Surgical resection of intradural extramedullary spinal tumors: Patient reported outcomes and minimum clinically important difference

Spine

Volumn 41, Issue 24, 2016, Pages 1925-1932

  Zuckerman, Scott L ^a   Chotai, Silky ^a   Devin, Clinton J ^a   Parker, Scott L ^a   Stonko, David P ^a   Wick, Joseph B ^a   Hale, Andrew T ^a   McGirt, Matthew J ^b   Cheng, Joseph S ^a,c  

^a VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b Carolina Neurosurgery and Spine ^*  (United States)

^c YALE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Clinically important; Extramedullary; Intradural; Outcomes; Patient reported; Spine; Threshold; Tumor

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AREA UNDER THE CURVE; ARTICLE; CANCER PATIENT; CANCER SURGERY; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; ELECTIVE SURGERY; EPENDYMOMA; FEMALE; HUMAN; LAMINECTOMY; LONGITUDINAL STUDY; MALE; MENINGIOMA; MIDDLE AGED; NECK DISABILITY INDEX; NEURILEMOMA; OSWESTRY DISABILITY INDEX; PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOME; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; SHORT FORM 12; SHORT FORM 36; SPINE FUSION; SPINE TUMOR; SURGICAL INFECTION; URINARY TRACT INFECTION; AGED; DISABILITY; MINIMAL CLINICALLY IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE; PAIN MEASUREMENT; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PROCEDURES; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRE; SPINAL NEOPLASMS; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ADULT; AGED; DISABILITY EVALUATION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MINIMAL CLINICALLY IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE; PAIN MEASUREMENT; PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOME MEASURES; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; QUALITY OF LIFE; SPINAL NEOPLASMS; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84964299697     PISSN: 03622436     EISSN: 15281159     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001653     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Devin CJ, Chotai S, Parker SL, et al. A cost-utility analysis of lumbar decompression with and without fusion for degenerative spine disease in the elderly. Neurosurgery 2015;77: S116-24.
2. Larkin DJ, Swanson RC, Fuller S, et al. The Affordable Care Act: a case study for understanding and applying complexity concepts to health care reform. J Eval Clin Pract 2014;22:133-40.
3. Asher AL, Speroff T, Dittus RS, et al. The National Neurosurgery Quality and Outcomes Database (N2QOD): a collaborative North American Outcomes Registry to advance value-based spine care. Spine 2014;39:S106-16.
4. McGirt MJ, Parker SL, Asher AL, et al. Role of prospective registries in defining the value and effectiveness of spine care. Spine 2014;39:S117-28.
5. Melloh M, Staub L, Aghayev E, et al. The international spine registry SPINE TANGO: status quo and first results. Eur Spine J 2008;17:1201-9.
6. Schluessmann E, Diel P, Aghayev E, et al. SWISSspine: a nationwide registry for health technology assessment of lumbar disc prostheses. Eur Spine J 2009;18:851-61.
7. Kalakoti P, Missios S, Menger R, et al. Association of risk factors with unfavorable outcomes after resection of adult benign intradural spine tumors and the effect of hospital volume on outcomes: an analysis of 18, 297 patients across 774 US hospitals using the National Inpatient Sample (2002-2011). Neurosurg FOCUS 2015;39:E4.
8. Miller DJ, McCutcheon IE. Hemangioblastomas and other uncommon intramedullary tumors. J Neurooncol 2000;47:253-70.
9. Aghayev K, Vrionis F, Chamberlain MC. Adult intradural primary spinal cord tumors. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2011;9:434-47.
10. Tarantino R, Donnarumma P, Nigro L, et al. Surgery of intradural extramedullary tumors: retrospective analysis of 107 cases. Neurosurgery 2014;75:509-14.
11. Zong S, Zeng G, Du L, et al. Treatment results in the different surgery of intradural extramedullary tumor of 122 cases. PloS one 2014;9:e111495.
12. Bellut D, Burkhardt JK, Mannion AF, et al. Assessment of outcome in patients undergoing surgery for intradural spinal tumor using the multidimensional patient-rated Core Outcome Measures Index and the modified McCormick Scale. Neurosurg FOCUS 2015;39:E2.
13. Colman MW, Karim SM, Lozano-Calderon SA, et al. Quality of life after en bloc resection of tumors in the mobile spine. Spine J 2015;15:1728-37.
14. Fisher CG, Keynan O, Boyd MC, et al. The surgical management of primary tumorsof the spine: initial results of an ongoing prospective cohort study. Spine 2005;30:1899-908.
15. Guirado VM, Taricco MA, Nobre MR, et al. Quality of life in adult intradural primary spinal tumors: 36-Item Short Form Health Survey correlation with McCormick and Aminoff-Logue scales. J Neurosurg Spine 2013;19:721-35.
16. Kato S, Murakami H, Demura S, et al. Patient-reported outcome and quality of life after total en bloc spondylectomy for a primary spinal tumour. Bone Joint J 2014;96-b:1693-8.
17. Liljenqvist U, Lerner T, Halm H, et al. En bloc spondylectomy in malignant tumors of the spine. Eur Spine J 2008;17:600-9.
18. Mazel C, Owona P, Cogan A, et al. Long-term quality of life after en-bloc vertebrectomy: 25 patients followed up for 9 years. Orthop Traumatol Sur Res 2014;100:119-26.
19. Melcher I, Disch AC, Khodadadyan-Klostermann C, et al. Primary malignant bone tumors and solitary metastases of the thoracolumbar spine: results by management with total en bloc spondylectomy. Eur Spine J 2007;16:1193-202.
20. Puvanesarajah V, Lo SL, Aygun N, et al. Prognostic factors associated with pain palliation after spine stereotactic body radiation therapy. J Neurosurg Spine 2015;23:620-9.
21. Hirano K, Imagama S, Sato K, et al. Primary spinal cord tumors: review of 678 surgically treated patients in Japan. A multicenter study. Eur Spine J 2012;21:2019-26.
22. Korn A, Halevi D, Lidar Z, et al. Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring during resection of intradural extramedullary spinal cord tumors: experience with 100 cases. Acta Neurochir 2015;157:819-30.
23. Mehta AI, Adogwa O, Karikari IO, et al. Anatomical location dictating major surgical complications for intradural extramedullary spinal tumors: a 10-year single-institutional experience. J Neurosurg Spine 2013;19:701-7.
24. Westwick HJ, Shamji MF. Effects of sex on the incidence and prognosis of spinal meningiomas: a Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results study. J Neurosurg Spine 2015;1-6.
25. Yeo DK, Im SB, Park KW, et al. Profiles of Spinal Cord Tumors Removed through a Unilateral Hemilaminectomy. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 2011;50:195-200.
26. Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB. The Oswestry Disability Index. Spine 2000;25:2940-52; discussion 52.
27. EuroQol. -a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands) 1990;16:199-208.
28. Ware J Jr, Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care 1996;34:220-33.
29. Langley GB, Sheppeard H. The visual analogue scale: its use in pain measurement. Rheumatol Internat 1985;5:145-8.
30. Daltroy LH, Cats-Baril WL, Katz JN, et al. The North American spine society lumbar spine outcome assessment Instrument: reliability and validity tests. Spine 1996;21:741-9.
31. Copay AG, Glassman SD, Subach BR, et al. 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.
32. Parker SL, Adogwa O, Mendenhall SK, et al. Determination of minimum clinically important difference (MCID) in pain, disability, and quality of life after revision fusion for symptomatic pseudoarthrosis. Spine J 2012;12:1122-8.
33. Parker SL, Adogwa O, Paul AR, et al. Utility of minimum clinically important difference in assessing pain, disability, and health state after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg Spine 2011;14:598-604.
34. Parker SL, Godil SS, Shau DN, et al. Assessment of the minimum clinically important difference in pain, disability, and quality of life after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 2013;18:154-60.
35. Parker SL, Mendenhall SK, Shau DN, et al. 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. J Neurosurg Spine 2012;16:471-8.
36. Ware JE Jr. SF-36 health survey update. Spine 2000;25:3130-9.
37. Aminoff MJ, Logue V. Clinical features of spinal vascular malformations. Brain 1974;97:197-210.
38. Beaton DE, Boers M, Wells GA. Many faces of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID): a literature review and directions for future research. Curr Opin Rheumatol 2002;14: 109-14.
39. Cook CE. Clinimetrics Corner: the Minimal Clinically Important Change Score (MCID): a necessary pretense. J Man Manip Ther 2008;16:E82-3.
40. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Controlled Clinical Trials 1989;10:407-15.
41. Carreon LY, Sanders JO, Diab M, et al. The minimum clinically important difference in Scoliosis Research Society-22 Appearance, Activity, And Pain domains after surgical correction of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 2010;35:2079-83.
42. Chotai S, Parker SL, Sivaganesan A, et al. Quality of life and general health after elective surgery for cervical spine pathologies: determining a valid and responsive metric of health state utility. Neurosurgery 2015;77:553-60.
43. Godil SS, Parker SL, Zuckerman SL, et al. Accurately measuring the quality and effectiveness of lumbar surgery in registry efforts: determining the most valid and responsive instruments. Spine J 2014;14:2885-91.
44. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology 1982;143:29-36.
45. Zweig MH, Campbell G. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) plots: a fundamental evaluation tool in clinical medicine. Clinical Chemistry 1993;39:561-77.
46. Glassman SD, Copay AG, Berven SH, et al. Defining substantial clinical benefit following lumbar spine arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg 2008;90:1839-47.
47. Godil SS, Parker SL, Zuckerman SL, et al. Accurately measuring the quality and effectiveness of cervical spine surgery in registry efforts: determining the most valid and responsive instruments. Spine J 2015;15:1203-9.
48. Beurskens AJ, de Vet HC, Koke AJ. Responsiveness of functional status in low back pain: a comparison of different instruments. Pain 1996;65:71-6.
49. Deyo RA, Centor RM. Assessing the responsiveness of functional scales to clinical change: an analogy to diagnostic test performance. J Chronic DisV 39 1986;897-906.
50. Adogwa O, Parker SL, Shau DN, et al. PreoperativeZung depression scale predicts patient satisfaction independent of the extent of improvement after revision lumbar surgery. Spine J 2013;13:501-6.
51. Anderson JT, Haas AR, Percy R, et al. Clinical depression is a strong predictor of poor lumbar fusion outcomes among workers' compensation subjects. Spine 2015;40:748-56.
52. Lubelski D, Thompson NR, Bansal S, et al. Depression as a predictor of worse quality of life outcomes following nonoperative treatment for lumbar stenosis. J Neurosurg Spine 2015;22: 267-72.
53. Urban-Baeza A, Zarate-Kalfopulos B, Romero-Vargas S, et al. Influence of depression symptoms on patient expectations and clinical outcomes in the surgical management of spinal stenosis. J Neurosurg Spine 2015;22:75-9.
54. Chotai S, Sivaganesan A, Parker SL, et al. Patient-specific factors associated with dissatisfaction after elective surgery for degenerative spine diseases. Neurosurgery 2015;77:157-63; discussion 63.
55. Parker SL, Godil SS, Zuckerman SL, et al. Extent of preoperative depression is associated with return to work after lumbar fusion for spondylolisthesis. World Neurosurg 2015;83:608-13.
56. McGirt MJ, Sivaganesan A, Asher AL, et al. Prediction model for outcome after low-back surgery: individualized likelihood of complication, hospital readmission, return to work, and 12-month improvement in functional disability. Neurosurgical FOCUS 2015;39:E13.