State-of-the-art: outcome assessment in adult spinal deformity

Abstract

Adult spinal deformity (ASD) is a diagnosis that encompasses heterogeneous disorders with an increasing prevalence. This increasing prevalence may be due to greater patient longevity or greater awareness of available treatments. Outcome assessment in ASD has evolved over the last 3 decades from physician-based assessments to a patient-centered perception of improvement. Outcome assessment that is reliable, accurate and responsive to change is especially important in ASD, as surgical treatment is known to carry a high cost and complication rate Glassman (Spine Deform 3:199–203, 2015); Glassman (Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32: 2764–2770, 2007); Smith (J Neurosurg Spine 25:1–14, 2016). In an era of value-based care, diagnosis associated with such heterogeneity and high cost must provide sound evidence to support the cost versus outcome ratio. Numerous general health and disease specific patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have been utilized in ASD. We discuss these instruments in detail in the following state-of-the-art review.

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

References

  1. 1.

    Glassman SD, Dimar JR 2nd, Carreon LY (2015) Revision rate after adult deformity surgery. Spine Deform 3(2):199–203

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Glassman SD, Hamill CL, Bridwell KH, Schwab FJ, Dimar JR, Lowe TG (2007) The impact of perioperative complications on clinical outcome in adult deformity surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32(24):2764–2770

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Smith JS, Klineberg E, Lafage V et al (2016) Prospective multicenter assessment of perioperative and minimum 2-year postoperative complication rates associated with adult spinal deformity surgery. J Neurosurg Spine 25(1):1–14

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Bernhardt M, Bridwell KH (1989) Segmental analysis of the sagittal plane alignment of the normal thoracic and lumbar spines and thoracolumbar junction. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 14(7):717–721

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Schwab FJ, Smith VA, Biserni M, Gamez L, Farcy J-PC, Pagala M (2002) Adult scoliosis: a quantitative radiographic and clinical analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 27:387–392

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Ames CP, Scheer JK, Lafage V, Smith JS, Bess S, Berven SH, Mundis GM, Sethi RK, Deinlein DA, Coe JD et al (2016) Adult spinal deformity: epidemiology, health impact, evaluation, and management. Spine Deform 4(4):310–322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspd.2015.12.009

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Grubb SA, Lipscomb HJ, Coonrad RW (1988) Degenerative adult onset scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 13(3):241–245

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Carter OD, Haynes SG (1987) Prevalence rates for scoliosis in US adults: results from the first national health and nutrition examination survey. Int J Epidemiol 16(4):537–544

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Francis RS (1988) Scoliosis screening of 3000 college-aged women. The Utah study—phase. Phys Ther 68(10):1513–1516

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Kostuik JP, Bentivoglio J (1981) The incidence of low-back pain in adult scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 6(3):268–273. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-198105000-00009

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Perennou D, Marcelli C, Herisson C, Simon L (1994) Adult lumbar scoliosis: epidemiologic aspects in a low-back pain population. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 19(2):123–123

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Schwab F, Dubey A, Gamez L, El Fegoun AB, Hwang K, Pagala M, Farcy J-P (2005) Adult scoliosis: prevalence, sf-36, and nutritional parameters in an elderly volunteer population. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30(9):1082–1085

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Grayson VK, Velkoff VA (2010) The next four decades, the older population in the United States: 2010 to 2050. In: Current Population Reports. Washington, DC, United States Census Bureau, p. P25e1138

  14. 14.

    Jacobsen LA, Kent M, Lee M, Mather M (2011) America’s aging population. Popul Bull 66:1–16

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Healthcare Costs (2013) Utilization Project. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available at: https://hcupnet.ahrq.gov. Accessed 21 April 2020

  16. 16.

    Raad M, Jain A, Huang M, Skolasky RL, Sciubba DM, Kebaish KM, Neuman BJ (2019) Validity and responsiveness of PROMIS in adult spinal deformity: the need for a self-image domain. Spine J 19(1):50–55

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Cutler HS, Guzman JZ, Al Maaieh M, Connolly J, Skovrlj B, Cho SK (2015) Patient reported outcomes in adult spinal deformity surgery: a bibliometric analysis. Spine Deform 3(4):312–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspd.2014.12.004

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Faraj SSA, van Hooff ML, Holewijn RM, Polly DW Jr, Haanstra TM, de Kleuver M (2017) Measuring outcomes in adult spinal deformity surgery: a systematic review to identify current strengths, weaknesses and gaps in patient-reported outcome measures. Eur Spine J 26(8):2084–2093

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Van Hooff ML, Jacobs WCH, Willems PC, Wouters MWJM, de Kleuver M, Peul WC, Ostelo RWJG, Fritzell P (2015) Evidence and practice in spine registries: a systematic review, and recommendations for future design of registries. Acta Orthop 86(5):534–544. https://doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2015.1043174

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Glassman S, Carreon LY, Andersen M, Asher A, Eiskjær S, Gehrchen M, Imagama S, Ishii K, Kaito T, Matsuyama Y et al (2017) Predictors of hospital readmission and surgical site infection in the United States, Denmark, and Japan: Is risk stratification a universal language? Spine 42(17):1311–1315. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000002082

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Bilimoria KY, Cella D, Butt Z (2014) Current challenges in using patient-reported outcomes for surgical care and performance measurement everybody wants to hear from the patient, but are we ready to listen? JAMA Surg 149(6):505–505. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2013.5285

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Clarke M (2007) Standardising outcomes for clinical trials and systematic reviews. Trials 8:39. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-8-39

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Williamson P, Gargon E, Altman D, Blazeby J, Clarke M (2012) Driving up the quality and relevance of research through the use of agreed core outcomes. J Health Serv Res Policy 17(1):1–2. https://doi.org/10.1258/jhsrp.2011.011131

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Daubs MD, Lenke LG, Bridwell KH, Kim YJ, Hung M, Cheh G, Koester LA (2013) Does correction of preoperative coronal imbalance make a difference in outcomes of adult patients with deformity? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38(6):476–483. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182846eb3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Glassman SD, Bridwell KH, Shaffrey CI, Edwards CC, Lurie JD, Baldus CR, Carreon LY (2018) Health-related quality of life scores underestimate the impact of major complications in lumbar degenerative scoliosis surgery. Spine Deform 6(1):67–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspd.2017.05.003

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Kim YJ, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, Rinella AS, Edward C (2005) Pseudarthrosis in primary fusions for adult idiopathic scoliosis: Incidence, risk factors, and outcome analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30(4):468–474. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000153392.74639.ea

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Lapp MA, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, Daniel Riew K, Linville DA, Eck KR, Ungacta FF (2001) Long-term complications in adult spinal deformity patients having combined surgery: a comparison of primary to revision patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26(8):973–983

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Finkelstein JA, Schwartz CE (2019) Patient-reported outcomes in spine surgery: past, current, and future directions. J Neurosurg Spine 31(2):155–164. https://doi.org/10.3171/2019.1.SPINE18770

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Lee CK, Hansen HT, Weiss AB (1978) Developmental lumbar spinal stenosis. Pathology and surgical treatment. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 3(3):246–255

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Geigle R, Jones SB (1990) Outcomes measurement: a report from the front. Inquiry 27:7–13

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH (1994) Psychometric theory, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill Inc., New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Deyo RA, Battie M, Beurskens AJHM, Bombardier C, Croft P, Koes B, Malmivaara A, Roland M, Von Korff M, Waddell G (1998) Outcome measures for low back pain research: a proposal for standardized use. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 23(18):2003–2013

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Hägg 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

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH (1989) Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 10:407–415

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Kelly MP, Kim HJ, Ames CP, Burton DC, Carreon LY, Polly DW Jr, Hostin R, Jain A, Gum JL, Lafage V et al (2018) Minimum detectable measurement difference for health-related quality of life measures varies with age and disability in adult spinal deformity: implications for calculating minimal clinically important difference. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 43(13):790–795. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000002519

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Spratt KF (2009) Patient-level minimal clinically important difference based on clinical judgment and minimally detectable measurement difference: a rationale for the sf-36 physical function scale in the sport intervertebral disc herniation cohort. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34(16):1722–1731

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Glassman SD, Copay AG, Berven SH, Polly DW, Subach BR, Carreon LY (2008) Defining substantial clinical benefit following lumbar spine arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 90(9):1839–1847. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.G.01095

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Asher M, Min Lai S, Burton D, Manna B (2003) Scoliosis research society-22 patient questionnaire: responsiveness to change associated with surgical treatment. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 28(1):70–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Asher M, Min Lai S, Burton D, Manna B (2003) The reliability and concurrent validity of the scoliosis research society-22 patient questionnaire for idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 28(1):63–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Asher M, Min LS, Burton D et al (2003) Discrimination validity of the scoliosis research society-22 patient questionnaire: relationship to idiopathic scoliosis curve pattern and curve size. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 28:74–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Asher MA, Lai SM, Glattes RC, Burton DC, Alanay A, Bago J (2006) Refinement of the SRS-22 health-related quality of life questionnaire function domain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31(5):593–597

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Asher MA, Min Lai S, Burton DC (2000) Further development and validation of the Scoliosis Research Society (SRS) outcomes instrument. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25(18):2381–2386

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB (2000) The Oswestry disability index. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25:2940–2952

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

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

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Jensen IB, Bradley LA, Linton SJ (1989) Validation of an observation method of pain assessment in non-chronic back pain. Pain 39(3):267–274

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    McCaffery M, Beebe A (1993) Pain: A Clinical Manual for Nursing Practice. V.V. Mosby Company, Baltimore

    Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Ware JE, Kosinski M, Keller SK (1994) SF-36 Physical and mental health summaries scales: A user’s manual. The Health Institute, Boston, MA

    Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Ware J Jr, Kosinski M, Keller SD (1996) A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care 34(3):220–233

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    EuroQol Group (1990) EuroQol—a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 16:199–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance G, O'Brien B, Stoddart G (2002) Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes, Oxford University Press

  51. 51.

    Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russel LB, Weinstein MC (1996) Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. Oxford University Press

  52. 52.

    Haher TR, Gorup JM, Shin TM, Homel P, Merola AA, Grogan DP, Pugh L, Lowe TG, Murray M (1999) Results of the Scoliosis Research Society instrument for evaluation of surgical outcome in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. A multicenter study of 244 patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 24(14):1435–1440

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Simmons ED Jr, Kowalski JM, Simmons EH (1993) The results of surgical treatment for adult scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 18:718–724

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Wadell G, Reilly S, Torsney B et al (1969) Assessment of the outcome of low back surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Br 70:723–727

    Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Alanay A, Cil A, Berk H, Acaroglu RE, Yazici M, Akcali O, Kosay C, Genc Y, Surat A (2005) Reliability and validity of adapted Turkish Version of Scoliosis Research Society-22 (SRS-22) questionnaire. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30(21):2464–2468

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Antonarakos PD, Katranitsa L, Angelis L, Paganas A, Koen EM, Christodoulou EA, Christodoulou AG (2009) Reliability and validity of the adapted Greek version of scoliosis research society—22 (SRS-22) questionnaire. Scoliosis 16(4):14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Bago J, Climent JM, Ey A, Perez-Grueso FJ, Izquierdo E (2004) The Spanish version of the SRS-22 patient questionnaire for idiopathic scoliosis: transcultural adaptation and reliability analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 29(15):1676–1680

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Beauséjour M, Joncas J, Goulet L, Roy-Beaudry M, Parent S, Grimard G, Forcier M, Lauriault S, Labelle H (2009) Reliability and validity of adapted French Canadian version of Scoliosis Research Society Outcomes Questionnaire (SRS-22) in Quebec. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34(6):623–628

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Cheung KM, Senkoylu A, Alanay A, Genc Y, Lau S, Luk KD (2007) Reliability and concurrent validity of the adapted Chinese version of Scoliosis ResearchSociety-22 (SRS-22) questionnaire. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32(10):1141–1145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Climent JM, Bago J, Ey A, Perez-Grueso FJ, Izquierdo E (2005) Validity of the Spanish version of the Scoliosis Research Society-22 (SRS-22) Patient Questionnaire. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30(6):705–709

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Hashimoto H, Sase T, Arai Y, Maruyama T, Isobe K, Shouno Y (2007) Validation of a Japanese version of the Scoliosis Research Society-22 Patient Questionnaire among idiopathic scoliosis patients in Japan. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32(4):E141–E146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Li G, Passias P, Kozanek M, Fu E, Wang S, Xia Q, Li G, Rand FE, Wood KB (2009) Adult scoliosis in patients over sixty-five years of age: outcomes of operative versus nonoperative treatment at a minimum two-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34(20):2165–2170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Monticone M, Baiardi P, Calabrò D, Calabrò F, Foti C (2010) Development of the Italian version of the revised Scoliosis Research Society-22 Patient Questionnaire, SRS-22r-I: Cross-cultural adaptation, factor analysis, reliability, and validity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35:1412–1417

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Monticone M, Carabalona R, Negrini S (2004) Reliability of the scoliosis Research Society-22 Patient Questionnaire (Italian version) in mild adolescent vertebral deformities. Eura Medicophys 40(3):191–197

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Mousavi SJ, Mobini B, Mehdian H, Akbarnia B, Bouzari B, Askary-Ashtiani A, Montazeri A, Parnianpour M (2010) Reliability and validity of the Persian version of the scoliosis research society-22r questionnaire. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35(7):784–789

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Niemeyer T, Schubert C, Halm HF, Herberts T, Leichtle C, Gesicki M (2009) Validity and reliability of an adapted German version of scoliosis research society-22 questionnaire. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34(8):818–821

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Rosanova GC, Gabriel BS, Camarini PM, Gianini PE, Coelho DM, Oliveira AS (2010) Concurrent validity of the Brazilian version of SRS-22r with Br-SF-36. Rev Bras Fisioter 14(2):121–126

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Watanabe K, Hasegawa K, Hirano T et al (2005) Use of the Scoliosis Research Society outcomes instrument to evaluate patient outcome in untreated idiopathic scoliosis patients in Japan. Part II: relation between spinal deformity and patient outcomes. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30:1202–1205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    Watanabe K, Hasegawa K, Hirano T, Uchiyama S, Endo N (2005) Use of the scoliosis research society outcomes instrument to evaluate patient outcome in untreated idiopathic scoliosis patients in Japan: part I: comparison with nonscoliosis group: preliminary/limited review in a Japanese population. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30(10):1197–1201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    Zhao L, Zhang Y, Sun X, Du Q, Shang L (2007) The Scoliosis Research Society-22 questionnaire adapted for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients in China: reliability and validity analysis. J Child Orthop 1(6):351–355

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  71. 71.

    Bago J, Climent JM, Ey A, Perez-Grueso FJ, Izquierdo E. Re: Asher MA, Lai SM,Glattes RC, et al (2006) Refinement of the SRS-22 questionnaire Function domain. Spine 31:593-597. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31(15):1758

  72. 72.

    Glattes RC, Burton DC, Lai SM, Frasier E, Asher MA (2007) The reliability and concurrent validity of the Scoliosis Research Society-22r patient questionnaire compared with the Child Health Questionnaire-CF87 patient questionnaire for adolescent spinal deformity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32(16):1778–1784

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. 73.

    Berven S, Deviren V, Demir-Deviren S, Hu SS, Bradford DS (2003) Studies in the modified Scoliosis Research Society outcomes instrument in adults: validation, reliability, and discriminatory capacity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 28(18):2164–2169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. 74.

    Bridwell KH, Cats-Baril W, Harrast J, Berven S, Glassman S, Farcy JP, Horton WC, Lenke LG, Baldus C, Radake T (2005) The validity of the SRS-22 instrument in an adult spinal deformity population compared with the Oswestry and SF-12: a study of response distribution, concurrent validity, internal consistency, and reliability. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30(4):455–461

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. 75.

    Baldus C, Bridwell KH, Harrast J, Edwards C 2nd, Glassman S, Horton W, Lenke LG, Lowe T, Mardjetko S, Ondra S, Schwab F, Shaffrey C (2008) Age-gender matched comparison of SRS instrument scores between adult deformity and normal adults: are all SRS domains disease specific? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33(20):2214–2218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. 76.

    Lai SM, Asher M, Burton D (2006) Estimating SRS-22 quality of life measures with SF-36: application in idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31(4):473–478

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. 77.

    Repo JP, Ponkilainen VT, Häkkinen AH, Ylinen J, Bergman P, Kyrölä K (2019) Assessment of construct validity of the Oswestry disability index and the Scoliosis Research Society-30 Questionnaire (SRS-30) in patients with degenerative spinal disease. Spine Deform 7(6):929–936

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  78. 78.

    Bridwell KH, Berven S, Glassman S, Hamill C, Horton WC 3rd, Lenke LG, Schwab F, Baldus C, Shainline M (2007) Is the SRS-22 instrument responsive to change in adult scoliosis patients having primary spinal deformity surgery? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32(20):2220–2225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. 79.

    Caronni A, Zaina F, Negrini S (2014) Improving the measurement of health-related quality of life in adolescent with idiopathic scoliosis: the SRS-7, a Rasch-developed short form of the SRS-22 questionnaire. Res Dev Disabil 35(4):784–799

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  80. 80.

    Jain A, Lafage V, Kelly MP, Hassanzadeh H, Neuman BJ, Sciubba DM, Bess S, Shaffrey CI, Ames CP, Scheer JK, Burton D, Gupta MC, Hart R, Hostin RA, Kebaish KM, International Spine Study Group (2016) Validity, reliability, and responsiveness of SRS-7 as an outcomes assessment instrument for operatively treated patients with adult spinal deformity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 41(18):1463–1468

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. 81.

    Mannion AF, Elfering A, Bago J, Pellise F, Vila-Casademunt A, Richner-Wunderlin S, Domingo-Sàbat M, Obeid I, Acaroglu E, Alanay A, Pérez-Grueso FS, Baldus CR, Carreon LY, Bridwell KH, Glassman SD, Kleinstück F, European Spine Study Group (ESSG) (2018) Factor analysis of the SRS-22 outcome assessment instrument in patients with adult spinal deformity. Eur Spine J 27(3):685–699

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  82. 82.

    Lai SM, Asher MA, Burton DC, Carlson BB (2010) Identification of Scoliosis Research Society-22r health-related quality of life questionnaire domains using factor analysis methodology. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35(12):1236–1240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. 83.

    Crawford CH 3rd, Glassman SD, Bridwell KH, Berven SH, Carreon LY (2015) The minimum clinically important difference in SRS-22R total score, appearance, activity and pain domains after surgical treatment of adult spinal deformity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 40(6):377–381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. 84.

    Carreon LY, Kelly MP, Crawford CH 3rd, Baldus CR, Glassman SD, Shaffrey CI, Bridwell KH (2018) SRS-22R minimum clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit after adult lumbar scoliosis surgery. Spine Deform 6(1):79–83

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  85. 85.

    Arima H, Glassman SD, Bridwell K, Yamato Y, Yagi M, Watanabe K, Matsumoto M, Inami S, Taneichi H, Matsuyama Y, Carreon LY (2020) Reaching minimal clinically important difference in adult spinal deformity surgery: a comparison of patients from North America and Japan. J Neurosurg Spine 31:1–6

    Google Scholar 

  86. 86.

    El-Daly I, Ibraheim H, Rajakulendran K, Culpan P, Bates P (2016) Are patient-reported outcome measures in orthopaedics easily read by patients? Clin Orthop Relat Res 474(1):246–255

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  87. 87.

    Cella D, Riley W, Stone A et al (2010) The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) developed and tested its first wave of adult self-reported health outcome item banks: 2005–2008. J Clin Epidemiol 63(11):1179–1194

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  88. 88.

    Riley WT, Rothrock N, Bruce B et al (2010) Patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) domain names and definitions revisions: further evaluation of content validity in IRT-derived item banks. Qual Life Res 19(9):1311–1321

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  89. 89.

    Bernstein DN, Papuga MO, Sanders JO, Rubery PT, Menga EN, Mesfin A (2019) Evaluating the correlation and performance of PROMIS to SRS questionnaires in adult and pediatric spinal deformity patients. Spine Deform 7(1):118–124

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  90. 90.

    Kelly MP, Kallen MA, Shaffrey CI, Smith JS, Burton DC, Ames CP, Lafage V, Schwab FJ, Kim HJ, Klineberg EO, Bess S, International Spine Study Group (2019) Examining the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system versus the Scoliosis Research Society-22r in adult spinal deformity. J Neurosurg Spine 22:1–6

    Google Scholar 

  91. 91.

    Ibaseta A, Rahman R, Skolasky RL, Reidler JS, Kebaish KM, Neuman BJ (2020) SRS-22r legacy scores can be accurately translated to PROMIS scores in adult spinal deformity patients. Spine J 20(2):234–240

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  92. 92.

    Hung M, Saltzman CL, Kendall R, Bounsanga J, Voss MW, Lawrence B, Spiker R, Brodke D (2018) What are the MCIDs for Promis, NDI, and ODI instruments among patients with spinal conditions? Clin Orthop Relat Res 476(10):2027–2036. https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000000419

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  93. 93.

    Steinhaus ME, Iyer S, Lovecchio F, Khechen B, Stein D, Ross T, Yang J, Singh K, Albert TJ, Lebl D, Huang R, Sandhu H, Rawlins B, Schwab F, Lafage V, Kim HJ (2019) Minimal clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit using PROMIS CAT in cervical spine surgery. Clin Spine Surg 32(9):392–397

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  94. 94.

    Mannion AF, Vila-Casademunt A, Domingo-Sàbat M, Wunderlin S, Pellisé F, Bago J, Acaroglu E, Alanay A, Pérez-Grueso FS, Obeid I, Kleinstück FS, European Spine Study Group (ESSG) (2016) The Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) is a responsive instrument for assessing the outcome of treatment for adult spinal deformity. Eur Spine J 25(8):2638–2648

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  95. 95.

    Mannion AF, Porchet F, Kleinstück 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):374–379

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  96. 96.

    Acaroglu E, Yavuz AC, Guler UO, Yuksel S, Yavuz Y, Domingo-Sabat M, Pellise F, Alanay A, Perez Grueso FS, Kleinstück F, Obeid I, European Spine Study Group (2016) A decision analysis to identify the ideal treatment for adult spinal deformity: is surgery better than non-surgical treatment in improving health-related quality of life and decreasing the disease burden? Eur Spine J 25(8):2390–2400

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  97. 97.

    Carreon LY, Glassman SD, Lurie J, Shaffrey CI, Kelly MP, Baldus CR, Bratcher KR, Crawford CH, Yanik EL, Bridwell KH (2019) Cost-effectiveness of operative versus nonoperative treatment of adult symptomatic lumbar scoliosis an intent-to-treat analysis at 5-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 44(21):1499–1506

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. 98.

    Smith JS, Shaffrey CI, Berven S, Glassman S, Hamill C, Horton W, Ondra S, Schwab F, Shainline M, Fu KM, Bridwell K, Spinal Deformity Study Group (2009) Operative versus nonoperative treatment of leg pain in adults with scoliosis: a retrospective review of a prospective multicenter database with two-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34(16):1693–1698

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. 99.

    Kaplan RM (1988) Health-related quality of life in cardiovascular disease. J Consult Clin Psychol 56(3):382–392

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  100. 100.

    Brazier JE, Roberts J (2004) The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-12. Med Care 42(9):851–859

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  101. 101.

    Brazier J, Usherwood T, Harper R (1998) Thomas Deriving a preference-based single index from the UK SF36 health survey. J Clin Epidemiol 51(11):1115–1128

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  102. 102.

    Feeny D, Furlong W, Torrance GW et al (2002) Multiattribute and single attribute utility functions for the health utilities index mark 3 system. Med Care 40:113–128

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  103. 103.

    Kind P, Dolan P, Gudex C, Williams A (1988) Variations in population health status: results from a United Kingdom national questionnaire survey. BMJ 316:736–741

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. 104.

    McDonough CM, Tosteson TD, Tosteson AN, Jette AM, Grove MR, Weinstein JN (2011) A longitudinal comparison of 5 preference-weighted health state classification systems in persons with intervertebral disk herniation. Med Decis Making 31:270–280

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  105. 105.

    McDonough CM, Grove MR, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD, Hilibrand AS, Tosteson AN (2005) Comparison of EQ-5D, HUI, and SF-36-derived societal health state values among spine patient outcomes research trial (SPORT) participants. Qual Life Res 14:1321–1332

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  106. 106.

    Sach TH, Barton GR, Jenkinson C, Doherty M, Avery AJ, Muir KR (2009) Comparing cost-utility estimates: does the choice of EQ-5D or SF-6D matter? Med Care 47(8):889–894

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  107. 107.

    Søgaard R, Christensen FB, Videbaek TS, Bünger C, Christiansen T (2009) Interchangeability of the EQ-5D and the SF-6D in long-lasting low back pain. Value Health 12:606–612

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  108. 108.

    Carreon LY, Glassman SD, Ghogawala Z, Mummaneni PV, McGirt MJ, Asher AL (2016) Modeled cost-effectiveness of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion compared with posterolateral fusion for spondylolisthesis using N(2)QOD data. J Neurosurg Spine 24(6):916–921

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  109. 109.

    Tosteson AN, Lurie JD, Tosteson TD, Skinner JS, Herkowitz H, Albert T, Boden SD, Bridwell K, Longley M, Andersson GB, Blood EA, Grove MR, Weinstein JN (2008) SPORT Investigators: surgical treatment of spinal stenosis with and without degenerative spondylolisthesis: cost-effectiveness after 2 years. Ann Intern Med 149:845–853

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  110. 110.

    Tosteson AN, Skinner JS, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD, Andersson GB, Berven S, Grove MR, Hanscom B, Blood EA, Weinstein JN (2008) The cost effectiveness of surgical versus nonoperative treatment for lumbar disc herniation over two years: evidence from the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT). Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33:2108–2115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  111. 111.

    Brazier J, Roberts J, Tsuchiya A, Busschbach J (2004) A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Econ 13:873–884

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  112. 112.

    Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US): Calculating the U.S. Population-based EQ-5D™ Index Score. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. August 2005 (https://www.ahrq.gov/rice/EQ5Dscore.htm). Accessed 1 February 2013, 27 April 2020

  113. 113.

    Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen M, Kind P, Parkin D, Bonsel G, Badia X (2011) Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res 20(10):1727–1736

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  114. 114.

    Stolk E, Ludwig K, Rand K, van Hout B, Ramos-Goñi JM (2019) Overview, update, and lessons learned from the international EQ-5D-5L valuation work: version 2 of the EQ-5D-5L valuation protocol. Value Health 22(1):23–30

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  115. 115.

    Scheer JK, Keefe M, Lafage V, Kelly MP, Bess S, Burton DC, Hart RA, Jain A, Lonner BS, Protopsaltis TS et al (2017) Importance of patient-reported individualized goals when assessing outcomes for adult spinal deformity (ASD): Initial experience with a patient generated index (PGI). Spine J 17(10):1397–1405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2017.04.013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  116. 116.

    Schwartz CE, Ayandeh A, Finkelstein JA (2015) When patients and surgeons disagree about surgical outcome: investigating patient factors and chart note communication. Health Qual Life Outcomes 13:161–161. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-015-0343-0

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  117. 117.

    Ruta DA, Garratt AM, Leng M, Russell IT, MacDonald LM (1994) A new approach to the measurement of quality of life: the patient-generated index. Med Care 32(11):1109–1126

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  118. 118.

    Ames CP, Smith JS, Pellisé F, Kelly M, Gum JL, Alanay A, Acaroğlu E, Pérez-Grueso FJS, Kleinstück FS, Obeid I et al (2019) Development of predictive models for all individual questions of SRS-22R after adult spinal deformity surgery: a step toward individualized medicine. Eur Spine J 28(9):1998–2011. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-019-06079-x

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  119. 119.

    Weinstein SL, Dolan LA, Spratt KF, Peterson KK, Spoonamore MJ, Ponseti IV (2003) Health and function of patients with untreated idiopathic scoliosis: a 50-year natural history study. JAMA 289:559–567

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  120. 120.

    Weinstein SL, Zavala DC, Ponseti IV (1981) Idiopathic scoliosis: long-term follow-up and prognosis in untreated patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am 63(5):702–712

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  121. 121.

    Glassman SD, Bridwell K, Dimar JR, Horton W, Berven S, Schwab F (2005) The impact of positive sagittal balance in adult spinal deformity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30(18):2024–2029

    Article  Google Scholar 

  122. 122.

    Bess S, Line B, Fu K-M, McCarthy I, Lafage V, Schwab F, Shaffrey C, Ames C, Akbarnia B, Jo H et al (2016) The health impact of symptomatic adult spinal deformity: comparison of deformity types to United States population norms and chronic diseases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 41(3):224–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  123. 123.

    Pezold ML, Pusic AL, Cohen WA, Hollenberg JP, Butt Z, Flum DR, Temple LK (2016) Defining a research agenda for patient-reported outcomes in surgery: using a Delphi survey of stakeholders. JAMA Surg 151(10):930–930. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2016.1640

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  124. 124.

    Porter ME, Larsson S, Lee TH (2016) Standardizing patient outcomes measurement. N Engl J Med 374(6):504–506. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1511701

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  125. 125.

    Boonen A, Braun J, van der Horst Bruinsma IE, Huang F, Maksymowych W, Kostanjsek N, Cieza A, Stucki G, van der Heijde D (2010) ASAS/WHO ICF core sets for ankylosing spondylitis (AS): how to classify the impact of AS on functioning and health. Ann Rheum Dis 69(01):102–107. https://doi.org/10.1136/ard.2008.104117

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  126. 126.

    Cieza A, Stucki G, Weigl M, Kullmann L, Stoll T, Kamen L, Kostanjsek N, Walsh N (2004) ICF core sets for chronic widespread pain. J Rehabil Med 36:63–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  127. 127.

    Oner FC, Lehr AM, Sadiqi S, Jacobs WCH, Post MW, Aarabi B, Chapman JR, Dvorak MF, Fehlings MG, Kandziora F et al (2016) Toward the development of a universal outcome instrument for spine trauma: a systematic review and content comparison of outcome measures used in spine trauma research using the ICF as reference. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 41(4):358–367. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000001207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  128. 128.

    Selb M, Escorpizo R, Kostanjsek N, Stucki G, Üstün B, Cieza A (2015) A guide on how to develop an international classification of functioning, disability and health core set. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med 51(1):105–117

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  129. 129.

    Stoll T, Brach M, Huber EO, Scheuringer M, Schwarzkopf S, Konstanjsek N, Stucki G (2005) ICF core set for patients with musculoskeletal conditions in the acute hospital. Disabil Rehabil 27:381–387. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638280400013990

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  130. 130.

    Spence RT, Mueller JL, Chang DC (2016) A novel approach to global benchmarking of risk-adjusted surgical outcomes: beyond perioperative mortality rate. JAMA Surg 151(6):501–502. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2016.0091

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No funding was received for this work.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

JLG, LYC and SDG all made substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data; or the creation of new software used in the work. JLG, LYC and SDG drafted the work or revised it critically for important intellectual content. JLG, LYC and SDG approved the version to be published; JLG, LYC and SDG agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Leah Y. Carreon.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Jeffrey Gum: Acuity: IP royalties; Paid consultant, American Journal of Orthopedics: Editorial or governing board, Cingulate Therapeutics: Stock or stock Options, DePuy, A Johnson & Johnson Company: Paid presenter or speaker, K2M: Paid consultant, MAZOR Surgical Technologies: Paid consultant, Medtronic: Paid consultant, Nuvasive: IP royalties; Paid consultant, Stryker: Paid presenter or speaker, The Spine Journal—Reviewer: Editorial or governing board. Leah Yacat Carreon: Editorial Advisory Board Spine, The Spine Journal: Editorial or governing board, National Spine Health Foundation: Paid consultant, Norton Healthcare: Employee, Spine Deformity: Editorial or governing board, University of Louisville Institutional Review Board: Board or committee member, University of Southern Denmark: Employee. Steven D Glassman: K2M: Paid consultant, Medtronic: IP royalties; Paid consultant, Scoliosis Research Society: Board or committee member. Authors Institution receives research support from OREF, ISSG, Pfizer, TSRH, Cerapedics, SRS, Medtronic, Empirical Spine, IntelliRod, Alan L & Jacqueline B Stuart Research Foundation: Research support.

Research involving human and/or animal participants

No Institutional Board Review was sought as the project is not considered research and does not directly involve humans or animals.

Informed consent

No informed consent was sought as the project did not directly involve humans

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gum, J.L., Carreon, L.Y. & Glassman, S.D. State-of-the-art: outcome assessment in adult spinal deformity. Spine Deform (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43390-020-00220-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • Patient reported outcomes
  • Adult spinal deformity
  • Scoliosis Research Society 22R
  • Oswestry disability index
  • Short Form-36
  • EuroQOL 5D