Dataset Information

Operative Versus Nonoperative Treatment for Adult Symptomatic Lumbar Scoliosis.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:The effectiveness of operative compared with nonoperative treatment at initial presentation (no prior fusion) for adult lumbar scoliosis has not, to our knowledge, been evaluated in controlled trials. The goals of this study were to evaluate the effects of operative and nonoperative treatment and to assess the benefits of these treatments to help treating physicians determine whether patients are better managed operatively or nonoperatively. METHODS:Patients with adult symptomatic lumbar scoliosis (aged 40 to 80 years, with a coronal Cobb angle measurement of ?30° and an Oswestry Disability Index [ODI] score of ?20 or Scoliosis Research Society [SRS]-22 score of ?4.0) from 9 North American centers were enrolled in concurrent randomized or observational cohorts to evaluate operative versus nonoperative treatment. The primary outcomes were differences in the mean change from baseline in the SRS-22 subscore and ODI at 2-year follow-up. For the randomized cohort, the initial sample-size calculation estimated that 41 patients per group (82 total) would provide 80% power with alpha equal to 0.05, anticipating 10% loss to follow-up and 20% nonadherence in the nonoperative arm. However, an interim sample-size calculation estimated that 18 patients per group would be sufficient. RESULTS:Sixty-three patients were enrolled in the randomized cohort: 30 in the operative group and 33 in the nonoperative group. Two hundred and twenty-three patients were enrolled in the observational cohort: 112 in the operative group and 111 in the nonoperative group. The intention-to-treat analysis of the randomized cohort found that, at 2 years of follow-up, outcomes did not differ between the groups. Nonadherence was high in the randomized cohort (64% nonoperative-to-operative crossover). In the as-treated analysis of the randomized cohort, operative treatment was associated with greater improvement at the 2-year follow-up in the SRS-22 subscore (adjusted mean difference, 0.7 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.5 to 1.0]) and in the ODI (adjusted mean difference, -16 [95% CI, -22 to -10]) (p < 0.001 for both). Surgery was also superior to nonoperative care in the observational cohort at 2 years after treatment on the basis of SRS-22 subscore and ODI outcomes (p < 0.001). In an overall responder analysis, more operative patients achieved improvement meeting or exceeding the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in the SRS-22 subscore (85.7% versus 38.7%; p < 0.001) and the ODI (77.4% versus 38.3%; p < 0.001). Thirty-four revision surgeries were performed in 24 (14%) of the operative patients. CONCLUSIONS:On the basis of as-treated and MCID analyses, if a patient with adult symptomatic lumbar scoliosis is satisfied with current spine-related health, nonoperative treatment is advised, with the understanding that improvement is unlikely. If a patient is not satisfied with current spine health and expects improvement, surgery is preferred. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

SUBMITTER: Kelly MP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6738555 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Operative Versus Nonoperative Treatment for Adult Symptomatic Lumbar Scoliosis.

Kelly Michael P MP Lurie Jon D JD Yanik Elizabeth L EL Shaffrey Christopher I CI Baldus Christine R CR Boachie-Adjei Oheneba O Buchowski Jacob M JM Carreon Leah Y LY Crawford Charles H CH Edwards Charles C Errico Thomas J TJ Glassman Steven D SD Gupta Munish C MC Lenke Lawrence G LG Lewis Stephen J SJ Kim Han Jo HJ Koski Tyler T Parent Stefan S Schwab Frank J FJ Smith Justin S JS Zebala Lukas P LP Bridwell Keith H KH

The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume 20190201 4

<h4>Background</h4>The effectiveness of operative compared with nonoperative treatment at initial presentation (no prior fusion) for adult lumbar scoliosis has not, to our knowledge, been evaluated in controlled trials. The goals of this study were to evaluate the effects of operative and nonoperative treatment and to assess the benefits of these treatments to help treating physicians determine whether patients are better managed operatively or nonoperatively.<h4>Methods</h4>Patients with adult ...[more]

PMID: 30801373

Similar Datasets

Project description:Study designA prospective study with randomized and observational cohorts.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to determine baseline variables affecting adult symptomatic lumbar scoliosis (ASLS) decision making to participate in randomization (RAND), observational nonsurgical (OBS-NS), or observational surgical (OBS-S) cohorts.Summary of background dataMultiple factors play a key role in a patient's decision to be randomized or to choose an OBS-NS or OBS-S course for ASLS. Studies evaluating these factors are limited.MethodsEligible candidates (patients with ASLS and no prior spinal fusion deformity surgery) from 9 centers participated in a RAND, OBS-NS, or OBS-S cohort study. Baseline variables (demographics, socioeconomics, patient-reported outcomes [PROs], Functional Treadmill Test, radiographs) were analyzed.ResultsTwo hundred ninety-five patients were enrolled: 67 RAND, 115 OBS-NS, 113 OBS-S. Subanalysis of older patients (60-80 years) found 54% of OBS-NS had college degrees compared with 82% of RAND and 71% of OBS-S (P = 0.010). Patients deciding to be part of a RAND cohort have similar clinical characteristics to the OBS-S cohort. OBS-S had more symptomatic spinal stenosis (57% vs. 39%, P = 0.029) and worse scores than OBS-NS on the basis of PROs (Back Pain Numerical Rating Scale [NRS 6.3 vs. 5.5, P = 0.007]; Scoliosis Research Society [SRS] Pain [2.8 vs. 3.0, P = 0.018], Function [3.1 vs. 3.4, P = 0.019] and Self-Image [2.7 vs. 3.1, P = 0.002]; Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) [36.9 vs. 31.8, P = 0.029]; post-Treadmill back [5.8 vs. 4.4, P = 0.002] and leg [4.3 vs. 3.1, P = 0.037] pain NRS and larger lumbar coronal Cobb angles (56.5 degrees vs. 48.8 degrees, P < 0.001). RAND had more baseline motor deficits (10.4% vs. 1.7%, P = 0.036) and worse scores than OBS-NS on the basis of ODI (38.8 vs. 31.8, P = 0.006), SRS Function [3.1 vs. 3.4, P = 0.034], and Self-Image [2.7 vs. 3.1, P = 0.007].ConclusionPatients with worse PROs, more back pain, more back and leg pain with ambulation, and larger lumbar Cobb angles are more inclined to select surgical over nonsurgical management.

Project description:ObjectiveAlthough short-term adult symptomatic lumbar scoliosis (ASLS) studies favor operative over nonoperative treatment, longer outcomes are critical for assessment of treatment durability, especially for operative treatment, because the majority of implant failures and nonunions present between 2 and 5 years after surgery. The objectives of this study were to assess the durability of treatment outcomes for operative versus nonoperative treatment of ASLS, to report the rates and types of associated serious adverse events (SAEs), and to determine the potential impact of treatment-related SAEs on outcomes.MethodsThe ASLS-1 (Adult Symptomatic Lumbar Scoliosis-1) trial is an NIH-sponsored multicenter prospective study to assess operative versus nonoperative ASLS treatment. Patients were 40-80 years of age and had ASLS (Cobb angle ≥ 30° and Oswestry Disability Index [ODI] ≥ 20 or Scoliosis Research Society [SRS]-22 subscore ≤ 4.0 in the Pain, Function, and/or Self-Image domains). Patients receiving operative and nonoperative treatment were compared using as-treated analysis, and the impact of related SAEs was assessed. Primary outcome measures were ODI and SRS-22.ResultsThe 286 patients with ASLS (107 with nonoperative treatment, 179 with operative treatment) had 2-year and 5-year follow-up rates of 90% (n = 256) and 74% (n = 211), respectively. At 5 years, compared with patients treated nonoperatively, those who underwent surgery had greater improvement in ODI (mean difference -15.2 [95% CI -18.7 to -11.7]) and SRS-22 subscore (mean difference 0.63 [95% CI 0.48-0.78]) (p < 0.001), with treatment effects (TEs) exceeding the minimum detectable measurement difference (MDMD) for ODI (7) and SRS-22 subscore (0.4). TEs at 5 years remained as favorable as 2-year TEs (ODI -13.9, SRS-22 0.52). For patients in the operative group, the incidence rates of treatment-related SAEs during the first 2 years and 2-5 years after surgery were 22.38 and 8.17 per 100 person-years, respectively. At 5 years, patients in the operative group who had 1 treatment-related SAE still had significantly greater improvement, with TEs (ODI -12.2, SRS-22 0.53; p < 0.001) exceeding the MDMD. Twelve patients who received surgery and who had 2 or more treatment-related SAEs had greater improvement than nonsurgically treated patients based on ODI (TE -8.34, p = 0.017) and SRS-22 (TE 0.32, p = 0.029), but the SRS-22 TE did not exceed the MDMD.ConclusionsThe significantly greater improvement of operative versus nonoperative treatment for ASLS at 2 years was durably maintained at the 5-year follow-up. Patients in the operative cohort with a treatment-related SAE still had greater improvement than patients in the nonoperative cohort. These findings have important implications for patient counseling and future cost-effectiveness assessments.

Project description:Study designA post hoc analysis.ObjectiveAdvances in machine learning (ML) have led to tools offering individualized outcome predictions for adult spinal deformity (ASD). Our objective is to examine the properties of these ASD models in a cohort of adult symptomatic lumbar scoliosis (ASLS) patients.Summary of background dataML algorithms produce patient-specific probabilities of outcomes, including major complication (MC), reoperation (RO), and readmission (RA) in ASD. External validation of these models is needed.MethodsThirty-nine predictive factors (12 demographic, 9 radiographic, 4 health-related quality of life, 14 surgical) were retrieved and entered into web-based prediction models for MC, unplanned RO, and hospital RA. Calculated probabilities were compared with actual event rates. Discrimination and calibration were analyzed using receiver operative characteristic area under the curve (where 0.5=chance, 1=perfect) and calibration curves (Brier scores, where 0.25=chance, 0=perfect). Ninety-five percent confidence intervals are reported.ResultsA total of 169 of 187 (90%) surgical patients completed 2-year follow up. The observed rate of MCs was 41.4% with model predictions ranging from 13% to 68% (mean: 38.7%). RO was 20.7% with model predictions ranging from 9% to 54% (mean: 30.1%). Hospital RA was 17.2% with model predictions ranging from 13% to 50% (mean: 28.5%). Model classification for all three outcome measures was better than chance for all [area under the curve=MC 0.6 (0.5-0.7), RA 0.6 (0.5-0.7), RO 0.6 (0.5-0.7)]. Calibration was better than chance for all, though best for RA and RO (Brier Score=MC 0.22, RA 0.16, RO 0.17).ConclusionsASD prediction models for MC, RA, and RO performed better than chance in a cohort of adult lumbar scoliosis patients, though the homogeneity of ASLS affected calibration and accuracy. Optimization of models require samples with the breadth of outcomes (0%-100%), supporting the need for continued data collection as personalized prediction models may improve decision-making for the patient and surgeon alike.

Project description:ObjectiveAdult symptomatic lumbar scoliosis (ASLS) is a widespread and debilitating subset of adult spinal deformity. Although many patients benefit from operative treatment, surgery entails substantial cost and risk for adverse events. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are patient-centered tools used to evaluate the appropriateness of surgery and to assist in the shared decision-making process. Framing realistic patient expectations should include the possible functional limitation to improvement inherent in surgical intervention, such as multilevel fusion to the sacrum. The authors' objective was to predict postoperative ASLS PROMs by using clustering analysis, generalized longitudinal regression models, percentile analysis, and clinical improvement analysis of preoperative health-related quality-of-life scores for use in surgical counseling.MethodsOperative results from the combined ASLS cohorts were examined. PROM score clustering after surgery investigated limits of surgical improvement. Patients were categorized by baseline disability (mild, moderate, moderate to severe, or severe) according to preoperative Scoliosis Research Society (SRS)-22 and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores. Responder analysis for patients achieving improvement meeting the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) standards was performed using both fixed-threshold and patient-specific values (MCID = 30% of remaining scale, SCB = 50%). Best (top 5%), worst (bottom 5%), and median scores were calculated across disability categories.ResultsA total of 171/187 (91%) of patients with ASLS achieved 2-year follow-up. Patients rarely achieved a PROM ceiling for any measure, with 33%-43% of individuals clustering near 4.0 for SRS domains. Patients with severe baseline disability (< 2.0) SRS-pain and SRS-function scores were often left with moderate to severe disability (2.0-2.9), unlike patients with higher (≥ 3.0) initial PROM values. Patients with mild disability according to baseline SRS-function score were unlikely to improve. Crippling baseline ODI disability (> 60) commonly left patients with moderate disability (median ODI = 32). As baseline ODI disability increased, patients were more likely to achieve MCID and SCB (p < 0.001). Compared to fixed threshold values for MCID and SCB, patient-specific values were more sensitive to change for patients with minimal ODI baseline disability (p = 0.008) and less sensitive to change for patients with moderate to severe SRS subscore disability (p = 0.01).ConclusionsThese findings suggest that ASLS surgeries have a limit to possible improvement, probably due to both baseline disability and the effects of surgery. The most disabled patients often had moderate to severe disability (SRS < 3, ODI > 30) at 2 years, emphasizing the importance of patient counseling and expectation management.

Project description:ObjectivesTo compare re-rupture rate, complication rate, and functional outcome after operative versus nonoperative treatment of Achilles tendon ruptures; to compare re-rupture rate after early and late full weight bearing; to evaluate re-rupture rate after functional rehabilitation with early range of motion; and to compare effect estimates from randomised controlled trials and observational studies.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesPubMed/Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, and CINAHL databases were last searched on 25 April 2018 for studies comparing operative versus nonoperative treatment of Achilles tendon ruptures.Study selection criteriaRandomised controlled trials and observational studies reporting on comparison of operative versus nonoperative treatment of acute Achilles tendon ruptures.Data extractionData extraction was performed independently in pairs, by four reviewers, with the use of a predefined data extraction file. Outcomes were pooled using random effects models and presented as risk difference, risk ratio, or mean difference, with 95% confidence interval.Results29 studies were included-10 randomised controlled trials and 19 observational studies. The 10 trials included 944 (6%) patients, and the 19 observational studies included 14?918 (94%) patients. A significant reduction in re-ruptures was seen after operative treatment (2.3%) compared with nonoperative treatment (3.9%) (risk difference 1.6%; risk ratio 0.43, 95% confidence interval 0.31 to 0.60; P<0.001; I2=22%). Operative treatment resulted in a significantly higher complication rate than nonoperative treatment (4.9% v 1.6%; risk difference 3.3%; risk ratio 2.76, 1.84 to 4.13; P<0.001; I2=45%). The main difference in complication rate was attributable to the incidence of infection (2.8%) in the operative group. A similar reduction in re-rupture rate in favour of operative treatment was seen after both early and late full weight bearing. No significant difference in re-rupture rate was seen between operative and nonoperative treatment in studies that used accelerated functional rehabilitation with early range of motion (risk ratio 0.60, 0.26 to 1.37; P=0.23; I2=0%). No difference in effect estimates was seen between randomised controlled trials and observational studies.ConclusionsThis meta-analysis shows that operative treatment of Achilles tendon ruptures reduces the risk of re-rupture compared with nonoperative treatment. However, re-rupture rates are low and differences between treatment groups are small (risk difference 1.6%). Operative treatment results in a higher risk of other complications (risk difference 3.3%). The final decision on the management of acute Achilles tendon ruptures should be based on patient specific factors and shared decision making. This review emphasises the potential benefits of adding high quality observational studies in meta-analyses for the evaluation of objective outcome measures after surgical treatment.

Project description:Study designA retrospective analysis of prospective, multicenter National Institute of Health clinical trial.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to assess the rate of neurologic complications and impact of new neurologic deficits on 1-year postoperative patient-reported outcomes (PROs).Summary of background dataThere are limited studies evaluating the impact of new neurologic deficits on PROs following surgery for primary presentation adult lumbar scoliosis.MethodsPatients were divided into two groups: new postoperative neurological deficit (Def) or no deficit (NoDef). Preoperative and 1-year follow-up PROs were analyzed [Scoliosis Research Society (SRS) Questionnaire, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Short Form-12 Physical/Mental Health Composite Scores (PCS/MCS), and back/leg pain Numerical Rating Scale (NRS)].ResultsOne hundred forty-one patients: 14 Def (9.9%), 127 NoDef (90.1%). No differences were observed in demographic, radiographic, or PRO data between groups preoperatively. Def group had longer surgical procedures (8.3 vs. 6.9 hours, P = 0.030), greater blood loss (2832 vs. 2606 mL, P = 0.022), and longer hospitalizations (10.6 vs. 7.8 days, P = 0.004). NoDef group reported significant improvement in all PROs from preop to 1-year postoperative. Def group only had improvement in SRS Pain (2.7 preop to 3.4 postop, P = 0.037) and self-image domains (2.7 to 3.6, p = 0.004), and NRS back pain (6.6 to 3.2, P = 0.004) scores with significant worsening of NRS leg pain (4.1 to 6.1, P = 0.045). Group comparisons of 1-year postop PROs found that Def group reported more NRS leg pain (6.1 vs. 1.7, P < 0.001) and worse outcomes than NoDef group for ODI (35.7 vs. 23.1, P = 0.016) and PCS (32.6 vs. 41.9, P = 0.007).ConclusionWe found a 9.9% rate of new neurologic deficits following surgery for symptomatic primary presentation adult lumbar scoliosis, much higher than previous studies. Most neurologic deficits improved by 1-year follow-up, but appeared to have a dramatic negative impact on PROs, with increased postoperative leg pain and greater patient-perceived pathology reported in patients experiencing neurological deficits compared with those who did not.Level of evidence3.

Project description:Prospective, cross-sectional study.The aim of the study was to determine which radiographic parameters drive patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in primary presentation adult symptomatic lumbar scoliosis (ASLS).Previous literature suggests correlations between PROs and sagittal plane deformity (sagittal vertical axis [SVA], pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis [PI-LL] mismatch, pelvic tilt [PT]). Prior work included revision and primary adult spinal deformity patients. The present study addresses only primary presentation ASLS.Prospective baseline data were analyzed on 286 patients enrolled in an NIH RO1 clinical trial by nine centers from 2010 to 2014.40 to 80 years old, lumbar Cobb (LC) 30° or higher and Scoliosis Research Society-23 score 4.0 or less in Pain, Function or Self-Image domains, or Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) 20 or higher. Patients were primary presentation (no prior spinal deformity surgery) and had complete baseline data: standing coronal/sagittal 36" radiographs and PROs (ODI, Scoliosis Research Society-23, Short Form-12). Correlation coefficients were calculated to evaluate relations between radiographic parameters and PROs for the study population and a subset of patients with ODI 40 or higher. Analysis of variance was used to identify differences in PROs for radiographic modifier groups.Mean age was 60.3 years. Mean spinopelvic parameters were: LL?=?-39.2°; SVA?=?3.1 cm; sacral slope?=?32.5°; PT?=?23.9°; PI-LL mismatch?=?16.8°. Only weak correlations (0.2-0.4) were identified between population sacral slope, SVA and SVA modifiers, and SRS function. SVA and SVA modifiers were weakly associated with ODI. Although there were more correlations in subset analysis of high-symptom patients, all were weak. Analysis of variance identified significant differences in ODI reported by SVA modifier groups.In primary presentation patients with ASLS and a subset of "high-symptom" patients (ODI???40), only weak associations between baseline PROs and radiographic parameters were identified. For this patient population, these results suggest regional radiographic parameters (LC, LL, PT, PI-LL mismatch) are not drivers of PROs and cannot be used to extrapolate effect on patient-perceived pathology.2.

Dataset Information

Operative Versus Nonoperative Treatment for Adult Symptomatic Lumbar Scoliosis.

Publications

Operative Versus Nonoperative Treatment for Adult Symptomatic Lumbar Scoliosis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets