Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Advance Online Publication
    • Archive
  • About Us
    • About ISASS
    • About the Journal
    • Author Instructions
    • Editorial Board
    • Reviewer Guidelines & Publication Criteria
  • More
    • Advertise
    • Subscribe
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Join Us
  • Reprints & Permissions
  • Sponsored Content
  • Other Publications
    • ijss

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
International Journal of Spine Surgery
  • My alerts
International Journal of Spine Surgery

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Advance Online Publication
    • Archive
  • About Us
    • About ISASS
    • About the Journal
    • Author Instructions
    • Editorial Board
    • Reviewer Guidelines & Publication Criteria
  • More
    • Advertise
    • Subscribe
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Join Us
  • Reprints & Permissions
  • Sponsored Content
  • Follow ijss on Twitter
  • Visit ijss on Facebook
Research ArticleMinimally Invasive Surgery

Differences in Clinically Important Physical Function Improvement in Workers’ Compensation Population

Elliot D.K. Cha, Conor P. Lynch, Caroline N. Jadczak, Shruthi Mohan, Cara E. Geoghegan and Kern Singh
International Journal of Spine Surgery February 2022, 16 (1) 176-185; DOI: https://doi.org/10.14444/8186
Elliot D.K. Cha
1 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA
MS
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Conor P. Lynch
1 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA
MS
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Caroline N. Jadczak
1 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA
BS
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Shruthi Mohan
1 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA
BS
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Cara E. Geoghegan
1 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA
BS
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kern Singh
1 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Tables

    • View popup
    Table 1

    Unmatched patient baseline demographics.

    CharacteristicTotal (n = 634)Non-WC (n = 374)WC (n = 260) P Valuea
    Age, mean ± SD50.8 ± 11.753.9 ± 11.746.4 ± 10.0 <0.001
    Gender <0.001
     Female37.9% (240)48.7% (182)22.3% (58)
     Male62.1% (394)51.3% (192)77.7% (202)
    Ethnicity <0.001
     White66.3% (420)79.4% (297)47.5% (123)
     Nonwhite33.7% (213)20.6% (77)52.5% (136)
    Body mass index 0.003
      <30 kg/m2 51.9% (328)56.8% (212)44.8% (116)
     ≥30 kg/m2 48.1% (304)43.1% (161)55.2% (143)
    Smoking status <0.001
     Nonsmoker80.8% (512)86.1% (322)73.0% (190)
     Smoker19.2% (122)13.9% (52)26.9% (70)
    Diabetic status0.976
     Nondiabetic88.8% (563)88.8% (332)88.9% (44)
     Diabetic11.2% (71)11.2% (42)11.1% (4)
    American Society of Anesthesiologists Score0.742
     <282.8% (521)83.2% (308)82.2% (213)
     ≥217.2% (108)16.7% (62)17.8% (46)
    Charlson Comorbidity Index Score 0.001
     ≤124.9% (154)19.9% (73)32.1% (81)
     >175.1% (464)80.1% (293)67.9% (171)
    • Data presented as % (n) unless otherwise indicated. Boldface indicates statistical significance.

    • aP value calculated using χ 2 test or Student’s t test.

    • WC, workers’ compensation.

    • View popup
    Table 2

    Matched patient baseline demographics.

    CharacteristicTotal (n = 121)Non-WC (n = 92)WC (n = 29) P Valuea
    Age, mean ± SD53.5 ± 9.454.6 ± 9.750.0 ± 7.4 0.023
      <50 y34.7% (42)31.5% (29)44.8% (13)
     50–64 y62.0% (75)64.1% (59)55.2% (16)
     >65 y3.3% (4)4.3% (4)0.0% (0)
    Gender 0.044
     Female36.4% (44)41.3% (38)20.7% (6)
     Male63.6% (77)58.7% (54)79.3% (23)
    Ethnicity <0.001
     White78.5% (95)87.0% (80)51.7% (15)
     Nonwhite21.5% (26)13.0% (12)48.3% (14)
    Body mass index0.437
     <30 kg/m2 54.5% (66)56.5% (52)48.3% (14)
     ≥30 kg/m2 44.5% (55)43.5% (40)51.7% (15)
    Smoking status0.078
     Nonsmoker88.4% (107)91.3% (84)79.3% (23)
     Smoker11.6% (14)8.7% (8)20.7% (6)
    Diabetic status0.423
     Nondiabetic90.1% (109)91.3% (84)86.2% (25)
     Diabetic9.9% (12)8.7% (8)13.8% (4)
    American Society of Anesthesiologists Score0.794
     <284.3% (102)84.8% (80)82.8% (24)
     ≥215.7% (19)15.2% (14)17.2% (5)
    Charlson Comorbidity Index Score0.331
     ≤123.6% (29)26.1% (24)17.2% (32)
     >176.4% (92)73.9% (68)82.8% (12)
    Duration of symptoms 0.005
     <6 mo20.4% (22)19.5% (16)23.1% (6)
     6 mo to 1 y21.3% (23)14.6% (12)42.3% (11)
     >1 y58.3% (63)65.9% (54)34.6% (9)
     Time to surgery, mo, mean ± SD, mo (n)4.9 ± 10.4 (114)4.7 ± 11.4 (92)5.9 ± 4.1 (22)0.628
    • Data provided as % (n) unless otherwise indicated. Boldface indicates statistical significance.

    • aP value calculated using χ 2 test or Student’s t test.

    • WC, workers’ compensation.

    • View popup
    Table 3

    Perioperative characteristics.

    CharacteristicTotal (n = 121)Non-WC (n = 92)WC (n = 29) P Valuea
    Spinal pathology
     Degenerative disc disease55.3% (67)53.3% (49)62.1% (18)0.405
     Degenerative spondylolisthesis65.4% (70)61.9% (52)78.3% (18)0.144
     Isthmic spondylolisthesis24.3% (26)28.6% (24)8.7% (2) 0.049
    Operative time, min, mean ± SD124.5 ± 23.5123.9 ± 23.2126.1 ± 24.90.663
    Estimated blood loss, mL, mean ± SD, mL48.5 ± 25.248.5 ± 24.348.3 ± 28.30.962
    Length of stay, h, mean ± SD29.2 ± 18.729.4 ± 19.728.8 ± 15.40.877
    Day of discharge0.310
     POD 019.0% (23)18.5% (17)20.7% (6)
     POD 161.2% (74)63.0% (58)55.1% (16)
     POD 215.7% (19)13.0% (12)24.1% (7)
     POD 34.1% (5)5.5% (5)0.0% (0)
    • Data provided as % (n) unless otherwise indicated. Boldface indicates statistical significance.

    • aP value calculated using either χ 2 test or Student’s t test.

    • POD, postoperative day; WC, workers’ compensation.

    • View popup
    Table 4

    Postoperative improvement of outcomes between groups.

    Patient-Reported Outcome MeasuresNon-WC, Mean ± SD (n) P Valuea WC, Mean ± SD (n) P Valuea P Valueb
    VAS back
     Preoperative6.0 ± 2.6 (92)–6.7 ± 2.2 (29)–0.297
     6 wk3.3 ± 2.6 (83)<0.0015.1 ± 2.0 (25)0.001 0.001
     12 wk2.6 ± 2.2 (76)<0.0015.3 ± 2.5 (24)0.004 <0.001
     6 mo2.5 ± 2.4 (75)<0.0015.3 ± 2.5 (25)0.007 <0.001
     1 y2.2 ± 2.4 (48)<0.0014.7 ± 2.7 (13)0.147 0.004
    VAS leg
     Preoperative5.3 ± 3.0 (92)–5.0 ± 3.0 (29)–0.475
     6 wk2.5 ± 2.5 (83)<0.0014.1 ± 2.7 (25)0.188 0.012
     12 wk1.9 ± 2.4 (77)<0.0013.6 ± 2.7 (24)0.032 0.004
     6 mo1.6 ± 2.5 (75)<0.0013.4±2.5 (25)0.044 <0.001
     1 y1.9 ± 2.9 (48)<0.0014.1 ± 2.7 (13)0.223 0.002
    ODI
     Preoperative35.8 ± 13.9 (92)–45.1 ± 15.6 (29)– 0.003
     6 wk28.5 ± 18.1 (84)<0.00146.6 ± 17.3 (25)0.696 <0.001
     12 wk22.4 ± 15.8 (78)<0.00143.5 ± 14.3 (24)0.439 <0.001
     6 mo15.7 ± 13.6 (76)<0.00139.1 ± 18.9 (25)0.088 <0.001
     1 y15.7 ± 18.7 (48)<0.00130.3 ± 21.3 (13)0.071 0.009
    SF-12 PCSy
     Preoperative32.4 ± 8.0 (88)–27.4 ± 6.6 (27)– 0.001
     6 wk34.0 ± 9.2 (77)0.13826.3 ± 6.0 (22)0.319 0.001
     12 wk38.1 ± 10.6 (68)0.00127.5 ± 5.7 (23)0.775 <0.001
     6 mo42.9 ± 11.0 (62)<0.00128.3 ± 7.0 (18)0.581 <0.001
     1 y43.1 ± 10.8 (54)<0.00130.8 ± 10.1 (15)0.401 <0.001
    PROMIS-PF
     Preoperative36.4 ± 4.9 (92)–32.6 ± 5.3 (29)– 0.001
     6 wk38.2 ± 6.9 (77)0.01733.7 ± 5.5 (21)0.444 0.004
     12 wk42.2 ± 6.4 (62)<0.00137.2 ± 6.3 (18)0.043 0.005
     6 mo45.3 ± 6.7 (63)<0.00139.2 ± 7.3 (16)<0.001 0.003
     1 y47.2 ± 8.2 (57)<0.00139.0 ± 8.5 (12)0.022 0.004
    • Boldface indicates statistical significance.

    • aP value was calculated using paired t test.

    • bP values calculated using Mann-Whitney U test.

    • ODI, Oswestry Disability Index; PROMIS-PF, Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System physical function; SF-12, 12-Item Short Form Physical Component Summary; VAS, visual analog scale; WC, workers’ compensation.

    • View popup
    Table 5

    Effect of duration of symptoms and time to surgery on outcomes.

    PROMCoeff95% CI P Valuea P Valueb P Valuec
    VAS back     
     Preoperative0.7−0.4 to 1.80.1960.0900.163
     6 wk1.80.7–2.9 0.002 0.006 0.003
     12 wk2.71.7–3.8 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
     6 mo2.81.7–3.9 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
     1 y2.50.9–4.1 0.002 0.054 0.005
    VAS leg     
     Preoperative−0.5−1.7 to 0.80.4800.5480.539
     6 wk1.50.3–2.7 0.012 0.032 0.041
     12 wk1.70.5–2.9 0.005 0.005 0.002
     6 mo1.80.6–2.9 0.003 0.001 0.006
     1 y2.10.3–4.0 0.021 0.032 0.145
    ODI     
     Preoperative9.43.2–15.7 0.003 0.001 0.002
     6 wk18.410.3–26.5 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
     12 wk21.113.9–28.4 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
     6 mo23.416.5–30.3 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
     1 y14.62.5–26.7 0.019 0.009 0.018
    SF-12 PCS     
     Preoperative−5.6−9.0 to –2.2 0.002 <0.001 0.002
     6 wk−6.7−10.9 to –2.7 0.001 0.002 0.001
     12 wk−9.8−14.3 to –5.2 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
     6 mo−14.7−20.0 to 9.3 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
     1 y−12.2−18.3 to –6.0 <0.001 0.001 0.001
    PROMIS-PF     
     Preoperative−4.0−6.3 to –1.6 0.001 0.002 0.001
     6 wk−4.5−7.7 to –1.2 0.007 0.009 0.010
     12 wk−5.0−8.5 to –1.6 0.005 0.012 0.010
     6 mo−6.1−9.9 to –2.2 0.002 0.001 0.004
     1 y−8.2−13.4 to –2.9 0.003 0.011 0.009
    • Boldface indicates statistical significance.

    • aP value was calculated using simple linear regression to determine effect of workers’ compensation status and preoperative duration of symptoms.

    • bP value was calculated using multiple linear regression to determine effect of workers’ compensation while accounting for duration of preoperative symptoms.

    • cP values calculated using multiple linear regression to determine effect of workers’ compensation status while accounting for time to surgery.

    • ODI, Oswestry Disability Index; PROM, Patient-Reported Outcome Measures; PROMIS-PF, Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System physical function; SF-12 PCS, 12-Item Short Form Physical Component Summary; VAS, visual analog scale; WC, workers’ compensation.

    • View popup
    Table 6

    Impact of WC on patient-reported outcome measures.

    Outcome MeasurePreop—6 wkPreop—12 wkPreop—6 moPreop—1 yOverall
    VAS back
     Non-WC63.9% (53) 77.6% (59)72.0% (54)77.1% (37) 85.9% (79)
     WC52.0% (13) 50.0% (12)60.0% (15)61.5% (8) 68.9% (20)
     P valuea 0.286 0.009 0.2610.258 0.040
    VAS leg
     Non-WC61.5% (51) 71.4% (57)68.0% (52)58.3% (28)78.3% (72)
     WC40.0% (10) 45.8% (11)48.0% (12)61.5% (8)62.0% (18)
     P valuea 0.058 0.021 0.0730.8350.082
    ODI
     Non-WC40.5% (34) 44.9% (35) 61.8% (47)66.7% (32) 75.0% (69)
     WC24.0% (6) 16.7% (4) 36.0% (9)46.1% (6) 43.3% (12)
     P valuea 0.133 0.013 0.024 0.176 0.001
    SF-12 PCS
     Non-WC33.8% (26)52.9% (36) 69.3% (43)75.9% (41) 73.9% (68)
     WC18.1% (4)30.4% (7) 22.2% (4)53.3% (8) 48.3% (14)
     P valuea 0.1610.062 <0.001 0.088 0.010
    PROMIS-PF
     Non-WC15.6% (12)37.1% (23)50.8% (32)57.9% (33) 59.8% (55)
     WC9.5% (2)22.2% (4)43.7% (7)25.0% (3) 37.9% (11)
     P valuea 0.4820.2270.6150.034 0.039
    • The following MCID values derived from Copay et al; VAS back = 1.2, VAS leg = 1.6, ODI = 12.8; or Parker et al; SF-12 = 4.0; PROMIS MCID values derived from Hung et al PROMIS-PF = 8.0.

    • Data presented as % (n). Boldface indicates statistical significance.

    • aP value was calculated for each category using logistic regression.

    • MCID, minimum clinically important difference; PROMIS-PF, Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System physical function; SF-12 PCS, 12-Item Short Form Physical Component Summary; VAS, visual analog scale; WC, workers’ compensation.

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

International Journal of Spine Surgery
Vol. 16, Issue 1
1 Feb 2022
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on International Journal of Spine Surgery.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Differences in Clinically Important Physical Function Improvement in Workers’ Compensation Population
(Your Name) has sent you a message from International Journal of Spine Surgery
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the International Journal of Spine Surgery web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Differences in Clinically Important Physical Function Improvement in Workers’ Compensation Population
Elliot D.K. Cha, Conor P. Lynch, Caroline N. Jadczak, Shruthi Mohan, Cara E. Geoghegan, Kern Singh
International Journal of Spine Surgery Feb 2022, 16 (1) 176-185; DOI: 10.14444/8186

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Differences in Clinically Important Physical Function Improvement in Workers’ Compensation Population
Elliot D.K. Cha, Conor P. Lynch, Caroline N. Jadczak, Shruthi Mohan, Cara E. Geoghegan, Kern Singh
International Journal of Spine Surgery Feb 2022, 16 (1) 176-185; DOI: 10.14444/8186
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • INTRODUCTION
    • METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • CONCLUSION
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Comparative Review of Lateral and Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Technique, Outcomes, and Complications
  • A Spine Surgeon’s Learning Curve With the Minimally Invasive L5 to S1 Lateral ALIF Surgical Approach: Perioperative Outcomes and Technical Considerations
  • Fully Navigated Single-Position Prone Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Detailed Technical Report and Description of 15 Cases
Show more Minimally Invasive Surgery

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • workers' compensation
  • lumbar fusion
  • propensity score match
  • patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs)

Content

  • Current Issue
  • Latest Content
  • Archive

More Information

  • About IJSS
  • About ISASS
  • Privacy Policy

More

  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Feedback

Other Services

  • Author Instructions
  • Join ISASS
  • Reprints & Permissions

© 2025 International Journal of Spine Surgery

International Journal of Spine Surgery Online ISSN: 2211-4599

Powered by HighWire