Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Value-Based Approaches to Spine Care pp 155–170Cite as

Measuring Outcomes in Adult Spinal Deformity

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 327 Accesses

Abstract

Several multicenter prospective registries have been created to evaluate quality and value of delivered spine care in population of patients with adult spinal deformity (ASD). Despite these efforts, global surveillance of patients with ASD and comparative effectiveness of treatment has been hindered by lack of a standardized systematic approach towards outcome measurement and reporting. Although meaningful and valuable for their own local purposes at the originating site, data elements that are not completely consistent between registries may not be used for comparison or aggregate analysis as different outcomes, measurement instruments, and risk stratification variables are used. This inconsistency limits the application of research findings into clinical practice, and prevents clinician investigators from informing policy makers about efficacy of various treatment strategies.

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

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. van Hooff ML, Jacobs WCH, Willems PC, et al. Evidence and practice in spine registries. Acta Orthop. 2015;86:534–44. https://doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2015.1043174.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Williamson P, Altman D, Blazeby J, et al. Driving up the quality and relevance of research through the use of agreed core outcomes. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2012;17:1–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Oner FC, Jacobs WCH, Lehr AM, et al. 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). 2016;41:358–67. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000001207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Laxe S, Tschiesner U, Zasler N, et al. What domains of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health are covered by the most commonly used measurement instruments in traumatic brain injury research? Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2012;114:645–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clineuro.2011.12.038.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Tugwell P, Boers M, Brooks P, et al. OMERACT: an international initiative to improve outcome measurement in rheumatology. Trials. 2007;8:38. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-8-38.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Gargon E, Williamson PR, Altman DG, et al. The COMET Initiative database: progress and activities update (2015). Trials. 2017;18:54. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-017-1788-8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Chiarotto A, Deyo RA, Terwee CB, et al. Core outcome domains for clinical trials in non-specific low back pain. Eur Spine J. 2015;24:1127–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-3892-3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Clement RC, Welander A, Stowell C, et al. A proposed set of metrics for standardized outcome reporting in the management of low back pain. Acta Orthop. 2015;86:1–11. https://doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2015.1036696.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Deyo RA, Battie M, Beurskens AJ, et al. Outcome measures for low back pain research. A proposal for standardized use. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1998;23:2003–13.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Deyo RA, Dworkin SF, Amtmann D, et al. Report of the NIH Task Force on research standards for chronic low back pain. Phys Ther. 2015;95:e1–e18. https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.2015.95.2.e1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Lenke LG, Fehlings MG, Shaffrey CI, et al. Neurologic outcomes of complex adult spinal deformity surgery: results of the prospective, multicenter Scoli-RISK-1 study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016;41:204–12. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000001338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Lehman RA, Kang DG, Lenke LG, et al. Pulmonary function following adult spinal deformity surgery: minimum two-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015;97:32–9. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.N.00408.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. WHO. International classification of functioning, disability and health. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Cieza A, Stucki G, Weigl M, et al. ICF Core Sets for low back pain. J Rehabil Med. 2004;36:69–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/16501960410016037.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Stucki G, Cieza A, Melvin J. The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF): a unifying model for the conceptual description of the rehabilitation strategy. J Rehabil Med. 2007;39:279–85. https://doi.org/10.2340/16501977-0041.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Faraj SSA, van Hooff ML, Holewijn RM, et al. 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. 2017;26:2084–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-017-5125-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Spence RT, Mueller JL, Chang DC. A novel approach to global benchmarking of risk-adjusted surgical outcomes: beyond perioperative mortality rate. JAMA Surg. 2016;151:501–2. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2016.0091.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Boonen A, Braun J, van der Horst Bruinsma IE, et al. ASAS/WHO ICF Core Sets for ankylosing spondylitis (AS): how to classify the impact of AS on functioning and health. Ann Rheum Dis. 2010;69:102–7. https://doi.org/10.1136/ard.2008.104117.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Prinsen CAC, Vohra S, Rose MR, et al. Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative: protocol for an international Delphi study to achieve consensus on how to select outcome measurement instruments for outcomes included in a “core outcome set”. Trials. 2014;15:247. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-15-247.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Williamson PR, Altman DG, Blazeby JM, et al. Developing core outcome sets for clinical trials: issues to consider. Trials. 2012;13:132. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-13-132.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Schmitt J, Langan S, Stamm T, Williams HC. Core outcome domains for controlled trials and clinical recordkeeping in eczema: international multiperspective Delphi consensus process. J Invest Dermatol. 2011;131:623–30. https://doi.org/10.1038/jid.2010.303.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Sanderson T, Morris M, Calnan M, et al. What outcomes from pharmacologic treatments are important to people with rheumatoid arthritis? Creating the basis of a patient core set. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2010;62:640–6. https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.20034.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Kirwan J, Heiberg T, Hewlett S, et al. Outcomes from the Patient Perspective Workshop at OMERACT 6. J Rheumatol. 2003;30:868–72.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Kirkham JJ, Gorst S, Altman DG, et al. Core outcome set–STAndards for reporting: the COS-STAR statement. PLoS Med. 2016;13:e1002148. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002148.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Porter M. What is value in health care? N Engl J Med. 2010;2477–81. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1415160.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Scoliosis Research Society Membership. Accessed 28-02-2018. http://www.srs.org/professionals/membership.

  29. Lapp MA, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, et al. Long-term complications in adult spinal deformity patients having combined surgery: a comparison of primary of revision patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001;26:973–83.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Pull ter Gunne AF, van Laarhoven CJHM, Cohen DB, et al. Incidence of surgical site infection following adult spinal deformity surgery: an analysis of patient risk. Eur Spine J. 2010;19:982–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-009-1269-1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Soroceanu A, Diebo BG, Burton D, et al. Radiographical and implant-related complications in adult spinal deformity surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015;40:1414–21. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000001020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Carreon LY, Glassman SD, Shaffrey CI, et al. Predictors of health-related quality-of-life after complex adult spinal deformity surgery: a Scoli-RISK-1 secondary analysis. Spine Deform. 2017;5:139–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspd.2016.11.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Pellisé F, Vila-Casademunt A, Núñez-Pereira S, et al. The Adult Deformity Surgery Complexity Index (ADSCI): a valid tool to quantify the complexity of posterior adult spinal deformity surgery and predict postoperative complications. Spine J. 2018;18:216–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2017.06.042.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Leven DM, Lee NJ, Kothari P, et al. Frailty index is a significant predictor of complications and mortality after surgery for adult spinal deformity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016;41:E1394–401. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000001886.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Scheer JK, Smith JS, Schwab F, et al. Development of a preoperative predictive model for major complications following adult spinal deformity surgery. J Neurosurg Spine. 2017;26:736–43. https://doi.org/10.3171/2016.10.SPINE16197.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Pull ter Gunne AF, Hosman AJF, Cohen DB, et al. A methodological systematic review on surgical site infections following spinal surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37:2017–33. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31825bfca8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Baron EM, Albert TJ. Medical complications of surgical treatment of adult spinal deformity and how to avoid them. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006;31:S106–18. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000232713.69342.df.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Di Capua J, Somani S, Kim JS, et al. Hospital-acquired conditions in adult spinal deformity surgery: predictors for hospital-acquired conditions and other 30-day postoperative outcomes. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2017;42:595–602. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000001840.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Manoharan SR, Baker DK, Pasara SM, et al. Thirty-day readmissions following adult spinal deformity surgery: an analysis of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database. Spine J. 2016;16:862–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2016.03.014.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Sayf S. A. Faraj, Tsjitske M. Haanstra & Marinus De Kleuver

  2. Neuroscience Institute, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, WA, USA

    Anna K. Wright

  3. Department of Orthopaedic, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Miranda L. Van Hooff

  4. Research, Sint Maartenskliniek, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Miranda L. Van Hooff

Authors
  1. Sayf S. A. Faraj
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tsjitske M. Haanstra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anna K. Wright
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Marinus De Kleuver
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Miranda L. Van Hooff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Neuroscience Institute, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, WA, USA

    Rajiv K. Sethi

  2. Neuroscience Institute, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, WA, USA

    Anna K. Wright

  3. Columbia University, New York, NY, USA

    Michael G. Vitale

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Faraj, S.S.A., Haanstra, T.M., Wright, A.K., De Kleuver, M., Van Hooff, M.L. (2020). Measuring Outcomes in Adult Spinal Deformity. In: Sethi, R., Wright, A., Vitale, M. (eds) Value-Based Approaches to Spine Care . Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31946-5_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31946-5_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-31945-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-31946-5

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation