BACKGROUND: Indications and optimal timing for surgical treatment of degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) remain unclear, and data from daily clinical practice are warranted.OBJECTIVE: To... Show moreBACKGROUND: Indications and optimal timing for surgical treatment of degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) remain unclear, and data from daily clinical practice are warranted.OBJECTIVE: To investigate clinical outcomes following decompressive surgery for DCM.METHODS: Data were obtained from the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery. The primary outcome was change in the neck disability index (NDI) 1 yr after surgery. Secondary endpoints were the European myelopathy score (EMS), quality of life (EuroQoL 5D [EQ-5D]), numeric rating scales (NRS) for headache, neck pain, and arm pain, complications, and perceived benefit of surgery assessed by the Global Perceived Effect (GPE) scale.RESULTS: We included 905 patients operated between January 2012 and June 2018. There were significant improvements in all patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) including NDI (mean -10.0, 95% CI -11.5 to -8.4, P<.001), EMS (mean 1.0, 95% CI 0.8-1.1, P<.001), EQ-5D index score (mean 0.16, 95% CI 0.13-0.19, P<.001), EQ-5D visual analogue scale (mean 13.8, 95% CI 11.7-15.9, P<.001), headache NRS (mean -1.1, 95% CI -1.4 to -0.8, P<.001), neck pain NRS (mean-1.8, 95% CI-2.0 to-1.5, P<.001), and arm pain NRS (mean -1.7, 95% CI -1.9 to -1.4, P<.001). According to GPE scale assessments, 229/513 patients (44.6%) experienced "complete recovery" or felt "much better" at 1 yr. There were significant improvements in all PROMs for both mild and moderate-to-severe DCM. A total of 251 patients (27.7%) experienced adverse effects within 3 mo.CONCLUSION: Surgery for DCM is associated with significant and clinically meaningful improvement across a wide range of PROMs. Show less
BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Defining clinically meaningful success criteria from patientreported outcome measures (PROMs) is crucial for clinical audits, research and decision-making.PURPOSE: We aimed to... Show moreBACKGROUND CONTEXT: Defining clinically meaningful success criteria from patientreported outcome measures (PROMs) is crucial for clinical audits, research and decision-making.PURPOSE: We aimed to define criteria for a successful outcome 3 and 12 months after surgery for cervical degenerative radiculopathy on recommended PROMs.STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study with 12 months follow-up.PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients operated at one or two levels for cervical radiculopathy included in the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery (NORspine) from 2011 to 2016.OUTCOME MEASURES: Neck disability index (NDI), Numeric Rating Scale for neck pain (NRS-NP) and arm pain (NRS-AP), health-related quality-of-life EuroQol 3L (EQ-5D), general health status (EQ-VAS).METHODS: We included 2,868 consecutive cervical degenerative radiculopathy patients operated for cervical radiculopathy in one or two levels and included in the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery (NORspine). External criterion to determine accuracy and optimal cut-off values for success in the PROMs was the global perceived effect scale. Success was defined as "much better" or "completely recovered." Cut-off values were assessed by analyzing the area under the receiver operating curves for follow-up scores, mean change scores, and percentage change scores.RESULTS: All PROMs showed high accuracy in defining success and nonsuccess and only minor differences were found between 3- and 12-month scores. At 12 months, the area under the receiver operating curves for follow-up scores were 0.86 to 0.91, change scores were 0.74 to 0.87, and percentage change scores were 0.74 to 0.91. Percentage scores of NDI and NRS-AP showed the best accuracy. The optimal cut-off values for each PROM showed considerable overlap across those operated due to disc herniation and spondylotic foraminal stenosis.CONCLUSIONS: All PROMs, especially NDI and NRS-AP, showed good to excellent discriminative ability in distinguishing between a successful and nonsuccessful outcome after surgery due to cervical radiculopathy. Percentage change scores are recommended for use in research and clinical practice. (C) 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. Show less
Background Surgery on extraforaminal lumbar disc herniation (ELDH) is a commonly performed procedure. Operating on this type of herniation is known to come with more difficulties than on the... Show moreBackground Surgery on extraforaminal lumbar disc herniation (ELDH) is a commonly performed procedure. Operating on this type of herniation is known to come with more difficulties than on the frequently seen paramedian lumbar disc herniation (PLDH). However, no comparative data are available on the effectiveness and safety of this operation. We sought out to compare clinical outcomes at 1 year following surgery for ELDH and PLDH. Methods Data were collected through the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery (NORspine). The primary outcome measure was change at 1 year in the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Secondary outcome measures were quality of life measured with EuroQol 5 dimensions (EQ-5D); and numeric rating scales (NRSs). Results Data of a total of 1750 patients were evaluated in this study, including 72 ELDH patients (4.1%). One year after surgery, there were no differences in any of the patient reported outcome measurements (PROMs) between the two groups. PLDH and ELDH patients experienced similar changes in ODI (- 30.92 vs. - 34.00, P = 0.325); EQ-5D (0.50 vs. 0.51, P = 0.859); NRS back (- 3.69 vs. - 3.83, P = 0.745); and NRS leg (- 4.69 vs. - 4.46, P = 0.607) after 1 year. The proportion of patients achieving a clinical success (defined as an ODI score of less than 20 points) at 1 year was similar in both groups (61.5% vs. 52.7%, P = 0.204). Conclusions Patients operated for ELDH reported similar improvement after 1 year compared with patients operated for PLDH. Show less
Clement, R.C.; Welander, A.; Stowell, C.; Cha, T.D.; Chen, J.L.; Davies, M.; ... ; FRitzell, P. 2015
