R²= 0.77, P < 0.01). The total number of PROIs per article was relatively stagnant over time and did not significantly change (Y = 0.03, R²= 0.05, P = 0.51).

Conclusions:

PROI use as an outcome tool in the adult thoracolumbar disease literature has increased during the past decade, which may be an indicative of PROI use to define patient expectations. This may also represent a trend toward PROI use as a surrogate measure of value-based care.