Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Outcome Measures for Spinal Surgery

  • Chapter
Advanced Concepts in Lumbar Degenerative Disk Disease

  • 2126 Accesses

Abstract

There are four general types of commonly used outcome measures: generic, disease specific, pain scales, and health utilities. Historically, generic, disease specific, and pain scales have been used as a means to quantify treatment outcomes. More recent literature has placed the focus on societal preference for evaluating medical treatment outcomes. The value of health utility scores derives from their ability to be converted to a standard measure across populations and diseases through utility weighting and in turn be used to determine cost utility or value. The future of spine surgery relies upon the community to generate comprehensive and valuable data that provides the appropriate information for clinical analysis.

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

Access this chapter

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 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover 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

Institutional subscriptions

Abbreviations

CER:

Comparative Effectiveness Research

Cost/QALY:

Cost per Quality-Adjusted Life Year Gained

EQ-5D:

European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions

HRQOL:

Health-Related Quality of Life

ICER:

Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio

MCID:

Minimum Clinically Important Difference

NDI:

Neck Disability Index

ODI:

Oswestry Disability Index

PRO:

Patient Reported Outcome

QALY:

Quality-Adjusted Life Year

RMDQ:

Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire

SCB:

Substantial Clinical Benefit

SF-12:

Short Form-12

SF-36:

Short Form-36

SF-6D:

Short Form-6 Dimensions

SPORT:

Spine Outcomes Research Trial

SRS-22R:

Scoliosis Research Society-22 Revised

VAS:

Visual Analogue Scale

References

  1. Djurasovic M, Glassman SD, Dimar JR, et al. Does fusion status correlate with patient outcomes in lumbar spinal fusion? Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011;36:404–9.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Gwilym S, Neen D, Birch N. Clinical outcomes of circumferential spinal fusion do not match radiological results despite rigorous patient selection. Int J Spine Surg. 2005;1(2).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Park JH, Roh SW. Long-term clinical and radiological outcomes following stand-alone PLIF surgery using expandable cylindrical threaded cages in patients with degenerative lumbar spine disease. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2011;153:1409–16. discussion 1416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Radosevich D, Kane R. Conduction health outcomes research. Sudbury: Jones and Barlett Learning; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Ware Jr JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30:473–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Walsh TL, Hanscom B, Lurie JD, et al. 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 (Phila Pa 1976). 2003;28:607–15.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Guilfoyle MR, Seeley H, Laing RJ. The Short Form 36 health survey in spine disease–validation against condition-specific measures. Br J Neurosurg. 2009;23:401–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ware Jr J, Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care. 1996;34:220–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Turner-Bowker DM, Bayliss MS, et al. Usefulness of the SF-8TM health survey for comparing the impact of migraine and other conditions. Qual Life Res. 2003;12:1003–10012.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Fairbank JC, Couper J, Davies JB, et al. The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy. 1980;66:271–3.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB. The Oswestry Disability Index. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25:2940–52. discussion 2952.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Roland M, Fairbank J. The Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25:3115–24.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Vernon H, Mior S. The Neck Disability Index: a study of reliability and validity. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1991;14:409–15.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Asher MA, Lai SM, Glattes RC, et al. Refinement of the SRS-22 health-related quality of life questionnaire function domain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006;31:593–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Asher M, Min Lai S, Burton D, et al. Discrimination validity of the scoliosis research society-22 patient questionnaire: relationship to idiopathic scoliosis curve pattern and curve size. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003;28:74–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Asher M, Min Lai S, Burton D, et al. Scoliosis research society-22 patient questionnaire: responsiveness to change associated with surgical treatment. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003;28:70–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Asher M, Min Lai S, Burton D, et al. The reliability and concurrent validity of the scoliosis research society-22 patient questionnaire for idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003;28:63–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Baker D, Pynsent P, Fairbank J. The Oswestry Disability revisited. In: Jenner R, Manchester, editors. Back pain: new approaches to rehabilitation and education. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press; 1989. p. 174–6.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Stratford PW, Binkley J, Solomon P, et al. Defining the minimum level of detectable change for the Roland-Morris questionnaire. Phys Ther. 1996;76:359–65. discussion 366-8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Berven S, Deviren V, Demir-Deviren S, et al. Studies in the modified scoliosis research society outcomes instrument in adults: validation, reliability, and discriminatory capacity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003;28:2164–9. discussion 2169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Bridwell KH, Berven S, Glassman S, et al. Is the SRS-22 instrument responsive to change in adult scoliosis patients having primary spinal deformity surgery? Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32:2220–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Bridwell KH, Cats-Baril W, Harrast J, et al. 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). 2005;30:455–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Revill SI, Robinson JO, Rosen M, Hogg MIJ. The reliability of a linear analogue for evaluating pain. Anaesthesia. 1976;31:1191–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Downie WW, Leatham PA, Rhind VM, et al. Studies with pain rating scales. Ann Rheum Dis. 1978;37:378–81.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Huskisson EC. Measurement of pain. J Rheumatol. 1982;9:768–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Jensen MP, Karoly P, Braver S. The measurement of clinical pain intensity: a comparison of six methods. Pain. 1986;27:117–26.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Jensen MP, Turner JA, Romano JM. Correlates of improvement in multidisciplinary treatment of chronic pain. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1994;62:172–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. McCaffery M, Beebe A. Pain: clinical manual for nursing practice. Baltimore: V.V. Mosby Company; 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Gold M, Franks P, Erickson P. Assessing the health of the nation. The predictive validity of a preference-based measure and self-rated health. Med Care. 1996;34:163–77.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Brazier J, Deverill M, Green C, Harper R, Booth A. A review of the use of health status measures in economics evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 1999;3:1–164.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Arnold D, Girling A, Stevens A, Lilford R. Comparison of direct and indirect methods of estimating health state utilities for resource allocation: review and empirical analysis. BMJ. 2009;339:b2688.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Kaplan RM. Health-related quality of life in cardiovascular disease. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1988;56:382–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. The EuroQol Group. EuroQol–a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;16:199–208.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ. 2002;21:271–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Feeny D, Furlong W, Torrance GW, et al. Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the health utilities index mark 3 system. Med Care. 2002;40:113–28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Winkelmayer WC, Weinstein MC, Mittleman MA, et al. Health economic evaluations: the special case of end-stage renal disease treatment. Med Decis Making. 2002;22:417–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. World Health Organization. Macroeconomics and health: investing in health for economic development: report of the commission on macroeconomics and health. World Health Organization; 2001, Accessed December 02, 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Carreon LY, Anderson PA, McDonough CM, et al. Predicting SF-6D utility scores from the neck disability index and numeric rating scales for neck and arm pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011;36:490–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Carreon LY, Glassman SD, McDonough CM, et al. Predicting SF-6D utility scores from the Oswestry Disability Index and numeric rating scales for back and leg pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009;34:2085–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Skolasky RL, Carreon LY, Anderson PA, et al. Predicting health utility scores from the Cervical Spine Outcomes Questionnaire in a multicenter nationwide study of anterior cervical spine surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011;36(25):2211–6.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Richardson S, Berven S, Carreon L, et al. Translation of the scoliosis research society outcomes instrument to utility scores for the cost-effectiveness analysis of spine treatments for adult deformity, in IMAST; 2011. Copenhagen.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Brox JI, Reikeras O, Nygaard O, et al. Lumbar instrumented fusion compared with cognitive intervention and exercises in patients with chronic back pain after previous surgery for disc herniation: a prospective randomized controlled study. Pain. 2006;122:145–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Brox JI, Sorensen R, Friis A, et al. Randomized clinical trial of lumbar instrumented fusion and cognitive intervention and exercises in patients with chronic low back pain and disc degeneration. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003;28:1913–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Albert TJ, Purtill J, Mesa J, et al. Health outcome assessment before and after adult deformity surgery. A prospective study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1995;20:2002–4. discussion p2005.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Glassman SD, Minkow RE, Dimar JR, et al. Effect of prior lumbar discectomy on outcome of lumbar fusion: a prospective analysis using the SF-36 measure. J Spinal Disord. 1998;11:383–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Hagg O, Fritzell P, Nordwall A. The clinical importance of changes in outcome scores after treatment for chronic low back pain. Eur Spine J. 2003;12:12–20.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials. 1989;10:407–15.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Copay AG, Glassman SD, Subach BR, et al. Minimum clinically important difference in lumbar spine surgery patients: a choice of methods using the Oswestry Disability Index, Medical Outcomes Study questionnaire Short Form 36, and pain scales. Spine J. 2008;8:968–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Copay AG, Subach BR, Glassman SD, et al. Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods. Spine J. 2007;7:541–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Glassman SD, Copay AG, Berven SH, et al. Defining substantial clinical benefit following lumbar spine arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90:1839–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Norton Leatherman Spine Center, 210 East Gray Street, Suite 900, Louisville, KY, 40202, USA

    Elizabeth P. Norheim MD & Leah Yacat Carreon MD, MSc

  2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Louisville School of Medicine and the Norton Leatherman Spine Center, Louisville, KY, USA

    Steven D. Glassman MD

Authors
  1. Elizabeth P. Norheim MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Steven D. Glassman MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Leah Yacat Carreon MD, MSc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Leah Yacat Carreon MD, MSc .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Neurological and Spine Surgery, Hospital Samaritano, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil

    João Luiz Pinheiro-Franco

  2. Rothman Institute, Thomas Jefferson University Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA

    Alexander R. Vaccaro

  3. Cleveland Clinic Neurological Surgery, Cleveland, Ohio, USA

    Edward C. Benzel

  4. Schön Klinik München Harlaching FG Wirbelsäulenchirurgie, München, Germany

    H. Michael Mayer

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Norheim, E.P., Glassman, S.D., Carreon, L.Y. (2016). Outcome Measures for Spinal Surgery. In: Pinheiro-Franco, J., Vaccaro, A., Benzel, E., Mayer, H. (eds) Advanced Concepts in Lumbar Degenerative Disk Disease. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-47756-4_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-47756-4_14

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-47755-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-47756-4

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation