Information de reference pour ce titreAccession Number: | 00007632-200805010-00011.
|
Author: | Upasani, Vidyadhar V. MD *+; Caltoum, Christine MD +; Petcharaporn, Maty BS +; Bastrom, Tracey P. MA +; Pawelek, Jeff B. BS +; Betz, Randal R. MD ++; Clements, David H. MD [S]; Lenke, Lawrence G. MD [P]; Lowe, Thomas G. MD [//]; Newton, Peter O. MD *+
|
Institution: | From the *Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of California San Diego, +Department of Orthopedics, Rady Children's Hospital and Health Center, San Diego, CA; ++Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Shriners Hospital, [S]Department of Orthopedics, Temple University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA; [P]Department of Orthopedic Surgery, WA University, St. Louis, MO; and [//]Department of Orthopedics, University of Colorado Health Science Center, Wheat Ridge, CO.
|
Title: | |
Source: | Spine. 33(10):1107-1112, May 1, 2008.
|
Abstract: | Study Design. A multicenter study of changes in Scoliosis Research Society (SRS) outcome measures after surgical treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS).
Objective. To evaluate changes in patient determined outcome measures between 2 and 5 years after AIS surgery.
Summary of Background Data. Current surgical procedures have been shown to improve subjective measures in patients with AIS. At 2-year follow-up, AIS patients reported significant improvement in all 4 preoperative domains of the SRS questionnaire. In addition, the major Cobb angle was shown to be negatively correlated with preoperative scores in the pain, general self-image, and general function domains. Five-year SRS scores have not been evaluated previously.
Methods. A multicenter, prospectively generated database was used to obtain perioperative, radiographic, and SRS-24 outcomes data. The inclusion criteria were: a diagnosis of AIS, surgical treatment (anterior, posterior, or combined), a comprehensive set of radiographic measures, and completed preoperative, 2-year, and 5-year SRS questionnaires. Repeated measures analysis of variance was used to compare changes in patient responses for each of the 7 outcome domains. Univariate analysis of variance was used to compare the change in pain score at 5 years to the level of the lowest instrumented vertebrae and surgical approach. A correlation analysis was used to determine the association between changes in any of the radiographic variables and changes in SRS scores. The data were checked for normality and equal variances, and the level of significance was set at P < 0.01.
Results. Forty-nine patients (42 women, 7 men; 14.2 +/- 2.1 year old; 5.4 +/- 0.6 years follow-up) met the inclusion criteria for this study. Thirty-seven of 49 (76%) of these patients underwent an open or thoracoscopic anterior procedure. SRS-24 scores improved significantly in 3 of the 4 preoperative domains at the 2-year visit. At 5 years postop, a statistically significant decrease in the pain score (4.2 +/- 0.6 to 3.9 +/- 0.9, P = 0.003) and a trend toward worsening scores in 4 other domains was observed; however, Patient Satisfaction scores remained unchanged. Lowest instrumented vertebrae and surgical approach could not be correlated to changes in the pain score. In addition, no correlation was found between changes in any of the 21 radiographic measures evaluated and changes in SRS scores.
Conclusion. There was a statistically significant increase in reported pain from 2 to 5 years after surgical treatment; however, the etiology of worsening pain scores could not be elucidated. Given continued patient satisfaction, the clinical relevance of this small reduction remains unknown. Nevertheless, this observation deserves further evaluation and must be considered in relation to the natural history of this disease.
(C) 2008 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.
|
Author Keywords: | adolescent idiopathic scoliosis; SRS outcomes instrument assessment; 5-year follow-up.
|
References: | 1.Cotrel Y, Dubousset J, Guillaumat M. New universal instrumentation in spinal surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1988;227:10-23.
2.Hamill CL, Lenke LG, Bridwell KH, et al. The use of pedicle screw fixation to improve correction in the lumbar spine of patients with idiopathic scoliosis. Is it warranted. Spine 1996;21:1241-9.
3.Harrington PR. Treatment of scoliosis. Correction and internal fixation by spine instrumentation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1962;44:591-610.
4.Dickson JH, Erwin WD, Rossi D. Harrington instrumentation and arthrodesis for idiopathic scoliosis. A twenty-one-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1990;72:678-83.
5.Dickson JH, Mirkovic S, Noble PC, et al. Results of operative treatment of idiopathic scoliosis in adults. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1995;77:513-23.
6.Roye DP Jr, Farcy JP, Rickert JB, et al. Results of spinal instrumentation of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis by King type. Spine 1992;17(8 suppl):S270-S273.
7.Berven S, Deviren V, Demir-Deviren S, et al. Studies in the modified Scoliosis Research Society Outcomes Instrument in adults: validation, reliability, and discriminatory capacity. Spine 2003;28:2164-9; discussion 2169.
8.Climent JM, Reig A, Sanchez J, et al. Construction and validation of a specific quality of life instrument for adolescents with spine deformities. Spine 1995;20:2006-11.
9.Haher TR, Gorup JM, Shin TM, et al. Results of the Scoliosis Research Society instrument for evaluation of surgical outcome in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. A multicenter study of 244 patients. Spine 1999;24:1435-40.
10.Asher M, Min Lai S, Burton D, et al. The reliability and concurrent validity of the scoliosis research society-22 patient questionnaire for idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 2003;28:63-9.
11.Haher T, Valdevit A. The use of outcomes instruments in idiopathic scoliosis. In: Newton PO, ed. Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis. Rosemont, IL: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 2004;95-100.
12.Asher M, Min Lai S, Burton D, et al. Scoliosis research society-22 patient questionnaire: responsiveness to change associated with surgical treatment. Spine 2003;28:70-3.
13.Asher MA, Min Lai S, Burton DC. Further development and validation of the Scoliosis Research Society (SRS) outcomes instrument. Spine 2000;25:2381-6.
14.Newton PO, Parent S, Marks M, et al. Prospective evaluation of 50 consecutive scoliosis patients surgically treated with thoracoscopic anterior instrumentation. Spine 2005;30(17 suppl):S100-S109.
15.Rinella A, Lenke L, Peelle M, et al. Comparison of SRS questionnaire results submitted by both parents and patients in the operative treatment of idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 2004;29:303-10.
16.Watanabe K, Hasegawa K, Hirano T, et al. Use of the scoliosis research society outcomes instrument to evaluate patient outcome in untreated idiopathic scoliosis patients in Japan: part II: relation between spinal deformity and patient outcomes. Spine 2005;30:1202-5.
17.White SF, Asher MA, Lai SM, et al. Patients' perceptions of overall function, pain, and appearance after primary posterior instrumentation and fusion for idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 1999;24:1693-9; discussion 1699-700.
18.Merola AA, Haher TR, Brkaric M, et al. A multicenter study of the outcomes of the surgical treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis using the Scoliosis Research Society (SRS) outcome instrument. Spine 2002;27:2046-51.
19.Wilson PL, Newton PO, Wenger DR, et al. A multicenter study analyzing the relationship of a standardized radiographic scoring system of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis and the Scoliosis Research Society outcomes instrument. Spine 2002;27:2036-40.
20.Lerner T, Frobin W, Bullmann V, et al. Changes in disc height and posteroanterior displacement after fusion in patients with idiopathic scoliosis: a 9-year follow-up study. J Spinal Disord Tech 2007;20:195-202.
21.Asher M, Lai SM, Burton D, et al. Spine deformity correlates better than trunk deformity with idiopathic scoliosis patients' quality of life questionnaire responses. Stud Health Technol Inform 2002;91:462-4.
22.Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 1989;10:407-15.
23.Salaffi F, Stancati A, Silvestri CA, et al. Minimal clinically important changes in chronic musculoskeletal pain intensity measured on a numerical rating scale. Eur J Pain 2004;8:283-91.
24.Quintana JM, Escobar A, Bilbao A, et al. Responsiveness and clinically important differences for the WOMAC and SF-36 after hip joint replacement. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2005;13:1076-83.
25.Wyrwich KW, Fihn SD, Tierney WM, et al. Clinically important changes in health-related quality of life for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: an expert consensus panel report. J Gen Intern Med 2003;18:196-202.
26.Wyrwich KW, Nelson HS, Tierney WM, et al. Clinically important differences in health-related quality of life for patients with asthma: an expert consensus panel report. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2003;91:148-53.
27.Wyrwich KW, Spertus JA, Kroenke K, et al. Clinically important differences in health status for patients with heart disease: an expert consensus panel report. Am Heart J 2004;147:615-22.
28.Berven S, Deviren V, Polly D, et al. Minimal clinically important difference in spinal deformity: defining a threshold of change that matters. Scoliosis Research Society 40th Annual Meeting and Course. Miami, FL: Scoliosis Research Society, 2005:155.
|
Language: | English.
|
Document Type: | Health Services Research.
|
Journal Subset: | Clinical Medicine. Health Professions.
|
ISSN: | 0362-2436
|
NLM Journal Code: | 7610646, uxk, 7610649
|
DOI Number: | https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0...- ouverture dans une nouvelle fenêtre
|
Annotation(s) | |
|
|