Comparing Patient-Reported Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Lumbar Fusion for Degenerative Spondylolisthesis With Predominant Back Pain Versus Predominant Leg Pain Symptoms.
Aayush Kaul, Jacob C Wolf, Fatima N Anwar, Andrea M Roca, Ishan Khosla, Alexandra C Loya, Srinath S Medakkar, Kevin C Jacob, Madhav R Patel, Hanna Pawlowski, Alexander W Parsons, Nisheka N Vanjani, Michael C Prabhu, Vincent P Federico, Arash J Sayari, Gregory D Lopez, Kern Singh
{"title":"Comparing Patient-Reported Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Lumbar Fusion for Degenerative Spondylolisthesis With Predominant Back Pain Versus Predominant Leg Pain Symptoms.","authors":"Aayush Kaul, Jacob C Wolf, Fatima N Anwar, Andrea M Roca, Ishan Khosla, Alexandra C Loya, Srinath S Medakkar, Kevin C Jacob, Madhav R Patel, Hanna Pawlowski, Alexander W Parsons, Nisheka N Vanjani, Michael C Prabhu, Vincent P Federico, Arash J Sayari, Gregory D Lopez, Kern Singh","doi":"10.1097/BSD.0000000000001705","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>Retrospective review.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aims to compare postoperative patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in predominant back pain (PBP) versus predominant leg pain (PLP) patients following lumbar fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS).</p><p><strong>Summary of background data: </strong>Prior studies comparing PROMs in patients undergoing lumbar fusion with PBP versus PLP symptoms have included heterogeneous spinal pathology and restricted analysis to posterior fusion techniques.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Demographics, perioperative characteristics, complications, and PROMs from a retrospective single-surgeon database were collected for primary, elective, and single-level lumbar fusion for DS. Preoperative/postoperative PROMs included visual analog scale (VAS)-back/leg pain (VAS-BP/VAS-LP), Oswestry disability index (ODI), 12-Item Short Form Physical and Mental Composite Score (SF-12 PCS/MCS), and Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System-Physical Function (PROMIS-PF). Preoperative VAS-BP>VAS-LP established the PBP cohort and VAS-LP>VAS-BP established the PLP cohort. The average follow-up was 23.4±2.8 months. Improvement in PROMs (ΔPROM) at 6 weeks (ΔPROM-6W) and final follow-up (ΔPROM-FF) were calculated. χ2 and the Student t test analyzed categorical and continuous variables, respectively. Postoperative PROMs, ΔPROMs, and MCID achievement rates were compared between groups with multivariate linear or logistic regression.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 166 patients were selected with 108 in the PBP cohort. Both cohorts saw improvements in all PROM scores over time. The PBP cohort reported significantly greater ΔPROM-6W and ΔPROM-FF for VAS-BP (P<0.003). The PLP cohort reported greater ΔPROM-6W and ΔPROM-FF for VAS-LP and ΔPROM-FF for SF-12 PCS (P<0.014). MCID achievement rates for VAS-BP were higher in the PBP cohort, and VAS-LP MCID achievement rates were higher in the PLP cohort (P<0.015).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Regardless of predominant pain location, patients-reported improvements in all PROs at the final follow-up. Patients with PLP-reported greater improvement in leg pain and physical function and patients with PBP-reported greater back pain improvement.</p>","PeriodicalId":10457,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Spine Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Spine Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0000000000001705","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Study design: Retrospective review.
Objective: This study aims to compare postoperative patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in predominant back pain (PBP) versus predominant leg pain (PLP) patients following lumbar fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS).
Summary of background data: Prior studies comparing PROMs in patients undergoing lumbar fusion with PBP versus PLP symptoms have included heterogeneous spinal pathology and restricted analysis to posterior fusion techniques.
Methods: Demographics, perioperative characteristics, complications, and PROMs from a retrospective single-surgeon database were collected for primary, elective, and single-level lumbar fusion for DS. Preoperative/postoperative PROMs included visual analog scale (VAS)-back/leg pain (VAS-BP/VAS-LP), Oswestry disability index (ODI), 12-Item Short Form Physical and Mental Composite Score (SF-12 PCS/MCS), and Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System-Physical Function (PROMIS-PF). Preoperative VAS-BP>VAS-LP established the PBP cohort and VAS-LP>VAS-BP established the PLP cohort. The average follow-up was 23.4±2.8 months. Improvement in PROMs (ΔPROM) at 6 weeks (ΔPROM-6W) and final follow-up (ΔPROM-FF) were calculated. χ2 and the Student t test analyzed categorical and continuous variables, respectively. Postoperative PROMs, ΔPROMs, and MCID achievement rates were compared between groups with multivariate linear or logistic regression.
Results: In total, 166 patients were selected with 108 in the PBP cohort. Both cohorts saw improvements in all PROM scores over time. The PBP cohort reported significantly greater ΔPROM-6W and ΔPROM-FF for VAS-BP (P<0.003). The PLP cohort reported greater ΔPROM-6W and ΔPROM-FF for VAS-LP and ΔPROM-FF for SF-12 PCS (P<0.014). MCID achievement rates for VAS-BP were higher in the PBP cohort, and VAS-LP MCID achievement rates were higher in the PLP cohort (P<0.015).
Conclusion: Regardless of predominant pain location, patients-reported improvements in all PROs at the final follow-up. Patients with PLP-reported greater improvement in leg pain and physical function and patients with PBP-reported greater back pain improvement.
期刊介绍：
Clinical Spine Surgery is the ideal journal for the busy practicing spine surgeon or trainee, as it is the only journal necessary to keep up to date with new clinical research and surgical techniques. Readers get to watch leaders in the field debate controversial topics in a new controversies section, and gain access to evidence-based reviews of important pathologies in the systematic reviews section. The journal features a surgical technique complete with a video, and a tips and tricks section that allows surgeons to review the important steps prior to a complex procedure.
Clinical Spine Surgery provides readers with primary research studies, specifically level 1, 2 and 3 studies, ensuring that articles that may actually change a surgeon’s practice will be read and published. Each issue includes a brief article that will help a surgeon better understand the business of healthcare, as well as an article that will help a surgeon understand how to interpret increasingly complex research methodology. Clinical Spine Surgery is your single source for up-to-date, evidence-based recommendations for spine care.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
