Quality of Life in Patients Undergoing Spine Surgery: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Study design
Meta-analysis.Objective
Despite the increasing importance of tracking clinical outcomes using valid patient-reported outcome measures, most providers do not routinely obtain baseline preoperative health-related quality of life (HRQoL) data in patients undergoing spine surgery, precluding objective outcomes analysis in individual practices. We conducted a meta-analysis of pre- and postoperative HRQoL data obtained from the most commonly published instruments to use as reference values.Methods
We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and an institutional registry for studies reporting EQ-5D, SF-6D, and Short Form-36 Physical Component Summary scores in patients undergoing surgery for degenerative cervical and lumbar spinal conditions published between 2000 and 2014. Observational data was pooled meta-analytically using an inverse variance-weighted, random-effects model, and statistical comparisons were performed.Results
Ninety-nine articles were included in the final analysis. Baseline HRQoL scores varied by diagnosis for each of the 3 instruments. On average, postoperative HRQoL scores significantly improved following surgical intervention for each diagnosis using each instrument. There were statistically significant differences in baseline utility values between the EQ-5D and SF-6D instruments for all lumbar diagnoses.Conclusions
The pooled HRQoL values presented in this study may be used by practitioners who would otherwise be precluded from quantifying their surgical outcomes due to a lack of baseline data. The results highlight differences in HRQoL between different degenerative spinal diagnoses, as well as the discrepancy between 2 common utility-based instruments. These findings emphasize the need to be cognizant of the specific instruments used when comparing the results of outcome studies.
SUBMITTER: Nayak NR
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6362549 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Feb
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundDegenerative spinal diseases are common in older adults with concurrent frailty. Preoperative frailty is a strong predictor of adverse clinical outcomes after surgery. This study aimed to investigate the association between health-related outcomes and frailty in patients undergoing spine surgery for degenerative spine diseases.MethodsA systematic review and meta-analysis were performed by electronically searching Ovid-MEDLINE, Ovid-Embase, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL for eligible studies until July 16, 2022. We reviewed all studies, excluding spinal tumours, non-surgical procedures, and experimental studies that examined the association between preoperative frailty and related outcomes after spine surgery. A total of 1,075 articles were identified in the initial search and were reviewed by two reviewers, independently. Data were subjected to qualitative and quantitative syntheses by meta-analytic methods.ResultsThirty-eight articles on 474,651 patients who underwent degenerative spine surgeries were included and 17 papers were quantitatively synthesized. The health-related outcomes were divided into clinical outcomes and patient-reported outcomes; clinical outcomes were further divided into postoperative complications and supportive management procedures. Compared to the non-frail group, the frail group was significantly associated with a greater risk of high mortality, major complications, acute renal failure, myocardial infarction, non-home discharge, reintubation, and longer length of hospital stay. Regarding patient-reported outcomes, changes in scores between the preoperative and postoperative Oswestry Disability Index scores were not associated with preoperative frailty.ConclusionsIn degenerative spinal diseases, frailty is a strong predictor of adverse clinical outcomes after spine surgery. The relationship between preoperative frailty and patient-reported outcomes is still inconclusive. Further research is needed to consolidate the evidence from patient-reported outcomes.
| S-EPMC10668507 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background contextFast-track is an evidence-based multidisciplinary strategy for pre-, intra-, and postoperative management of patients during major surgery. To date, fast-track has not been recognized or accepted in all surgical areas, particularly in orthopedic spine surgery where it still represents a relatively new paradigm.PurposeThe aim of this review was provided an evidenced-based assessment of specific interventions, measurement, and associated outcomes linked to enhanced recovery pathways in spine surgery field.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review in three databases from February 2012 to August 2022 to assess the pre-, intra-, and postoperative key elements and the clinical evidence of fast-track protocols as well as specific interventions and associated outcomes, in patients undergoing to spine surgery.ResultsWe included 57 full-text articles of which most were retrospective. Most common fast-track elements included patient's education, multimodal analgesia, thrombo- and antibiotic prophylaxis, tranexamic acid use, urinary catheter and drainage removal within 24 hours after surgery, and early mobilization and nutrition. All studies demonstrated that these interventions were able to reduce patients' length of stay (LOS) and opioid use. Comparative studies between fast-track and non-fast-track protocols also showed improved pain scores without increasing complication or readmission rates, thus improving patient's satisfaction and functional recovery.ConclusionsAccording to the review results, fast-track seems to be a successful tool to reduce LOS, accelerate return of function, minimize postoperative pain, and save costs in spine surgery. However, current studies are mainly on degenerative spine diseases and largely restricted to retrospective studies with non-randomized data, thus multicenter randomized trials comparing fast-track outcomes and implementation are mandatory to confirm its benefit in spine surgery.
| S-EPMC9869597 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportancePatients undergoing spine surgery often experience severe pain. The optimal dosage of pregabalin and gabapentin for pain control and safety in these patients has not been well established.ObjectiveTo evaluate the associations of pain, opioid consumption, and adverse events with different dosages of pregabalin and gabapentin in patients undergoing spine surgery.Data sourcesPubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane library, and Scopus databases were searched for articles until August 7, 2021.Study selectionRandomized clinical trials conducted among patients who received pregabalin or gabapentin while undergoing spine surgery were included.Data extraction and synthesisTwo investigators independently performed data extraction following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) reporting guideline. The network meta-analysis was conducted from August 2022 to February 2023 using a random-effects model.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was pain intensity measured using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and secondary outcomes included opioid consumption and adverse events.ResultsTwenty-seven randomized clinical trials with 1861 patients (median age, 45.99 years [range, 20.00-70.00 years]; 759 women [40.8%]) were included in the systematic review and network meta-analysis. Compared with placebo, the VAS pain score was lowest with gabapentin 900 mg per day, followed by gabapentin 1200 mg per day, gabapentin 600 mg per day, gabapentin 300 mg per day, pregabalin 300 mg per day, pregabalin 150 mg per day, and pregabalin 75 mg per day. Additionally, gabapentin 900 mg per day was found to be associated with the lowest opioid consumption among all dosages of gabapentin and pregabalin, with a mean difference of -22.07% (95% CI, -33.22% to -10.92%) for the surface under the cumulative ranking curve compared with placebo. There was no statistically significant difference in adverse events (nausea, vomiting, and dizziness) among all treatments. No substantial inconsistency between direct and indirect evidence was detected for all outcomes.Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest that gabapentin 900 mg per day before spine surgery is associated with the lowest VAS pain score among all dosages. In addition, no differences in adverse events were noted among all treatments.
| S-EPMC10413173 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTransforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) is the treatment of choice for lumbar spinal stenosis and spondylolisthesis. The procedure can be performed through a traditional open approach (O-TLIF) or through minimally invasive techniques (MI-TLIF). Spinal surgeries in obese patients can pose risks, including increased rates of infection and thromboembolic events.Questions/purposesWe sought to systematically review the literature on the differences between MI-TLIF and O-TLIF in the obese patient in terms of complication rate, functional outcomes, blood loss, and length of hospital stay.MethodsWe used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to systematically search PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library for studies published through February 2019 and identified those comparing the outcomes of O-TLIF and MI-TLIF in obese patients. The primary outcome was complication rate (total, infections, dural tears); secondary outcomes were blood loss, length of hospital stay, and functional scores. Two authors independently reviewed the studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and data were pooled using the Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model.ResultsIn the sample of 430 patients, the average age was 53.5 years, there were 153 men and 203 women, and the average body mass index was 33.6. Complications were significantly higher in O-TLIF than in MI-TLIF (OR = 0.420 [95% CI: 0.199, 0.887]; I 2 = 45.20%). No difference was detected between the two groups for visual analog scale back pain scores and Oswestry Disability Index scores between the pre-operative and last follow-up visits (SMD = -0.034 [95% CI -0.695, 0.627]; I 2 = 62.14% and SMD = 0.617 [95% CI: -1.082, 2.316]; I 2 = 25%, respectively). Blood loss was significantly lower in MI-TLIF compared to O-TLIF (SMD = -426.736 [95% CI: -490.720, -362.752]; I 2 = 70.53%), as was the duration of hospital stay (SMD = -1.079 [95% CI: -1.591, -0.208]; I 2 = 84.3%).ConclusionMI-TLIF has equivalent efficacy to O-TLIF in obese patients at long-term follow-up. In addition, complication rate, blood loss, and length of hospital stay were lower in MI-TLIF than in O-TLIF.
| S-EPMC7253546 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveComprehensive analysis and comparison of HRQoL following different bariatric interventions through systematic review with network meta-analysis.BackgroundDifferent types of bariatric surgeries have been developed throughout the years. Apart from weight loss and comorbidities remission, improvement of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is an important outcome of metabolic surgery.MethodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, and Scopus databases have been searched up to April 2020. Inclusion criteria to the analysis were (1) study with at least 2 arms comparing bariatric surgeries; (2) reporting of HRQoL with a validated tool; (3) follow-up period of 1, 2, 3, or 5 years. Network meta-analysis was conducted using Bayesian statistics. The primary outcome was HRQoL.ResultsForty-seven studies were included in the analysis involving 26,629 patients and 11 different surgeries such as sleeve gastrectomy (LSG), gastric bypass (LRYGB), one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB), and other. At 1 year, there was significant difference in HRQoL in favor of LSG, LRYGB, and OAG compared with lifestyle intervention (SMD: 0.44; 95% CrI 0.2 to 0.68 for LSG, SMD: 0.56; 95% CrI 0.31 to 0.8 for LRYGB; and SMD: 0.43; 95% CrI 0.06 to 0.8 for OAGB). At 5 years, LSG, LRYGB, and OAGB showed better HRQoL compared to control (SMD: 0.92; 95% CrI 0.58 to 1.26, SMD: 1.27; 95% CrI 0.94 to 1.61, and SMD: 1.01; 95% CrI 0.63 to 1.4, respectively).ConclusionsLSG and LRYGB may lead to better HRQoL across most follow-up time points. Long-term analysis shows that bariatric intervention results in better HRQoL than non-surgical interventions.
| S-EPMC8595157 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionIntravenous lignocaine is an amide local anaesthetic known for its analgesic, antihyperalgesic and anti-inflammatory properties. Administration of intravenous lignocaine has been shown to enhance perioperative recovery parameters. This is the protocol for a systematic review which intends to summarise the evidence base for perioperative intravenous lignocaine administration in patients undergoing spinal surgery.Methods and analysisOur primary outcomes include: postoperative pain scores at rest and movement at predefined early, intermediate and late time points and adverse events. Other outcomes of interest include perioperative opioid consumption, composite morbidity, surgical complications and hospital length of stay. We will include randomised controlled trials, which compared intravenous lignocaine infusion vs standard treatment for perioperative analgesia. We will search electronic databases from inception to present; MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and CENTRAL). Two team members will independently screen all citations, full-text articles and abstract data. The individual study risk of bias will be appraised using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. We will obtain a risk ratio or mean difference (MD) from the intervention and control group event rates based on the nature of data. We will correct for the variable measurement tools by using the standardised MD (SMD). We will use a random-effects model to synthesise data. We will conduct five subgroup analysis: major versus minor surgery, emergency versus elective surgery, patients with chronic pain conditions versus patients without, duration of lignocaine infusion and adult versus paediatric. Confidence in cumulative evidence for will be classified according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. We will construct summary of findings tables supported detailed evidence profile tables for predefined outcomes.Ethics and disseminationFormal ethical approval is not required as primary data will not be collected. The results will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication.Prospero registration numberCRD420201963314.
| S-EPMC7554463 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background. We performed this meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy of probiotics on prevention of infection-related complications following colorectal resection. Method. PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and the Web of Science were searched up to January 2016. According to the results, only randomized controlled trials that compared the efficacy of probiotics on patients with colorectal resection were included for meta-analysis. Results. Nine studies including a total of 1146 patients met the criteria (556 received multistrain probiotic bacteria, 590 with non-multistrain probiotic bacteria). The combination of multistrain probiotics was beneficial in the reduction of total infections (OR = 0.30, 95%CI: 0.15-0.61, p = 0.0009), including surgical site infections (SSI) (OR = 0.48, 95%CI: 0.25-0.89, p = 0.02) and nonsurgical site infections (NSSI) (OR = 0.36, 95%CI: 0.23-0.56, p < 0.00001). However, there was no significant reduction in total infections (OR = 0.74, 95%CI: 0.50-1.09, p = 0.13) or SSI (OR = 0.77, 95%CI: 0.52-1.12, p = 0.17) with the application of non-multistrains of probiotics. Conclusion. Combinations of multistrain probiotic bacteria showed promise in preventing the incidence of infections following colorectal surgery. However, the efficacy of one or two strains of probiotics remains undetermined.
| S-EPMC5397731 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPostoperative delirium (POD) is an acute brain dysfunction that is frequently observed in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Increasing evidence indicates POD is related to higher mortality among cardiac surgical patients, but the results remain controversial. Moreover, a quantitative evaluation of the influence of POD on hospital days, intensive care unit (ICU) time, and mechanical ventilation (MV) time has not been performed.ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the correlation between POD and outcomes in patients undergoing cardiac surgery by a systematic review and meta-analysis.Materials and methodsA total of 7 electronic databases (Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL Complete, MEDLINE, Wan-fang database, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure) were searched from January 1980 to July 20, 2021, with language restrictions to English and Chinese, to estimate the impact of the POD on outcome in patients who underwent cardiac surgery. The meta-analysis was registered with PROSPERO (Registration: CRD42021228767).ResultsForty-two eligible studies with 19785 patients were identified. 3368 (17.0%) patients were in the delirium group and 16417 (83%) were in the non-delirium group. The meta-analysis showed that compared to patients without POD, patients with POD had 2.77-fold higher mortality (OR = 2.77, 95% CI 1.86-4.11, P < 0.001), 5.70-fold higher MV (>24h) rate (OR = 5.70, 95% CI 2.93-11.09, P < 0.001); and longer MV time (SMD = 0.83, 95% CI 0.57-1.09, P < 0.001), ICU time (SMD = 0.91, 95% CI 0.60-1.22, P < 0.001), hospital days (SMD = 0.62, 95% CI 0.48-0.76, P < 0.001).ConclusionThe synthesized evidence suggests that POD is causally related to the increased risk of mortality, prolonged length of ICU and hospital stay, and a longer duration of MV time. Future research should focus on the interventions for POD, to reduce the incidence.Systematic review registration[www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO], identifier [CRD42021228767].
| S-EPMC9395738 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Study Design?Systematic review. Objective?Determine whether closed suction wound drains decrease the incidence of postoperative complications compared with no drain use in patients undergoing spine surgery for lumbar degenerative conditions. Methods?Electronic databases and reference lists of key articles were searched up through January 22, 2015, to identify studies comparing the use of closed suction wound drains with no drains in spine surgery for lumbar degenerative conditions. Outcomes assessed included the cumulative incidence of epidural hematoma, superficial and deep wound infection, and postoperative blood transfusion. The overall strength of evidence across studies was based on precepts outlined by the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group. Results?Five heterogeneous studies, three randomized controlled trials, and two cohort studies form the evidence basis for this report. There was no difference in the incidence of hematoma, superficial wound infection, or deep infection in patients with compared with patients without closed suction wound drains after lumbar surgery. The upper bounds of the 95% confidence interval for hematoma ranged from 1.1 to 16.7%; for superficial infection, 1.0 to 7.3%; and for deep infection, 1.0 to 7.1%. One observational study reported a 3.5-fold increase in the risk of blood transfusion in patients with a drain. The overall strength of evidence for these findings is considered low or insufficient. Conclusions?Conclusions from this systematic review are limited by the quality of included studies that assessed the use of closed suction wound drains in lumbar spine surgeries for degenerative conditions. We believe that spine surgeons should not routinely rely on closed suction wound drains in lumbar spine surgery until a higher level of evidence becomes available to support its use.
| S-EPMC4671891 | biostudies-other
Project description:Background and purpose - The quality of life (QoL) of patients with hallux valgus (HV) usually improves postoperatively. Evidence regarding the effect of HV surgery on different domains of patient QoL remains inconclusive. This systematic review and meta-analysis estimates the effect of HV surgery on patient QoL through distinguishing effects on physical domains (comprising physical function and body pain domains) using the EuroQol-5D, short form (SF) health survey-12, and SF-36 QoL scales and a visual analogue scale (VAS) score and mental and social domains using QoL scales.Patients and methods - MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were systematically searched from inception to March 2019 for studies on the effect of HV surgery on patient QoL. A standardized mean difference score was calculated for each specific QoL domain (mental, social, pain, physical, and VAS) using Cohen's d index. The pooled effect size (ES) was estimated using a random-effects model based on the DerSimonian and Laird method.Results - From 12 published studies selected, the estimated pooled ES for QoL was 1.01 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.52-1.51; I2 = 87%) for body pain and 0.43 (CI 0.31-0.55, I2 = 35%) for physical function. Regarding the composite mental and social domains of QoL, the pooled ES estimates were 0.24 (CI 0.00-0.47, I2 = 80%) and 0.42 (CI 0.21-0.63, I2 = 6.4%), respectively. The pooled difference in means for the VAS score was -4.1 (CI -4.5 to -3.6, I2 = 90%).Interpretation - Our data showed that HV surgery decreased patients' perceptions regarding pain. Furthermore, the data confirmed that HV surgery increased patients' QoL, particularly concerning physical and social domains.
| S-EPMC8023907 | biostudies-literature