腰椎手术的预后评估。

Acta orthopaedica. Supplementum Pub Date : 2005-06-01
Gustavo Zanoli
{"title":"腰椎手术的预后评估。","authors":"Gustavo Zanoli","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There is no consensus regarding outcomes assessment in spine patients. When using Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) in assessing outcomes of treatment, normative data for different diagnoses are needed to allow comparisons between existing and future studies. The most used generic instrument for HRQoL evaluation in spine pathologies is SF-36. There is no standard definition of important differences in spine surgery patients and no standard reference for minimal clinically important difference.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The overall aim of this thesis was to increase understanding of some aspects of outcome measurement in patients operated on for lumbar spine problems using existing prospective data available at the spine section of the Orthopedics Department of the University of Lund, and, moreover, to explore potentials and weaknesses in the methodology of retrospectively analysis of prospectively collected observational data.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic web-search and review of the literature and a retrospective analysis of prospective cohort data collected within the data collection protocol in use by the Swedish Spine Register. Since 1993 all persons undergoing elective lumbar surgery at the spine section of the Orthopedics Department of the University of Lund were included in the prospective registration protocol either in its first version (1993-1997), which was the source of data for paper III, or in its revised version after 1998. Initial information at baseline (the day before surgery) included age, sex, smoking habits, duration of preoperative back and leg pain in months, duration of preoperative sickleave in months, number of previous operations, patient's working status, diagnostic techniques pre- and postoperatively VAS scores analgesic intake, walking distance. Postoperatively, change in leg and back pain, respectively, was recorded on a 5-point Likert Scale as compared to preoperative status, patient satisfaction was recorded on a 3-point Likert Scale.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The number of proposed outcomes, outcome scores, outcome instruments is incredibly high: no new HRQoL instruments specific for LBP are needed. The data collection protocol of the Swedish Spine Register studied can reliably detect postoperative improvements between large groups of patients such as in a Register. Pain intensity measured on the VAS correlates significantly to other indicators of perceived pain, but correlation is not as strong as it could be if they were all measuring the same construct. HRQoL as measured by SF-36 in patients scheduled for lumbar spine surgery showed a pronounced reduction compared to normal and LBP population. The use of norm-based scoring for SF-36 can help interpretation and simplify graphic representation of the findings. SF-36 outcomes 1-year after surgery for lumbar spine disorders are improved, although other factors or natural history could contribute to this improvement. The global effect of spine surgery in our sample is quite similar to effect sizes of very successful orthopedic interventions. The use of standardised outcome measures allows international comparisons, although caution should be used in the interpretation of differences.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Without the need of additional expensive data collection and using limited economic resources an increased understanding of some aspects of outcome measurement in patients operated on for lumbar spine problems has been achieved. Reference values and more speculative data (such as effect sizes and MCIDs) have been presented. The ecological methodology has been presented and discussed: with a clear respect for its limitations, it could be used to obtain relevant information also in other clinical fields.</p>","PeriodicalId":87168,"journal":{"name":"Acta orthopaedica. Supplementum","volume":"76 318","pages":"5-47"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2005-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Outcome assessment in lumbar spine surgery.\",\"authors\":\"Gustavo Zanoli\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There is no consensus regarding outcomes assessment in spine patients. When using Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) in assessing outcomes of treatment, normative data for different diagnoses are needed to allow comparisons between existing and future studies. The most used generic instrument for HRQoL evaluation in spine pathologies is SF-36. There is no standard definition of important differences in spine surgery patients and no standard reference for minimal clinically important difference.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The overall aim of this thesis was to increase understanding of some aspects of outcome measurement in patients operated on for lumbar spine problems using existing prospective data available at the spine section of the Orthopedics Department of the University of Lund, and, moreover, to explore potentials and weaknesses in the methodology of retrospectively analysis of prospectively collected observational data.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic web-search and review of the literature and a retrospective analysis of prospective cohort data collected within the data collection protocol in use by the Swedish Spine Register. Since 1993 all persons undergoing elective lumbar surgery at the spine section of the Orthopedics Department of the University of Lund were included in the prospective registration protocol either in its first version (1993-1997), which was the source of data for paper III, or in its revised version after 1998. Initial information at baseline (the day before surgery) included age, sex, smoking habits, duration of preoperative back and leg pain in months, duration of preoperative sickleave in months, number of previous operations, patient's working status, diagnostic techniques pre- and postoperatively VAS scores analgesic intake, walking distance. Postoperatively, change in leg and back pain, respectively, was recorded on a 5-point Likert Scale as compared to preoperative status, patient satisfaction was recorded on a 3-point Likert Scale.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The number of proposed outcomes, outcome scores, outcome instruments is incredibly high: no new HRQoL instruments specific for LBP are needed. The data collection protocol of the Swedish Spine Register studied can reliably detect postoperative improvements between large groups of patients such as in a Register. Pain intensity measured on the VAS correlates significantly to other indicators of perceived pain, but correlation is not as strong as it could be if they were all measuring the same construct. HRQoL as measured by SF-36 in patients scheduled for lumbar spine surgery showed a pronounced reduction compared to normal and LBP population. The use of norm-based scoring for SF-36 can help interpretation and simplify graphic representation of the findings. SF-36 outcomes 1-year after surgery for lumbar spine disorders are improved, although other factors or natural history could contribute to this improvement. The global effect of spine surgery in our sample is quite similar to effect sizes of very successful orthopedic interventions. The use of standardised outcome measures allows international comparisons, although caution should be used in the interpretation of differences.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Without the need of additional expensive data collection and using limited economic resources an increased understanding of some aspects of outcome measurement in patients operated on for lumbar spine problems has been achieved. Reference values and more speculative data (such as effect sizes and MCIDs) have been presented. The ecological methodology has been presented and discussed: with a clear respect for its limitations, it could be used to obtain relevant information also in other clinical fields.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":87168,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Acta orthopaedica. Supplementum\",\"volume\":\"76 318\",\"pages\":\"5-47\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2005-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Acta orthopaedica. Supplementum\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta orthopaedica. Supplementum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:对于脊柱患者的预后评估尚无共识。当使用健康相关生活质量(HRQoL)评估治疗结果时,需要不同诊断的规范性数据,以便对现有研究和未来研究进行比较。最常用的评估脊柱病理HRQoL的通用仪器是SF-36。脊柱外科患者的重要差异没有标准定义,最小临床重要差异也没有标准参考。目的:本论文的总体目的是利用隆德大学骨科脊柱科现有的前瞻性数据,增加对腰椎问题手术患者结局测量的某些方面的理解,此外,探讨前瞻性收集的观察性数据回顾性分析方法的潜力和不足。方法:通过系统的网络搜索和文献回顾,并对瑞典脊柱登记处使用的数据收集协议中收集的前瞻性队列数据进行回顾性分析。自1993年以来,所有在隆德大学骨科脊柱科接受择期腰椎手术的患者都被纳入前瞻性登记方案的第一版(1993-1997),这是论文III的数据来源,或在1998年之后的修订版中。基线(术前一天)的初始信息包括年龄、性别、吸烟习惯、术前腰腿疼痛持续时间(月)、术前病假持续时间(月)、既往手术次数、患者工作状态、诊断技术、术前和术后VAS评分、镇痛药摄入、步行距离。术后,与术前相比,腿部和背部疼痛的变化分别用5分李克特量表记录,患者满意度用3分李克特量表记录。结果:建议结局、结局评分、结局工具的数量高得令人难以置信:不需要新的专门针对LBP的HRQoL工具。所研究的瑞典脊柱登记的数据收集方案可以可靠地检测大组患者之间的术后改善,例如在登记册中。VAS测量的疼痛强度与感知疼痛的其他指标显著相关,但如果它们都测量相同的结构,相关性就没有那么强。用SF-36测量的腰椎手术患者的HRQoL与正常人群和腰痛人群相比明显降低。使用基于规范的SF-36评分可以帮助解释和简化结果的图形表示。腰椎疾患手术后1年的SF-36结果得到改善,尽管其他因素或自然史可能有助于这种改善。在我们的样本中,脊柱手术的整体效果与非常成功的骨科干预的效果大小非常相似。标准化结果测量的使用允许进行国际比较,尽管在解释差异时应谨慎使用。结论:在不需要额外昂贵的数据收集和使用有限的经济资源的情况下,对腰椎问题手术患者结局测量的某些方面有了更多的了解。已经提出了参考值和更多的推测性数据(如效应大小和MCIDs)。生态方法已经提出和讨论:明确尊重其局限性,它可以用来获得相关信息,也在其他临床领域。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Outcome assessment in lumbar spine surgery.

Background: There is no consensus regarding outcomes assessment in spine patients. When using Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) in assessing outcomes of treatment, normative data for different diagnoses are needed to allow comparisons between existing and future studies. The most used generic instrument for HRQoL evaluation in spine pathologies is SF-36. There is no standard definition of important differences in spine surgery patients and no standard reference for minimal clinically important difference.

Objective: The overall aim of this thesis was to increase understanding of some aspects of outcome measurement in patients operated on for lumbar spine problems using existing prospective data available at the spine section of the Orthopedics Department of the University of Lund, and, moreover, to explore potentials and weaknesses in the methodology of retrospectively analysis of prospectively collected observational data.

Methods: A systematic web-search and review of the literature and a retrospective analysis of prospective cohort data collected within the data collection protocol in use by the Swedish Spine Register. Since 1993 all persons undergoing elective lumbar surgery at the spine section of the Orthopedics Department of the University of Lund were included in the prospective registration protocol either in its first version (1993-1997), which was the source of data for paper III, or in its revised version after 1998. Initial information at baseline (the day before surgery) included age, sex, smoking habits, duration of preoperative back and leg pain in months, duration of preoperative sickleave in months, number of previous operations, patient's working status, diagnostic techniques pre- and postoperatively VAS scores analgesic intake, walking distance. Postoperatively, change in leg and back pain, respectively, was recorded on a 5-point Likert Scale as compared to preoperative status, patient satisfaction was recorded on a 3-point Likert Scale.

Results: The number of proposed outcomes, outcome scores, outcome instruments is incredibly high: no new HRQoL instruments specific for LBP are needed. The data collection protocol of the Swedish Spine Register studied can reliably detect postoperative improvements between large groups of patients such as in a Register. Pain intensity measured on the VAS correlates significantly to other indicators of perceived pain, but correlation is not as strong as it could be if they were all measuring the same construct. HRQoL as measured by SF-36 in patients scheduled for lumbar spine surgery showed a pronounced reduction compared to normal and LBP population. The use of norm-based scoring for SF-36 can help interpretation and simplify graphic representation of the findings. SF-36 outcomes 1-year after surgery for lumbar spine disorders are improved, although other factors or natural history could contribute to this improvement. The global effect of spine surgery in our sample is quite similar to effect sizes of very successful orthopedic interventions. The use of standardised outcome measures allows international comparisons, although caution should be used in the interpretation of differences.

Conclusions: Without the need of additional expensive data collection and using limited economic resources an increased understanding of some aspects of outcome measurement in patients operated on for lumbar spine problems has been achieved. Reference values and more speculative data (such as effect sizes and MCIDs) have been presented. The ecological methodology has been presented and discussed: with a clear respect for its limitations, it could be used to obtain relevant information also in other clinical fields.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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