Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Important Research Principles in the Field of Spinal Osteotomy

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Spinal Osteotomy

Abstract

Patient outcomes following spinal surgery in general and those utilizing osteotomy techniques in particular can be described in a number of ways. Traditional measures have included descriptive clinical and radiographic data such as degree of correction, surgical time, blood loss, pseudarthrosis rate, medical complications, and others. Current research has moved toward a focus on patient-reported outcomes. These are results provided by the patient either on validated scales or questionnaires. Patient-reported outcomes have been particularly influential in the field of spinal deformity surgery. The recent recognition of the influence of sagittal balance on patient outcome demonstrates the value of this research methodology [1]. It also underscores the value of corrective osteotomy techniques such as Smith-Peterson osteotomies, pedicle subtraction osteotomy, and vertebral column resection that allow the surgeon to restore sagittal balance. This chapter will introduce and define important concepts utilized in spine outcomes and cost-utility research and then review current literature focusing on the use of these techniques to describe the importance of sagittal balance with regard to patient outcomes.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
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

References

  1. Glassman SD, Berven S, Bridwell K, Horton W, Dimar JR. Correlation of radiographic parameters and clinical symptoms in adult scoliosis. Spine. 2005;30:682–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Revised Glossary of Terms. 2013. (Accessed 9 July 2013, at http://www.srs.org/professionals/glossary/SRS_revised_glossary_of_terms.htm.)

  3. Vrtovec T, Janssen MM, Likar B, Castelein RM, Viergever MA, Pernus F. A review of methods for evaluating the quantitative parameters of sagittal pelvic alignment. Spine J. 2012;12:433–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Lenke LG, Edwards 2nd CC, Bridwell KH. The Lenke classification of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: how it organizes curve patterns as a template to perform selective fusions of the spine. Spine. 2003;28:S199–207.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Tosteson AN. Preference-based health outcome measures in low back pain. Spine. 2000;25:3161–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Gatchel RJ, Mayer TG. Psychological evaluation of the spine patient. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2008;16:107–12.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Parker SL, Adogwa O, Paul AR, et al. Utility of minimum clinically important difference in assessing pain, disability, and health state after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg Spine. 2011;14:598–604.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Childs JD, Piva SR, Fritz JM. Responsiveness of the numeric pain rating scale in patients with low back pain. Spine. 2005;30:1331–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 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 

  10. Haro H, Maekawa S, Hamada Y. Prospective analysis of clinical evaluation and self-assessment by patients after decompression surgery for degenerative lumbar canal stenosis. Spine J. 2008;8:380–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Solberg TK, Olsen JA, Ingebrigtsen T, Hofoss D, Nygaard OP. Health-related quality of life assessment by the EuroQol-5D can provide cost-utility data in the field of low-back surgery. Eur Spine J. 2005;14:1000–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Parker SL, Mendenhall SK, Shau D, et al. Determination of minimum clinically important difference in pain, disability, and quality of life after extension of fusion for adjacent-segment disease. J Neurosurg Spine. 2012;16:61–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. The EuroQol Group. EuroQol– a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands). 1990;16:199–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Nord E. EuroQol: health-related quality of life measurement, Valuations of health states by the general public in Norway. Health Policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands). 1991;18:25–36.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Coons SJ, Rao S, Keininger DL, Hays RD. A comparative review of generic quality-of-life instruments. Pharmacoeconomics. 2000;17:13–35.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Jansson KA, Nemeth G, Granath F, Jonsson B, Blomqvist P. Health-related quality of life (EQ-5D) before and one year after surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. J Bone Joint Surg. 2009;91:210–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care. 1997;35:1095–108.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Braun J, McHugh N, Singh A, Wajdula JS, Sato R. Improvement in patient-reported outcomes for patients with ankylosing spondylitis treated with etanercept 50 mg once-weekly and 25 mg twice-weekly. Rheumatology (Oxford, England). 2007;46:999–1004. 46.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Fairbank JC, Couper J, Davies JB, O'Brien JP. The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy. 1980;66:271–3.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB. The Oswestry Disability Index. Spine. 2000;25:2940–52; discussion 2952.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Strong J, Ashton R, Large RG. Function and the patient with chronic low back pain. Clin J Pain. 1994;10:191–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kopec JA, Esdaile JM, Abrahamowicz M, et al. The Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale: conceptualization and development. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996;49:151–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Bombardier C. Outcome assessments in the evaluation of treatment of spinal disorders: summary and general recommendations. Spine. 2000;25:3100–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Copay AG, Glassman SD, Subach BR, Berven S, Schuler TC, Carreon LY. 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 

  25. 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 

  26. Vernon H. The Neck Disability Index: state-of-the-art, 1991–2008. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2008;31:491–502.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. MacDermid JC, Walton DM, Avery S, et al. Measurement properties of the neck disability index: a systematic review. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2009;39:400–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Young IA, Cleland JA, Michener LA, Brown C. Reliability, construct validity, and responsiveness of the neck disability index, patient-specific functional scale, and numeric pain rating scale in patients with cervical radiculopathy. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2010;89:831–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Riddle DL, Stratford PW. Use of generic versus region-specific functional status measures on patients with cervical spine disorders. Phys Ther. 1998;78:951–63.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Hains F, Waalen J, Mior S. Psychometric properties of the neck disability index. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1998;21:75–80.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Carreon LY, Glassman SD, Campbell MJ, Anderson PA. Neck Disability Index, short form-36 physical component summary, and pain scales for neck and arm pain: the minimum clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit after cervical spine fusion. Spine J. 2010;10:469–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Martin BI, Turner JA, Mirza SK, Lee MJ, Comstock BA, Deyo RA. Trends in health care expenditures, utilization, and health status among US adults with spine problems, 1997–2006. Spine. 2009;34:2077–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Boden SD, Dreyer SJ, Levy HI. Management of low back pain. Current assessment and formulation of a blueprint for the health care delivery system of the future. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 1998;9:419–33. ix.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Hackbarth G. Pay quality, not volume. Increase incentives for Medicare beneficiaries to seek efficient care. Mod Healthc. 2008;38:30–1.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Mueller B, Carreon LY, Glassman SD. Comparison of the EQ-5D to the Oswestry Disability Index, back and leg pain scores in patients with degenerative lumbar spine pathology. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38(9): 757–61.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Carreon LY, Anderson PA, McDonough CM, Djurasovic M, Glassman SD. Predicting SF-6D utility scores from the neck disability index and numeric rating scales for neck and arm pain. Spine. 2011;36:490–4.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Weinstein MC, Siegel JE, Gold MR, Kamlet MS, Russell LB. Recommendations of the Panel on Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine. JAMA. 1996;276:1253–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Brauer CA, Rosen AB, Olchanski NV, Neumann PJ. Cost-utility analyses in orthopaedic surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:1253–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Kepler CK, Wilkinson SM, Radcliff KE, et al. Cost-utility analysis in spine care: a systematic review. Spine J. 2012;12:676–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Tosteson AN, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD, et al. Comparative effectiveness evidence from the spine patient outcomes research trial: surgical versus nonoperative care for spinal stenosis, degenerative spondylolisthesis, and intervertebral disc herniation. Spine. 2011;36:2061–8.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Tosteson AN, Skinner JS, Tosteson TD, et al. 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. 2008;33:2108–15.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Lagrone MO, Bradford DS, Moe JH, Lonstein JE, Winter RB, Ogilvie JW. Treatment of symptomatic flatback after spinal fusion. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1988;70:569–80.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Schwab F, Lafage V, Boyce R, Skalli W, Farcy JP. Gravity line analysis in adult volunteers: age-related correlation with spinal parameters, pelvic parameters, and foot position. Spine. 2006;31:E959–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Lafage V, Schwab F, Patel A, Hawkinson N, Farcy JP. Pelvic tilt and truncal inclination: two key radiographic parameters in the setting of adults with spinal deformity. Spine. 2009;34:E599–606.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Lafage V, Schwab F, Skalli W, et al. Standing balance and sagittal plane spinal deformity: analysis of spinopelvic and gravity line parameters. Spine. 2008;33:1572–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Mac-Thiong JM, Transfeldt EE, Mehbod AA, et al. Can c7 plumbline and gravity line predict health related quality of life in adult scoliosis? Spine. 2009;34:E519–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Spine and Scoliosis Service, Hospital for Special Surgery/Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, NY, USA

    Dennis S. Meredith MD

  2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The Rothman Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Alexander R. Vaccaro MD, PhD

Authors
  1. Dennis S. Meredith MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alexander R. Vaccaro MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexander R. Vaccaro MD, PhD .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Orthopedics department, Chinese PLA general hospital, Beijing, China

    Yan Wang

  2. Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York, USA

    Oheneba Boachie-Adjei

  3. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, USA

    Lawrence Lenke

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Meredith, D.S., Vaccaro, A.R. (2015). Important Research Principles in the Field of Spinal Osteotomy. In: Wang, Y., Boachie-Adjei, O., Lenke, L. (eds) Spinal Osteotomy. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8038-4_21

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8038-4_21

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-017-8037-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-017-8038-4

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation