North American Spine Society Questionnaire Research Articles

Minimally Invasive Decompression With Noninstrumented Facet Fusion Versus Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Stenosis Associated With Grade 1 Lumbar Degenerative Spondylolisthesis.

Retrospective matched cohort study. With a growing interest in minimally invasive spine surgery (MIS), the question of which technique is the most advantageous for patients with low-grade degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) still remains unclear. To compare patient-reported outcomes, perioperative morbidity, and rates of reoperation between MIS decompression with either unilateral noninstrumented facet fusion (MIS-F) or with transforaminal interbody fusion (MIS-T) for grade 1 DLS. Twenty patients who underwent MIS-T and 20 patients with MIS-F were matched based on age, sex, and preoperative ODI, VAS back, and VAS leg. All patients had DLS with at least 4 millimeters of translation on standing radiographs. Exclusion criteria included prior level surgery, multilevel instability, disk impinging on the exiting nerve root, spondylolisthesis from significant facet arthropathy, or foraminal compromise from disk collapse. ODI, VAS back, VAS leg, and patient satisfaction measured by the North American Spine Society questionnaire were tracked at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. Minimum clinically important differences and substantial clinical benefits were calculated. MIS-F and MIS-T resulted in decreased ODI at 3, 6, and 12 months following the index procedure. Sixty percent of MIS-F and 83% of MIS-T patients reached minimum clinically important difference at 1 year postoperatively; however, using the threshold of 30% ODI reduction from baseline, 67% of MIS-F and 83% MIS-T ( P = 0.25) achieved this goal. Forty-three percent of MIS-F and 59% of MIS-T patients met substantial clinical benefits. Satisfaction at 1 year, measured by a score of 1 or 2 on the North American Spine Society questionnaire, was 64% for MIS-F and 83% for MIS-T. MIS-F and MIS-T are effective treatment options for spinal stenosis associated with low-grade DLS. Both techniques result in comparable patient-reported outcomes and satisfaction up to 2 years and have similar long-term reoperation rates. More evidence is required to delineate optimal selection characteristics for MIS-F versus MIS-T.

Chronic low back pain: a prospective study with 4 to 15 years follow-up after a multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation program

BackgroundMultidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation (MBR) in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) is superior to less intensive treatments for at least one year, but the long-term course of the disease is largely unknown. The primary aim of this study was to describe the long-term course of an MBR in relation to pain, disability, and quality of life from the beginning of an MBR to between 4 to 15 years after participation. The secondary aim was to explore the long-term course of an MBR in relation to physiological outcomes of functioning.MethodsThis was a observational study conducted at a university hospital. The cohort consisted of participants of a 3-week, CLBP-specific MBR program between August 2001 and January 2013. The North American Spine Society questionnaire (NASS) pain and disability scale was the primary patient -reported outcome measure (PROM). The NASS neurogenic symptoms scale and the Short-Form 36 (SF-36) health survey were secondary PROMs. Patients were assessed before entry to the MBR (T0), at entry (T1), at discharge (T2) and 4 to 15 years after discharge (T3). Effects were quantified by effect size (ES). Score differences were tested for significance using parametric or non-parametric tests and linear mixed models.ResultsOf 299 consecutive patients from the MBR program, 229 could be contacted. Of these, 84 declined participation, five did not meet the inclusion criteria, and 26 had incomplete data. Thus, 114 patients were included. The mean follow-up time was 9.2 years. At T3, patients exhibited beneficial effects for NASS pain and disability with a moderate ES (ES = 0.63; p < 0.001). The NASS neurogenic symptoms scale was stable. The SF-36 scales showed an improvement in the bodily pain domain (ES = 1.02; p < 0.001), but no significant changes for physical functioning, physical role, general health, vitality, social functioning, emotional role, or mental health. The physical health component summary was improved (ES = 0.40, p = 0.002), and the mental health summary was unchanged. The linear mixed model analysis confirmed improvements in pain and disability between T1 and T3 (p = 0.010).ConclusionsThe results of this study suggest that there is a long-term benefit of MBR participation in patients with CLBP.

Smoking Is Associated With Lower Satisfaction in Nondiabetic Patients Undergoing Minimally Invasive Single-level Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

This was a retrospective review of prospectively collected registry data. The objective of this study was to investigate the effect of smoking on 2 years postoperative functional outcomes, satisfaction, and radiologic fusion in nondiabetic patients undergoing minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for degenerative spine conditions. There is conflicting data on the effect of smoking on long-term functional outcomes following lumbar fusion. Moreover, there remains a paucity of literature on the influence of smoking within the field of minimally invasive spine surgery. Prospectively collected registry data of nondiabetic patients who underwent primary single-level minimally invasive TLIF in a single institution was reviewed. Patients were stratified based on smoking history. All patients were assessed preoperatively and postoperatively using the Numerical Pain Rating Scale for back pain and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index, Short-Form 36 Physical and Mental Component Scores. Satisfaction was assessed using the North American Spine Society questionnaire. Radiographic fusion rates were compared. In total, 187 patients were included, of which 162 were nonsmokers, and 25 had a positive smoking history. In our multivariate analysis, smoking history was insignificant in predicting for minimal clinically important difference attainment rates in Physical Component Score and fusion grading outcomes. However, in terms of satisfaction score, positive smoking history remained a significant predictor (odds ratio=4.7, 95% confidence interval: 1.10-20.09, P=0.036). Nondiabetic patients with a positive smoking history had lower satisfaction scores but comparable functional outcomes and radiologic fusion 2 years after single-level TLIF. Thorough preoperative counseling and smoking cessation advice may help to improve patient satisfaction following minimally invasive spine surgery. Level III-nonrandomized cohort study.

Outcomes after spinal stenosis surgery by type of surgery in adults aged 60 years and older.

Mobility disability due to spinal stenosis is common in the senior population and often surgery is warranted for patients with severe symptoms and neurological dysfunction. However, although current clinical guidelines recommend stabilisation surgery in addition to decompression in patients with spinal stenosis and instability due to degenerative spondylolisthesis, the relationship between outcomes and the specific type of surgery have not been well studied. We therefore assessed the postoperative recovery timeline for 12 months and compared patient-reported outcomes dependent on the extent of decompression and additional stabilisation among seniors undergoing spinal stenosis surgery. We investigated 457 patients (mean age 76.0 &plusmn; 10.7 years, 58% women) from a consecutive cohort prior to spinal stenosis surgery. Follow-up was at 3 or 6months and at 12 months postoperatively. At each visit, pain, neurological dysfunction and disability were assessed using the North American Spine Society questionnaire. Repeated-measures analysis compared outcomes by type of surgery adjusting for baseline symptoms, gender, age, number of comorbidities, centre and year of surgery. Most improvement occurred within the first 3 to 6 months with little or no further improvement at 12 months. Over 12 months and in adjusted models, patients receiving one-segment versus multi-segment decompression experienced significantly greater reduction of pain (&minus;49.2% vs &minus;41.9%, p = 0.013) and neurological dysfunction (&minus;37.1% vs &minus;25.9%, p &lt;0.0001), but only borderline greater reduction of disability (&minus;32.7% vs &minus;28.2%, p = 0.051). Moreover, reduction in pain and neurological function did not differ with or without additional stabilisation and extend of decompression. However, patients who received one-segment (&minus;28.9%) or multi-segment (&minus;28.3%) stabilisation experienced significantly less reduction in disability after surgery compared with those who were not stabilised (&minus;34.1%, p &lt;0.043). Among senior patients undergoing spinal stenosis surgery, recovery was largely complete by 3 to 6 months after surgery and differed little by type of surgery independently of symptoms prior to surgery and other covariates. However we could document a trend toward more improvement in particularly neurological dysfunction and disability with less invasive surgery.

Arthroscopic debridement of the degenerative knee – Is there still a role?

ObjectivesThe role of arthroscopic debridement in the painful degenerative knee is controversial. Studies have shown that arthroscopic surgery for knee osteoarthritis provides no additional benefit to optimized physical and medical therapy. There are however, limited studies on the management of the subgroup of significantly symptomatic patients who remain refractory to maximal conservative treatment and are poor candidates for knee replacement surgery.We propose that with careful patient selection, arthroscopic debridement can provide good symptomatic relief with sustained benefits in the degenerative knee. MethodsWe performed a retrospective, single-surgeon study of 180 consecutive knee arthroscopies performed in 169 patients, aged 40 years and above, who had mechanical symptoms affecting their daily lives and underwent arthroscopic debridement after failure of a minimum 2 months of optimized medical and physical therapy. Severity of the knee osteoarthritis on plain radiographs was assessed using the Kellgren-Lawrence classification.Functional and satisfaction scores were assessed using Oxford Knee Score, Koos Knee Survey, Short Form-36, Numeric Pain Rating Scale, and questions adapted from the North American Spine Society Questionnaire. ResultsExcellent functional outcomes and patient satisfaction were reported in the majority of patients over the follow-up timeframe of 2–8 years. The mean pre-operative Kellgren-Lawrence score was 2.02 (SD 0.580). Significant improvements compared to pre-operative scores were seen across all scoring systems tested. 90% of patients reported good to excellent results. ConclusionArthroscopic knee debridement can provide good symptomatic relief and sustained benefits in significantly symptomatic patients with early degenerative knees who have failed conservative management. This is most useful in patients with mechanical symptoms secondary to degenerative meniscal tears or chondral flaps, and those with symptomatic patellofemoral osteoarthritis.

Surgical versus conservative treatment for lumbar disc herniation: a prospective cohort study

ObjectivesEvidence comparing the effectiveness of surgical and conservative treatment of symptomatic lumbar disc herniation is controversial. We sought to compare short-term and long-term effectiveness of surgical and conservative treatment in...

Factor analysis of the North American Spine Society outcome assessment instrument: a study based on a spine registry of patients treated with lumbar and cervical disc arthroplasty

Background contextStudies involving factor analysis (FA) of the items in the North American Spine Society (NASS) outcome assessment instrument have revealed inconsistent factor structures for the individual items. PurposeThis study examined whether the factor structure of the NASS varied in relation to the severity of the back/neck problem and differed from that originally recommended by the developers of the questionnaire, by analyzing data before and after surgery in a large series of patients undergoing lumbar or cervical disc arthroplasty. Study design/settingProspective multicenter observational case series. Patient sampleThree hundred ninety-one patients with low back pain and 553 patients with neck pain completed questionnaires preoperatively and again at 3 to 6 and 12 months follow-ups (FUs), in connection with the SWISSspine disc arthroplasty registry. Outcome measuresNorth American Spine Society outcome assessment instrument. MethodsFirst, an exploratory FA without a priori assumptions and subsequently a confirmatory FA were performed on the 17 items of the NASS-lumbar and 19 items of the NASS-cervical collected at each assessment time point. The item-loading invariance was tested in the German version of the questionnaire for baseline and FU. ResultsBoth NASS-lumbar and NASS-cervical factor structures differed between baseline and postoperative data sets. The confirmatory analysis and item-loading invariance showed better fit for a three-factor (3F) structure for NASS-lumbar, containing items on “disability,” “back pain,” and “radiating pain, numbness, and weakness (leg/foot)” and for a 5F structure for NASS-cervical including disability, “neck pain,” “radiating pain and numbness (arm/hand),” “weakness (arm/hand),” and “motor deficit (legs).” ConclusionsThe best-fitting factor structure at both baseline and FU was selected for both the lumbar- and cervical-NASS questionnaires. It differed from that proposed by the originators of the NASS instruments. Although the NASS questionnaire represents a valid outcome measure for degenerative spine diseases, it is able to distinguish among all major symptom domains (factors) in patients undergoing lumbar and cervical disc arthroplasty; overall, the item structure could be improved. Any potential revision of the NASS should consider its factorial structure; factorial invariance over time should be aimed for, to allow for more precise interpretations of treatment success.

German translation, cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the whiplash disability questionnaire.

BackgroundThe Australian Whiplash Disability Questionnaire (WDQ) was cross-culturally translated, adapted, and tested for validity to be used in German-speaking patients. The self-administered questionnaire evaluates actual pain intensity, problems in personal care, role performance, sleep disturbances, tiredness, social and leisure activities, emotional and concentration impairments with 13 questions rated on an 11-point rating scale from zero to ten.MethodsIn a first part, the Australian-based WDQ was forward and backward translated. In a consensus conference with all translators and health care professionals, who were experts in the treatment of patients with a whiplash associated disorder (WAD), formulations were refined. Original authors were contacted for clarification and approval of the forward-backward translated version. The German version (WDQ-G) was evaluated for comprehensiveness and clarity in a pre-study patient survey by a random sample of German-speaking patients after WAD and four healthy twelve to thirteen year old teenagers.In a second part, the WDQ-G was evaluated in a patient validation study including patients affected by a WAD. Inpatients had to complete the WDQ-G, the North American Spine Society questionnaire (NASS cervical pain), and the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) at entry in the rehabilitation centre.ResultsIn the pre-study patient survey (response rate 31%) patients rated clarity for title 9.6 ± 0.9, instruction 9.3 ± 1.4 and questions 9.6 ± 0.7, and comprehensiveness for title 9.6 ± 0.7, instruction 9.3 ± 1.4 and questions 9.8 ± 0.4. Time needed to fill in was 13.7 ± 9.0 minutes.In total, 70 patients (47 females, age = 43.4 ± 12.5 years, time since injury: 1.5 ± 2.6 years) were included in the validation study. WDQ-G total score was 74.0 ± 21.3 points (range between 15 and 117 points). Time needed to fill in was 6.7 ± 3.4 minutes with data from 22 patients. Internal consistency was confirmed with Cronbachs’s α = 0.89. Concurrent validity showed a highly significant correlation with subscale pain and disability (NASS) at r = 0.74 and subscale pain (SF-36) at r = 0.71.ConclusionsThe officially translated and adapted WDQ-G can be used in German-speaking patients affected by a WAD to evaluate patients’ impairments in different domains. The WDQ-G is a self-administered outcome measure showing a high internal consistency and good concurrent validity.

A computer touch-screen version of the North American Spine Society outcome assessment instrument for the lumbar spine

We validated the North American Spine Society (NASS) outcome-assessment instrument for the lumbar spine in a computerised touch-screen format and assessed patients' acceptance, taking into account previous computer experience, age and gender. Fifty consecutive patients with symptomatic and radiologically-proven degenerative disease of the lumbar spine completed both the hard copy (paper) and the computerised versions of the NASS questionnaire. Statistical analysis showed high agreement between the paper and the touch-screen computer format for both subscales (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.94, 95% confidence interval (0.90 to 0.97)) independent of computer experience, age and gender. In total, 55% of patients stated that the computer format was easier to use and 66% preferred it to the paper version (p < 0.0001 among subjects expressing a preference). Our data indicate that the touch-screen format is comparable to the paper form. It may improve follow-up in clinical practice and research by meeting patients' preferences and minimising administrative work.

Cross-cultural adaptation of the lumbar North American Spine Society questionnaire for Italian-speaking patients with lumbar spinal disease.

A cross-cultural adaptation and cross-sectional study of a sample of lumbar spine patients, with a subsample followed prospectively for retest reliability. To assess the Italian version instrument reliability and validity. The orthopaedic outcome measurements have been usually focused on objective parameters as radiograph measures or other technical aspects. However, these parameters are weakly related with outcomes that are more relevant to patients as functional status and symptoms. In the last ten years, the patient-oriented measures have become an important aspect of spinal clinical outcome evaluation. The most common instruments to assess patient perspective are self-administered questionnaires that must be validated by a widely accepted process to evaluate reliability and validity, which are fundamental for every instrumental measure. The North American Spine Society (NASS) questionnaire was culturally adapted for Italian-speaking people following the Guillemin criteria. The Italian version was tested on 74 consecutive patients who were referred to the authors' department and suffered from low back pain with leg irradiation. The results were compared with other validated patient-oriented measures. Forty-eight-hour retests were performed on a subsample of 45 patients. The questionnaire was favorably accepted by patients. The lumbar spine pain and disability and neurogenic symptoms subscales showed a high correlation with other patient-oriented measures, as hypothesized, and it also showed good values on test-retest. The questionnaire should be considered for patient health status monitoring and for clinical trials.