Risk factors for failure to achieve minimal clinically important difference following cervical disc replacement

被引:7
|
作者
Mai, Eric [1 ,2 ]
Shahi, Pratyush [1 ]
Lee, Ryan [1 ]
Shinn, Daniel J. [1 ,2 ]
Vaishnav, Avani [1 ]
Araghi, Kasra [1 ]
Singh, Nishtha [1 ]
Maayan, Omri [1 ,2 ]
Tuma, Olivia C. [1 ]
Pajak, Anthony [1 ]
Asada, Tomoyuki [1 ]
Korsun, Maximilian K. [1 ]
Singh, Sumedha [1 ]
Kim, Yeo Eun [1 ,2 ]
Louie, Philip K. [1 ]
Huang, Russel C. [1 ]
Albert, Todd J. [1 ]
Dowdell, James [1 ]
Sheha, Evan D. [1 ]
Iyer, Sravisht [1 ]
Qureshi, Sheeraz A. [1 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Hosp Special Surg, Dept Spine Surg, 535 E 70th St, New York, NY 10021 USA
[2] Weill Cornell Med Coll, 1300 York Ave, New York, NY 10065 USA
[3] Hosp Special Surg, Dept Spine Surg, 545 East 70th St, New York, NY 10021 USA
来源
SPINE JOURNAL | 2023年 / 23卷 / 12期
关键词
Cervical disc replacement; Minimal clinically important difference; Neck disability index; Patient reported out-come measures; Visual analog scale; PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES; NECK PAIN; DISKECTOMY; FUSION; ARTHROPLASTY; SPINE; RADICULOPATHY; MYELOPATHY; DISABILITY; ANXIETY;
D O I
10.1016/j.spinee.2023.08.017
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
BACKGROUND CONTEXT: While cervical disc replacement (CDR) has been emerging as a reliable and efficacious treatment option for degenerative cervical spine pathology, not all patients undergoing CDR will achieve minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) postoperatively-risk factors for failure to achieve MCID in PROMs following CDR have not been established.PURPOSE: To identify risk factors for failure to achieve MCID in Neck Disability Index (NDI, Visual Analog Scale (VAS) neck and arm following primary 1-or 2-level CDRs in the early and late postoperative periods.STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of prospectively collected data. PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients who had undergone primary 1-or 2-level CDR for the treatment of degenerative cervical pathology at a single institution with a minimum follow-up of 6 weeks between 2017 and 2022.OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient-reported outcomes: Neck disability index (NDI), Visual analog scale (VAS) neck and arm, MCID.METHODS: Minimal clinically important difference achievement rates for NDI, VAS-Neck, and VAS-Arm within early (within 3 months) and late (6 months to 2 years) postoperative periods were assessed based on previously established thresholds. Multivariate logistic regressions were performed for each PROM and evaluation period, with failure to achieve MCID assigned as the outcome variable, to establish models to identify risk factors for failure to achieve MCID and predictors for achievement of MCID. Predictor variables included in the analyses featured demographics, comorbidities, diagnoses/symptoms, and perioperative characteristics.RESULTS: A total of 154 patients met the inclusion criteria. The majority of patients achieved MCID for NDI, VAS-Neck, and VAS-Arm for both early and late postoperative periods-79% achieved MCID for at least one of the PROMs in the early postoperative period, while 80% achieved MCID for at least one of the PROMs in the late postoperative period. Predominant neck pain was identified as a risk factor for failure to achieve MCID for NDI in the early (OR: 3.13 [1.10-8.87], p-value: .032) and late (OR: 5.01 [1.31-19.12], p-value: .018) postoperative periods, and VAS-Arm for the late postoperative period (OR: 36.63 [3.78-354.56], p-value: .002). Myelopathy was identified as a risk factor for failure to achieve MCID for VAS-Neck in the early postoperative period (OR: 3.40 [1.08-10.66], p-value: .036). Anxiety was identified as a risk factor for failure to achieve MCID for VAS-Neck in the late postoperative period (OR: 6.51 [1.91-22.18], p-value: .003). CDR at levels C5C7 was identified as a risk factor for failure to achieve MCID in NDI for the late postoperative period (OR: 9.74 [1.43-66.34], p-value: .020).CONCLUSIONS: Our study identified several risk factors for failure to achieve MCID in common PROMs following CDR including predominant neck pain, myelopathy, anxiety, and CDR at levels C5 -C7. These findings may help inform the approach to counseling patients on outcomes of CDR as the evidence suggests that those with the risk factors above may not improve as reliably after CDR. (c) 2023 Published by Elsevier Inc.
引用
收藏
页码:1808 / 1816
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Achievement of the minimal clinically important difference following open proximal hamstring repair
    Lawton, Cort D.
    Sullivan, Spencer W.
    Hancock, Kyle J.
    Burger, Joost A.
    Nawabi, Danyal H.
    Kelly, Bryan T.
    Ranawat, Anil S.
    Nwachukwu, Benedict U.
    JOURNAL OF HIP PRESERVATION SURGERY, 2022, 8 (04): : 348 - 353
  • [22] The Association of Preoperative Duration of Symptoms With Clinical Outcomes and Minimal Clinically Important Difference Following Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion
    Jenkins, Nathaniel W.
    Parrish, James M.
    Lynch, Conor P.
    Cha, Elliot D. K.
    Mohan, Shruthi
    Geoghegan, Cara E.
    Jadczak, Caroline N.
    Singh, Kern
    CLINICAL SPINE SURGERY, 2020, 33 (09): : 378 - 381
  • [23] Establishing the minimal clinically important difference for the PROMIS Physical domains in cervical deformity patients
    Passias, Peter G.
    Pierce, Katherine E.
    Williamson, Tyler
    Naessig, Sara
    Ahmad, Waleed
    Passfall, Lara
    Krol, Oscar
    Kummer, Nicholas A.
    Joujon-Roche, Rachel
    Moattari, Kevin
    Tretiakov, Peter
    Imbo, Bailey
    Maglaras, Constance
    O'Connell, Brooke K.
    Diebo, Bassel G.
    Lafage, Renaud
    Lafage, Virginie
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NEUROSCIENCE, 2022, 96 : 19 - 24
  • [24] The Minimal Clinically Important Difference: Letter to the Editor
    Tenan, Matthew S.
    Boyer, Christopher W.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE, 2023, 51 (13): : NP51 - NP52
  • [25] The importance of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID)
    Malec, James
    BRAIN INJURY, 2017, 31 (6-7) : 739 - 740
  • [26] Foundations of the minimal clinically important difference for imaging
    Lassere, MND
    van der Heijde, D
    Johnson, KR
    JOURNAL OF RHEUMATOLOGY, 2001, 28 (04) : 890 - 891
  • [27] DEFINING A MINIMAL CLINICALLY IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE IN CAMPHOR
    Bunclark, K.
    Abraham, N.
    Ali, S.
    Cannon, J. E.
    Sheares, K.
    Speed, N.
    Taboada, D.
    Toshner, M.
    Pepke-Zaba, J.
    THORAX, 2019, 74 : A155 - A155
  • [28] Assessing the minimal clinically important difference.
    Brant, R
    Sutherland, L
    Hilsden, R
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, 1997, 145 (11) : 220 - 220
  • [29] The minimal clinically important difference in allergic rhinitis
    Barnes, M. L.
    Vaidyanathan, S.
    Williamson, P. A.
    Lipworth, B. J.
    CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL ALLERGY, 2010, 40 (02): : 242 - 250
  • [30] Minimal clinically important difference module: Introduction
    Wells, GA
    JOURNAL OF RHEUMATOLOGY, 2001, 28 (02) : 398 - 399