Predicting Patient-Centered Outcomes from Spine Surgery Using Risk Assessment Tools: a Systematic Review
Tóm tắt
The purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate the current literature in patients undergoing spine surgery in the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine to determine the available risk assessment tools to predict the patient-centered outcomes of pain, disability, physical function, quality of life, psychological disposition, and return to work after surgery. Risk assessment tools can assist surgeons and other healthcare providers in identifying the benefit-risk ratio of surgical candidates. These tools gather demographic, medical history, and other pertinent patient-reported measures to calculate a probability utilizing regression or machine learning statistical foundations. Currently, much is still unknown about the use of these tools to predict quality of life, disability, and other factors following spine surgery. A systematic review was conducted using PRISMA guidelines that identified risk assessment tools that utilized patient-reported outcome measures as part of the calculation. From 8128 identified studies, 13 articles met inclusion criteria and were accepted into this review. The range of c-index values reported in the studies was between 0.63 and 0.84, indicating fair to excellent model performance. Post-surgical patient-reported outcomes were identified in the following categories (n = total number of predictive models): return to work (n = 3), pain (n = 9), physical functioning and disability (n = 5), quality of life (QOL) (n = 6), and psychosocial disposition (n = 2). Our review has synthesized the available evidence on risk assessment tools for predicting patient-centered outcomes in patients undergoing spine surgery and described their findings and clinical utility.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Archer KR, Coronado RA, Haug CM, Vanston SW, Devin CJ, Fonnesbeck CJ, et al. A comparative effectiveness trial of postoperative management for lumbar spine surgery: changing behavior through physical therapy (CBPT) study protocol. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2014;15:325.
Martin BI, Mirza SK, Comstock BA, Gray DT, Kreuter W, Deyo RA. Reoperation rates following lumbar spine surgery and the influence of spinal fusion procedures. Spine. 2007;32:382–7.
•• Lubelski D, Alentado V, Nowacki AS, Shriver M, Abdullah KG, Steinmetz MP, et al. Preoperative nomograms predict patient-specific cervical spine surgery clinical and quality of life outcomes. Neurosurgery. 2018;83:104–13 This study focuses on the cervical spine and provides an easily utilized online risk assessment tool which utilizes the EQ-5D, PHQ-9, and PDQ patient-reported outcome measures.
Raad M, Reidler JS, El Dafrawy MH, Amin RM, Jain A, Neuman BJ, et al. US regional variations in rates, outcomes, and costs of spinal arthrodesis for lumbar spinal stenosis in working adults aged 40-65 years. J Neurosurg Spine. 2018;30:83–90.
•• Khor S, Lavallee D, Cizik AM, et al. Development and validation of a prediction model for pain and functional outcomes after lumbar spine surgery. JAMA Surgery. 2018;153:634 An easily accessible risk assessment tool for assessing lumbar-related conditions is provided online with good predictability. The model includes the use of ODI, NRS-BP, and NRS-LP patient-reported outcome measures, commonly utilized in tools reported through this review.
•• Mcgirt MJ, Bydon M, Archer KR, et al. An analysis from the Quality Outcomes Database, part 1. Disability, quality of life, and pain outcomes following lumbar spine surgery: predicting likely individual patient outcomes for shared decision-making. J Neurosurg Spine. 2017;27:357–69 This article is the most recent by McGirt et al. whose teams are strong proponents of the use of risk assessment tools prior to spine surgery. The Quality Outcomes Database was used to compile the patients in this risk assessment tool which is growing and widely used registry.
Rushton AB, Verra ML, Emms A, Heneghan NR, Falla D, Reddington M, et al. Development and validation of two clinical prediction models to inform clinical decision-making for lumbar spinal fusion surgery for degenerative disorders and rehabilitation following surgery: protocol for a prospective observational study. BMJ Open. 2018;8:e021078.
• Mansmann U, Rieger A, Strahwald B, Crispin A. Risk calculators—methods, development, implementation, and validation. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2016;31:1111–6 The integration of shared decision-making and the impact of risk calculators on surgical outcomes are discussed in this article. Mansmann et al. eloquently describe the development and implementation of risk calculators in surgery.
Paruch JL, Ko CY, Bilimoria KY. An opportunity to improve informed consent and shared decision making: the role of the ACS NSQIP surgical risk calculator in oncology. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21:5–7.
Ehlers AP, Khor S, Cizik AM, Leveque J-CA, Shonnard NS, Oskouian RJ Jr, et al. Use of patient-reported outcomes and satisfaction for quality assessments. Am J Manag Care. 2017;23:618–22.
DeVine J, Norvell DC, Ecker E, Fourney DR, Vaccaro A, Wang J, et al. Evaluating the correlation and responsiveness of patient-reported pain with function and quality-of-life outcomes after spine surgery. Spine. 2011;36:S69–74.
Neuman MD, Bosk CL. What we talk about when we talk about risk: refining surgery’s hazards in medical thought. Milbank Q. 2012;90:135–59.
Osorio JA, Scheer JK, Ames CP. Predictive modeling of complications. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2016;9:333–7.
Basch E, Spertus J, Dudley RA, et al. Methods for developing patient-reported outcome-based performance measures (PRO-PMs). Value Health. 2015;18:493–504.
Bernstein DN, Fear K, Mesfin A, Hammert WC, Mitten DJ, Rubery PT, et al. Patient-reported outcomes use during orthopaedic surgery clinic visits improves the patient experience. Musculoskeletal Care. 2019;17:120–5.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000097.
Schiavo JH. PROSPERO: an international register of systematic review protocols. Med Ref Serv Q. 2019;38:171–80.
Innovation VH (2017) Covidence systematic review software.
Wolff RF, Moons KGM, Riley RD, Whiting PF, Westwood M, Collins GS, et al. PROBAST: a tool to assess the risk of bias and applicability of prediction model studies. Ann Intern Med. 2019;170:51–8.
Luchini C, Stubbs B, Solmi M, Veronese N (2017) Assessing the quality of studies in meta-analyses: advantages and limitations of the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. World J Meta-Anal.
Downs SH, Black N. The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1998;52:377–84.
Moons KGM, Wolff RF, Riley RD, Whiting PF, Westwood M, Collins GS, et al. PROBAST: a tool to assess risk of bias and applicability of prediction model studies: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2019;170:W1–W33.
McGirt MJ, Sivaganesan A, Asher AL, Devin CJ. Prediction model for outcome after low-back surgery: individualized likelihood of complication, hospital readmission, return to work, and 12-month improvement in functional disability. Neurosurg Focus. 2015;39:E13.
Hegarty D, Shorten G. Multivariate prognostic modeling of persistent pain following lumbar discectomy. Pain Physician. 2012;15:421–34.
•• Asher AL, Devin CJ, Archer KR, et al. An analysis from the Quality Outcomes Database, part 2. Predictive model for return to work after elective surgery for lumbar degenerative disease. J Neurosurg Spine. 2017;27:370–81 Return to work following spine surgery is a significant domain of post-surgical success identified through the use of risk assessment tools in patients with lumbar-related conditions. This study utilizes ODI, EQ-5D, NRS-BP, and NRS-LP patient-reported outcome measures with good predictability.
Devin CJ, Bydon M, Alvi MA, Kerezoudis P, Khan I, Sivaganesan A, et al. A predictive model and nomogram for predicting return to work at 3 months after cervical spine surgery: an analysis from the Quality Outcomes Database. Neurosurg Focus. 2018;45:E9.
Genov PG, Timerbaev VK, Dolgasheva NS, Efanov AA, Grin’ AA, Rebrova OY. Prognostic models of the severity of acute dynamic pain on the first postoperative day and the likelihood of chronic postoperative pain in spine surgery. Zh Vopr Neirokhir Im N N Burdenko. 2018;82:29–35.
Lee BH, Yang JH, Lee HM, Park JY, Park SE, Moon SH. Surgical outcome predictor in degenerative lumbar spinal disease based on health related quality of life using euro-quality 5 dimensions analysis. Yonsei Med J. 2016;57:1214–21.
•• Merali ZG, Witiw CD, Badhiwala JH, Wilson JR, Fehlings MG. Using a machine learning approach to predict outcome after surgery for degenerative cervical myelopathy. PLoS One. 2019;14:e0215133 Similar to the study by Siccoli et al., this article utilizes machine learning with high positive predictive value to assess risk in patients with cervical spine-related conditions. The authors incorporate over 100 features in the 12-month model which can be specifically tailored to patients’ unique cases.
Sharma A, Tanenbaum JE, Hogue O, Mehdi S, Vallabh S, Hu E, et al. Predicting clinical outcomes following surgical correction of adult spinal deformity. Neurosurgery. 2019;84:733–40.
•• Siccoli A, de Wispelaere MP, Schröder ML, Staartjes VE. Machine learning-based preoperative predictive analytics for lumbar spinal stenosis. Neurosurg Focus. 2019;46:E5 Machine learning is a developmental strategy for risk assessment tools that is gaining traction as this study and others reports greater predictability statistics, c-index, and AUC than traditional regression models. However, these tools are not readily available.
Staartjes VE, de Wispelaere MP, Vandertop WP, Schröder ML. Deep learning-based preoperative predictive analytics for patient-reported outcomes following lumbar discectomy: feasibility of center-specific modeling. Spine J. 2019;19:853–61.
Zweig MH, Campbell G. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) plots: a fundamental evaluation tool in clinical medicine. Clin Chem. 1993;39:561–77.
• Lee MJ, Cizik AM, Hamilton D, Chapman JR. Predicting medical complications after spine surgery: a validated model using a prospective surgical registry. Spine J. 2014;14:291–9 Validation of risk assessment models is a critical future step as the healthcare shifts to a value-based model. Surgical complications, while not included in the criteria of this review, is a notable possibility of any surgery and a significant further area of research for prediction models.
Whitmore RG, Stephen JH, Vernick C, Campbell PG, Yadla S, Ghobrial GM, et al. ASA grade and Charlson Comorbidity Index of spinal surgery patients: correlation with complications and societal costs. Spine J. 2014;14:31–8.
Rampersaud YR, Neary MA, White K. Spine adverse events severity system: content validation and interobserver reliability assessment. Spine. 2010;35:790–5.
Malik AT, Khan SN. Predictive modeling in spine surgery. Ann Transl Med. 2019;7:S173.
•• Veeravagu A, Li A, Swinney C, et al. Predicting complication risk in spine surgery: a prospective analysis of a novel risk assessment tool. J Neurosurg Spine. 2017;27:81–91 In this recent study, the developed risk assessment tool is compared against the Charlson Comorbidity Index and the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Risk Calculator. Statistical accuracy is currently fair for risk assessment tools predicting surgical complications and lends to increase research in this area, particularly in patient-reported domains of surgical success.
Hoy D, March L, Brooks P, Blyth F, Woolf A, Bain C, et al. The global burden of low back pain: estimates from the Global Burden of Disease 2010 study. Ann Rheum Dis. 2014;73:968–74.