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.