HSS SpineTeam MD , Eric Zhao BS , Pratyush Shahi MBBS, MS , Austin C Kaidi MD, MSc , Farah Musharbash MD , Stephane Owusu-Sarpong MD , Luis F Colon MD , Quante Singleton MD , Tomoyuki Asada MD, PhD , Kasra Araghi BS , Sereen Halayqeh MD , Adin Ehrlich BA , Andrea Pezzi MD , Atahan Durbas MD , Adrian Lui MBBS , Olivia Tuma BS , Rujvee P. Patel MBBS, MPH , Tarek Harhash BS , Kyle W. Morse MD , James Dowdell MD , Sravisht Iyer MD
{"title":"8. Beyond the ODI: a qualitative analysis of why patients are satisfied after lumbar surgery despite failure to achieve MCID or PASS","authors":"HSS SpineTeam MD , Eric Zhao BS , Pratyush Shahi MBBS, MS , Austin C Kaidi MD, MSc , Farah Musharbash MD , Stephane Owusu-Sarpong MD , Luis F Colon MD , Quante Singleton MD , Tomoyuki Asada MD, PhD , Kasra Araghi BS , Sereen Halayqeh MD , Adin Ehrlich BA , Andrea Pezzi MD , Atahan Durbas MD , Adrian Lui MBBS , Olivia Tuma BS , Rujvee P. Patel MBBS, MPH , Tarek Harhash BS , Kyle W. Morse MD , James Dowdell MD , Sravisht Iyer MD","doi":"10.1016/j.spinee.2025.08.190","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>BACKGROUND CONTEXT</h3><div>Postoperative clinical outcomes after lumbar spine surgery are often evaluated using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), with quantitative metrics such as the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and the patient’s acceptable symptom state (PASS). However, these metrics fail to reflect “qualitative” patient satisfaction, particularly among the subset of patients describing improvements but not achieving MCID or PASS.</div></div><div><h3>PURPOSE</h3><div>To identify different “themes” regarding postoperative clinical satisfaction following minimally invasive lumbar surgery in patients who improved on global rating of change (GRC) but did not achieve ODI MCID or PASS thresholds.</div></div><div><h3>STUDY DESIGN/SETTING</h3><div>Retrospective cohort study with a qualitative component for prospectively collected data at a single institution setting.</div></div><div><h3>PATIENT SAMPLE</h3><div>A total of 956 patients who underwent lumbar surgery with a minimum follow-up of 6 months were evaluated. Of these, 90 patients met the inclusion criteria (ie, improved on GRC and did not achieve ODI MCID or PASS), and 43 of these patients consented to participate in semi-structured interviews.</div></div><div><h3>OUTCOME MEASURES</h3><div>Patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) included ODI, visual analog scale (VAS) for back and leg pain, SF-12 physical and mental component (SF-12 PCS, SF-12 MCS), and PROMIS Physical Function scores (PROMIS PF). Satisfaction was assessed with GRC.</div></div><div><h3>METHODS</h3><div>Quantitative changes were evaluated at early (<6 months) and late (≥6 months) follow-ups. Chi-squared for categorical and independent t-tests for continuous variables were utilized. Wilcoxon Signed-Rank tests compared early and late paired GRC, while paired t-tests assessed changes in PROMs. Qualitative semi-structured interviews exploring satisfaction across physical, emotional, and social “themes,” were analyzed using grounded theory. Venn diagrams were utilized to signify the overlap between different qualitative responses.</div></div><div><h3>RESULTS</h3><div>Satisfaction on the GRC scale significantly improved between early and late follow-ups (p < 0.001). High MCID achievement rates for VAS back (79.1%) and leg pain (74.4%) were observed. There was a significant improvement in the VAS back score at 1 year (-2.8 ± 3.4, p = 0.011) compared to the earlier time point. Thematic qualitative analysis reported key contributors to satisfaction: physical improvement, quality of life, healthcare provider interactions, and family support. Overlaps, such as between physical health and quality of life, highlighted the multidimensional nature of postoperative clinical satisfaction.</div></div><div><h3>CONCLUSIONS</h3><div>Patient satisfaction extends beyond quantitative scales like the ODI. Holistic assessment, including subjective factors such as emotional well-being, healthcare provider interactions, and family support, are prerequisite and quintessential factors for evaluating recovery outcomes after lumbar surgery.</div></div><div><h3>FDA Device/Drug Status</h3><div>This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49484,"journal":{"name":"Spine Journal","volume":"25 11","pages":"Page S6"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Spine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1529943025005704","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
BACKGROUND CONTEXT
Postoperative clinical outcomes after lumbar spine surgery are often evaluated using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), with quantitative metrics such as the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and the patient’s acceptable symptom state (PASS). However, these metrics fail to reflect “qualitative” patient satisfaction, particularly among the subset of patients describing improvements but not achieving MCID or PASS.
PURPOSE
To identify different “themes” regarding postoperative clinical satisfaction following minimally invasive lumbar surgery in patients who improved on global rating of change (GRC) but did not achieve ODI MCID or PASS thresholds.
STUDY DESIGN/SETTING
Retrospective cohort study with a qualitative component for prospectively collected data at a single institution setting.
PATIENT SAMPLE
A total of 956 patients who underwent lumbar surgery with a minimum follow-up of 6 months were evaluated. Of these, 90 patients met the inclusion criteria (ie, improved on GRC and did not achieve ODI MCID or PASS), and 43 of these patients consented to participate in semi-structured interviews.
OUTCOME MEASURES
Patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) included ODI, visual analog scale (VAS) for back and leg pain, SF-12 physical and mental component (SF-12 PCS, SF-12 MCS), and PROMIS Physical Function scores (PROMIS PF). Satisfaction was assessed with GRC.
METHODS
Quantitative changes were evaluated at early (<6 months) and late (≥6 months) follow-ups. Chi-squared for categorical and independent t-tests for continuous variables were utilized. Wilcoxon Signed-Rank tests compared early and late paired GRC, while paired t-tests assessed changes in PROMs. Qualitative semi-structured interviews exploring satisfaction across physical, emotional, and social “themes,” were analyzed using grounded theory. Venn diagrams were utilized to signify the overlap between different qualitative responses.
RESULTS
Satisfaction on the GRC scale significantly improved between early and late follow-ups (p < 0.001). High MCID achievement rates for VAS back (79.1%) and leg pain (74.4%) were observed. There was a significant improvement in the VAS back score at 1 year (-2.8 ± 3.4, p = 0.011) compared to the earlier time point. Thematic qualitative analysis reported key contributors to satisfaction: physical improvement, quality of life, healthcare provider interactions, and family support. Overlaps, such as between physical health and quality of life, highlighted the multidimensional nature of postoperative clinical satisfaction.
CONCLUSIONS
Patient satisfaction extends beyond quantitative scales like the ODI. Holistic assessment, including subjective factors such as emotional well-being, healthcare provider interactions, and family support, are prerequisite and quintessential factors for evaluating recovery outcomes after lumbar surgery.
FDA Device/Drug Status
This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.
期刊介绍:
The Spine Journal, the official journal of the North American Spine Society, is an international and multidisciplinary journal that publishes original, peer-reviewed articles on research and treatment related to the spine and spine care, including basic science and clinical investigations. It is a condition of publication that manuscripts submitted to The Spine Journal have not been published, and will not be simultaneously submitted or published elsewhere. The Spine Journal also publishes major reviews of specific topics by acknowledged authorities, technical notes, teaching editorials, and other special features, Letters to the Editor-in-Chief are encouraged.