Advanced search
Publication Cover
Acta Orthopaedica Volume 84, 2013 - Issue 2
Journal homepage
1,802
Views
76
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Back

Can we define success criteria for lumbar disc surgery?

Estimates for a substantial amount of improvement in core outcome measures

Tore SolbergDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Hospital of Northern Norway (UNN);The Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery (NORspine), Centre of Clinical Documentation and Evaluation (SKDE), Northern Norway Regional Health Authority, TromsøCorrespondence[email protected]
,
Lars Gunnar JohnsenNational Centre for Spinal Disorders, University Hospital of St. Olav, Trondheim;Faculty of Medicine, Norwegian University of Technology and Science (NTNU), Trondheim
,
Øystein P NygaardThe Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery (NORspine), Centre of Clinical Documentation and Evaluation (SKDE), Northern Norway Regional Health Authority, Tromsø
&
Margreth GrotleFORMI, Communication Unit for Musculoskeletal Disorders, Oslo University Hospital, Ullevaal;Department of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Health Sciences, Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences, Oslo, Norway.
Pages 196-201 | Received 24 Apr 2012, Accepted 14 Jan 2013, Published online: 19 Mar 2013

  • Asch HL, Lewis PJ, Moreland DB, Egnatchik JG, Yu YJ, Clabeaux DE, Hyland AH. Prospective multiple outcomes study of outpatient lumbar microdiscectomy: should 75 to 80% success rates be the norm? J Neurosurg 2002; 96: 34-44.
  • Copay AG, Glassman SD, Subach BR, Berven S, Schuler TC, Carreon LY. Minimum clinically important difference in lumbar spine surgery patients: a choice of methods using the Oswestry Disability Index, Medical Outcomes Study questionnaire Short Form 36, and pain scales. Spine J 2008; 8: 968-74.
  • Copay AG, Martin MM, Subach BR, Carreon LY, Glassman SD, Schuler TC, Berven S. Assessment of spine surgery outcomes: inconsistency of change amongst outcome measurements. Spine J 2010; 1: 291-6.
  • Copay AG, Subach BR, Glassman SD, Polly DW, Jr., Schuler TC. Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods. Spine J 2007; 7: 541-6.
  • de Vet HC, Ostelo RW, Terwee CB, van der Roer N, Knol DL, Beckerman H, Boers M, Bouter LM. Minimally important change determined by a visual method integrating an anchor-based and a distribution-based approach. Qual Life Res 2007; 16: 131-42.
  • Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, Williams A. The time trade-off method: results from a general population study. Health Econ 1996; 5: 141-54.
  • Fairbank JC, Couper J, Davies JB, O'Brien JP. The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy 1980; 66: 271-3.
  • Glassman SD, Copay AG, Berven SH, Polly DW, Subach BR, Carreon LY. Defining substantial clinical benefit following lumbar spine arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 2008; 90: 1839-47.
  • Greenough CG. Results of treatment of lumbar spine disorders. Effects of assessment techniques and confounding factors. Acta Orthop Scand (Suppl 251) 1993: 126-9.
  • Grotle M, Brox JI, Vollestad NK. Cross-cultural adaptation of the Norwegian versions of the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and the Oswestry Disability Index. J Rehabil Med 2003; 35: 241-7.
  • Grotle M, Brox JI, Vollestad NK. Concurrent comparison of responsiveness in pain and functional status measurements used for patients with low back pain. Spine 2004; 29: E492-E501.
  • Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 1989; 10: 407-15.
  • Jensen MP, Karoly P. Self-report scales and procedures for assessing pain in adults. In: Handbook of Pain Assessment ( Eds. Truk DC, Melzack R). New York: The Guilford Press, 1992: 135-51.
  • Kamper SJ, Ostelo RW, Knol DL, Maher CG, de Vet HC, Hancock MJ. Global Perceived Effect scales provided reliable assessments of health transition in people with musculoskeletal disorders, but ratings are strongly influenced by current status. J Clin Epidemiol 2010; 63: 760-766.
  • Solberg TK, Olsen JA, Ingebrigtsen T, Hofoss D, Nygaard OP. Health-related quality of life assessment by the EuroQol-5D can provide cost-utility data in the field of low-back surgery. Eur Spine J 2005; 14: 1000-1007.
  • Solberg TK, Sorlie A, Sjaavik K, Nygaard OP, Ingebrigtsen T. Would loss to follow-up bias the outcome evaluation of patients operated for degenerative disorders of the lumbar spine? Acta Orthop 2011; 82 (1): 56-63.
  • Terwee CB, Bot SD, De Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, Bouter LM, de Vet HC. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 2007; 60: 34-42.
  • The EuroQol Group. EuroQol--a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. The EuroQol Group. Health Policy 1990; 16: 199-208.

Related research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.