Advertisement

European Spine Journal

, Volume 21, Issue 8, pp 1640–1647 | Cite as

Comparative effectiveness research across two spine registries

  • Emin Aghayev
  • Julia Henning
  • Everard Munting
  • Peter Diel
  • Patrick Moulin
  • Christoph Röder
  • On behalf of the SWISSspine and Spine Tango Registry groups
Original Article

Abstract

Background

Comparative effectiveness research in spine surgery is still a rarity. In this study, pain alleviation and quality of life (QoL) improvement after lumbar total disc arthroplasty (TDA) and anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) were anonymously compared by surgeon and implant.

Methods

A total of 534 monosegmental TDAs from the SWISSspine registry were analyzed. Mean age was 42 years (19–65 years), 59 % were females. Fifty cases with ALIF were documented in the international Spine Tango registry and used as concurrent comparator group for the pain analysis. Mean age was 46 years (21–69 years), 78 % were females. The average follow-up time in both samples was 1 year. Comparison of back/leg pain alleviation and QoL improvement was performed. Unadjusted and adjusted probabilities for achievement of minimum clinically relevant improvements of 18 VAS points or 0.25 EQ-5D points were calculated for each surgeon.

Results

Mean preoperative back pain decreased from 69 to 30 points at 1 year (ØΔ 39pts) after TDA, and from 66 to 27 points after ALIF (ØΔ 39pts). Mean preoperative QoL improved from 0.34 to 0.74 points at 1 year (ØΔ 0.40pts). There were surgeons with better patient selection, indicated by lower adjusted probabilities reflecting worsening of outcomes if they had treated an average patient sample. ALIF had similar pain alleviation than TDA.

Conclusions

Pain alleviation after TDA and ALIF was similar. Differences in surgeon’s patient selection based on pain and QoL were revealed. Some surgeons seem to miss the full therapeutic potential of TDA by selecting patients with lower symptom severity.

Keywords

Comparative effectiveness Spine registry SWISSspine Total disc arthroplasty Benchmark 

Abbreviations

ALIF

Anterior lumbar interbody fusion

COMI

Core outcome measures index

EQ-5D

EuroQoL-5D instrument

MCRIQL

Minimum clinically relevant improvement of quality of life = 0.25 EQ-5D points [2]

MCRPI

Minimum clinically relevant pain improvement = 18 VAS points [10]

NASS

North American Spine Society outcome assessment instrument

QoL

Quality of life

TDA

Total disc arthroplasty

VAS

Visual analogue scale

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Daniel Dietrich, PhD, for statistical consulting in all analyses presented in the current article. We are indebted to the SWISSspine and Spine Tango registry groups who made this research possible by populating the database with their valuable and much appreciated entries. The analysed data were recorded by: Bärlocher C (n = 76), Sgier F (n = 65), Etter C (n = 41), Hausmann O (n = 40), Schwarzenbach O (n = 38), Huber J (n = 36), Aebi M (n = 31), Heini P (n = 23), Berlemann U (n = 23), Markwalder T (n = 19), Otten P (n = 17), Schaeren S (n = 16), Maestretti GL (n = 12), Schizas C (n = 12), Waelchli B (n = 12), Porchet F (n = 10), Baur M (n = 9), Kast E (n = 9), Seidel U (n = 9), Lutz T (n = 7), Grob D (n = 6), Jeanneret B (n = 5), Kroeber M (n = 5), Min K (n = 5), Hasdemir M (n = 4), Lattig F (n = 4), Morard M (n = 4), Renella R (n = 4), Richter H (n = 4), Van Domelen K (n = 4), Wernli FO (n = 4), Binggeli R (n = 3), Stoll TM (n = 3), Marchesi D (n = 3), Tessitore E (n = 3), Vernet O (n = 3), Faundez A (n = 2), Favre J (n = 2), Ramadan A (n = 2), Selz T (n = 2), Boos N (n = 1), Cathrein P (n = 1), Forster T (n = 1), Heilbronner R (n = 1), Kleinstueck F (n = 1), Martinez R (n = 1), Rischke B (n = 1).

Conflict of interest

None of the authors has any potential conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Schluessmann E, Aghayev E, Staub L, Moulin P, Zweig T, Roder C (2010) SWISSspine: the case of a governmentally required HTA-registry for total disc arthroplasty: results of cervical disc prostheses. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35:E1397–E1405. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181e0e871
  2. 2.
    Schluessmann E, Diel P, Aghayev E, Zweig T, Moulin P, Roder C (2009) SWISSspine: a nationwide registry for health technology assessment of lumbar disc prostheses. Eur Spine J 18:851–861. doi: 10.1007/s00586-009-0934-8 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aghayev E, Roder C, Zweig T, Etter C, Schwarzenbach O (2010) Benchmarking in the SWISSspine registry: results of 52 Dynardi lumbar total disc replacements compared with the data pool of 431 other lumbar disc prostheses. Eur Spine J 19:2190–2199. doi: 10.1007/s00586-010-1550-3 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Melloh M, Staub L, Aghayev E, Zweig T, Barz T, Theis JC, Chavanne A, Grob D, Aebi M, Roeder C (2008) The international spine registry SPINE TANGO: status quo and first results. Eur Spine J 17:1201–1209. doi: 10.1007/s00586-008-0665-2 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Roder C, Staub L, Dietrich D, Zweig T, Melloh M, Aebi M (2009) Benchmarking with Spine Tango: potentials and pitfalls. Eur Spine J 18(Suppl 3):305–311. doi: 10.1007/s00586-009-0943-7 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zweig T, Mannion AF, Grob D, Melloh M, Munting E, Tuschel A, Aebi M, Roder C (2009) How to Tango: a manual for implementing Spine Tango. Eur Spine J 18(Suppl 3):312–320. doi: 10.1007/s00586-009-1074-x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kessler JT, Melloh M, Zweig T, Aghayev E, Roder C (2011) Development of a documentation instrument for the conservative treatment of spinal disorders in the International Spine Registry, Spine Tango. Eur Spine J 20:369–379. doi: 10.1007/s00586-010-1474-y PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mannion AF, Porchet F, Kleinstuck FS, Lattig F, Jeszenszky D, Bartanusz V, Dvorak J, Grob D (2009) The quality of spine surgery from the patient’s perspective. Part 1: the Core Outcome Measures Index in clinical practice. Eur Spine J 18(Suppl 3):367–373. doi: 10.1007/s00586-009-0942-8 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Errico TJ (2005) Lumbar disc arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res:106–117. pii:00003086-200506000-00016Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hagg O, Fritzell P, Nordwall A (2003) The clinical importance of changes in outcome scores after treatment for chronic low back pain. Eur Spine J 12:12–20. doi: 10.1007/s00586-002-0464-0 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Roder C, Chavanne A, Mannion AF, Grob D, Aebi M (2005) SSE Spine Tango—content, workflow, set-up. Eur Spine J 14:920–924. doi: 10.1007/s00586-005-1023-2. www.eurospine.org(SpineTango)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Emin Aghayev
    • 1
  • Julia Henning
    • 2
  • Everard Munting
    • 3
  • Peter Diel
    • 2
  • Patrick Moulin
    • 4
  • Christoph Röder
    • 1
  • On behalf of the SWISSspine and Spine Tango Registry groups
  1. 1.Institute for Evaluative Research in MedicineUniversity of BernBernSwitzerland
  2. 2.Inselspital, University HospitalUniversity of BernBernSwitzerland
  3. 3.Clinique Saint PierreOttigniesBelgium
  4. 4.Swiss Paraplegic Center NottwilNottwilSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations