Comparison between patient and surgeon perception of degenerative spine disease outcomes—a prospective blinded database study
- 342 Downloads
Few have studied the correlation between patients’ and spine surgeons’ perception on outcomes, or compared these with patient-reported outcome scores. Outcomes studies are increasingly important in evaluating costs and benefits to patients and surgeons, and in developing metrics for payer evaluation and health care policy-making.
To compare patients’ and surgeons’ assessment of spine treatment outcome in a prospective blinded patient-driven spine surgery outcomes registry, and to correlate perceived outcomes ratings to validated outcomes scores.
Patients filled out surveys at baseline, 3 months and 6 months postoperatively, including Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and Neck Disability Index (NDI) or Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Outcome was rated independently by patients and surgeons on a 7-point Likert-type scale.
Two-hundred and sixty-five consecutive adult patients were surgical candidates. Of these, 154 (58.1 %) opted for surgery, with 69 (44.8 %) cervical and 85 (55.2 %) lumbar patients. One hundred and thirty-five (87.7 %) had both patient and surgeon postoperative ratings. Surgeons’ and patients’ ratings correlated strongly (Spearman rho = 0.53, p < 0.0001, 45.9 % identical, 88.2 % +/− 1 grade). The surgeon rated outcomes were better than patients in 29.8 % and worse in 21.15 %. Patient rating correlated better with the most recent NDI/ODI and pain scores than with incremental change from baseline. In multivariate analysis, age, location (cervical vs lumbar), pain ratings, and functional scores (NDI, ODI) did not have significant impact on the discrepancy between patient and surgeon ratings.
Patients’ and surgeons’ global outcome ratings for spinal disease correlate highly. Patients’ ratings correlate better with most recent functional scores, rather than incremental change from baseline.
KeywordsOutcome registry Cervical spine Lumbar spine Spine surgery Patient rating Surgeon rating Clinical outcomes
Conflicts of interest
- 5.Brox JI, Sorensen R, Friis A, Nygaard O, Indahl A, Keller A, Ingebrigtsen T, Eriksen HR, Holm I, Koller AK, Riise R, Reikeras O (2003) Randomized clinical trial of lumbar instrumented fusion and cognitive intervention and exercises in patients with chronic low back pain and disc degeneration. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 28:1913–1921CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.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 10:469–474PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Copay AG, Glassman SD, Subach BR, Berven S, Schuler TC, Carreon LY (2008) Minimum clinically important difference in lumbar spine surgery patients: a choice of methods using the Oswestry Disability Index, Medical Outcomes Study questionnaire Short Form 36, and pain scales. Spine J 8:968–974PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Eriksen EF, Buhl M, Fode K, Klaerke A, Kroyer L, Lindeberg H, Madsen CB, Strange P, Wohlert L, Espersen JO (1984) Treatment of cervical disc disease using Cloward’s technique. The prognostic value of clinical preoperative data in 1,106 patients. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 70:181–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 23.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 2. Minimal clinically important difference for improvement and deterioration as measured with the Core Outcome Measures Index. Eur Spine J 18(Suppl 3):374–379PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar