Advertisement

European Spine Journal

, Volume 24, Issue 2, pp 339–347 | Cite as

Factors influencing the surgical decision for the treatment of degenerative lumbar stenosis in a preference-based shared decision-making process

  • Ho-Joong Kim
  • Jae-Young Park
  • Kyoung-Tak Kang
  • Bong-Soon Chang
  • Choon-Ki Lee
  • Jin S. Yeom
Original Article

Abstract

Introduction

In a preference-based shared decision-making system, several subjective and/or objective factors such as pain severity, degree of disability, and the radiological severity of canal stenosis may influence the final surgical decision for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). However, our understanding of the shared decision-making process and the significance of each factor remain primitive. In the present study, we aimed to investigate which factors influence the surgical decision for the treatment of LSS when using a preference-based, shared decision-making process.

Methods

We included 555 patients, aged 45–80 years, who used a preference-based shared decision-making process and were treated conservatively or surgically for chronic leg and/or back pain caused by LSS from April 2012 to December 2012. Univariate and multivariable-adjusted logistic regression analyses were used to assess the association of surgical decision making with age, sex, body mass index, symptom duration, radiologic stenotic grade, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analog scale (VAS) scores for back and leg pain, Short Form-36 (SF-36) subscales, and motor weakness.

Results

In univariate analysis, the following variables were associated with a higher odds of a surgical decision for LSS: male sex; the VAS score for leg pain; ODI; morphological stenotic grades B, C, and D; motor weakness; and the physical function, physical role, bodily pain, social function, and emotional role of the SF-36 subscales. Multivariate analysis revealed that male sex, ODI, morphological stenotic grades C and D, and motor weakness were significantly associated with a higher possibility of a surgical decision.

Conclusion

Motor weakness, male sex, morphological stenotic grade, and the amount of disability are critical factors leading to a surgical decision for LSS when using a preference-based shared decision-making process.

Keywords

Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis Preference-based decision making Shared decision making Surgical decision 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study is not supported by any funding source.

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

References

  1. 1.
    Katz JN (2001) Patient preferences and health disparities. JAMA J Am Med Assoc 286(12):1506–1509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hawker GA, Wright JG, Coyte PC, Williams JI, Harvey B, Glazier R, Wilkins A, Badley EM (2001) Determining the need for hip and knee arthroplasty: the role of clinical severity and patients’ preferences. Med Care 39(3):206–216PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bederman SS, Coyte PC, Kreder HJ, Mahomed NN, McIsaac WJ, Wright JG (2011) Who’s in the driver’s seat? The influence of patient and physician enthusiasm on regional variation in degenerative lumbar spinal surgery. Spine 36(6):481–489. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181d25e6f PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ridd M, Shaw A, Lewis G, Salisbury C (2009) The patient doctor relationship: a synthesis of the qualitative literature on patients’ perspectives. Br J Gen Pract 59(561):e116–e133. doi: 10.3399/bjgp09X420248 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kaplan R (1999) Shared medical decision-making: a new paradigm for behavioral medicine—1997 presidential address. Ann Behav Med 21(1):3–11. doi: 10.1007/BF02895027 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Weinstein JN (2000) The missing piece: embracing shared decision making to reform health care. Spine (Philadelphia, Pa 1976) 25(1):1–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Deyo RA, Cherkin DC, Weinstein J, Howe J, Ciol M, Mulley AG (2000) Involving patients in clinical decisions: impact of an interactive video program on use of back surgery. Med Care 38(9):959–969PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kurd M, Lurie J, Zhao W, Tosteson T, Hilibrand A, Rihn J, Albert T, Weinstein J (2012) Predictors of treatment choice in lumbar spinal stenosis: a spine patient outcomes research trial study. Spine (Philadelphia, Pa 1976) 37(19):1702–1707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Watters WC 3rd, Baisden J, Gilbert TJ, Kreiner S, Resnick DK, Bono CM, Ghiselli G, Heggeness MH, Mazanec DJ, O’Neill C, Reitman CA, Shaffer WO, Summers JT, Toton JF, North American Spine S (2008) Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: an evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine J 8(2):305–310. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2007.10.033 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB (2000) The Oswestry Disability Index. Spine (Philadelphia, Pa 1976) 25(22):2940–2952CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ware J, Snow K, Kosinski M, Gandek B (1993) SF-36 health survey manual and interpretation guide. New England Medical Center, The Health Institute, BostonGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Weinstein JN, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD, Tosteson AN, Blood E, Hanscom B, Herkowitz H, Cammisa F, Albert T, Boden SD, Hilibrand A, Goldberg H, Berven S, An H (2008) Surgical versus nonsurgical therapy for lumbar spinal stenosis. N Engl J Med 358(8):794–810PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Weinstein JN, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD, Tosteson A, Blood E, Herkowitz H, Cammisa F, Albert T, Boden SD, Hilibrand A, Goldberg H, Berven S, An H (2010) Surgical versus nonoperative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis 4-year results of the spine patient outcomes research trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35(14):1329–1338. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181e0f04d Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Atlas SJ, Keller RB, Robson D, Deyo RA, Singer DE (2000) Surgical and nonsurgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis: 4-year outcomes from the maine lumbar spine study. Spine (Philadelphia, Pa 1976) 25(5):556–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Atlas S, Keller R, Wu Y, Deyo R, Singer D (2005) Long-term outcomes of surgical and nonsurgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis: 8 to 10 year results from the maine lumbar spine study. Spine (Philadelphia, Pa 1976) 30(8):936–943CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schizas C, Theumann N, Burn A, Tansey R, Wardlaw D, Smith FW, Kulik G (2010) Qualitative grading of severity of lumbar spinal stenosis based on the morphology of the dural sac on magnetic resonance images. Spine (Philadelphia, Pa 1976) 35(21):1919–1924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Weinstein JN, Lurie JD, Olson PR, Bronner K, Fisher ES (2006) United States’ trends and regional variations in lumbar spine surgery: 1992–2003. Spine (Philadelphia, Pa 1976) 31(23):2707–2714Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jacobs JJ, Andersson GBJ, Bell JE et al (2008) The burden of musculoskeletal diseases in the United States: prevalence, societal and economic cost. American Academy Orthopedic Surgeons Rosemont. http://www.boneandjointburden.org
  19. 19.
    Strömqvist F, Ahmad M, Hildingsson C, Jönsson B, Strömqvist B (2008) Gender differences in lumbar disc herniation surgery. Acta Orthop 79(5):643–649PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Brattberg G, Parker MG, Thorslund M (1997) A longitudinal study of pain: reported pain from middle age to old age. Clin J Pain 13(2):144–149PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lavsky Shulan M, Wallace RB, Kohout FJ, Lemke JH, Morris MC, Smith IM (1985) Prevalence and functional correlates of low back pain in the elderly: the Iowa 65+ Rural Health Study. J Am Geriatr Soc 33(1):23–28PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fillingim RB, King CD, Ribeiro Dasilva MC, Rahim Williams B, Riley JL (2009) Sex, gender, and pain: a review of recent clinical and experimental findings. J Pain 10(5):447–485PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Racine M, Tousignant Laflamme Y, Kloda LA, Dion D, Dupuis G, Choinière M (2012) A systematic literature review of 10 years of research on sex/gender and pain perception—part 2: do biopsychosocial factors alter pain sensitivity differently in women and men? Pain 153(3):619–635PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Karlson EW, Daltroy LH, Liang MH, Eaton HE, Katz JN (1997) Gender differences in patient preferences may underlie differential utilization of elective surgery. Am J Med 102(6):524–530PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schizas C, Kulik G (2012) Decision-making in lumbar spinal stenosis: a survey on the influence of the morphology of the dural sac. J Bone Jt Surg Br 94(1):98–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kim HJ, Suh BG, Lee DB, Lee GW, Kim DW, Kang KT, Chang BS, Lee CK, Yeom JS (2013) The influence of pain sensitivity on the symptom severity in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Pain Physician 16:135–144PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ho-Joong Kim
    • 1
  • Jae-Young Park
    • 1
  • Kyoung-Tak Kang
    • 2
  • Bong-Soon Chang
    • 3
  • Choon-Ki Lee
    • 3
  • Jin S. Yeom
    • 1
  1. 1.Spine Center and Department of Orthopaedic SurgerySeoul National University College of Medicine and Seoul National University Bundang HospitalSeongnamRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical EngineeringYonsei UniversitySeoulRepublic of Korea
  3. 3.Department of Orthopaedic SurgerySeoul National University College of Medicine and Seoul National University HospitalSeoulRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations