European Spine Journal

, Volume 27, Issue 4, pp 778–788 | Cite as

EUROSPINE 2017 FULL PAPER AWARD: Time to remove our rose-tinted spectacles: a candid appraisal of the relative success of surgery in over 4500 patients with degenerative disorders of the lumbar spine, hip or knee

  • Anne F. Mannion
  • Franco M. Impellizzeri
  • Michael Leunig
  • Dezsö Jeszenszy
  • Hans-Jürgen Becker
  • Daniel Haschtmann
  • Stefan Preiss
  • Tamas F. Fekete
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

Studies comparing the outcome of spine surgery with that of large-joint replacement report equivocal findings. The patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used in such studies are typically generic and may not be sufficiently sensitive to the successes/failures of treatment. This study compared different indices of “success” in patients undergoing surgery for degenerative disorders of the lumbar spine, hip, or knee, using a validated, multidimensional, and joint-specific PROM.

Methods

Preoperatively and 12 months postoperatively, 4594 patients (3937 lumbar spine, 368 hip, 269 knee) undergoing first-time surgery completed a PROM that included the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) for the affected joint. The latter comprises a set of single items on pain, function, symptom-specific well-being, quality of life, and disability—all in relation to the specified joint problem. Other single-item ratings of treatment success were made 12 months postoperatively.

Results

In multiple regression analyses, controlling for confounders, the mean improvement in COMI at 12 months was greatest for the hip patients and lowest for those with degenerative spinal deformity (= the statistical reference group) (p < 0.05). Compared with spinal deformity, the odds of achieving “success” were: higher for hip (OR 4.6; 95% CI 2.5–8.5) and knee (OR 4.0; 95% CI 2.1–7.7) (no difference between spine subgroups) for “satisfaction with care”; higher for hip (OR 16.9; 95% CI 7.3–39.6), knee (OR 6.3; 95% CI 3.4–11.6), degenerative spondylolisthesis (OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.2–2.2), and herniated disc (OR 1.7; 95% CI 1.2–2.4) for “global treatment outcome”; and higher for hip (OR 13.8; 95% CI 8.8–21.6), knee (OR 5.3; 95% CI 3.6–7.8), degenerative spondylolisthesis (OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.3–2.1), and herniated disc (1.5; 95% CI 1.1–2.0) for “patient-acceptable symptom state”. Patient-rated complications were the greatest in degenerative spinal deformity (29%) and the lowest in hip (18%).

Conclusions

The current study is the largest of its kind and the first to use a common, but joint-specific instrument to report patient-reported outcomes after surgery for degenerative disorders of the spine, hip, or knee. The findings provide a sobering account of the significantly poorer outcomes after spine surgery compared with large-joint replacement. Further work is required to hone the indications and patient selection criteria for spine surgery. The data should be used to lobby research funding-bodies, governmental agencies, industry, and charitable foundations to invest more in spine research/registries, in the hope of ultimately improving spine outcomes.

Graphical abstract

These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Keywords

Spine Hip Knee Surgery Outcomes 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank all the patients of the Schulthess Klinik who have contributed data to our in-house registry. We thank François Porchet, Frank Kleinstück, and all present and past surgeons working at the Schulthess Klinik Spine Center for their compliance with the surgical forms of the Spine Tango Registry. We thank Dave O’Riordan, Gordana Balaban, Julian Amacker, Kirsten Clift, Sara Preziosa, Stéphanie Dosch, Riccardo Curatolo, Selina Nauer, Danica Mauz, Vanessa Wellhauer, and Myrta Villoz for the administration of the surgical forms and patient-rated outcome measures in our registry and for the preparation of the data files for analysis.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflict of interest concerning the materials or methods used in this study or the findings described in this paper.

Supplementary material

586_2018_5469_MOESM1_ESM.pptx (403 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PPTX 403 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Vos T (2015) Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 301 acute and chronic diseases and injuries in 188 countries, 1990–2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. Lancet 386:743–800.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(15)60692-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Buckwalter JA, Heckman JD, Petrie DP, AOA (2003) An AOA critical issue: aging of the North American population: new challenges for orthopaedics. J Bone Jt Surg Am 85-A:748–758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Issues and Options for an Expanded Federal Role (2017) Congress of the United States, Congressional Budget Office Publication Number 2975. https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/110th-congress-2007-2008/reports/12-18-comparativeeffectiveness.pdf. Accessed 10 March 2017
  4. 4.
    Lim JB, Chou AC, Yeo W, Lo NN, Chia SL, Chin PL, Tay DK, Yeo SJ (2015) Comparison of patient quality of life scores and satisfaction after common orthopedic surgical interventions. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 25:1007–1012.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-015-1635-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Juul O, Sigmundsson FG, Ovesen O, Andersen MO, Ernst C, Thomsen K (2006) No difference in health-related quality of life in hip osteoarthritis compared to degenerative lumbar instability at pre- and 1-year postoperatively: a prospective study of 101 patients. Acta Orthop 77:748–754.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17453670610012935 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rampersaud YR, Ravi B, Lewis SJ, Stas V, Barron R, Davey R, Mahomed N (2007) Assessment of health-related quality of life after surgical treatment of focal symptomatic spinal stenosis compared with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. Spine J 8:296–304.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2007.05.003 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rampersaud YR, Wai EK, Fisher CG, Yee AJ, Dvorak MF, Finkelstein JA, Gandhi R, Abraham EP, Lewis SJ, Alexander DI, Oxner WM, Davey JR, Mahomed N (2011) Postoperative improvement in health-related quality of life: a national comparison of surgical treatment for focal (one- to two-level) lumbar spinal stenosis compared with total joint arthroplasty for osteoarthritis. Spine J 11:1033–1041.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2011.10.011 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mokhtar SA, McCombe PF, Williamson OD, Morgan MK, White GJ, Sears WR (2010) Health-related quality of life: a comparison of outcomes after lumbar fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis with large joint replacement surgery and population norms. Spine J 10(4):306–312.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2010.01.018 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hozack WJ, Rothman RH, Albert TJ, Balderston RA, Eng K (1997) Relationship of total hip arthroplasty outcomes to other orthopaedic procedures. Clin Orthop Relat Res 344:88–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hansson T, Hansson E, Malchau H (2008) Utility of spine surgery: a comparison of common elective orthopaedic surgical procedures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33:2819–2830.  https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0b013e31818e2914 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rampersaud YR, Lewis SJ, Davey JR, Gandhi R, Mahomed NN (2014) Comparative outcomes and cost-utility after surgical treatment of focal lumbar spinal stenosis compared with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee—part 1: long-term change in health-related quality of life. Spine J 14:234–243.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2013.12.010 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tso P, Walker K, Mahomed N, Coyte PC, Rampersaud YR (2012) Comparison of lifetime incremental cost:utility ratios of surgery relative to failed medical management for the treatment of hip, knee and spine osteoarthritis modelled using 2-year postsurgical values. Can J Surg 55:181–190.  https://doi.org/10.1503/cjs.033910 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Murray D, Carr A (1996) The problem of ‘noise’ in monitoring patient-based outcomes: generic, disease-specific and site-specific instruments for total hip replacement. J Health Serv Res Policy 1:224–231CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Suarez-Almazor ME, Kendall C, Johnson JA, Skeith K, Vincent D (2000) Use of health status measures in patients with low back pain in clinical settings. Comparison of specific, generic and preference-based instruments. Rheumatology (Oxford) 39:783–790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fanuele JC, Birkmeyer NJ, Abdu WA, Tosteson TD, Weinstein JN (2000) The impact of spinal problems on the health status of patients: have we underestimated the effect? Spine 25:1509–1514CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Copay AG, Martin MM, Subach BR, Carreon LY, Glassman SD, Schuler TC, Berven S (2010) Assessment of spine surgery outcomes: inconsistency of change amongst outcome measurements. Spine J 10:291–296CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Howe J, Frymoyer JW (1985) The effects of questionnaire design on the determination of end results in lumbar spinal surgery. Spine 10:804–805CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Judge A, Arden NK, Kiran A, Price A, Javaid MK, Beard D, Murray D, Field RE (2012) Interpretation of patient-reported outcomes for hip and knee replacement surgery: identification of thresholds associated with satisfaction with surgery. J Bone Jt Surg Br 94:412–418.  https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.94b3.27425 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fekete TF, Haschtmann D, Kleinstuck FS, Porchet F, Jeszenszky D, Mannion AF (2016) What level of pain are patients happy to live with after surgery for lumbar degenerative disorders? Spine J 16:S12–S18.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2016.01.180 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stauff MP, Cheng I (2013) Complications: a critical component of patient outcome. Spine J 13:625–627.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2013.03.008 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mannion AF, Elfering A, Staerkle R, Junge A, Grob D, Semmer NK, Jacobshagen N, Dvorak J, Boos N (2005) Outcome assessment in low back pain: how low can you go? Eur Spine J 14:1014–1026CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ferrer M, Pellise F, Escudero O, Alvarez L, Pont A, Alonso J, Deyo R (2006) Validation of a minimum outcome core set in the evaluation of patients with back pain. Spine 31:1372–1379 (discussion 1380) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mannion AF, Porchet F, Kleinstück F, Lattig F, Jeszenszky D, Bartanusz V, Dvorak J, Grob D (2009) The quality of spine surgery from the patient’s perspective: part 1. The Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) in clinical practice. Eur Spine J 18:367–373CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Deyo RA, Battié 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 23:2003–2013CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Impellizzeri FM, Mannion AF, Naal FD, Leunig M (2013) A Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) for patients undergoing hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 28:1681–1686.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2013.01.014 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Staerkle RF, Villiger P (2011) Simple questionnaire for assessing core outcomes in inguinal hernia repair. Br J Surg 98:148–155CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Impellizzeri FM, Leunig M, Preiss S, Guggi T, Mannion AF (2016) The use of the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) in patients undergoing total knee replacement. Knee.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2016.11.016 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    EUROSPINE (2016) http://www.eurospine.org/spine-tango.htm. Accessed 7 April 2016
  29. 29.
    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 18:374–379CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Falavigna A, Dozza DC, Teles AR, Wong CC, Barbagallo G, Brodke D, Al-Mutair A, Ghogawala Z, Riew KD (2017) Current Status of Worldwide Use of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in Spine Care. World Neurosurg 108:328–335.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2017.09.002 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Donnelly C, Carswell A (2002) Individualized outcome measures: a review of the literature. Can J Occup Ther 69:84–94CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    van Hooff ML, Mannion AF, Staub LP, Ostelo RW, Fairbank JC (2016) Determination of the Oswestry Disability Index score equivalent to a “satisfactory symptom state” in patients undergoing surgery for degenerative disorders of the lumbar spine-a Spine Tango registry-based study. Spine J 16:1221–1230.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2016.06.010 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Becerra Fontal JA, Bago Granell J, Garre Olmo J, Roig Busquets R, Peris Prats F, Villanueva Leal C (2013) Evaluation of health-related quality of life in patients candidate for spine and other musculoskeletal surgery. Eur Spine J 22:1002–1009.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2617-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kleinstueck FS, Fekete T, Jeszenszky D, Mannion AF, Grob D, Lattig F, Mutter U, Porchet F (2011) The outcome of decompression surgery for lumbar herniated disc is influenced by the level of concomitant preoperative low back pain. Eur Spine J 20:1166–1173CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Nystrom B, Weber H, Schillberg B, Taube A (2017) Symptoms and signs possibly indicating segmental, discogenic pain. A fusion study with 18 years of follow-up. Scand J Pain 16:213–220.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sjpain.2016.10.007 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Grob D, Mannion AF (2009) The patient’s perspective on complications after spine surgery. Eur Spine J 18:380–385CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anne F. Mannion
    • 1
  • Franco M. Impellizzeri
    • 1
  • Michael Leunig
    • 2
  • Dezsö Jeszenszy
    • 3
  • Hans-Jürgen Becker
    • 3
  • Daniel Haschtmann
    • 3
  • Stefan Preiss
    • 2
  • Tamas F. Fekete
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Teaching, Research and DevelopmentSchulthess KlinikZurichSwitzerland
  2. 2.Department of Hip and Knee SurgerySchulthess KlinikZurichSwitzerland
  3. 3.Department of Spine Surgery and NeurosurgerySchulthess KlinikZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations