Minimum clinically important difference in outcome scores among patients undergoing cervical laminoplasty
Minimum clinically important difference (MCID) represents the smallest change in an outcome measure recognized as clinically meaningful to a patient and is one of the most important psychometric parameters for assessing the postoperative results of spinal surgery. The purpose of the present study was to elucidate MCIDs for four common outcome measures used for degenerative cervical myelopathy in the context of patients undergoing laminoplasty.
We retrospectively reviewed a consecutive series of cervical laminoplasties in a single academic institution. Pre- and postoperative Japanese Orthopaedic Association Cervical Myelopathy Evaluation Questionnaire (JOACMEQ), Short Form-36 (SF-36), Neck Disability Index (NDI), and EuroQOL (EQ-5D) scores were obtained. Patients were also asked to answer the anchor question regarding satisfaction with treatment, and the anchor-based method was used to determine cut-off values for MCIDs.
A total of 101 patients were included in the analysis. All outcome scores showed significant improvement postoperatively, with the exception of JOACMEQ bladder function score and SF-36 mental component summary score. Most patients (66%) were at least “somewhat satisfied” with treatment results. Receiver operating characteristic curve analyses revealed MCIDs of 2.5 for JOACEMQ cervical spine function, 13.0 for upper extremity function, 9.35 for lower extremity function, 9.5 for QOL, 3.9 for SF-36 physical component summary score, 4.2 for NDI, and 0.0485 for EQ-5D.
The MCIDs of four outcome measures were determined for patients undergoing cervical laminoplasty.
KeywordsCervical laminoplasty Minimum clinically important difference Japanese Orthopaedic Association Cervical Myelopathy Evaluation Questionnaire Short Form-36 Neck Disability Index EuroQOL
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 2.Vernon H, Mior S (1991) The Neck Disability Index: a study of reliability and validity. J Manip Physiol Ther 14:409–415Google Scholar
- 4.Japanese Orthopaedic Association (1994) Scoring system for cervical myelopathy. J Jpn Orthop Assoc 68:490–503Google Scholar
- 7.Fukui M, Chiba K, Kawakami M, Kikuchi S, Konno S, Miyamoto M, Seichi A, Shimamura T, Shirado O, Taguchi T, Takahashi K, Takeshita K, Tani T, Toyama Y, Wada E, Yonenobu K, Tanaka T, Hirota Y, Subcommittee on Low Back P, Cervical Myelopathy Evaluation of the Clinical Outcome Committee of the Japanese Orthopaedic A (2007) An outcome measure for patients with cervical myelopathy: Japanese Orthopaedic Association Cervical Myelopathy Evaluation Questionnaire (JOACMEQ): Part 1. J Orthop Sci 12:227–240. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00776-007-1118-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Fukui M, Chiba K, Kawakami M, Kikuchi S, Konno S, Miyamoto M, Seichi A, Shimamura T, Shirado O, Taguchi T, Takahashi K, Takeshita K, Tani T, Toyama Y, Yonenobu K, Wada E, Tanaka T, Hirota Y (2007) Japanese Orthopaedic Association Cervical Myelopathy Evaluation Questionnaire: part 3. Determination of reliability. J Orthop Sci 12:321–326. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00776-007-1131-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Chien A, Lai DM, Cheng CH, Wang SF, Hsu WL, Wang JL (2014) Translation, cross-cultural adaptation, and validation of a Chinese version of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association Cervical Myelopathy Evaluation Questionnaire. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 39:963–970. https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000000313 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Witayakom W, Paholpak P, Jirarattanaphochai K, Kosuwon W, Sirichativapee W, Wisanuyotin T, Laupattarakasem P, Sukhonthamarn K, Jeeravipoolvarn P, Sakakibara T, Kasai Y (2016) Validation of the reliability of the Thai version of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association Cervical Myelopathy Evaluation Questionnaire (JOACMEQ). J Orthop Sci 21:124–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jos.2015.12.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Ohya J, Oshima Y, Oka H, Saiki F, Taniguchi Y, Matsubayashi Y, Tanaka S, Chikuda H, Takeshita K (2016) Patient satisfaction with posterior decompression surgery for cervical ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: prognostic radiographic factors and patient-reported outcomes for the effectiveness of surgical treatment. World Neurosurg 96:272–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2016.09.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Zhang Y, Zhou F, Sun Y (2015) Assessment of health-related quality of life using the SF-36 in Chinese cervical spondylotic myelopathy patients after surgery and its consistency with neurological function assessment: a cohort study. Health Qual Life Outcomes 13:39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-015-0237-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.Carreon LY, Glassman SD, Campbell MJ, Anderson PA (2010) Neck Disability Index, short form-36 physical component summary, and pain scales for neck and arm pain: the minimum clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit after cervical spine fusion. Spine J 10:469–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2010.02.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Auffinger BM, Lall RR, Dahdaleh NS, Wong AP, Lam SK, Koski T, Fessler RG, Smith ZA (2013) Measuring surgical outcomes in cervical spondylotic myelopathy patients undergoing anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: assessment of minimum clinically important difference. PLoS ONE 8:e67408. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0067408 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.Parker SL, Godil SS, Shau DN, Mendenhall SK, McGirt MJ (2013) Assessment of the minimum clinically important difference in pain, disability, and quality of life after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 18:154–160. https://doi.org/10.3171/2012.10.SPINE12312 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.Chien A, Lai DM, Cheng CH, Wang SF, Hsu WL, Wang JL (2015) Responsiveness of the Chinese versions of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association Cervical Myelopathy Evaluation Questionnaire and Neck Disability Index in postoperative patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 40:1315–1321. https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000001005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 22.Zhou F, Zhang Y, Sun Y, Zhang F, Pan S, Liu Z (2015) Assessment of the minimum clinically important difference in neurological function and quality of life after surgery in cervical spondylotic myelopathy patients: a prospective cohort study. Eur Spine J 24:2918–2923. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-4208-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 24.Fukui M, Chiba K, Kawakami M, Kikuchi S, Konno S, Miyamoto M, Seichi A, Shimamura T, Shirado O, Taguchi T, Takahashi K, Takeshita K, Tani T, Toyama Y, Yonenobu K, Wada E, Tanaka T, Hirota Y, Subcommittee of the Clinical Outcome Committee of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association on Low Back P, Cervical Myelopathy E (2009) JOA Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ)/JOA Cervical Myelopathy Evaluation Questionnaire (JOACMEQ). The report on the development of revised versions. April 16, 2007. The Subcommittee of the Clinical Outcome Committee of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association on Low Back Pain and Cervical Myelopathy Evaluation. J Orthop Sci 14:348–365. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00776-009-1337-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar