scholarly journals Patient-reported outcomes in spine surgery: past, current, and future directions

2019 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 155-164 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joel A. Finkelstein ◽  
Carolyn E. Schwartz
Keyword(s):  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Spine Surgery ◽  
Spinal Surgery ◽  
Outcome Measurement ◽  
Objective Measures ◽  
Future Directions ◽  
Valuable Adjunct ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Over Time

The purpose of this article is to review the current state of outcome measurement in spine surgery, with an emphasis on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). The commonly used generic and disease-specific outcome measures used in spinal surgery and research will be discussed. The authors will introduce the concepts of response shift and appraisal processes, which may affect the face validity of PROMs, as well as their interpretation over time. It is not uncommon for there to be a discrepancy between the observed and expected outcome, which is not wholly explainable by objective measures. Current work on understanding how appraisal affects outcome measurement will be discussed, and future directions will be suggested to facilitate the continued evolution of PROMs.There has been an evolution in the way clinicians measure outcomes following spinal surgery. In moving from purely physical, objective measures to a growing emphasis on the patient’s perspective, spine surgery outcomes are better able to integrate the impact at multiple levels of relevant change. Appraisal concepts and methods are gaining traction as ways to understand the cognitive processes underlying PROMs over time. Measurement of appraisal is a valuable adjunct to the current spine outcome tools.

scholarly journals The Impact of NSAID Use After Lumbar Fusion Surgery on Fusion Rate and Complications: A Meta-Analysis

Neurosurgery ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 66 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yahya Othman ◽  
Avani Vaishnav ◽  
Steven Mcanany ◽  
Sravisht Iyer ◽  
Todd Albert ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Length Of Stay ◽  
Spine Surgery ◽  
Spinal Surgery ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Hospital Length ◽  
Hospital Length Of Stay ◽  
Opioid Use ◽  
Pain Scores ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
The Impact

Abstract INTRODUCTION The purpose of this study is to compile data presented in literature regarding the efficacy of incorporating NSAIDs in the postoperative course for patients undergoing spine surgery, in particular its impact on pain levels, opioid use, complications, and hospital length of stay METHODS This is a meta-analysis and systematic review. A literature search was conducted using the backbone search [spinal surgery] [Nsaid] [complications]. Criteria for inclusion are as follows: use of NSAIDs for postoperative pain management of spinal surgery, comparison between NSAID and NSAID-free cohort, and reporting on any of pain scores, hospital opioid use, hospital length of stay, complications rate, and operative outcomes. RESULTS Out of 799 studies, 19 studies met the inclusion criteria. A total of 1522 patient were included in this analysis. The studies included randomized controlled trials, Prospective and retrospective cohorts. Operations included discectomies, laminectomies, and fusions. Most commonly regimens included the NSAID Ketorelac, as in injection given immediately postoperatively. Patients that received NSAID analgesia postoperatively had significantly lower VAS pain scores at 1 and 12 h postoperatively. This group also had a significantly lower opioid consumption and shorter hospital length of stay. A total of 7 fusion studies reported on arthrodesis, showing a significantly lower odds of fusion after NSAIDs use, however after subgrouping according to smoking, this difference proves to be no longer significant. CONCLUSION Incorporation of NSAIDs into the postoperative regimen for analgesia in patients undergoing spine surgery is an effective approach in reducing hospital length of stay, patient reported pain scores, hospital opioid use, and has no increased risk of complications. Furthermore, use of NSAIDs in the nonsmoking population does not seem to affect arthrodesis rates in patients undergoing spine surgery.

scholarly journals 3196 Assessing the Relationship between Resilience and Pain Catastrophizing in Patient Reported Outcomes following Total Knee Replacement

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (s1) ◽  
pp. 119-119
Author(s):  
Vesta Nwankwo ◽  
William Jiranek ◽  
Steven George ◽  
Janet Bettger
Keyword(s):  
Missing Values ◽  
Latent Class ◽  
Pain Catastrophizing ◽  
Outcome Measurement ◽  
Measurement Information ◽  
Preoperative Treatment ◽  
Post Surgery ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Over Time

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: The aim of the present study is to explore the relationships between resilience, pain catastrophizing, and functional outcomes in pre-and post-operative TKR patients. The primary outcome is the ability of the Brief Resilience Scale (BRS) to predict function using the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Joint Replacement (KOOS, JR.) and overall health on the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System Global Health (PROMIS GH). METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Recruited patients will provide informed consent during in-person office visits. At the pre-surgery intake appointment, patients will provide demographic information and complete baseline questionnaires assessing resilience, pain catastrophizing, knee stiffness, pain, and function, and impression of overall health. In-person or electronic follow-up assessments will be administered post-surgery at 6-week, 3-month, and 6-month appointments. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: We aim to recruit 150 patients for this study. We do not expect a difference in sociodemographic characteristics of the patient sample. P-values will be based on t-tests and correlations calculated by comparing only non-missing values. Each outcome measure will be examined at each time point and trajectories will be calculated to determine the change in each outcome over time. Using latent class growth modeling we will examine individual change over time for each outcome (BRS, PCS, PROMIS GH, and KOOS JR.), and the association of resilience and pain with change in function (KOOS, JR. total score) and overall health (PROMIS GH). DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: To our knowledge, this is the only known study that will compare resilience, pain catastrophizing and longitudinal health outcomes in a single paradigm. Results will hopefully inform the design and implementation of future studies that will assess the impact of preoperative treatment of vulnerable patients. The ultimate goal is to improve functional recovery by using pre-identified psychological constructs as intervention points. Ideally, the same measures would be implemented, however, details of this plan will be established following completion of this study.

Impact of Michigan’s new opioid prescribing laws on spine surgery patients: analysis of the Michigan Spine Surgery Improvement Collaborative

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Paul Park ◽  
Victor Chang ◽  
Hsueh-Han Yeh ◽  
Jason M. Schwalb ◽  
David R. Nerenz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Spine Surgery ◽  
Spinal Surgery ◽  
Readmission Rate ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Readmission Rates ◽  
Opioid Prescribing ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Before And After ◽  
The Impact

OBJECTIVEIn 2017, Michigan passed new legislation designed to reduce opioid abuse. This study evaluated the impact of these new restrictive laws on preoperative narcotic use, short-term outcomes, and readmission rates after spinal surgery.METHODSPatient data from 1 year before and 1 year after initiation of the new opioid laws (beginning July 1, 2018) were queried from the Michigan Spine Surgery Improvement Collaborative database. Before and after implementation of the major elements of the new laws, 12,325 and 11,988 patients, respectively, were treated.RESULTSPatients before and after passage of the opioid laws had generally similar demographic and surgical characteristics. Notably, after passage of the opioid laws, the number of patients taking daily narcotics preoperatively decreased from 3783 (48.7%) to 2698 (39.7%; p < 0.0001). Three months postoperatively, there were no differences in minimum clinically important difference (56.0% vs 58.0%, p = 0.1068), numeric rating scale (NRS) score of back pain (3.5 vs 3.4, p = 0.1156), NRS score of leg pain (2.7 vs 2.7, p = 0.3595), satisfaction (84.4% vs 84.7%, p = 0.6852), or 90-day readmission rate (5.8% vs 6.2%, p = 0.3202) between groups. Although there was no difference in readmission rates, pain as a reason for readmission was marginally more common (0.86% vs 1.22%, p = 0.0323).CONCLUSIONSThere was a meaningful decrease in preoperative narcotic use, but notably there was no apparent negative impact on postoperative recovery, patient satisfaction, or short-term outcomes after spinal surgery despite more restrictive opioid prescribing. Although the readmission rate did not significantly increase, pain as a reason for readmission was marginally more frequently observed.

scholarly journals Quality of life assessments in clinical practice using either the EORTC-QLQ-C30 or the SEIOQL-DW: a randomized study

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Åsa Kettis ◽  
Hanna Fagerlind ◽  
Jan-Erik Frödin ◽  
Bengt Glimelius ◽  
Lena Ring
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Health Related Qol ◽  
Health Related ◽  
Secondary Outcomes ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Over Time

Abstract Background Effective patient-physician communication can improve patient understanding, agreement on treatment and adherence. This may, in turn, impact on clinical outcomes and patient quality of life (QoL). One way to improve communication is by using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Heretofore, studies of the impact of using PROMs in clinical practice have mostly evaluated the use of standardized PROMs. However, there is reason to believe that individualized instruments may be more appropriate for this purpose. The aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness of the standardized QoL-instrument, the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life C-30 (EORTC-QOL-C30) and the individualized QoL instrument, the Schedule for the Evaluation of Individual Quality of Life-Direct Weighting (SEIQoL-DW), in clinical practice. Methods In a prospective, open-label, controlled intervention study at two hospital out-patient clinics, 390 patients with gastrointestinal cancer were randomly assigned either to complete the EORTC-QOL-C30 or the SEIQoL-DW immediately before the consultation, with their responses being shared with their physician. This was repeated in 3–5 consultations over a period of 4–6 months. The primary outcome measure was patients’ health-related QoL, as measured by FACIT-G. Patients’ satisfaction with the consultation and survival were secondary outcomes. Results There was no significant difference between the groups with regard to study outcomes. Neither intervention instrument resulted in any significant changes in health-related QoL, or in any of the secondary outcomes, over time. This may reflect either a genuine lack of effect or sub-optimization of the intervention. Since there was no comparison to standard care an effect in terms of lack of deterioration over time cannot be excluded. Conclusions Future studies should focus on the implementation process, including the training of physicians to use the instruments and their motivation for doing so. The effects of situational use of standardized or individualized instruments should also be explored. The effectiveness of the different approaches may depend on contextual factors including physician and patient preferences.

T3 Are Burns a Chronic Condition: Examining Physical and Mental Functioning up to 20 Years After Injury

2021 ◽  
Vol 42 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S2-S3
Author(s):  
Callie Abouzeid ◽  
Audrey E Wolfe ◽  
Gretchen J Carrougher ◽  
Nicole S Gibran ◽  
Radha K Holavanahalli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
National Database ◽  
Time Points ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Burn Survivors ◽  
Population Demographic ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Over Time

Abstract Introduction Burn survivors often face many long-term physical and psychological symptoms associated with their injury. To date, however, few studies have examined the impact of burn injuries on quality of life beyond 2 years post-injury. The purpose of this study is to examine the physical and mental well-being of burn survivors up to 20 years after injury. Methods Data from the Burn Model System National Database (1997–2020) were analyzed. Patient-reported outcome measures were collected at discharge with a recall of preinjury status, and then at 5, 10, 15, and 20 years after injury. Outcomes examined were the Physical Component Summary (PCS) and Mental Component Summary (MCS) of the Short Form-12. Trajectories were developed using linear mixed methods model with repeated measures of PCS and MCS scores over time and controlling for demographic and clinical variables. The model fitted score trajectory was generated with 95% confidence intervals to demonstrate score changes over time and associations with covariates. Results The study population included 420 adult burn survivors with a mean age of 42.4 years. The population was mainly male (66%) and white (76.4%) with a mean burn size of 21.5% and length of hospital stay of 31.3 days. Higher PCS scores were associated with follow-up time points closer to injury, shorter hospital stay, and younger age. Similarly, higher MCS scores were associated with earlier follow-up time points, shorter hospital stay, female gender, and non-perineal burns. MCS trajectories are demonstrated in the Figure. Conclusions Burn survivors’ physical and mental health worsened over time. Such a trend is different from previous reported results for mental health in the general population. Demographic and clinical predictors of recovery over time are identified.

scholarly journals Generic Patient-Reported Outcomes and Outcome Measures: A Systematic Review Study Protocol

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuki Seidler ◽  
Erika Mosor ◽  
Margaret R Andrews ◽  
Carolina Watson ◽  
Nick Bott ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Outcome Measurement ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Screening Process ◽  
Patient Reported

Background: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are an essential part of health outcome measurement and vital to patient-centricity and valued-based care. Several international consortia have developed core outcome sets and many of them include PROs. PROs are measured by patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). PROs and PROMs can be generic or specific to certain diseases or conditions. While the characteristics of generic PROs and PROMs are well recognised as widely relevant and applicable across different domains, diseases and conditions, there is a lack of knowledge on the types of PROs measured by generic PROMs. We also do not know in which disease areas generic PROs and PROMs are commonly used. To date, there has been no systematic review solely focusing on generic PROMs, what they measure and their areas of application. Objectives: This systematic review will identify core PROs measured by generic PROMs used in adult populations and the areas in which they are applied. Methods: We will conduct a systematic review of reviews. The screening process and the reporting will comply with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) 2020 Statement. We will use four databases, Medline [PubMed], CINHAL [Ebsco], Cochrane [Cochrane Library], and PsycINFO [Ovid], and reports from international consortia. Inclusion criteria are systematic reviews, meta-analysis or patient-reported outcome sets developed by international consortia reporting on generic PROMs in adult populations. Articles primarily focusing on patient-reported experience measures (PREMs), children or adolescents, or those not written in English will be excluded. Risk of bias will be assessed by checking if the included articles comply with established guidelines for systematic reviews such as the PRISMA statement. We will extract generic PROMs and PROs measured by these PROMs, and the areas applied from the selected articles and reports. Extracted data and information will be quantitatively and qualitatively synthesised without statistical interference. The quality of the synthesised evidences will be assessed by clarifying the strengths, limitations and possible biases in our review.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document