Author:
Nie James W.,Hartman Timothy J.,MacGregor Keith R.,Oyetayo Omolabake O.,Zheng Eileen,Singh Kern
Abstract
BACKGROUND:
Few studies have established the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) in patients undergoing minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) for physical function and pain.
OBJECTIVE:
To establish MCID for physical function and pain patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for MIS-TLIF through anchor- and distribution-based methods using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) as the anchor.
METHODS:
Ninety-eight patients undergoing primary MIS-TLIF with preoperative and 1-year postoperative ODI scores were identified. MCID was calculated using anchor- and distribution-based methods. ODI responders were classified as patients who decreased by 1 disability classification. PROMs of Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System-Physical Function (PROMIS-PF), 12-Item Short Form Physical Component Score (SF-12 PCS), Visual Analog Scale (VAS) back/leg, and ODI were collected preoperatively and 1-year postoperatively. Anchor-based methods were average change, minimum detectable change, change difference, receiver operating characteristic curve, and cross-sectional analysis. Distribution-based methods were standard error of measurement, receiver change index, effect size, and 0.5 ∗ ΔSD.
RESULTS:
Anchor-based methods ranged from 4.2 to 11.9 for PROMIS-PF, 6.0 to 15.8 for SF-12 PCS, 1.8 to 4.6 for VAS back, and 2.1 to 4.0 for VAS leg. The area under the curve for receiver operating characteristic analysis ranged from 0.66 to 0.81. Distribution-based methods ranged from 1.1 to 3.9 for PROMIS-PF, 1.6 to 10.4 for SF-12 PCS, 0.5 to 1.6 for VAS back, and 0.6 to 1.8 for VAS leg.
CONCLUSION:
Patients undergoing MIS-TLIF had a wide range of MCID values. The receiver operating characteristic curve was selected as the most clinically appropriate method. The corresponding MCID values were 4.2 for PROMIS-PF, 6.8 for SF-12 PCS, 1.8 for VAS back, and 2.4 for VAS leg.
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Subject
Neurology (clinical),Surgery
Reference34 articles.
1. Lumbar interbody fusion: techniques, indications and comparison of interbody fusion options including PLIF, TLIF, MI-TLIF, OLIF/ATP, LLIF and ALIF;Mobbs;J Spine Surg.,2015
2. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in lumbar spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis;de Kunder;Spine J.,2017
3. Defining the MIS-TLIF: a systematic review of techniques and technologies used by surgeons worldwide;Lener;Global Spine J.,2020
4. Comparison of MIS vs. open PLIF/TLIF with regard to clinical improvement, fusion rate, and incidence of major complication: a meta-analysis;Jin-Tao;Eur Spine J.,2015
5. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF): surgical technique, long-term 4-year prospective outcomes, and complications compared with an open TLIF cohort;Wong;Neurosurg Clin N Am.,2014