Surgical outcomes of patients who fail to reach minimal clinically important differences: comparison of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.

IF 29.9 1区 医学 Q1 PHYSIOLOGY
Physiological reviews Pub Date : 2022-04-15 Print Date: 2022-09-01 DOI:10.3171/2022.2.SPINE211210
Oliver G S Ayling, Y Raja Rampersaud, Charlotte Dandurand, Po Hsiang Shawn Yuan, Tamir Ailon, Nicolas Dea, Greg McIntosh, Sean D Christie, Edward Abraham, Christopher S Bailey, Michael G Johnson, Jacques Bouchard, Michael H Weber, Jerome Paquet, Joel Finkelstein, Alexandra Stratton, Hamilton Hall, Neil Manson, Kenneth Thomas, Charles G Fisher
{"title":"Surgical outcomes of patients who fail to reach minimal clinically important differences: comparison of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.","authors":"Oliver G S Ayling, Y Raja Rampersaud, Charlotte Dandurand, Po Hsiang Shawn Yuan, Tamir Ailon, Nicolas Dea, Greg McIntosh, Sean D Christie, Edward Abraham, Christopher S Bailey, Michael G Johnson, Jacques Bouchard, Michael H Weber, Jerome Paquet, Joel Finkelstein, Alexandra Stratton, Hamilton Hall, Neil Manson, Kenneth Thomas, Charles G Fisher","doi":"10.3171/2022.2.SPINE211210","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Treatment of degenerative lumbar diseases has been shown to be clinically effective with open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (O-TLIF) or minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF). Despite this, a substantial proportion of patients do not meet minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) in patient-reported outcomes (PROs). The objectives of this study were to compare the proportions of patients who did not meet MCIDs after O-TLIF and MIS-TLIF and to determine potential clinical factors associated with failure to achieve MCID.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The authors performed a retrospective analysis of consecutive patients who underwent O-TLIF or MIS-TLIF for lumbar degenerative disorders and had been prospectively enrolled in the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network. The authors analyzed the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores, physical and mental component summary scores of SF-12, numeric rating scale (NRS) scores for leg and back pain, and EQ-5D scores of the patients in each group who did not meet the MCID of ODI at 2 years postoperatively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In this study, 38.8% (137 of 353) of patients in the O-TLIF cohort and 41.8% (51 of 122) of patients in the MIS-TLIF cohort did not meet the MCID of ODI at 2 years postoperatively (p = 0.59). Demographic variables and baseline PROs were similar between groups. There were improvements across the PROs of both groups through 2 years, and there were no differences in any PROs between the O-TLIF and MIS-TLIF cohorts. Multivariable logistic regression analysis demonstrated that higher baseline leg pain score (p = 0.017) and a diagnosis of spondylolisthesis (p = 0.0053) or degenerative disc disease (p = 0.022) were associated with achieving the MCID at 2 years after O-TLIF, whereas higher baseline leg pain score was associated with reaching the MCID after MIS-TLIF (p = 0.038).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Similar proportions of patients failed to reach the MCID of ODI at 2 years after O-TLIF or MIS-TLIF. Higher baseline leg pain score was predictive of achieving the MCID in both cohorts, whereas a diagnosis of spondylolisthesis or degenerative disc disease was predictive of reaching the MCID after O-TLIF. These data provide novel insights for patient counseling and suggest that either MIS-TLIF or O-TLIF does not overcome specific patient factors to mitigate clinical success or failure in terms of the intermediate-term PROs associated with 1- to 2-level lumbar fusion surgical procedures for degenerative pathologies.</p>","PeriodicalId":20193,"journal":{"name":"Physiological reviews","volume":"13 1","pages":"376-383"},"PeriodicalIF":29.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Physiological reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3171/2022.2.SPINE211210","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/9/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Print","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PHYSIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Treatment of degenerative lumbar diseases has been shown to be clinically effective with open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (O-TLIF) or minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF). Despite this, a substantial proportion of patients do not meet minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) in patient-reported outcomes (PROs). The objectives of this study were to compare the proportions of patients who did not meet MCIDs after O-TLIF and MIS-TLIF and to determine potential clinical factors associated with failure to achieve MCID.

Methods: The authors performed a retrospective analysis of consecutive patients who underwent O-TLIF or MIS-TLIF for lumbar degenerative disorders and had been prospectively enrolled in the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network. The authors analyzed the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores, physical and mental component summary scores of SF-12, numeric rating scale (NRS) scores for leg and back pain, and EQ-5D scores of the patients in each group who did not meet the MCID of ODI at 2 years postoperatively.

Results: In this study, 38.8% (137 of 353) of patients in the O-TLIF cohort and 41.8% (51 of 122) of patients in the MIS-TLIF cohort did not meet the MCID of ODI at 2 years postoperatively (p = 0.59). Demographic variables and baseline PROs were similar between groups. There were improvements across the PROs of both groups through 2 years, and there were no differences in any PROs between the O-TLIF and MIS-TLIF cohorts. Multivariable logistic regression analysis demonstrated that higher baseline leg pain score (p = 0.017) and a diagnosis of spondylolisthesis (p = 0.0053) or degenerative disc disease (p = 0.022) were associated with achieving the MCID at 2 years after O-TLIF, whereas higher baseline leg pain score was associated with reaching the MCID after MIS-TLIF (p = 0.038).

Conclusions: Similar proportions of patients failed to reach the MCID of ODI at 2 years after O-TLIF or MIS-TLIF. Higher baseline leg pain score was predictive of achieving the MCID in both cohorts, whereas a diagnosis of spondylolisthesis or degenerative disc disease was predictive of reaching the MCID after O-TLIF. These data provide novel insights for patient counseling and suggest that either MIS-TLIF or O-TLIF does not overcome specific patient factors to mitigate clinical success or failure in terms of the intermediate-term PROs associated with 1- to 2-level lumbar fusion surgical procedures for degenerative pathologies.

未能达到最小临床重要差异的患者的手术效果:微创与开放式经椎间孔腰椎椎体融合术的比较。
目的:开放式经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术(O-TLIF)或微创经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术(MIS-TLIF)治疗腰椎退行性疾病已被证明具有临床疗效。尽管如此,仍有相当一部分患者的患者报告结果(PROs)未达到最小临床重要差异(MCIDs)。本研究的目的是比较O-TLIF和MIS-TLIF术后未达到MCID的患者比例,并确定与未达到MCID相关的潜在临床因素:作者对接受 O-TLIF 或 MIS-TLIF 治疗腰椎退行性疾病的连续患者进行了回顾性分析,这些患者已被前瞻性纳入加拿大脊柱结果与研究网络(Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network)。作者分析了各组术后2年未达到ODI MCID的患者的Oswestry残疾指数(ODI)评分、SF-12的身体和精神部分汇总评分、腿痛和背痛的数字评分量表(NRS)评分以及EQ-5D评分:在这项研究中,38.8% 的 O-TLIF 组患者(353 例中的 137 例)和 41.8% 的 MIS-TLIF 组患者(122 例中的 51 例)在术后 2 年未达到 ODI 的 MCID(p = 0.59)。两组患者的人口统计学变量和基线PROs相似。两组患者术后 2 年的 PRO 均有所改善,O-TLIF 和 MIS-TLIF 两组患者的任何 PRO 均无差异。多变量逻辑回归分析表明,较高的基线腿痛评分(p = 0.017)和脊柱滑脱症(p = 0.0053)或椎间盘退行性病变(p = 0.022)诊断与O-TLIF术后2年达到MCID有关,而较高的基线腿痛评分与MIS-TLIF术后达到MCID有关(p = 0.038):结论:O-TLIF或MIS-TLIF术后2年未达到ODI MCID的患者比例相似。较高的基线腿痛评分可预测两组患者是否达到 MCID,而脊柱滑脱症或椎间盘退行性疾病诊断可预测 O-TLIF 术后是否达到 MCID。这些数据为患者咨询提供了新的见解,并表明无论是MIS-TLIF还是O-TLIF,都不能克服特定的患者因素,以减轻与1至2级腰椎融合手术治疗退行性病变相关的中期PROs的临床成败。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Physiological reviews
Physiological reviews 医学-生理学
CiteScore
56.50
自引率
0.90%
发文量
53
期刊介绍: Physiological Reviews is a highly regarded journal that covers timely issues in physiological and biomedical sciences. It is targeted towards physiologists, neuroscientists, cell biologists, biophysicists, and clinicians with a special interest in pathophysiology. The journal has an ISSN of 0031-9333 for print and 1522-1210 for online versions. It has a unique publishing frequency where articles are published individually, but regular quarterly issues are also released in January, April, July, and October. The articles in this journal provide state-of-the-art and comprehensive coverage of various topics. They are valuable for teaching and research purposes as they offer interesting and clearly written updates on important new developments. Physiological Reviews holds a prominent position in the scientific community and consistently ranks as the most impactful journal in the field of physiology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信