日本版腰椎僵硬失能指数的反应性。

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Hidetaka Furuya, Kenji Hirohata, Sho Mitomo, Masahiro Hoshino, Tomoko Sakai, Tetsuya Jinno, Robert A Hart
{"title":"日本版腰椎僵硬失能指数的反应性。","authors":"Hidetaka Furuya, Kenji Hirohata, Sho Mitomo, Masahiro Hoshino, Tomoko Sakai, Tetsuya Jinno, Robert A Hart","doi":"10.1007/s00586-025-09120-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>We aimed to investigate the psychometric characteristics of the Japanese version of the Lumbar Stiffness Disability Index (J-LSDI) in patients undergoing lumbar spinal surgery, with a focus on its responsiveness and minimal clinically important differences (MCID).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This prospective, single-institution cohort study enrolled adult individuals diagnosed with degenerative spinal pathologies who underwent surgical intervention approximately 1 year prior inclusion in the study. Participants were stratified into three groups according to the number of lumbar segments included in the arthrodesis construct: Group 1 (no fusion or single-level fusion); Group 2 (fusion across two to four levels); and Group 3 (fusion involving five or more levels). Within the distribution-based framework, responsiveness was quantified using effect size (ES) and standardized response mean (SRM). Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) and MCID were determined for participants who reported either \"minimal\" or \"moderate\" improvement.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 488 participants completed the J-LSDI at baseline and 1 year. In Group 1, the LSDI scores improved from preoperatively to postoperatively, with moderate ES and SRM values (ES = 0.78; SRM = 0.59). In Group 2, the preoperative and postoperative LSDI scores did not differ, with low ES and SRM values (ES = 0.13; SRM = 0.12). In Group 3, the LSDI scores worsened from preoperatively to postoperatively, with high ES and SRM values (ES = 1.20; SRM = 0.90). The optimal cutoff points for the MCID in Groups 1, 2, and 3 were - 8.0, 0.2, and 17.1, respectively. The AUCs for the MCID in Groups 1, 2, and 3 were 0.72, 0.73, and 0.76, respectively, indicating moderate accuracy. Between-group analysis of variance revealed no significant differences in preoperative LSDI scores (p = 0.40), while significant differences were observed in postoperative scores at 1 year (p < 0.01).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study underscores the clinical relevance and measurement reliability of the J-LSDI as an effective tool for evaluating the functional impact of spinal stiffness on activities of daily living among Japanese patients, in both the preoperative and postoperative phases of spinal surgery.</p>","PeriodicalId":12323,"journal":{"name":"European Spine Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Responsiveness of the Japanese version of the lumbar stiffness disability index.\",\"authors\":\"Hidetaka Furuya, Kenji Hirohata, Sho Mitomo, Masahiro Hoshino, Tomoko Sakai, Tetsuya Jinno, Robert A Hart\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00586-025-09120-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>We aimed to investigate the psychometric characteristics of the Japanese version of the Lumbar Stiffness Disability Index (J-LSDI) in patients undergoing lumbar spinal surgery, with a focus on its responsiveness and minimal clinically important differences (MCID).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This prospective, single-institution cohort study enrolled adult individuals diagnosed with degenerative spinal pathologies who underwent surgical intervention approximately 1 year prior inclusion in the study. Participants were stratified into three groups according to the number of lumbar segments included in the arthrodesis construct: Group 1 (no fusion or single-level fusion); Group 2 (fusion across two to four levels); and Group 3 (fusion involving five or more levels). Within the distribution-based framework, responsiveness was quantified using effect size (ES) and standardized response mean (SRM). Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) and MCID were determined for participants who reported either \\\"minimal\\\" or \\\"moderate\\\" improvement.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 488 participants completed the J-LSDI at baseline and 1 year. In Group 1, the LSDI scores improved from preoperatively to postoperatively, with moderate ES and SRM values (ES = 0.78; SRM = 0.59). In Group 2, the preoperative and postoperative LSDI scores did not differ, with low ES and SRM values (ES = 0.13; SRM = 0.12). In Group 3, the LSDI scores worsened from preoperatively to postoperatively, with high ES and SRM values (ES = 1.20; SRM = 0.90). The optimal cutoff points for the MCID in Groups 1, 2, and 3 were - 8.0, 0.2, and 17.1, respectively. The AUCs for the MCID in Groups 1, 2, and 3 were 0.72, 0.73, and 0.76, respectively, indicating moderate accuracy. Between-group analysis of variance revealed no significant differences in preoperative LSDI scores (p = 0.40), while significant differences were observed in postoperative scores at 1 year (p < 0.01).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study underscores the clinical relevance and measurement reliability of the J-LSDI as an effective tool for evaluating the functional impact of spinal stiffness on activities of daily living among Japanese patients, in both the preoperative and postoperative phases of spinal surgery.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12323,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Spine Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Spine Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-025-09120-4\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Spine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-025-09120-4","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:我们旨在研究日本版腰椎僵硬残疾指数(J-LSDI)在腰椎手术患者中的心理测量特征,重点关注其反应性和最小临床重要差异(MCID)。方法:这项前瞻性、单机构队列研究纳入了诊断为退行性脊柱病变并在研究前大约1年接受手术治疗的成人。根据关节融合术中腰椎节段的数量,将参与者分为三组:第一组(无融合或单节段融合);第2组(跨越2 - 4个水平的融合);第三组(融合涉及五个或更多级别)。在基于分布的框架内,使用效应大小(ES)和标准化反应平均值(SRM)对反应性进行量化。对于报告“最小”或“中等”改善的参与者,确定了受试者工作特征曲线(auc)和MCID下的区域。结果:共有488名参与者在基线和1年完成了J-LSDI。第一组患者的LSDI评分从术前到术后均有改善,ES和SRM值中等(ES = 0.78;srm = 0.59)。组2术前术后LSDI评分无差异,ES和SRM值均较低(ES = 0.13;srm = 0.12)。第3组患者LSDI评分从术前到术后恶化,ES和SRM值较高(ES = 1.20;srm = 0.90)。1、2、3组MCID的最佳截止点分别为- 8.0、0.2、17.1。1、2、3组的mcd auc分别为0.72、0.73、0.76,准确度中等。组间方差分析显示,术前LSDI评分差异无统计学意义(p = 0.40),术后1年评分差异有统计学意义(p)。结论:本研究强调了J-LSDI作为评估日本患者脊柱手术术前和术后脊柱僵硬对日常生活活动功能影响的有效工具的临床相关性和测量可靠性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Responsiveness of the Japanese version of the lumbar stiffness disability index.

Purpose: We aimed to investigate the psychometric characteristics of the Japanese version of the Lumbar Stiffness Disability Index (J-LSDI) in patients undergoing lumbar spinal surgery, with a focus on its responsiveness and minimal clinically important differences (MCID).

Methods: This prospective, single-institution cohort study enrolled adult individuals diagnosed with degenerative spinal pathologies who underwent surgical intervention approximately 1 year prior inclusion in the study. Participants were stratified into three groups according to the number of lumbar segments included in the arthrodesis construct: Group 1 (no fusion or single-level fusion); Group 2 (fusion across two to four levels); and Group 3 (fusion involving five or more levels). Within the distribution-based framework, responsiveness was quantified using effect size (ES) and standardized response mean (SRM). Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) and MCID were determined for participants who reported either "minimal" or "moderate" improvement.

Results: A total of 488 participants completed the J-LSDI at baseline and 1 year. In Group 1, the LSDI scores improved from preoperatively to postoperatively, with moderate ES and SRM values (ES = 0.78; SRM = 0.59). In Group 2, the preoperative and postoperative LSDI scores did not differ, with low ES and SRM values (ES = 0.13; SRM = 0.12). In Group 3, the LSDI scores worsened from preoperatively to postoperatively, with high ES and SRM values (ES = 1.20; SRM = 0.90). The optimal cutoff points for the MCID in Groups 1, 2, and 3 were - 8.0, 0.2, and 17.1, respectively. The AUCs for the MCID in Groups 1, 2, and 3 were 0.72, 0.73, and 0.76, respectively, indicating moderate accuracy. Between-group analysis of variance revealed no significant differences in preoperative LSDI scores (p = 0.40), while significant differences were observed in postoperative scores at 1 year (p < 0.01).

Conclusion: This study underscores the clinical relevance and measurement reliability of the J-LSDI as an effective tool for evaluating the functional impact of spinal stiffness on activities of daily living among Japanese patients, in both the preoperative and postoperative phases of spinal surgery.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
European Spine Journal
European Spine Journal 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
10.70%
发文量
373
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: "European Spine Journal" is a publication founded in response to the increasing trend toward specialization in spinal surgery and spinal pathology in general. The Journal is devoted to all spine related disciplines, including functional and surgical anatomy of the spine, biomechanics and pathophysiology, diagnostic procedures, and neurology, surgery and outcomes. The aim of "European Spine Journal" is to support the further development of highly innovative spine treatments including but not restricted to surgery and to provide an integrated and balanced view of diagnostic, research and treatment procedures as well as outcomes that will enhance effective collaboration among specialists worldwide. The “European Spine Journal” also participates in education by means of videos, interactive meetings and the endorsement of educative efforts. Official publication of EUROSPINE, The Spine Society of Europe
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信