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 ArticleLumbar Spine

Risk Factors for Failing to Reach a Minimal Clinically Important Difference Following Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression

Elliot D.K. Cha, Conor P. Lynch, Cara E. Geoghegan, Caroline N. Jadczak, Shruthi Mohan and Kern Singh
International Journal of Spine Surgery March 2022, 8176; DOI: https://doi.org/10.14444/8176
Elliot D.K. Cha
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Conor P. Lynch
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Cara E. Geoghegan
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Caroline N. Jadczak
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Shruthi Mohan
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kern Singh
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA
  • 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

    Patient baseline characteristics.

    Characteristic% Total
    (n = 811)
    Age (mean ± SD)44.6 ± 13.6
    Gender % (n)
     Female29.9% (243)
     Male70.1% (568)
    BMI
     <30 kg/m2 60.4% (483)
     ≥30 kg/m2 39.6% (317)
    Smoking Status
     Nonsmoker83.2% (675)
     Smoker16.8% (136)
    Diabetes
     Diabetic5.8% (47)
     Nondiabetic94.2% (764)
    ASA score
     <234.5% (232)
     ≥265.5% (440)
    Ageless CCI
     <158.8% (440)
     ≥141.2% (308)
    Insurance
     Non-WC69.4% (563)
     WC30.6% (245)
    Operative length (min)45.7 ± 15.0
    EBL (mean ± SD; mL)31.4 ± 14.2
    LOS (mean ± SD; h)5.7 ± 6.6
    Operative technique
     Laminectomy17.9% (144)
     Discectomy11.5% (92)
     Laminectomy + discectomy70.6% (567)
    Number of operative levels
     Single81.7% (663)
     Multilevel18.3% (148)
    Spinal pathology
     HNP77.1% (625)
     Central stenosis61.2% (496)
     Foraminal stenosis33.9% (275)
    • ASA, American Society of Anesthesiologists; BMI, body mass index; CCI, Charlson Comorbidity Index; EBL, estimated blood loss; HNP, herniated nucleus pulposus; LOS, length of stay; WC, workers’ compensation.

    • View popup
    Table 2

    Improvement of outcome measures.

    Outcome measure n Mean ± SD P valuea
    VAS back  
     Preoperative7126.27 ± 2.45 <0.001
     6 wk5942.78 ± 2.57 <0.001
     12 wk3213.05 ± 2.83 <0.001
     6 mo2213.20 ± 2.92 <0.001
     1 y1213.27 ± 2.89 <0.001
    VAS leg  
     Preoperative4766.17 ± 2.57 <0.001
     6 wk3772.87± 2.80 <0.001
     12 wk2162.93 ± 2.87 <0.001
     6 mo1643.12 ± 2.92 <0.001
     1 y1202.77 ± 2.90 <0.001
    ODI  
     Preoperative49442.2 ± 17.6 <0.001
     6 wk39125.0 ± 18.2 <0.001
     12 wk22624.8 ± 20.8 <0.001
     6 mo17031.9 ± 77.50.054
     1 y12023.0 ± 20.8 <0.001
    SF-12 PCS  
     Preoperative44631.7 ± 7.91 <0.001
     6 wk28838.2 ± 10.1 <0.001
     12 wk16841.1 ± 10.9 <0.001
     6 mo14640.7 ± 11.2 <0.001
     1 y14142.3 ± 10.9 <0.001
    PROMIS PF  
     Preoperative30436.3 ± 6.8 <0.001
     6 wk21242.7 ± 8.4 <0.001
     12 wk12445.6 ± 10.1 <0.001
     6 mo11143.4 ± 9.8 <0.001
     1 y10145.5 ± 10.1 <0.001
    • Boldface indicates statistical significance.

    • aP values calculated difference from baseline values using paired t test.

    • ODI, Oswestry Disability Index; PROMIS PF, patient-reported outcomes measures information system physical function; SF-12, 12-item short form; VAS, visual analog scale.

    • View popup
    Table 3

    Bivariate analysis achievement for VAS back.

    CharacteristicFailed MCID (%)RR95% CI P valuea
    Overall28.2%–––
    Age
     18–50 y61.8%Reference
     >50 y38.2%1.1(0.9–1.5)0.176
    Gender
     Male68.6%0.9(0.7–1.2)0.563
     Female31.4%Reference
    BMI
     <30 kg/m2 58.3%Reference
     ≥30 kg/m2 41.7%1.1(0.9–1.3)0.455
    Smoking status
     Nonsmoker79.9%Reference
     Smoker20.1%1.2(0.9–1.6)0.103
    Diabetes
     Nondiabetic93.8%Reference
     Diabetic6.2%1.1(0.7–1.7)0.806
    Ageless CCI
     <1 51.2% Reference
     ≥1 48.3% 1.4 (1.1–1.7) 0.007
    ASA score
     <232.6%Reference
     ≥267.4%1.1(0.8–1.4)0.526
    Insurance
     Non-WC 61.1% Reference
     WC 38.9% 1.4 (1.1–1.6) 0.001
    Operative length
     <50 min69.0%Reference
     ≥50 min31.0%0.9(0.8–1.0)0.185
    EBL
     <50 mL50.0%Reference
     ≥50 mL50.0%1.1(0.9–1.3)0.411
    Operative levels
     Single71.7%Reference
     Multilevel28.3%1.4(1.2–1.7)0.001
    Operative technique
     Laminectomy20.1%0.9(0.7–1.3)0.945
     Discectomy----
     Laminectomy + discectomy74.3%1.2(0.9–1.5)0.148
    Spinal pathologies
     HNP76.9%0.9(0.7–1.3)0.858
     Central stenosis63.0%1.1(0.8–1.3)0.508
     Foraminal stenosis31.7%0.9(0.7–1.1)0.432
    • Boldface indicates statistical significance.

    • aP value calculated using Poisson regression.

    • ASA, American Society of Anesthesiologists; BMI, body mass index; CCI, Charlson Comorbidity Index; EBL, estimated blood loss; HNP, herniated nucleus pulposus; RR, relative risk; VAS, visual analog scale; WC, workers’ compensation.

    • View popup
    Table 4

    Bivariate analysis achievement for VAS leg.

    CharacteristicFailed MCID (%)RR95% CI P valuea
    Overall20.7%–––
    Age
     18–50 y 57.5% Reference
     >50 y 42.5% 1.4 (1.1–1.8) 0.015
    Gender
     Male72.0%1.1(0.8–1.5)0.530
     Female28.0%Reference
    BMI
     <30 kg/m2 59.0%Reference
     ≥30 kg/m2 41.0%1.1(0.8–1.4)0.692
    Smoking status
     Nonsmoker81.0%Reference
     Smoker19.0%1.2(0.8–1.6)0.369
    Diabetes
     Nondiabetic92.9%Reference
     Diabetic7.1%1.3(0.75–2.1)0.389
    Ageless CCI
     <1 49.0% Reference
     ≥1 51.0% 1.5 (1.2–1.9) 0.005
    ASA score
     <236.3%Reference
     ≥263.7%0.9(0.7–1.3)0.646
    Insurance
     Non-WC64.9%Reference
     WC35.1%1.2(0.9–1.5)0.081
    Operative length
     <50 min66.7%Reference
     ≥50 min33.3%0.9(0.9–1.0)0.051
    EBL
     <50 mL 91.1% Reference
     ≥50 mL 8.9% 1.9 (1.4–2.6) 0.001
    Operative levels
     Single 72.0% Reference
     Multilevel 28.0% 1.7 (1.3–2.3) 0.001
    Operative technique
     Laminectomy only28.1%1.6(1.2–2.0)0.001
     Discectomy only----
     Laminectomy + discectomy71.0%0.6(0.5–0.8)0.001
    Spinal pathologies
     HNP 69.1% 0.6 (0.5–0.9) 0.003
     Central stenosis 70.2% 1.5 (1.1–2.0) 0.008
     Foraminal stenosis 40.5% 1.3 (1.1–1.7) 0.042
    • Boldface indicates statistical significance.

    • aP value calculated using Poisson regression.

    • ASA, American Society of Anesthesiologists; BMI, body mass index; CCI, Charlson Comorbidity Index; EBL, estimated blood loss; HNP, herniated nucleus pulposus; RR, relative risk; VAS, visual analog scale; WC, workers’ compensation.

    • View popup
    Table 5

    Bivariate analysis achievement for ODI.

    CharacteristicFailed MCID (%)RR95% CI P valuea
    Overall26.8%–––
    Age
     18–50 y 53.7% Reference
     >50 y 46.3% 1.6 (1.3–2.0) 0.001
    Gender
     Male26.7%1.2(0.9–1.5)0.231
     Female73.3%Reference
    BMI, kg/m2
     <3060.3%Reference
     ≥3039.7%1.0(0.7–1.3)0.974
    Smoking status
     Nonsmoker82.5%Reference
     Smoker17.5%1.1(0.8–1.4)0.731
    Diabetes
     Nondiabetic93.5%Reference
     Diabetic6.51.1(0.7–1.8)0.622
    Ageless CCI
     <1 46.9% Reference
     ≥1 53.1% 1.6 (1.3–2.1) 0.001
    ASA score
     <230.8%Reference
     ≥269.2%1.2(0.9–1.6)0.241
    Insurance
     Non-WC69.1%Reference
     WC30.8%1.0(0.8–1.3)0.725
    Operative length
     <50 min68.7%Reference
     ≥50 min31.3%0.9(0.8–1.0)0.158
    EBL
     <50 mL91.6%Reference
     ≥50 mL8.4%1.1(0.7–1.6)0.472
    Operative levels
     Single 72.8% Reference
     Multilevel 27.2% 1.7 (1.3–2.1) 0.001
    Operative technique
     Laminectomy only27.4%1.5(1.1–1.9)0.001
     Discectomy only----
     Laminectomy + discectomy71.3%1.0(0.8–1.3)0.796
    Spinal pathologies
     HNP 70.1% 0.6 (0.5–0.9) 0.003
     Central stenosis 73.7% 1.8 (1.4–2.3) 0.001
     Foraminal stenosis 41.9% 1.4 (1.1–1.7) 0.003
    • Boldface indicates statistical significance.

    • aP value calculated using Poisson regression.

    • ASA, American Society of Anesthesiologists; BMI, body mass index; CCI, Charlson Comorbidity Index; EBL, estimated blood loss; HNP, herniated nucleus pulposus; ODI, Oswestry Disability Index; RR, relative risk; WC, workers’ compensation.

    • View popup
    Table 6

    Bivariate analysis achievement for SF-12 PCS.

    CharacteristicFailed MCID (%)RR95% CI P valuea
    Overall22.2%–––
    Age
     18–50 y 58.9% Reference
     >50 y 41.1% 1.3 (1.1–1.7) 0.035
    Gender
     Male32.2%0.9(0.7–1.2)0.451
     Female67.8%Reference
    BMI
     <30 kg/m2 57.1%Reference
     ≥30 kg/m2 42.9%1.1(0.9–1.5)0.306
    Smoking status
     Nonsmoker83.3%Reference
     Smoker16.7%0.9(0.7–1.4)0.967
    Diabetes
     Nondiabetic94.4%Reference
     Diabetic5.6%0.9(0.5–1.7)0.877
    Ageless CCI
     <153.2%Reference
     ≥146.8%1.3(0.9–1.6)0.085
    ASA score
     <234.0%Reference
     ≥266.0%1.0(0.7–1.4)0.888
    Insurance
     Non-WC70.6%Reference
     WC29.4%1.1(0.8–1.4)0.663
    Operative length
     <50 min 74.4% Reference
     ≥50 min 25.6% 0.7 (0.5–0.9) 0.025
    EBL
     <50 mL93.0%Reference
     ≥50 mL7.0%0.9(0.6–1.3)0.720
    Operative levels
     Single80.0%Reference
     Multilevel20.0%1.1(0.8–1.5)0.486
    Operative technique
     Laminectomy only21.3%1.2(0.9–1.5)0.076
     Discectomy only----
     Laminectomy + discectomy77.3%0.8(0.7–1.0)0.096
    Spinal pathologies
     HNP 75.0% 0.7 (0.6–1.0) 0.050
     Central stenosis 76.1% 2.0 (1.5–2.8) 0.001
     Foraminal stenosis 50.0% 1.9 (1.5–2.5) 0.001
    • Boldface indicates statistical significance.

    • aP value calculated using Poisson regression.

    • ASA, American Society of Anesthesiologists; BMI, body mass index; CCI, Charlson Comorbidity Index; EBL, estimated blood loss; HNP, herniated nucleus pulposus; RR, relative risk; SF-12, 12 item short form; WC, workers’ compensation.

    • View popup
    Table 7

    Bivariate analysis achievement for PROMIS PF.

    CharacteristicFailed MCID (%)RR95% CI P valuea
    Overall17.0%–––
    Age
     18–50 y18.5%Reference
     >50 y81.5%0.89(0.7–1.1)0.363
    Gender
     Male43.5%1.1(0.9–1.4)0.309
     Female56.5%Reference
    BMI
     <30 kg/m2 46.7% Reference
     ≥30 kg/m2 53.3% 1.4 (1.1–1.7) 0.002
    Smoking status
     Nonsmoker87.0%Reference
     Smoker13.0%0.9(0.6–1.3)0.817
    Diabetes
     Nondiabetic79.3%Reference
     Diabetic20.71.2(0.9–1.5)0.099
    Ageless CCI
     <13.3%Reference
     ≥196.7%1.5(0.7–3.5)0.332
    ASA score
     <263.0%Reference
     ≥237.01.1(0.9–1.3)0.487
    Insurance
     WC84.8%Reference
     Non-WC15.2%1.1(0.9–1.4)0.508
    Operative length
     <50 min43.5%Reference
     ≥50 min56.5%1.1(0.9–1.3)0.508
    EBL
     <50 mL50.0%Reference
     ≥50 mL50.0%1.1(0.9–1.3)0.411
    Operative levels
     Single 71.7% Reference
     Multilevel 28.3% 1.4 (1.2–1.7) 0.001
    Operative technique
     Laminectomy only23.3%1.3(0.9–1.8)0.077
     Discectomy only––––
     Laminectomy + discectomy75.4%0.8(0.6–1.1)0.147
    Spinal pathologies
     HNP 46.7% 0.8 (0.6–0.9) 0.015
     Central stenosis10.9%1.2(1.0–1.5)0.094
     Foraminal stenosis15.2%1.3(1.0–1.7)0.088
    • Boldface indicates statistical significance.

    • aP value calculated using Poisson regression.

    • ASA, American Society of Anesthesiologists; BMI, body mass index; CCI, Charlson Comorbidity Index; EBL, estimated blood loss; HNP, herniated nucleus pulposus; PROMIS PF, patient-reported outcomes measures information system physical function; RR, relative risk; WC, workers’ compensation.

    • View popup
    Table 8

    Multiple regression analysis for MCID achievement.

    Outcome MeasureRR95% CI P valuea
    VAS Back
     Insurance 1.7 (1.2–2.3) 0.001
    VAS Leg
     Age1.0(0.9–1.0)0.512
     Ageless CCI 1.6 (1.1–2.3) 0.024
     EBL 3.3 (1.3–8.5) 0.010
     HNP 0.5 (0.3–0.9) 0.032
    ODI
     Age 1.1 (1.0–1.0) 0.032
     Ageless CCI 2.2 (1.4–3.5) 0.001
     EBL 1.0 (0.9–0.9) 0.001
     Smoking status0.7(0.4–1.3)0.282
     Operative length0.9(0.9–1.0)0.772
     Central stenosis1.2(0.7–1.9)0.415
     Foraminal stenosis1.5(0.9–2.3)0.099
    SF-12 PCS
     Age1.0(0.9–1.0)0.103
     Gender0.9(0.6–1.3)0.522
     BMI1.2(0.8–1.7)0.451
     Ageless CCI1.6(0.9–2.6)0.056
     EBL1.2(0.5–2.5)0.627
     Smoker status0.7(0.4–1.3)0.318
     Operative length1.1(0.7–1.8)0.551
     HNP 0.5 (0.3–0.8) 0.016
     Foraminal stenosis0.6(0.4–1.0)0.063
     Laminectomy2.5(0.5–11.5)0.252
    PROMIS PF
     Gender0.9(0.6–1.5)0.931
     BMI1.1(0.8–1.7)0.480
     Diabetes0.4(0.1–1.3)0.140
     Insurance 2.0 (1.1–3.8) 0.022
     EBL 4.5 (1.1–17.6) 0.027
     No. of operative levels1.3(0.8–1.9)0.287
    • Boldface indicates statistical significance.

    • aP value calculated using LASSO logistical regression model.

    • BMI, body mass index; CCI, Charlson Comorbidity Index; EBL, estimated blood loss; HNP, herniated nucleus pulposus; RR, relative risk; VAS, visual analog scale.

Next
Back to top

In this issue

International Journal of Spine Surgery: 19 (S2)
International Journal of Spine Surgery
Vol. 19, Issue S2
1 Apr 2025
  • 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.
Risk Factors for Failing to Reach a Minimal Clinically Important Difference Following Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression
(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
Risk Factors for Failing to Reach a Minimal Clinically Important Difference Following Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression
Elliot D.K. Cha, Conor P. Lynch, Cara E. Geoghegan, Caroline N. Jadczak, Shruthi Mohan, Kern Singh
International Journal of Spine Surgery Mar 2022, 8176; DOI: 10.14444/8176

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Risk Factors for Failing to Reach a Minimal Clinically Important Difference Following Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression
Elliot D.K. Cha, Conor P. Lynch, Cara E. Geoghegan, Caroline N. Jadczak, Shruthi Mohan, Kern Singh
International Journal of Spine Surgery Mar 2022, 8176; DOI: 10.14444/8176
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • INTRODUCTION
    • MATERIALS AND 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

  • Comparison of Stand-Alone Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion, 360° Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion, and Arthroplasty for Recurrent Lumbar Disc Herniation: Focus on Nerve Decompression and Painful Spinal Instability Resolution
  • Association Between Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs Use and Surgical Outcomes Following Posterior Lumbar Fusion: A Medical Claims Database Analysis
  • Postoperative Brace Prescription Practices for Elective Lumbar Spine Surgery: A Questionnaire-Based Study of Spine Surgeons in Japan
Show more Lumbar Spine

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • lumbar decompression
  • minimal clinically important difference
  • outcomes

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