Dataset Information

Responsiveness of Outcome Measures in Nonsurgical Patients with Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Secondary Analysis From a Randomized Controlled Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Study design

Secondary analysis from a randomized controlled trial on nonsurgical interventions for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).

Objective

The aim of this study was to assess the responsiveness of the Self-Paced Walking Test (SPWT), Swiss Spinal Stenosis Questionnaire (SSS), and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and determine their minimal clinically important differences (MCID) in nonsurgical LSS patients.

Summary of background data

Limited information is available about the responsiveness of these tests in nonsurgical LSS population.

Methods

A total of 180 participants completed the SPWT, SSS, and ODI at baseline, 2, and 6 months. Responsiveness was assessed by distribution-based method, including effect size and standardized response mean, and anchor-based method, using the patient global index of change (PGIC) as the external anchor to distinguish responders and non-responders. Areas under the curve (AUC) were calculated along with MCIDs for "minimal" and "moderate improvement" subgroups.

Results

The following values represent 2- and 6-month analyses of each outcome measure, respectively. Standard effect sizes: 0.48 and 0.50 for SPWT, -0.42 and -0.36 for SSS, and -0.29 and -0.25 for ODI. Spearman correlation coefficients between PGIC and outcomes were: 0.44 and 0.39 for SPWT, -0.53 and -0.55 for SSS, and -0.46 and -0.54 for ODI. MCIDs for the "minimal improvement" subgroup were: 375.9 and 319.3 ms for SPWT, -5.3 and -5.8 points for SSS, and -9.3 and -10.8 points for ODI. AUCs was 0.68 to 0.76. MCIDs for the "moderate improvement" subgroup were: 344.2 and 538.2 m for SPWT, -5.5 and -7.5 points for SSS, and -9.1 and -13.6 points for ODI. AUCs ranged from 0.68 to 0.76.

Conclusion

The SPWT, SSS, and ODI are responsive outcome measures to assess nonsurgical patients with LSS. This finding, along with the reported MCIDs, can help clinicians to monitor changes in their patients' walking and physical function over time and make clinical decisions. They also provide researchers with reference for future studies in LSS.Level of Evidence: 2.

SUBMITTER: Carlesso C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8154167 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceLumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is the most common reason for spine surgery in older US adults. There is an evidence gap about nonsurgical LSS treatment options.ObjectiveTo explore the comparative clinical effectiveness of 3 nonsurgical interventions for patients with LSS.Design, setting, and participantsThree-arm randomized clinical trial of 3 years' duration (November 2013 to June 2016). Analysis began in August 2016. All interventions were delivered during 6 weeks with follow-up at 2 months and 6 months at an outpatient research clinic. Patients older than 60 years with LSS were recruited from the general public. Eligibility required anatomical evidence of central canal and/or lateral recess stenosis (magnetic resonance imaging/computed tomography) and clinical symptoms associated with LSS (neurogenic claudication; less symptoms with flexion). Analysis was intention to treat.InterventionsMedical care, group exercise, and manual therapy/individualized exercise. Medical care consisted of medications and/or epidural injections provided by a physiatrist. Group exercise classes were supervised by fitness instructors in senior community centers. Manual therapy/individualized exercise consisted of spinal mobilization, stretches, and strength training provided by chiropractors and physical therapists.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcomes were between-group differences at 2 months in self-reported symptoms and physical function measured by the Swiss Spinal Stenosis questionnaire (score range, 12-55) and a measure of walking capacity using the self-paced walking test (meters walked for 0 to 30 minutes).ResultsA total of 259 participants (mean [SD] age, 72.4 [7.8] years; 137 women [52.9%]) were allocated to medical care (88 [34.0%]), group exercise (84 [32.4%]), or manual therapy/individualized exercise (87 [33.6%]). Adjusted between-group analyses at 2 months showed manual therapy/individualized exercise had greater improvement of symptoms and physical function compared with medical care (-2.0; 95% CI, -3.6 to -0.4) or group exercise (-2.4; 95% CI, -4.1 to -0.8). Manual therapy/individualized exercise had a greater proportion of responders (≥30% improvement) in symptoms and physical function (20%) and walking capacity (65.3%) at 2 months compared with medical care (7.6% and 48.7%, respectively) or group exercise (3.0% and 46.2%, respectively). At 6 months, there were no between-group differences in mean outcome scores or responder rates.Conclusions and relevanceA combination of manual therapy/individualized exercise provides greater short-term improvement in symptoms and physical function and walking capacity than medical care or group exercises, although all 3 interventions were associated with improvements in long-term walking capacity.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01943435.

Project description:BackgroundLumbar spinal stenosis is one of the most common causes of low back pain among older adults and can cause significant disability. Despite its prevalence, treatment of spinal stenosis symptoms remains controversial. Epidural steroid injections are used with increasing frequency as a less invasive, potentially safer, and more cost-effective treatment than surgery. However, there is a lack of data to judge the effectiveness and safety of epidural steroid injections for spinal stenosis. We describe our prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial that tests the hypothesis that epidural injections with steroids plus local anesthetic are more effective than epidural injections of local anesthetic alone in improving pain and function among older adults with lumbar spinal stenosis.MethodsWe will recruit up to 400 patients with lumbar central canal spinal stenosis from at least 9 clinical sites over 2 years. Patients with spinal instability who require surgical fusion, a history of prior lumbar surgery, or prior epidural steroid injection within the past 6 months are excluded. Participants are randomly assigned to receive either ESI with local anesthetic or the control intervention (epidural injections with local anesthetic alone). Subjects receive up to 2 injections prior to the primary endpoint at 6 weeks, at which time they may choose to crossover to the other intervention.Participants complete validated, standardized measures of pain, functional disability, and health-related quality of life at baseline and at 3 weeks, 6 weeks, and 3, 6, and 12 months after randomization. The primary outcomes are Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and a numerical rating scale measure of pain intensity at 6 weeks. In order to better understand their safety, we also measure cortisol, HbA1c, fasting blood glucose, weight, and blood pressure at baseline, and at 3 and 6 weeks post-injection. We also obtain data on resource utilization and costs to assess cost-effectiveness of epidural steroid injection.DiscussionThis study is the first multi-center, double-blind RCT to evaluate the effectiveness of epidural steroid injections in improving pain and function among older adults with lumbar spinal stenosis. The study will also yield data on the safety and cost-effectiveness of this procedure for older adults.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT01238536.

Project description:Study designSecondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial.ObjectiveTo identify preoperative physical variables associated with favorable postoperative outcome in individuals undergoing laminectomy or laminotomy for degenerative central lumbar spinal stenosis.Summary of background dataClinical or condition specific variables have most commonly been studied as predictors of postoperative outcome in lumbar spinal stenosis. If associated to favorable postoperative outcome, modifiable physical variables would inform prehabilitation interventions for patients with degenerative central lumbar spinal stenosis.MethodsPatients awaiting surgery for central lumbar spinal stenosis were recruited to participate in a randomized controlled trial. Following baseline data collection of demographics, clinical portrait and physical testing, participants were randomized to either 6-week active prehabilitation program or hospital standard care. Complete baseline and postoperative data were obtained from 58 participants which were included in the present analysis. Favorable postoperative outcome was determined based on two outcome measures. Favorable outcome was defined as a decrease of ≥30% on the Numerical Rating Scale for leg pain intensity and a decrease of ≥30% on the Oswestry Disability Index for low back disability. Baseline physical variables were used to conduct binary logistic regression.ResultsSixty percent of participants were determined as having a favorable postoperative outcome. None of the included physical variables were found to be predictors of a favorable postoperative outcome based on leg pain intensity and low back pain-associated disability [trunk flexors muscle strength (OR = 0.73; 95%CI (0.02-27.12)] lumbar extensors muscle endurance [OR= 1.09; 95%CI (0.95-1.24)] total ambulation time [OR = 1.00 95%CI (0.99-1.01)] lumbar active range of motion in extension [OR = 1.08; 95%CI (0.95-1.23)] and knee extensors muscle strength [OR=1.02; 95%CI (0.98-1.06)].ConclusionResults show that none of the investigated variables, all related to low back and lower limbs physical capacity, were predictors of postoperative recovery. Further testing in larger cohort is needed to assess the full potential of physical outcome measures as predictors of postoperative recovery.