Predictors of surgical outcome and their assessment

The relatively high rate of failed back surgery has prompted the search for "risk factors” to predict the result of spinal surgery in a given individual. However, the literature reveals few unequivocal predictors and they often explain a relatively low proportion of variance in outcome. This suggests that we have a long way to go before being able to rest easily, having refused someone surgery on the basis of unfavourable baseline characteristics. The best recommendation is to ensure, firstly, that the indication for surgery is absolutely clear-cut (i.e. that surgically remediable pathology exists) and then to consider the various factors that may influence the "typical” outcome. Consistent risk factors for a poor outcome regarding return-to-work include long-term sick leave/receipt of disability benefit. Hence, every effort should be made to keep the individual in the workforce, despite the ongoing symptoms and plans for surgery. In patients with a particularly heavy job, consultation with occupational physicians might later ease the patient's way back into the workplace. Patients with degenerative disorders and/or comorbidity should be counselled that few of them will have complete/lasting pain relief or a complete return to pre-morbid function. Patients with a high level of distress may benefit from psychological treatment, before and/or accompanying the surgical treatment. The opportunity (time), encouragement (education and positive messages), and resources (referral to appropriate support services) to modify risk factors that are indeed modifiable should be offered, and realistic expectations should be discussed with the patient before the decision to operate is mad

A prospective study of the interrelationship between subjective and objective measures of disability before and 2months after lumbar decompression surgery for disc herniation

The value of range of motion (ROM) as an indicator of impairment associated with spinal problems, and in monitoring changes in response to treatment, is a controversial issue. The aim of this study was to examine the interrelationship between subjective disability (Roland-Morris scores) and objectively measured impairment (ROM), both before and in response to spinal decompression surgery, in an older group of patients with herniated lumbar disc (DH). Seventy-six individuals took part in the study: 33 patients (mean age 57years, SD 9years) presenting with DH and for whom decompression surgery was planned, and 43 controls (mean age 57years, SD 7years), with no history of back pain requiring medical treatment. In the patient group, pain intensity (leg and back; visual analog score), self-rated disability (Roland-Morris score), certain psychological attributes, and ROM of the spine (Spinal Mouse) were measured before and 2months after decompression surgery. In addition, the patients rated the success of surgery on a 1-5 Likert scale. The pain-free control group performed only the tests of spinal mobility. Before surgery, compared with matched controls, significantly lower values were observed in the DH patients for standing lumbar lordosis (p=0.01), and for range of flexion of the lumbar spine (ROFlumbar) (p=0.0006), but not of the hips (ROFhip) (p=0.14). Roland-Morris Disability scores correlated significantly with ROFlumbar (r=0.61, p=0.0002), but less well with ROFhip(r=0.43, p=0.01). Two months after surgery, there were significant reductions in back pain and leg pain (p=0.0001) and in Roland-Morris Disability scores (p=0.019). There was also a significant decrease in the group mean values for lumbar lordosis angle (i.e., a "flatter” spine after surgery, p=0.002) and ROFlumbar (p=0.038). ROFhip showed a (nonsignificant) tendency to increase (p=0.08) towards normal control values. As a result of these two opposing changes, the range of total trunk flexion showed no significant changes from pre-surgery to 2months post-surgery (p=0.60). On an individual basis, there was a highly significant relationship between the change in self-rated disability scores and the change in ROFlumbar, pre-surgery- to 2months post-surgery (r= −0.82; p<0.0001). Changes in ROFhip showed no such relationship (r= −0.30, p=0.10). The patients in the "poor” outcome group ("surgery didn't help”; 9%) had a significantly greater reduction in ROFlumbar post-surgery compared with the "good” outcome group ("surgery helped”; 91%) (p=0.04). In stepwise linear regression, the change in ROFlumbar was the only variable accounting for the change in self-rated disability pre-surgery to post-surgery (variables not included: pain intensity, psychological factors). The pivotal role of lumbar mobility in explaining disability emphasizes the importance of measuring lumbar and hip ranges of motion separately, as opposed to "global trunk motion.” In the patient group examined, the determination of lumbar spinal mobility provides a valid, objective measure of function, that shows differences from normal matched controls, that correlates well with self-rated disability, and the changes in which correlate extremely well with subjective changes in disability following surger

Transarticular screw fixation for osteoarthritis of the atlanto axial segment

Atlantoaxial (C1-C2) facet joint osteoarthitis is a distinct clinical syndrome that often goes unrecognized. Severe pain resistant to conservative treatment that is corroborated by the radiographic findings represents the indication for surgery. The aim of this study was to retrospectively examine the long-term outcome [after an average 6.5years (SD 4.0)] of C1-2 fusion for osteoarthritis of the atlantoaxial segment in 35 consecutive patients [25 male, 10 female; aged 62 (SD 15)years]. At follow-up, clinical outcome and radiological status was examined in 27/35 (77%) patients, and self-rated pain and disability (Neck Pain and Disability Scale; NPDS) in 29/35 (83%) patients. In 27/35 patients (77%), 2 screws were inserted; in 7 patients (20%), only 1 screw; and in 1 patient (3%), no screws. 11% of the patients had late complications requiring revision surgery. All patients showed solid fusion at the long-term follow-up. 26% patients showed an improvement in sensory disturbances, 63% no change, and 11% a worsening. 89% were pain-free or had markedly reduced pain. The average score on the NPDS (0-100) was 34 (SD 27), representing ‘mild' neck problems, and the average pain intensity (0-5 VAS) was 1.5 (SD 1.5). Eighty-five percent of the patients declared that they would make the same decision again to undergo surgery. In conclusion, in a group of patients with a painful and debilitating degenerative disorder of C1-2, posterior transarticular atlantoaxial fusion proved to be an effective treatment with a low rate of serious complication

Goal attainment scaling as a measure of treatment success after physiotherapy for chronic low back pain

Objectives. In some chronic conditions, patient-specific tools with individualized items have proved to be more sensitive outcome instruments than fixed-item tools; their use has not yet been investigated in chronic low back pain (cLBP). Methods. Eleven males and 21 females [mean age 44.0 (12.3) years] with cLBP, undergoing a spine-stabilization physiotherapy programme, completed the Roland Morris (RM) Disability Scale and a 0-10 pain scale pre- and post-therapy. Post-therapy, goal attainment scaling (GAS) scores were calculated regarding achievement of 2-6 priority GAS goals established pre-therapy; global outcome of therapy was assessed on a 5-point Likert scale. Results. Approximately one-fifth of the individualized goals were not covered by items of the RM. Of the 121 individualized goals, 41 (34%) were achieved at the expected level, 42 (35%) were exceeded and 38 (31%) were not reached. GAS scores correlated with change scores for pain (r = 0.61, P < 0.0001) and RM (r = 0.49, P = 0.006). Sixty-five per cent of the patients had a successful outcome according to GAS (i.e. a score ≥50); 55%, according to global outcome (therapy helped/helped a lot); 39%, according to the RM score change (score decrease ≥30%); and 44%, according to the pain score change (score decrease ≥30%). Conclusions. GAS demonstrates the achievement of important goals undetected by fixed-item measures and is a valid and sensitive outcome measure for assessing the success of rehabilitation in patients with cLB

Independence as the constrained freedom to individuate: a study from an internal perspective of the aims and evaluation processes in early twenty-first century secondary schools belonging to the Independent Schools Council (ISC) associations

Originally conceived as a school effectiveness study to address a gap in school effectiveness literature, which largely excluded the private sector, this research was designed to examine the purposes of Independent Schools Council (ISC) independent secondary schools which were free to set their own aims, and the ways in which they judged their success in achieving their goals, given that they are not subject to inspection by the government’s agency The Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED). As the study evolved, the focus shifted to an exploration of how independence was constituted in the schools studied, and the constraints under which they operate. The inquiry opens with an examination of the different categories of independent school and gives reasons for the choice of schools studied. This is followed by a review of literature relating to private schools, which is principally historical; studies of educational policy-making, and of the conflict between the individualist and collective aims of schooling. Initial scrutiny of the aims statements of 84 schools and accompanying questionnaire responses revealed the uniqueness of each school’s stated goals, although certain aims appeared characteristic of most schools surveyed, notably the development of individual potential and provision of a supportive environment. Further analysis highlighted the concept of individuation, both of the institution and of the pupil. Interviews with representatives of the inspectorate and a small number of headteachers, and analysis of a sample of inspection reports shed further light on this, particularly in the field of evaluation. However, the freedom to individuate was not found to be absolute. Constraints identified included government policy, external expertise, school personnel, concerns about social justice, and the need to market the school. The aims analysed largely reflected parental choice factors evident in the relevant literature, suggesting that neoliberal ideology also restricts a school’s freedom

A new skin-surface device for measuring the curvature and global and segmental ranges of motion of the spine: reliability of measurements and comparison with data reviewed from the literature

There is an increasing awareness of the risks and dangers of exposure to radiation associated with repeated radiographic assessment of spinal curvature and spinal movements. As such, attempts are continuously being made to develop skin-surface devices for use in examining the progression and response to treatment of various spinal disorders. However, the reliability and validity of measurements recorded with such devices must be established before they can be recommended for use in the research or clinical environment. The aim of this study was to examine the reliability of measurements using a newly developed skin-surface device, the Spinal Mouse. Twenty healthy volunteers (mean age 41±12years, nine males, 11 females) took part. On 2 separate days, spinal curvature was measured with the Spinal Mouse during standing, full flexion, and full extension (each three times by each of two examiners). Paired t-tests, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), and standard errors of measurement (SEM) with 95% confidence intervals were used to characterise between-day and interexaminer reliability for: standing sacral angle, lumbar lordosis, thoracic kyphosis, and ranges of motion (flexion, extension) of the thoracic spine, lumbar spine, hips, and trunk. The between-day reliability for segmental ranges of flexion was also determined for each motion segment from T1-2 to L5-S1. The majority of parameters measured for the ‘global regions' (thoracic, lumbar, or hips) showed good between-day reliability. Depending on the parameter of interest, between-day ICCs ranged from 0.67 to 0.92 for examiner 1 (average 0.82) and 0.57 to 0.95 for examiner 2 (average 0.83); for 70% of the parameters measured, the ICCs were greater than 0.8 and generally highest for the lumbar spine and whole trunk measures. For lumbar spine range of flexion, the SEM was approximately 3°. The ICCs were also good for the interexaminer comparisons, ranging from 0.62 to 0.93 on day 1 (average 0.81) and 0.70 to 0.94 on day 2 (average 0.86), although small systematic differences were sometimes observed in their mean values. The latter were still evident even if both examiners used the same skin markings. For segmental ranges of flexion, the ICCs varied between vertebral levels but overall were lower than for the global measures (average for all levels in all analyses, ICC 0.6). For each examiner, the average between-day SEM over all vertebral levels was approximately 2°. For ‘global' regions of the spine, the Spinal Mouse delivered consistently reliable values for standing curvatures and ranges of motion which compared well with those reported in the literature. This suggests that the device can be reliably implemented for in vivo studies of the sagittal profile and range of motion of the spine. As might be expected for the smaller angles being measured, the segmental ranges of flexion showed lower reliability. Their usefulness with regard to the interpretation of individual results and the detection of ‘real change' on an individual basis thus remains questionable. Nonetheless, the group mean values showed few between-day differences, suggesting that the device may still be of use in providing clinically interesting data on segmental motion when examining groups of individuals with a given spinal pathology or undergoing some type of interventio

Towards achieving interorganisational collaboration between health-care providers:a realist evidence synthesis

Background Interorganisational collaboration is currently being promoted to improve the performance of NHS providers. However, up to now, there has, to the best of our knowledge, been no systematic attempt to assess the effect of different approaches to collaboration or to understand the mechanisms through which interorganisational collaborations can work in particular contexts. Objectives Our objectives were to (1) explore the main strands of the literature about interorganisational collaboration and to identify the main theoretical and conceptual frameworks, (2) assess the empirical evidence with regard to how different interorganisational collaborations may (or may not) lead to improved performance and outcomes, (3) understand and learn from NHS evidence users and other stakeholders about how and where interorganisational collaborations can best be used to support turnaround processes, (4) develop a typology of interorganisational collaboration that considers different types and scales of collaboration appropriate to NHS provider contexts and (5) generate evidence-informed practical guidance for NHS providers, policy-makers and others with responsibility for implementing and assessing interorganisational collaboration arrangements. Design A realist synthesis was carried out to develop, test and refine theories about how interorganisational collaborations work, for whom and in what circumstances. Data sources Data sources were gathered from peer-reviewed and grey literature, realist interviews with 34 stakeholders and a focus group with patient and public representatives. Review methods Initial theories and ideas were gathered from scoping reviews that were gleaned and refined through a realist review of the literature. A range of stakeholder interviews and a focus group sought to further refine understandings of what works, for whom and in what circumstances with regard to high-performing interorganisational collaborations. Results A realist review and synthesis identified key mechanisms, such as trust, faith, confidence and risk tolerance, within the functioning of effective interorganisational collaborations. A stakeholder analysis refined this understanding and, in addition, developed a new programme theory of collaborative performance, with mechanisms related to cultural efficacy, organisational efficiency and technological effectiveness. A series of translatable tools, including a diagnostic survey and a collaboration maturity index, were also developed. Limitations The breadth of interorganisational collaboration arrangements included made it difficult to make specific recommendations for individual interorganisational collaboration types. The stakeholder analysis focused exclusively on England, UK, where the COVID-19 pandemic posed challenges for fieldwork. Conclusions Implementing successful interorganisational collaborations is a difficult, complex task that requires significant time, resource and energy to achieve the collaborative functioning that generates performance improvements. A delicate balance of building trust, instilling faith and maintaining confidence is required for high-performing interorganisational collaborations to flourish. Future work Future research should further refine our theory by incorporating other workforce and user perspectives. Research into digital platforms for interorganisational collaborations and outcome measurement are advocated, along with place-based and cross-sectoral partnerships, as well as regulatory models for overseeing interorganisational collaborations. Study registration The study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019149009. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 11, No. 6. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

Outcome assessment in low back pain: how low can you go?

The present study examined the psychometric characteristics of a "core-set” of six individual questions (on pain, function, symptom-specific well-being, work disability, social disability and satisfaction) for use in low back pain (LBP) outcome assessment. A questionnaire booklet was administered to 277 German-speaking LBP patients with a range of common diagnoses, before and 6months after surgical (N=187) or conservative (N=90) treatment. The core-set items were embedded in the booklet alongside validated ‘reference' questionnaires: Likert scales for back/leg pain; Roland and Morris disability scale; WHO Quality of Life scale; Psychological General Well-Being Index. A further 45 patients with chronic LBP completed the booklet twice in 1-2weeks. The minimal reliability (similar to Cronbach's alpha) for each core item was 0.42-0.78, increasing to 0.84 for a composite index score comprising all items plus an additional question on general well-being (‘quality of life'). Floor or ceiling effects of 20-50% were observed for some items before surgery (function, symptom-specific well-being) and some items after it (disability, function). The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) ("test-retest reliability”) was moderate to excellent (ICC, 0.67-0.95) for the individual core items and excellent (ICC, 0.91) for the composite index score. With the exception of "symptom-specific well-being”, the correlations between each core item and its corresponding reference questionnaire ("validity”) were between 0.61 and 0.79. Both the composite index and the individual items differentiated (P<0.001) between the severity of the back problem in surgical and conservative patients (validity). The composite index score had an effect size (sensitivity to change) of 0.95, which was larger than most of the reference questionnaires (0.47-1.01); for individual core items, the effect sizes were 0.52-0.87. The core items provide a simple, practical, reliable, valid and sensitive assessment of outcome in LBP patients. We recommend the widespread and consistent use of the core-set items and their composite score index to promote standardisation of outcome measurements in clinical trials, multicentre studies, routine quality management and surgical registry system

Reliability and validity of the cross-culturally adapted French version of the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) in patients with low back pain

Purpose: To conduct a cross-cultural adaptation of the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) into French according to established guidelines. Methods: Seventy outpatients with chronic low back pain were recruited from six spine centres in Switzerland and France. They completed the newly translated COMI, and the Roland Morris disability (RMQ), Dallas Pain (DPQ), adjectival pain rating scale, WHO Quality of Life, and EuroQoL-5D questionnaires. After ~14days RMQ and COMI were completed again to assess reproducibility; a transition question (7-point Likert scale; "very much worse” through "no change” to "very much better”) indicated any change in status since the first questionnaire. Results: COMI whole scores displayed no floor effects and just 1.5% ceiling effects. The scores for the individual COMI items correlated with their corresponding full-length reference questionnaire with varying strengths of correlation (0.33-0.84, P<0.05). COMI whole scores showed a very good correlation with the "multidimensional” DPQ global score (Rho=0.71). 55 patients (79%) returned a second questionnaire with no/minimal change in their back status. The reproducibility of individual COMI 5-point items was good, with test-retest differences within one grade ranging from 89% for ‘social/work disability' to 98% for ‘symptom-specific well-being'. The intraclass correlation coefficient for the COMI whole score was 0.85 (95% CI 0.76-0.91). Conclusions: In conclusion, the French version of this short, multidimensional questionnaire showed good psychometric properties, comparable to those reported for German and Spanish versions. The French COMI represents a valuable tool for future multicentre clinical studies and surgical registries (e.g. SSE Spine Tango) in French-speaking countrie

Determination of the Oswestry Disability Index score equivalent to a "satisfactory symptom state" in patients undergoing surgery for degenerative disorders of the lumbar spine-a Spine Tango registry-based study.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT The achievement of a given change score on a valid outcome instrument is commonly used to indicate whether a clinically relevant change has occurred after spine surgery. However, the achievement of such a change score can be dependent on baseline values and does not necessarily indicate whether the patient is satisfied with the current state. The achievement of an absolute score equivalent to a patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) may be a more stringent measure to indicate treatment success. PURPOSE This study aimed to estimate the score on the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI, version 2.1a; 0-100) corresponding to a PASS in patients who had undergone surgery for degenerative disorders of the lumbar spine. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING This is a cross-sectional study of diagnostic accuracy using follow-up data from an international spine surgery registry. PATIENT SAMPLE The sample includes 1,288 patients with degenerative lumbar spine disorders who had undergone elective spine surgery, registered in the EUROSPINE Spine Tango Spine Surgery Registry. OUTCOME MEASURES The main outcome measure was the ODI (version 2.1a). METHODS Surgical data and data from the ODI and Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) were included to determine the ODI threshold equivalent to PASS at 1 year (±1.5 months; n=780) and 2 years (±2 months; n=508) postoperatively. The symptom-specific well-being item of the COMI was used as the external criterion in the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis to determine the ODI threshold equivalent to PASS. Separate sensitivity analyses were performed based on the different definitions of an "acceptable state" and for subgroups of patients. JF is a copyright holder of the ODI. RESULTS The ODI threshold for PASS was 22, irrespective of the time of follow-up (area under the curve [AUC]: 0.89 [sensitivity {Se}: 78.3%, specificity {Sp}: 82.1%] and AUC: 0.91 [Se: 80.7%, Sp: 85.6] for the 1- and 2-year follow-ups, respectively). Sensitivity analyses showed that the absolute ODI-22 threshold for the two follow-up time-points were robust. A stricter definition of PASS resulted in lower ODI thresholds, varying from 16 (AUC=0.89; Se: 80.2%, Sp: 82.0%) to 18 (AUC=0.90; Se: 82.4%, Sp: 80.4%) depending on the time of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS An ODI score ≤22 indicates the achievement of an acceptable symptom state and can hence be used as a criterion of treatment success alongside the commonly used change score measures. At the individual level, the threshold could be used to indicate whether or not a patient with a lumbar spine disorder is a "responder" after elective surgery