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
  • [31] How to Estimate the Minimal Clinically Important Difference
    Roca, Hernan
    Maughan, Gretchen
    Karamian, Brian
    CLINICAL SPINE SURGERY, 2025, 38 (02): : 94 - 96
  • [32] Minimal Clinically Important Difference, Maximum Impact
    Kalkman, Cor J.
    ANESTHESIOLOGY, 2020, 132 (06) : 1296 - 1298
  • [33] Predicting whether patients will achieve minimal clinically important differences following hip or knee arthroplasty
    Langenberger, B.
    Schrednitzki, D.
    Halder, A. M.
    Busse, R.
    Pross, C. M.
    BONE & JOINT RESEARCH, 2023, 12 (09): : 512 - 521
  • [34] Reoperations Following Cervical Disc Replacement
    Skovrlj, Branko
    Lee, Dong-Ho
    Caridi, John Michael
    Cho, Samuel Kang-Wook
    ASIAN SPINE JOURNAL, 2015, 9 (03) : 471 - 482
  • [35] Preoperative patient factors that predict achieving the minimal clinically important difference following arthroscopic treatment of snapping scapula syndrome
    Rupp, Marco-Christopher
    Rutledge, Joan C.
    Apostolakos, John M.
    Dornan, Grant J.
    Quinn, Patrick M.
    Horan, Marilee P.
    Hazra, Rony-Orijit Dey
    Millett, Peter J.
    JOURNAL OF SHOULDER AND ELBOW SURGERY, 2024, 33 (08) : 1811 - 1820
  • [36] Elevated Body Mass Index Is a Risk Factor for Failure to Achieve the Knee Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Physical Function Short Form Minimal Clinically Important Difference Following Total Knee Arthroplasty
    Katakam, Akhil
    Bragdon, Charles R.
    Chen, Antonia F.
    Melnic, Christopher M.
    Bedair, Hany S.
    JOURNAL OF ARTHROPLASTY, 2021, 36 (05): : 1626 - 1632
  • [37] The Minimal Clinically Important Difference: A Review of Clinical Significance
    Bloom, David A.
    Kaplan, Daniel J.
    Mojica, Edward
    Strauss, Eric J.
    Gonzalez-Lomas, Guillem
    Campbell, Kirk A.
    Alaia, Michael J.
    Jazrawi, Laith M.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE, 2023, 51 (02): : 520 - 524
  • [38] THE MINIMAL CLINICALLY IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE OF THE COPD ASSESSMENT TEST
    Kon, S. S. C.
    Canavan, J. L.
    Clark, A. L.
    Jones, S. E.
    Nolan, C. M.
    Polkey, M. I.
    Man, W. D. C.
    THORAX, 2013, 68 : A89 - A90
  • [39] Minimal clinically important difference in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis
    Kang, Mohleen
    Marts, Lucian
    Kempker, Jordan A.
    Veeraraghavan, Srihari
    BREATHE, 2021, 17 (02)
  • [40] The minimal clinically important difference of the motricity index score
    Lin, Chen
    Arevalo, Yurany A.
    Harvey, Richard L.
    Prabhakaran, Shyam
    Martin, Kimberly D.
    TOPICS IN STROKE REHABILITATION, 2023, 30 (03) : 298 - 303