Neurospine (Dec 2021)

Change in Patient-Reported Outcome Measures as Predictors of Revision Lumbar Decompression Procedures

  • Michael T. Nolte,
  • Elliot D.K. Cha,
  • Conor P. Lynch,
  • Kevin C. Jacob,
  • Madhav R. Patel,
  • Cara E. Geoghegan,
  • Caroline N. Jadczak,
  • Shruthi Mohan,
  • Kern Singh

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14245/ns.2142230.115
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 18, no. 4
pp. 863 – 870

Abstract

Read online

Objective To assess change in Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROM) as predictors for revision lumbar decompression (LD). Methods Patients who underwent primary, single or multilevel LD were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were categorized according to whether or not they underwent revision LD within 2 years of the primary procedure. Visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), 12-item Short Form Health Survey and 12-item Veterans RAND physical component score (SF-12 PCS and VR-12 PCS), and Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System physical function (PROMIS-PF) were recorded. Delta PROM scores were evaluated for differences between groups and as a risk factor for a revision LD. Results The study included 135 patients, 91 undergoing a primary procedure only and 44 undergoing a primary and revision procedure. Matched patients did not demonstrate any significant differences in demographics or perioperative characteristics. Patients who underwent a revision had a mean time to revision of 7.4 ± 5.7 months. Primary cohort significantly improved for all PROMs (all p < 0.05), while the primary plus revision cohort significantly improved for VAS back, ODI, and PROMIS-PF (all p < 0.05). However, cohorts differed in VAS back and PROMIS-PF (p < 0.05). Delta PROMs were not a significant risk factor for revision except at 6 months for PROMIS-PF (p = 0.024). Conclusion LD has been associated with reliable outcomes, but early identification of patients at risk for revision is critical. This study suggests that tools such as PROMIS-PF may serve a role in predicting who is at risk and the 6-month follow-up period may be valuable for counseling patients who are not experiencing improvement.

Keywords