Analysis of Patient-reported Outcomes Measures Used in Lumbar Fusion Surgery Research for Degenerative Spondylolisthesis


Study design:

Meta-analyses.


Objective:

This study aims to document the most common Patient-reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) used to assess lumbar fusion surgery outcomes and provide an estimate of the average improvement following surgical treatment.


Summary of background data:

As health care institutions place more emphasis on quality of care, accurately quantifying patient perceptions has become a valued tool in measuring outcomes. To this end, greater importance has been placed on the use of PROMs. This is a systemic review and meta-analysis of randomly controlled trials published between 2014 and 2019 assessing surgical treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis.


Methods:

A fixed effect size model was used to calculate mean difference and a 95% confidence interval (95% CI). Linear regression was used to calculate average expected improvement, adjusted for preoperative scores.


Results:

A total of 4 articles (7 study groups) were found for a total of 444 patients. The 3 most common PROMs were Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) (n=7, 100%), Short-Form-12 or Short-Form-36 (SF-12/36) (n=4, 57.1%), and visual analog scale-back pain (n=3, 42.8%). Pooled average improvement was 24.12 (95% CI: 22.49-25.76) for ODI, 21.90 (95% CI: 19.71-24.08) for SF-12/36 mental component score, 22.74 (95% CI: 20.77-24.71) for SF-12/36 physical component score, and 30.87 (95% CI: 43.79-47.97) for visual analog scale-back pain. After adjusting for preoperative scores, patients with the mean preoperative ODI (40.47) would be expected to improve by 22.83 points postoperatively.


Conclusions:

This study provides a range of expected improvement for common PROMs used to evaluate degenerative spondylolisthesis with the goal of equipping clinicians with a benchmark value to use when counseling patients regarding surgery. In doing so, it hopes to provide a comparison point by which to judge individual patient improvement.


Level of evidence:

Level II.

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Share on vk
VK
Share on pinterest
Pinterest
Close Menu