Change in Patient-Reported Outcome Measures as Predictors of Revision Lumbar Decompression Procedures

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Objective: To assess change in Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROM) as predictors for revision lumbar decompression (LD).
Methods: Patients who underwent primary, single or multilevel LD were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were categorized according to whether or not they underwent revision LD within 2 years of the primary procedure. Visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), 12-item Short Form Health Survey and 12-item Veterans RAND physical component score (SF-12 PCS and VR-12 PCS), and Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System physical function (PROMIS-PF) were recorded. Delta PROM scores were evaluated for differences between groups and as a risk factor for a revision LD.
Results: The study included 135 patients, 91 undergoing a primary procedure only and 44 undergoing a primary and revision procedure. Matched patients did not demonstrate any significant differences in demographics or perioperative characteristics. Patients who underwent a revision had a mean time to revision of 7.4±5.7 months. Primary cohort significantly improved for all PROMs (all p<0.05), while the primary plus revision cohort significantly improved for VAS back, ODI, and PROMIS-PF (all p<0.05). However, cohorts differed in VAS back and PROMIS-PF (p<0.05). Delta PROMs were not a significant risk factor for revision except at 6 months for PROMIS-PF (p=0.024).
Conclusion: LD has been associated with reliable outcomes, but early identification of patients at risk for revision is critical. This study suggests that tools such as PROMIS-PF may serve a role in predicting who is at risk and the 6-month follow-up period may be valuable for counseling patients who are not experiencing improvement.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 Solberg TK, "Would loss to followup bias the outcome evaluation of patients operated for degenerative disorders of the lumbar spine? A study of responding and non-responding cohort participants from a clinical spine surgery registry" 82 : 56-63, 2011

2 Hung M, "What are the MCIDs for PROMIS, NDI, and ODI instruments among patients with spinal conditions" 476 : 2027-, 2018

3 Ekegren CL, "Using patientreported outcomes to predict revision arthroplasty following femoral neck fracture : enhancing the value of clinical registries through data linkage" 16 : 1325-, 2019

4 Cella D, "The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System(PROMIS)developed and tested its first wave of adult self-reported health outcome item banks : 2005–2008" 63 : 1179-1194, 2010

5 Deyo RA, "Revision surgery following operations for lumbar stenosis" 93 : 1979-1986, 2011

6 Lingreen R, "Retrospective review of patient selfreported improvement and post-procedure findings for mild(minimally invasive lumbar decompression)" 13 : 555-560, 2010

7 Fritzell P, "Recurrent versus primary lumbar disc herniation surgery : patient-reported outcomes in the Swedish Spine Register Swespine" 473 : 1978-1984, 2015

8 Suk KS, "Recurrent lumbar disc herniation : results of operative management" 26 : 672-676, 2001

9 Kim MS, "Recurrence rate of lumbar disc herniation after open discectomy in active young men" 34 : 24-29, 2009

10 Hee-Jong Hwang, "Predictors of Reoperation after Microdecompression in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis" 대한척추신경외과학회 13 (13): 183-189, 2016

11 Nolte MT, "Patients undergoing revision microdiskectomy for recurrent lumbar disk herniation experience worse clinical outcomes and more revision surgeries compared with patients undergoing a primary microdiskectomy" 27 : e796-e803, 2019

12 Maradit Kremers H, "Patientreported outcomes can be used to identify patients at risk for total knee arthroplasty revision and potentially individualize postsurgery follow-up" 32 : 3304-3307, 2017

13 McCormick JD, "Patient-reported outcome measures in spine surgery" 21 : 99-107, 2013

14 Brodke DS, "PROMIS PF CAT outperforms the ODI and SF-36 physical function domain in spine patients" 42 : 921-929, 2017

15 Parker SL, "Minimum clinically important difference in pain, disability, and quality of life after neural decompression and fusion for same-level recurrent lumbar stenosis : understanding clinical versus statistical significance" 16 : 471-478, 2012

16 Singh K, "Minimally invasive versus open single-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion : surgical outcomes, functional capacity and narcotic utilization" 15 : S261-, 2015

17 Jain S, "Minimally invasive lumbar decompression : a review of indications, techniques, efficacy and safety" 10 : 331-348, 2020

18 Palma L, "Microsurgery for recurrent lumbar disk herniation at the same level and side : do patients fare worse? Experience with 95 consecutive cases" 70 : 619-621, 2008

19 Abdul Jalil MF, "MRI predictors of revision surgery after primary lumbar discectomy" 81 : 442-446, 2020

20 Adogwa O, "Do measures of surgical effectiveness at 1 year after lumbar spine surgery accurately predict 2-year outcomes" 25 : 689-696, 2016

21 Karhade AV, "Development of prediction models for clinically meaningful improvement in PROMIS scores after lumbar decompression" 21 : 397-404, 2021

22 Cinotti G, "Contralateral recurrent lumbar disc herniation. Results of discectomy compared with those in primary herniation" 24 : 800-806, 1999

23 Sharma M, "Concurrent validity and comparative responsiveness of PROMIS-SF versus legacy measures in the cervical and lumbar spine population : longitudinal analysis from baseline to postsurgery" 115 : e664-e675, 2018

24 Proietti L, "Complications in lumbar spine surgery : A retrospective analysis" 47 : 340-345, 2013

25 Eneqvist T, "Can patient-reported outcomes predict re-operations after total hip replacement" 42 : 273-279, 2018