The Low-Back Outcome Scale and the Oswestry disability index: are they reflective of patient satisfaction after discectomy? A cross sectional study

Lumbar sacralization and L4-L5 microdiscectomy, a prospective cohort study on radiologic and clinical outcomes

Aim

To evaluate the role of lumbar sacralization (LS) on the surgical outcomes of L4-L5 microdiscectomy.

Methods

This prospective cohort study was conducted in a university referral hospital. The patients with L4-L5 disc herniation and eligible for microdiscectomy were enrolled and allocated in G1 (with LS) and G2 (no LS). After the L4-L5 microdiscectomy patients were followed, clinical and radiological parameters were collected to investigate the influence on the outcomes. Recurrence, low back outcome score (LBOS), and the Oswestry disability index (ODI) were defined as main outcomes.

Results

Two hundred and forty patients (n = 120, each), were reviewed in the final analysis. There was no difference between groups regarding baseline characteristics. Postoperative radicular and back pain was more severe in LS(P < 0.05). Univariate analysis showed recurrence was significantly higher in LS with a direct correlation with postoperative back pain persistence and low LBOS (p = 0.001). Age had a negative impact on G2 recurrence(p = 0.008). LS had a negative impact on LBOS and ODI scores. Postoperative radicular pain and higher lumbar lordosis were associated with a higher disability (ODI) index.

Conclusion

L4-L5 microdiscectomy in patients with lumbar sacralization was associated with higher recurrence rates, worse ODI and LBOS scores, persistent postoperative axial back pain, and radicular pain. Postoperative axial back pain and poor LBOS results could effectively predict a higher recurrence rate following L4-L5 microdiscectomy in lumbar sacralization.

Preoperative risk factors for nonsatisfaction after lumbar interbody fusion

Introduction

Low back pain (LBP) is a common cause of impaired quality of life and disability and studies regarding surgical management of patients with LBP show a high variation in patient-reported success rate.

Research question

To find valuable preoperative clinical risk factors and variables associated with a non-satisfactory patient-reported outcome following surgery.

Materials and methods

The Danish surgical spine database (DaneSpine) was used to collect eight years of pre- and postoperative data on patients undergoing single-level fusions with either posterior- (PLIF) or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions (TLIF). The primary outcome was patient nonsatisfaction. We collected data on European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D), visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score, pain intensity, duration of back pain, previous discectomy, and expectations regarding return to work after surgery at 2-year follow-up.

Results

The cohort included 453 patients of which 19% reported treatment nonsatisfaction. The nonsatisfaction group demonstrated higher preoperative VAS scores for back pain (75 ± 19 vs. 68 ± 21, p = 0.006) and leg pain (65 ± 25 vs. 58 ± 28, p = 0.004). The preoperative EQ-5D score was significantly lower in the nonsatisfaction group (0.203 + 0.262 vs. 0.291 ± 0.312, p = 0.016). There was no statistical significance between patient nonsatisfaction and preoperative ODI score, age, body mass index, duration of back pain or expectations regarding return to work after surgery.

Discussion and conclusion

Low preoperative EQ-5D scores and high VAS leg and back pain scores were statistically significant with patient nonsatisfaction following surgery and may prove to be valuable tools in the preoperative screening and alignment of patient expectations.

Minimal clinically important difference as a method for assessing the effectiveness of spinal surgery using scales and questionnaires: non-systematic literature review

Objective. To analyze the literature data and to present recommendations on the use of the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) in the practice of spinal surgeon-researcher.

Material and Methods. The article is a non-systematic review of the literature. A search was performed for sources, which describe the calculation and analysis of the MCID parameter on a cohort of patients with degenerative spinal diseases in the PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science databases. Further, the analysis of the literature was carried out on the application of MCID to assess the effectiveness of surgical treatment.

Results. The MCID parameter is illustrated for the most common clinical scales used to assess the effectiveness of treatment in spinal surgery, with their detailed description and discussion of their benefits and drawbacks. The specific MCID values for cervical and lumbar pathologies, first of all degenerative ones, and follow-up periods, which can be used in assessing the results of the treatment, as well as in planning prospective comparative studies are presented.

Conclusion. The MCID parameter is required for sample size calculation and for the analysis of treatment outcomes. The MCID reflects not just the change in the baseline indicator, but also the clinical significance for the patient.

Comparison of conventional fenestration discectomy with Transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy for treating lumbar disc herniation:minimum 2-year long-term follow-up in 1100 patients

Purpose

To compare the efficacy of conventional interlaminar fenestration discectomy (IFD) with transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy (TELD) for treating lumbar disc herniation (LDH).

Methods

The clinical data of 1100 patients who had been diagnosed with LDH between January 2012 and December 2017 were retrospectively analysed. IFD was performed on 605 patients in Group A, whereas TELD was performed on 505 patients in Group B. The Oswestry Disability Index, Visual Analogue Scale for pain and modified MacNab criteria were used to evaluate the outcomes. The surgery duration, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative off-bed activity and postoperative length of hospital stay were recorded.

Results

The follow-up period ranged from 24 to 60 months, with an average of 43 months. The excellent and good outcome rates were 93.5% in Group A and 92.6% in Group B. There was no significant difference in efficacy between the groups (P > 0.05). However, Group B had significantly less intraoperative blood loss and shorter bed rest duration and postoperative length of hospital stay than Group A (P < 0.05). There were two cases of postoperative recurrence in Group A and three in Group B.

Conclusions

Although conventional IFD and TELD had similar levels of efficacy in treating LDH, TELD had several advantages. There was less intraoperative bleeding, shorter length of hospital stay and shorter bed rest duration. It can be considered a safe and effective surgical option for treating LDH.