Can we define success criteria for lumbar disc surgery? Estimates for a substantial amount of improvement in core outcome measures

Acta Orthopaedica

Volumn 84, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 196-201

  Solberg, Tore ^a,b   Johnsen, Lars Gunnar ^c,d   Nygaard, Øystein P ^b   Grotle, Margreth ^e,f  

^a UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL OF NORTH NORWAY   (Norway)

^b NORTHERN NORWAY REGIONAL HEALTH AUTHORITY   (Norway)

^c TRONDHEIM UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Norway)

^d NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (Norway)

^e ULLEVÅL UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Norway)

^f OSLO METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY   (Norway)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BACKACHE; FEMALE; HUMAN; LEG PAIN; LUMBAR DISC SURGERY; LUMBAR DISK HERNIA; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NUMERICAL PAIN SCALE; OSWESTRY DISABILITY INDEX; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PAIN ASSESSMENT; SPINE SURGERY;

DISABILITY EVALUATION; DISKECTOMY; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; INTERVERTEBRAL DISC DISPLACEMENT; LAMINECTOMY; LUMBAR VERTEBRAE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PAIN MEASUREMENT; PATIENT SATISFACTION; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRES; RECOVERY OF FUNCTION; ROC CURVE; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84876354118     PISSN: 17453674     EISSN: 17453682     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/17453674.2013.786634     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Asch H L, Lewis P J, Moreland D B, Egnatchik J G, Yu Y J, Clabeaux D E, Hyland A H. Prospective multiple outcomes study of outpatient lumbar microdiscectomy: should 75 to 80% success rates be the norm? J Neuro-surg 2002; 96: 34-44.
2. Copay A G, Glassman S D, Subach B R, Berven S, Schuler T C, Carreon L Y. Minimum clinically important difference in lumbar spine surgery patients: a choice of methods using the Oswestry Disability Index, Medical Outcomes Study questionnaire Short Form 36, and pain scales. Spine J 2008; 8: 968-74.
3. Copay A G, Martin M M, Subach B R, Carreon L Y, Glassman S D, Schuler T C, Berven S. Assessment of spine surgery outcomes: inconsistency of change amongst outcome measurements. Spine J 2010; 1: 291-6.
4. Copay A G, Subach B R, Glassman S D, Polly D W, Jr., Schuler T C. Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods. Spine J 2007; 7: 541-6.
5. de Vet H C, Ostelo R W, Terwee C B, van der Roer N, Knol D L, Becker-man H, Boers M, Bouter L M. Minimally important change determined by a visual method integrating an anchor-based and a distribution-based approach. Qual Life Res 2007; 16: 131-42.
6. Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, Williams A. The time trade-off method: results from a general population study. Health Econ 1996; 5: 141-54.
7. Fairbank J C, Couper J, Davies J B, O'Brien J P. The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy 1980; 66: 271-3.
8. Glassman S D, Copay A G, Berven S H, Polly D W, Subach B R, Carreon L Y. Defning substantial clinical beneft following lumbar spine arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 2008; 90: 1839-47.
9. Greenough C G. Results of treatment of lumbar spine disorders. Effects of assessment techniques and confounding factors. Acta Orthop Scand (Suppl 251) 1993: 126-9.
10. Grotle M, Brox J I, Vollestad N K. Cross-cultural adaptation of the Norwegian versions of the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and the Oswestry Disability Index. J Rehabil Med 2003; 35: 241-7.
11. Grotle M, Brox J I, Vollestad N K. Concurrent comparison of responsiveness in pain and functional status measurements used for patients with low back pain. Spine 2004; 29: E492-E501.
12. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt G H. Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 1989; 10: 407-15.
13. Jensen M P, Karoly P. Self-report scales and procedures for assessing pain in adults. In: Handbook of Pain Assessment (Eds. Truk D C, Melzack R). New York: The Guilford Press, 1992: 135-51.
14. Kamper S J, Ostelo R W, Knol D L, Maher C G, de Vet H C, Hancock M J. Global Perceived Effect scales provided reliable assessments of health transition in people with musculoskeletal disorders, but ratings are strongly infuenced by current status. J Clin Epidemiol 2010; 63: 760-766.
15. Solberg T K, Olsen J A, Ingebrigtsen T, Hofoss D, Nygaard O P. Health-related quality of life assessment by the EuroQol-5D can provide cost-utility data in the feld of low-back surgery. Eur Spine J 2005; 14: 1000-1007.
16. Solberg T K, Sorlie A, Sjaavik K, Nygaard O P, Ingebrigtsen T. Would loss to follow-up bias the outcome evaluation of patients operated for degenerative disorders of the lumbar spine? Acta Orthop 2011; 82 (1): 56-63.
17. Terwee C B, Bot S D, De Boer M R, van der Windt D A, Knol D L, Dekker J, Bouter L M, de Vet H C. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 2007; 60: 34-42.
18. The EuroQol Group. EuroQol-a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. The EuroQol Group. Health Policy 1990; 16: 199-208.