Does neck pain as chief complaint influence the outcome of cervical total disc replacement?

PURPOSE We investigated whether outcomes after cervical total disc replacement (cTDR) are influenced by preoperative neck pain as the chief complaint. METHODS This was a retrospective study using data in our local spine surgery outcomes database, linked to EUROSPINE Spine Tango Registry. Patients completed questionnaires at baseline enquiring about the "chief complaint" [neck pain (NP), arm/shoulder pain (AP) or neurological deficits (ND)] and including the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI); these were completed again at 24 months postoperatively, along with a rating of "global treatment outcome" (on a five-point scale, later dichotomized as "good" or "poor"). Differences in outcomes between the groups were examined using ANOVA. Multivariable regression analysis examined the effect of the chief pain location on 24-month outcomes, controlling for age, gender, comorbidity, baseline pain and COMI scores. RESULTS One hundred and fifty-nine consecutive patients were included, with a chief complaint of NP in 31%, AP in 38% and ND in 31%. The chief complaint groups did not differ in relation to their baseline COMI scores or their reductions in score from before surgery to 24 months after surgery (reduction: NP group, 4.4 ± 2.9 points; AP group, 4.7 ± 2.7; ND group, 4.3 ± 2.9; p = 0.78). Similarly, the percentage of patients reporting a "good global treatment outcome" at 24 months postoperatively did not differ between the groups (NP, 79%; AP, 77%; ND, 85%; p  = 0.64). The findings were consistent when controlling for possible confounders in multiple regression. CONCLUSIONS Having neck pain as opposed to arm pain or neurological deficits as preoperative chief complaint had no significant impact on clinical outcome after cTDR. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material

Validation of a surgical invasiveness index in patients with lumbar spinal disorders registered in the Spine Tango registry

Introduction: Being able to quantify the invasiveness of a surgical procedure is important to weigh up its associated risks, since invasiveness governs the blood loss, operative time and likelihood of complications. Mirza et al. (Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33:2651–2661, 2008) published an invasiveness index for spinal surgery. We evaluated the validity of a modified version of the Mirza invasiveness index (mMII), adapted for use with registry data. Methods: A cross-sectional analysis was performed with data acquired from the Spine Tango registry including 21,634 patients. The mMII was calculated as the sum of six possible interventions on each vertebral level: decompression, fusion and stabilization either on anterior or posterior structures. The association between the mMII and blood loss, operative time and complications was evaluated using multiple regression, adjusting for possible confounders. Results: The mean (± SD) mMII was 3.9 ± 5.0 (range 0–40). A 1-point increase in the mMII was associated with an additional blood loss of 12.8% (95% CI 12.6–13.0; p < 0.001) and an increase of operative time of 10.4 min (95% CI 10.20–10.53; p < 0.001). The R$^{2}$ for the blood loss model was of 43% and for operative time, 47%. The mean mMII was significantly (p < 0.001) higher in patients with surgical complications (4.5 ± 5.6) and general medical complications (6.5 ± 7.0) compared to those without (3.8 ± 4.9). Our results were comparable to those reported in the original publication of Mirza et al. Conclusion: The mMII appeared to be a valid measure of surgical invasiveness in our study population. It can be used in predictor models and to adjust for surgical case-mix when comparing outcomes in different studies or different hospitals/surgeons in a registry

Microdiscectomy compared with standard discectomy: an old problem revisited with new outcome measures within the framework of a spine surgical registry

Studies comparing the relative merits of microdiscectomy and standard discectomy report conflicting results, depending on the outcome measure of interest. Most trials are small, and few have employed validated, multidimensional patient-orientated outcome measures, considered essential in outcomes research. In the present study, data were collected prospectively from six surgeons participating in a surgical registry. Inclusion criteria were: lumbar/lumbosacral degenerative disease; discectomy/sequestrectomy without additional fusion/stabilisation; German or English-speaking. Before and 3 and 12 months after surgery, patients completed the Core Outcome Measures Index comprising questions on leg/buttock pain, back pain, back-related function, symptom-specific well-being, general quality-of-life, and social and work disability. At follow-up, they rated overall satisfaction, global outcome, and perceived complications. Compliance with the registry documentation was excellent: 87% for surgeons (surgery forms), 91% for patients (for 12 months follow-up). 261 patients satisfied the inclusion criteria (225 microdiscectomy, 36 standard discectomy). The standard discectomy group had significantly greater blood-loss than the microdiscectomy (P < 0.05). There were no group differences in the proportion of surgical complications or duration of hospital stay (P > 0.05). The groups did not differ in relation to any of the patient-orientated outcomes or individual outcome domains (P > 0.05). Though not equivalent to an RCT, the study included every single eligible patient in our Spine Center and allowed surgeons to use their regular procedure; it hence had extremely high external validity (relevance/generalisability). There was no clinically relevant difference in outcome after lumbar disc excision dependent on the use of the microscope. The decision to use the microscope should rest with the surgeon

Ratings of global outcome at the first post-operative assessment after spinal surgery: how often do the surgeon and patient agree?

Patient-orientated questionnaires are becoming increasingly popular in the assessment of outcome and are considered to provide a less biased assessment of the surgical result than traditional surgeon-based ratings. The present study sought to quantify the level of agreement between patients’ and doctors’ global outcome ratings after spine surgery. 1,113 German-speaking patients (59.0 ± 16.6 years; 643 F, 470 M) who had undergone spine surgery rated the global outcome of the operation 3 months later, using a 5-point scale: operation helped a lot, helped, helped only little, didn’t help, made things worse. They also rated pain, function, quality-of-life and disability, using the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI), and their satisfaction with treatment (5-point scale). The surgeon completed a SSE Spine Tango Follow-up form, blind to the patient’s evaluation, rating the outcome with the McNab criteria as excellent, good, fair, and poor. The data were compared, in terms of (1) the correlation between surgeons’ and patients’ ratings and (2) the proportions of identical ratings, where the doctor’s “excellent” was considered equivalent to the patient’s “operation helped a lot”, “good” to “operation helped”, “fair” to “operation helped only little” and “poor” to “operation didn’t help/made things worse”. There was a significant correlation (Spearman Rho = 0.57, p < 0.0001) between the surgeons’ and patients’ ratings. Their ratings were identical in 51.2% of the cases; the surgeon gave better ratings than the patient (“overrated”) in 25.6% cases and worse ratings (“underrated”) in 23.2% cases. There were significant differences between the six surgeons in the degree to which their ratings matched those of the patients, with senior surgeons “overrating” significantly more often than junior surgeons (p < 0.001). “Overrating” was significantly more prevalent for patients with a poor self-rated outcome (measured as global outcome, COMI score, or satisfaction with treatment; each p < 0.001). In a multivariate model controlling for age and gender, “low satisfaction with treatment” and “being a senior surgeon” were the most significant unique predictors of surgeon “overrating” (p < 0.0001; adjusted R2 = 0.21). Factors with no unique significant influence included comorbidity (ASA score), first time versus repeat surgery, one-level versus multilevel surgery. In conclusion, approximately half of the patient’s perceptions of outcome after spine surgery were identical to those of the surgeon. Generally, where discrepancies arose, there was a tendency for the surgeon to be slightly more optimistic than the patient, and more so in relation to patients who themselves declared a poor outcome. This highlights the potential bias in outcome studies that rely solely on surgeon ratings of outcome and indicates the importance of collecting data from both the patient and the surgeon, in order to provide a balanced view of the outcome of spine surgery

The outcome of decompression surgery for lumbar herniated disc is influenced by the level of concomitant preoperative low back pain

Decompression surgery is a common and generally successful treatment for lumbar disc herniation (LDH). However, clinical practice raises some concern that the presence of concomitant low back pain (LBP) may have a negative influence on the overall outcome of treatment. This prospective study sought to examine on how the relative severity of LBP influences the outcome of decompression surgery for LDH. The SSE Spine Tango System was used to acquire the data from 308 patients. Inclusion criteria were LDH, first-time surgery, maximum 1 affected level, and decompression as the only procedure. Before and 12 months after surgery, patients completed the multidimensional Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI; includes 0–10 leg/buttock pain (LP) and LBP scales); at 12 months, global outcome was rated on a Likert scale and dichotomised into “good” and “poor” groups. In the “good” outcome group, mean baseline LP was 2.8 (SD 3.1) points higher than LBP; in the “poor” group, the corresponding value was 1.1 (SD 2.9) (p < 0.001 between groups). Significantly fewer patients with back pain as their “main problem” had a good outcome (69% good) when compared with those who reported leg/buttock pain (84% good) as the main problem (p = 0.04). In multivariate regression analyses (controlling for age, gender, co-morbidity), baseline LBP intensity was a significant predictor of the 12-month COMI score, and of the global outcome (each p < 0.05) (higher LBP, worse outcome). In conclusion, patients with more back pain showed significantly worse outcomes after decompression surgery for LDH. This finding fits with general clinical experience, but has rarely been quantified in the many predictor studies conducted to date. Consideration of the severity of concomitant LBP in LDH may assist in establishing realistic patient expectations before the surgery