Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Retrospective lumbar fusion outcomes measured by ODI sub-functions of 100 consecutive procedures

  • Orthopaedic Surgery
  • Published:
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Low back pain has been quite prevalent in the general population. Chronic low back pain can be defined as back pain lasting for more than 12 weeks. For chronic symptoms, fusion surgeries are the most common surgeries to alleviate the pain. Visual Analog Scale (VAS) is a measurement for subjective characteristics or attitudes that can be difficult to be directly measured. Respondents specify their level of agreement to a statement by indicating a position along a continuous line between two end points.

Aim

The purpose of this study is to investigate patient-reported pain using our own modified ODI with sub-functions. This allowed the study to show how patient outcomes differ with and without co-morbidity as well as functional outcomes after spinal fusion for degenerative disk disease (DDD) with the consistency of using one device and all procedures performed by the same surgeon.

Materials and methods

One hundred patients with DDD were treated with spinal fusion using one device. All procedures were performed by the same surgeon over a 3-year period. Patients were evaluated with discography and MRI preoperatively. Diagnosis of DDD was made when imaging showed bony segment erosion with decreased disc space >50 %. Fifty-six patients participated in the initial questionnaire and their data were tabulated and statistically analyzed. Twenty male patients aged 49–85 (median: 67, mean: 66), and thirty-six female patients aged 30–84 (median: 67, mean 64) responded to the questionnaire. There were no differences in pain total by gender, fusion level, single/multiple fusions, degenerative versus deformity condition, type of graft, and lumber area (all p values ≥0.15).

Results

Five-year pain measurements used by the VAS questionnaire as well as pain and functional outcomes measured by the ODI after lumbar fusion were superior to the results at 2 years (p = 0.025). Improvement was seen in all of the ODI sub-scores after 5 years, however, only physical function and social function reached statistical significance (p = 0.016 and 0.061, respectively).

Conclusion

Successful outcomes were demonstrated for each of the categories assessed and no statistical differences were seen in the ODI  % for any comparison after 5 years on 19 % of data reported which may have limited forecast reliability. Our data suggest that post-operative outcome is independent of preoperative condition, procedure to be preformed, age, and BMI. Our data support the continual practice of spinal fusion for the treatment of degenerative disk disease.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Berg S, Tropp H, Leivseth G (2011) Disc height and motion patterns in the lumbar spine in patients operated with total disc replacement or fusion for discogenic back pain. Results from a randomized controlled trial. Spine J 11(11):991–998. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2011.08.434

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Chou R, Lowser JD, Owens D, Rosenquist RW, Atlas SJ, Baisden J, Carragee EJ, Grabois M, Murphy DR, Resnick DK, Stanos SP, Shaffer WO, Wall EM (2009) Interventional therapies, surgery, and interdisciplinary rehabilitation for low back pain: an evidence-based clinical practice guideline for the American Pain Society. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:2404

    Google Scholar 

  3. Chung S, Lee S, Lim S, Kim D, Jang J, Nam K, Lee H (2003) Comparative study of laparoscopic L5-S1 fusion versus open mini-ALIF, with a minimum 2-year follow-up. Eur Spine J 12(6):613–617. doi:10.1007/s00586-003-0526-y

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Deyo R, Rainville J, Kent D (1992) What can the history and physical examination tell us about low back pain? JAMA 268:760

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Esses S, Doherty B, Crawford M, Dreyzin V (1996) Kinematic evaluation of lumbar fusion techniques. Spine 21(6):676–684. doi:10.1097/00007632-199603150-00003

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Fairbank J, Couper J, Davies J, O’Brien J (1980) The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy 66(8):271–273

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Fairbank J, Pynsent P (2000) The Oswestry Disability Index. Spine 25(22):2940–2952. doi:10.1097/00007632-200011150-00017 (discussion 2952)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Freeman B, Licina P, Mehdian S (2000) Posterior lumbar interbody fusion combined with instrumented postero-lateral fusion: 5-year results in 60 patients. Eur Spine J 9:42–46

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Gibson JNA, Waddell G (2005) Surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001352.pub3 (Art. No:CD001352)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Glassman S, Gornet M, Branch C, Polly D Jr, Peloza J, Schwender J, Carreon L (2006) MOS short form 36 and Oswestry Disability Index outcomes in lumbar fusion: a multicenter experience. Spine J 6(1):21–26. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2005.09.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Grant S, Aitchison T, Henderson E, Christie J, Zare S, McMurray J, Dargie H (1999) A comparison of the reproducibility and the sensitivity to change of visual analogue scales, borg scales, and likert scales in normal subjects during submaximal exercise. Chest J 116(5):1208–1217. doi:10.1378/chest.116.5.1208

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Haefeli M, Elfering A, Aebi M, Freeman BJ, Fritzell P, Guimaraes Consciencia J, Lamartina C, Mayer M, Lund T, Boos N (2008) What comprises a good outcome in spinal surgery? A preliminary survey among spine surgeons of SSe and European spine patients. Eur Spine J 17:104–116. doi:10.1007/s00586-007-0541-5

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Krismer M (2002) Fusion of the lumbar spine. A consideration of the indications. J Bone Joint Surg Br 84(6):783–794. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.84B6.13633

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kumar M, Jacquot F, Hall H (2001) Long-term follow-up of functional outcomes and radiographic changes at adjacent levels following lumbar spine fusion for degenerative disc disease. Eur Spine J 10(4):309–313. doi:10.1007/s005860000207

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Lee C, Langrana N (1984) Lumbosacral spinal fusion. A biomechanical study. Spine 9(6):574–581. doi:10.1097/00007632-198409000-00007

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Lin E, Wang J (2006) Total disk arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 14(13):705–714

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Lund T, Oxland T (2011) Adjacent level disk disease–is it really a fusion disease? Orthop Clin North Am 42(4):529–541. doi:10.1016/j.ocl.2011.07.006 (viii)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Madigan L, Vaccaro A, Spector L, Milam R (2009) Management of symptomatic lumbar degenerative disk disease. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 17(2):102–111

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Madonia-Barr J (2007) Lumbar ADR: a triumph of technology over reason? JAAPA 20(8):30–33

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Martin BI, Mirza SK, Comstock BA, Gray DT, Kreuter W, Deyo RA (2007) Reoperation rates following lumbar spine surgery and the influence of spinal fusion procedures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32(3):382–387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Moreland D, Asch H, Clabeaux D, Castiglia G, Czajka G, Lewis P, Huynh L (2004) Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with implantable titanium cage: initial impressions, patient outcomes and comparison to fusion with allograft. Spine J 4(2):184–191. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2003.05.001 (discussion 191)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Nabhan A, Ishak B, Steudel W, Ramadhan S, Steimer O (2011) Assessment of adjacent-segment mobility after cervical disc replacement versus fusion: RCT with 1 year’s results. Eur Spine J 20(6):934–941. doi:10.1007/s00586-010-1588-2

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Niemeyer T, Bövingloh A, Halm H, Liljenqvist U (2004) Results after anterior-posterior lumbar spinal fusion: 2-5 years follow-up. Int Orthop 28(5):298–302. doi:10.1007/s00264-004-0577-7

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. O’Rourke M, Grobler L (1998) L4-L5 degenerative spondylolisthesis: indications and technique for operative management. Iowa Orthop J 18:76–86

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Phillips F, Slosar P, Youssef J, Andersson G (2013) Lumbar spine fusion for chronic low back pain due to degenerative disc disease: a systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38(7):E409–E422 [Epub ahead of print]

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Robinson Y, Michaelsson K, Sanden B (2013) Instrumentation in lumbar fusion improves back pain but not quality of life 2 years after surgery. Acta Orthop 84(1):7–11. doi:10.3109/17453674.2013.771300

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Saberi H, Isfahani A (2008) Higher preoperative Oswestry Disability Index is associated with better surgical outcome in upper lumbar disc herniations. Eur Spine J 17(1):117–121. doi:10.1007/s00586-007-0527-3

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Slosar P, Reynolds J, Schofferman J, Goldthwaite N, White A, Keaney D (2000) Patient satisfaction after circumferential lumbar fusion. Spine 25(6):722–726. doi:10.1097/00007632-200003150-00012

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Sonntag V, Marciano F (1995) Role of spinal instrumentation in fusion for degenerative disease of the lumbosacral spine. Western J Med 162(3):262–263

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Tafazal S, Sell P (2006) Outcome scores in spinal surgery quantified: excellent, good, fair and poor in terms of patient-completed tools. Eur Spine J 15(11):1653–1660. doi:10.1007/s00586-005-0028-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Vianin M (2008) Psychometric properties and clinical usefulness of the Oswestry Disability Index. J Chiropr Med 7(4):161–163. doi:10.1016/j.jcm.2008.07.001

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Walsh T, Hanscom B, Lurie J, Weinstein J (2003) Is a condition-specific instrument for patients with low back pain/leg symptoms really necessary? The responsiveness of the Oswestry Disability Index, MODEMS, and the SF-36. Spine 28(6):607–615. doi:10.1097/01.BRS.0000050654.97387.DF

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Weinstein J, Lurie J, Olson P, Bronner KK, Fisher ES, Morgan TS (2006) United states’ trends and regional variations in lumbar spine surgery: 1992–2003. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31:2707

    Google Scholar 

  34. Whang P, Simpson A, Rechtine G, Grauer J (2009) Current trends in spinal arthroplasty: an assessment of surgeon practices and attitudes regarding cervical and lumbar disk replacement. J Spinal Disord Tech 22(1):26–33. doi:10.1097/BSD.0b013e3181659804

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Yajun W, Yue Z, Xiuxin H, Cui C (2010) A meta-analysis of artificial total disc replacement versus fusion for lumbar degenerative disc disease. Eur Spine J 19(8):1250–1261. doi:10.1007/s00586-010-1394-x

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We certify that there is no conflict of interest with any financial or medical institutions in the conduction or completion of this study. Amanda Wilkinson provided assistance in summarizing the ODI data and compiling the low back pain measurement scales. Bharadwaj Cheruvu had provided assistance in revising and submitting the document for publication. Professor Ronald Markert provided assistance in performing the statistical analysis. 

Conflict of interest

No potential conflicts of interest have been identified.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Boonshoft School of Medicine, Wright State University, Dayton, USA

    Daniel Luckenbill

  2. Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA

    Rinki Goswami

  3. Wright State University Boonshoft School of Medicine, Dayton, USA

    Kimberly A. Grannis

  4. Ohio Orthopaedic Institute, Lima, OH, USA

    James O’Neill

  5. Biomedical, Industrial and Human Factors Engineering, Wright State University, Dayton, OH, USA

    Tarun Goswami

Authors
  1. Daniel Luckenbill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rinki Goswami
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kimberly A. Grannis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. James O’Neill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Tarun Goswami
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tarun Goswami.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Luckenbill, D., Goswami, R., Grannis, K.A. et al. Retrospective lumbar fusion outcomes measured by ODI sub-functions of 100 consecutive procedures. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 135, 455–464 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-015-2166-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-015-2166-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation