Translation, validation, and cross-cultural adaptation of the Polish version of the pain sensitivity questionnaire

Dariusz Latka,1,2 Grzegorz Miekisiak,1,2 Klaudia Kozlowska,3 Tomasz Olbrycht,2 Jacek Chowaniec,2 Kajetan Latka,2 Marcin Niedzwiecki,4 Ruth Ruscheweyh,5 Paweł Jarmuzek6 1Department of Anatomy, Institute of Medicine, University of Opole, Opole, Poland; 2Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospital in Opole, Opole, Poland; 3Department of Bioengineering, Institute of Biomedical Engineering, Technical University of Wroclaw, Wroclaw, Poland; 4Department of Orthopedics, Regional Hospital, Olsztyn, Poland; 5Department of Neurology, University of Munich, Munich, Germany; 6Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospital, Zielona Gora, Poland Introduction: The purpose of this study was to provide a translation, cross-cultural adaptation, and validation of the Polish language version of the pain sensitivity questionnaire (PSQ). The process followed widely accepted guidelines. Methods: The translated questionnaire underwent thorough psychometric testing. In total, the data of 144 subjects (mean age 52.53±13 years), who underwent evaluation for lower back pain, were included. Results: The exploratory factor analysis revealed a two-factor structure, PSQ-moderate and PSQ-minor. The internal consistency was good (Cronbach’s α was 0.96). There was a fair and significant correlation between the results of the PSQ and the coping strategy questionnaire (CSQ; Spearman’s rho was 0.27). The test-retest reliability was favorable, and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for the CSQ total was 0.93 with a mean interval of 9.04 days between administrations. Conclusion: Our results show that the Polish version of the PSQ is valid and can be recommended for Polish-speaking patients. Keywords: pain sensitivity questionnaire, PS

Percutaneous interspinous spacer vs decompression in patients with neurogenic claudication: An alternative in selected patients?

BACKGROUND: Standalone interspinous process devices (IPDs) to treat degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic intermittent claudication (NIC) have shown ambiguous results in the literature. OBJECTIVE: To show that a minimally invasive percutaneous IPD is safe and noninferior to standalone decompressive surgery (SDS) for patients with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis with NIC. METHODS: A multicenter, international, randomized, controlled trial (RCT) was conducted. One hundred sixty-three patients, enrolled at 19 sites, were randomized 1:1 to treatment with IPD or SDS and were followed for 24 mo. RESULTS: There was significant improvement in Zurich Claudication Questionnaire physical function, as mean percentage change from baseline, for both the IPD and the SDS groups at 12 mo (primary endpoint) and 24 mo ( 1232.3 \ub1 32.1, 1237.5 \ub1 22.8; and 1237.9 \ub1 21.7%, 1235.2 \ub1 22.8, both P < .001). IPD treatment was not significantly noninferior (margin: 10%) to SDS treatment at 12 mo (P= .172) but was significantly noninferior at 24 mo (P = .005). Symptom severity, patient satisfaction, visual analog scale leg pain, and SF-36 improved in both groups over time. IPD showed lower mean surgical time and mean blood loss (24 \ub1 11 min and 6 \ub1 11 mL) compared to SDS (70 \ub1 39 min and 189 \ub1 148 mL, both P < .001). Reoperations at index level occurred in 18.2% of the patients in the IPD group and in 9.3% in the SDS group. CONCLUSION: Confirming 3 recent RCTs, we could show that IPD as well as open decompression achieve similar results in relieving symptoms of NIC in highly selected patients. However, despite some advantages in secondary outcomes, a higher reoperation rate for IPD is confirmed