Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Predicting Patient-Centered Outcomes from Spine Surgery Using Risk Assessment Tools: a Systematic Review

  • Hot Topics
  • Published:
Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

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.

Recent Findings

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.

Summary

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

AUC:

Area-under-curve

EMR:

Electronic medical record

EQ-5D:

EuroQOL-5 Dimension questionnaire

PPV:

Positive predictive value

PRISMA:

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis

PRO:

Patient-reported outcome

PROBAST:

Prediction Model Study of Bias Assessment Too

PROM:

Patient-reported Outcome Measures

QOD:

Quality Outcomes Database

QOL:

Quality of life

ROB:

Risk of bias

SF-6D:

Short Form 6 Dimension

SpineSCOAP:

Spine Surgical Care and Outcomes Assessment Program

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. •• 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. •• 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. •• 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 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.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Osorio JA, Scheer JK, Ames CP. Predictive modeling of complications. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2016;9:333–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Schiavo JH. PROSPERO: an international register of systematic review protocols. Med Ref Serv Q. 2019;38:171–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Innovation VH (2017) Covidence systematic review software.

  19. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 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.

  21. 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Hegarty D, Shorten G. Multivariate prognostic modeling of persistent pain following lumbar discectomy. Pain Physician. 2012;15:421–34.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. •• 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. •• 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. •• 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Zweig MH, Campbell G. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) plots: a fundamental evaluation tool in clinical medicine. Clin Chem. 1993;39:561–77.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Rampersaud YR, Neary MA, White K. Spine adverse events severity system: content validation and interobserver reliability assessment. Spine. 2010;35:790–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Malik AT, Khan SN. Predictive modeling in spine surgery. Ann Transl Med. 2019;7:S173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. •• 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hannah J. White.

Ethics declarations

This review was written in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement [16]. The protocol for this review is available in the PROSPERO registry (CRD42019136188) [17].

Conflict of Interest

Hannah J. White, Jensyn Bradley, Nicholas Hadgis, Emily Wittke, Brett Piland, Brandi Tuttle, Melissa Erickson, and Maggie Horn declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This review does not contain any studies with animal or human studies performed by the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix. Comprehensive search strategy used to identify relevant studies

Appendix. Comprehensive search strategy used to identify relevant studies

PubMed https://mclibrary.duke.edu/pubmed

Set

 

Results

1

(“spine/surgery”[mesh] OR “Spinal Diseases/surgery”[mesh] OR “Lumbosacral Region/surgery”[mesh] OR “Diskectomy”[Mesh] OR discectomy[tiab] OR diskectomy[tiab] OR diskectomies[tiab] OR discectomies[tiab] OR Microdiscectomy[tiab] OR “Spinal Fusion”[Mesh] OR fusion[tiab] OR fusions[tiab] OR “Laminectomy”[Mesh] OR Laminectomy[tiab] OR “laminoplasty”[MeSH Terms] OR laminoplasty[tiab] OR Laminotomy[tiab] OR “Total Disc Replacement”[Mesh] OR “disc replacement”[tiab] OR foraminotomy[tiab] OR “foraminal decompression”[tiab] OR kyphoplasty[tiab] OR kyphoplasties[tiab] OR “facetectomy”[tiab] OR “arthrodesis”[MeSH Terms] OR “arthrodesis”[tiab] OR “cementoplasty”[MeSH Terms] OR “cementoplasty”[tiab] OR “vertebroplasty”[MeSH Terms] OR “vertebroplasty”[tiab] OR corpectomies[tiab] OR corpectomy[tiab] OR spondylodesis[tiab] OR spondylodeses[tiab] OR Spondylosyndesis[tiab]) OR ((“spine”[MeSH Terms] OR “spine”[tiab] OR spinal[tiab] OR disc[tiab] OR “lumbosacral region”[MeSH Terms] OR “lumbosacral”[tiab] OR “lumbar”[tiab]) AND (“Decompression, Surgical”[Mesh] OR “decompression”[tiab] OR “stabilization”[tiab] OR “surgery”[tiab] OR “Arthroplasty, Replacement”[mesh] OR “Surgical Procedures, Operative”[Mesh] OR “operative”[tiab] OR “operation”[tiab] OR “surgery”[Subheading] OR “surgery”[tiab] OR “surgeries”[tiab] OR “surgical”[tiab]))

353,221

2

“risk assessment”[mesh] OR “Risk Adjustment”[mesh] OR “risk calculator”[tiab] OR “risk calculators”[tiab] OR “risk assessment”[tiab] OR “risk prediction”[tiab] OR “risk stratification”[tiab] OR “risk stratified”[tiab] OR “stratified risk”[tiab] OR “SpineSage”[tiab] OR “Outcomes Assessment Program”[tiab] OR “Quality Outcomes Database”[tiab] OR “prediction tool”[tiab] OR “Predictive tool”[tiab] OR “prediction tools”[tiab] OR “Predictive tools”[tiab] OR “Predictive analytics”[tiab] OR “predictive model” OR “Predictive Value of Tests”[mesh] OR “machine learning”[MeSH Terms] OR “machine learning”[tiab]

507,154

3

“patient reported outcome measures”[MeSH Terms] OR “physical function”[tiab] OR “patient reported outcome”[tiab] OR “patient reported outcome measures”[tiab] OR “failed back surgery syndrome”[MeSH Terms] OR “failed back surgery syndrome”[tiab] OR “postoperative complications”[mesh] OR “postoperative complications”[tiab] OR “back pain”[MeSH Terms] OR “low back pain”[MeSH Terms] OR “back pain”[tiab] OR “Opioid-Related Disorders”[mesh] OR “opioid dependency”[tiab] OR “opiate dependency”[tiab] OR “opiate dependence”[tiab] OR “opioid dependence”[tiab] OR “opiate addiction”[tiab] OR “opioid addiction”[tiab] OR “opiate abuse”[tiab] OR “opiate misuse”[tiab] OR “Functional impairment”[tiab] OR “functional outcome”[tiab] OR “functional outcomes”[tiab] OR “disability”[tiab] OR “Disability Evaluation”[mesh] OR “Pain Measurement”[mesh] OR “Pain, Postoperative”[mesh] OR “pain”[MeSH Terms] OR “pain”[tiab] OR “pains”[tiab] OR “painful “[tiab] OR “discomfort “[tiab] OR “suffering “[tiab] OR “sufferings “[tiab] OR “ache “[tiab] OR “aches “[tiab] OR “aching”[tiab] OR “sore “[tiab] OR “soreness “[tiab] OR “analgesia “[tiab] OR “quality of life”[mesh] OR “quality of life”[tiab] OR “function test”[tiab] OR “function tests”[tiab] OR “functional testing”[tiab] OR “measure function”[tiab] OR “functional measure”[tiab] or “measuring function”[tiab] OR “measure functions”[tiab]

1,887,576

4

#1 AND #2 AND #3

2093

5

NOT ((“Adolescent”[Mesh] OR “Child”[Mesh] OR “Infant”[Mesh]) NOT “Adult”[Mesh])

1964

6

#4 NOT (Editorial[ptyp] OR Letter[ptyp] OR Case Reports[ptyp] OR Comment[ptyp])

1730

Database: Embase http://proxy.lib.duke.edu/login?url=http://www.embase.com

Set

 

Results

1

‘spine surgery’/exp OR ‘spine disease’/exp/dm_su OR ‘discectomy’/exp OR ‘laminectomy’/exp OR ‘laminoplasty’/exp OR ‘percutaneous vertebroplasty’/exp OR ‘cementoplasty’/exp OR ‘kyphoplasty’/exp OR ‘spine fusion’/exp OR ‘spondylodesis’/exp OR ‘arthrodesis’/exp OR ‘spine surgery’:ab,ti OR ‘discectomy’:ab,ti OR ‘diskectomy’:ab,ti OR ‘discectomies’:ab,ti OR ‘diskectomies’:ab,ti OR ‘laminectomy’:ab,ti OR ‘laminoplasty’:ab,ti OR ‘percutaneous vertebroplasty’:ab,ti OR ‘cementoplasty’:ab,ti OR ‘kyphoplasty’:ab,ti OR ‘spine fusion’:ab,ti OR ‘spondylodesis’:ab,ti OR ‘arthrodesis’:ab,ti OR ‘microdiscectomy’:ab,ti OR ‘fusion’:ab,ti OR ‘fusions’:ab,ti OR ‘laminotomy’/exp OR ‘total disc replacement’/exp OR ‘foraminotomy’/exp OR ‘kyphoplasty’/exp OR ‘facetectomy’/exp OR ‘corpectomy’/exp OR ‘laminotomy’:ab,ti OR ‘total disc replacement’:ab,ti OR ‘foraminotomy’:ab,ti OR ‘kyphoplasty’:ab,ti OR ‘facetectomy’:ab,ti OR ‘corpectomy’:ab,ti OR ‘corpectomies’:ab,ti OR ‘spondylodeses’:ab,ti OR ‘spondylosyndesis’:ab,ti OR ((‘spine’/exp OR ‘lumbosacral spine’/exp OR ‘spine’:ab,ti OR ‘spinal’:ab,ti OR ‘disc’:ab,ti OR ‘lumbosacral region’:ab,ti OR ‘lumbosacral’:ab,ti OR ‘lumbar’:ab,ti) AND (‘spinal cord decompression’/exp OR ‘decompression’:ab,ti OR ‘stabilization’:ab,ti OR ‘surgery’:ab,ti OR ‘operative’:ab,ti OR ‘surgeries’:ab,ti OR ‘surgical’:ab,ti OR ‘operation’:ab,ti OR ‘spinal’:ab,ti OR ‘surgery’:lnk OR ‘spinal’:ab,ti OR ‘surgery’/exp OR ‘replacement arthroplasty’/exp))

686,268

2

‘risk assessment’/exp OR ‘risk calculator’/exp OR ‘risk prediction’/exp OR ‘risk prediction model’/exp OR ‘risk stratification’/exp OR ‘prediction’/exp OR ‘predictive value’/exp OR ‘predictive model’/exp OR ‘machine learning’/exp OR ‘risk assessment’:ab,ti OR ‘risk calculator’:ab,ti OR ‘risk calculators’:ab,ti OR ‘risk prediction’:ab,ti OR ‘risk stratification’:ab,ti OR ‘predictive value’:ab,ti OR ‘predictive model’:ab,ti OR ‘machine learning’:ab,ti OR ‘risk adjustment’:ab,ti OR ‘risk stratified’:ab,ti OR ‘stratified risk’:ab,ti OR ‘SpineSage’:ab,ti OR ‘outcomes assessment program’:ab,ti OR ‘quality outcomes database’:ab,ti OR ‘prediction tool’:ab,ti OR ‘prediction tools’:ab,ti OR ‘predictive tool’:ab,ti OR ‘predictive tools’:ab,ti OR ‘predictive analytics’:ab,ti

1,184,970

3

‘patient-reported outcome’/exp OR ‘physical function’/exp OR ‘physical performance’/exp OR ‘failed back surgery syndrome’/exp OR ‘postoperative complication’/exp OR ‘backache’/exp OR ‘back pain’/exp OR ‘low back pain’/exp OR ‘patient-reported outcome’:ab,ti OR ‘physical function’:ab,ti OR ‘physical performance’:ab,ti OR ‘failed back surgery syndrome’:ab,ti OR ‘postoperative complication’:ab,ti OR ‘backache’:ab,ti OR ‘low back pain’:ab,ti OR ‘opiate addiction’/exp OR ‘Opioid-Related Disorders’:ab,ti OR ‘opioid dependency’:ab,ti OR ‘opiate dependency’:ab,ti OR ‘opiate dependence’:ab,ti OR ‘opioid dependence’:ab,ti OR ‘opiate addiction’:ab,ti OR ‘opioid addiction’:ab,ti OR ‘opiate abuse’:ab,ti OR ‘opiate misuse’:ab,ti OR ‘functional disease’/exp OR ‘disability’/exp OR ‘physical disability’/exp OR ‘pain measurement’/exp OR ‘postoperative pain’/exp OR ‘pain’/exp OR ‘discomfort’/exp OR ‘suffering’/exp OR ‘quality of life’/exp OR ‘quality of life assessment’/exp OR ‘function test’/exp OR ‘functional disease’:ab,ti OR ‘disability’:ab,ti OR ‘physical disability’:ab,ti OR ‘pain measurement’:ab,ti OR ‘postoperative pain’:ab,ti OR ‘pain’:ab,ti OR ‘pains’:ab,ti OR ‘painful’:ab,ti OR ‘discomfort’:ab,ti OR ‘suffering’:ab,ti OR ‘sufferings’:ab,ti OR ‘quality of life’:ab,ti OR ‘quality of life assessment’:ab,ti OR ‘function test’:ab,ti OR ‘function tests’:ab,ti OR ‘functional testing’:ab,ti OR ‘functional impairment’:ab,ti OR ‘functional outcome’:ab,ti OR ‘functional outcomes’:ab,ti OR ‘disability evaluation’:ab,ti OR ‘ache’:ab,ti OR ‘aches’:ab,ti OR ‘aching’:ab,ti OR ‘sore’:ab,ti OR ‘soreness’:ab,ti OR ‘analgesia’:ab,ti OR ‘measure function’:ab,ti OR ‘functional measure’:ab,ti OR ‘measuring function’:ab,ti OR ‘measure functions’:ab,ti

3,714,634

4

#1 AND #2 AND #3

5117

5

NOT (([child]/lim OR [infant]/lim OR [newborn]/lim OR [preschool]/lim OR [school]/lim OR [very elderly]/lim) NOT ([adult]/lim OR [middle aged]/lim OR [young adult]/lim))

4915

6

NOT (‘case report’/exp OR ‘case study’/exp OR ‘editorial’/exp OR ‘letter’/exp OR ‘note’/exp OR [conference abstract]/lim)

3735

Database: Scopus http://proxy.lib.duke.edu/login?url=http://www.scopus.com

Set

 

Results

1

TITLE-ABS-KEY (“spine surgery” OR “lumbosacral surgery” OR “Diskectomy” OR “discectomy” OR “diskectomies” OR “discectomies” OR “Microdiscectomy” OR “Spinal Fusion” OR “Laminectomy” OR “laminoplasty” OR “Laminotomy” OR “disc replacement” OR “foraminotomy” OR “foraminal decompression” OR “kyphoplasty” OR “kyphoplasties” OR “facetectomy” OR “arthrodesis” OR “cementoplasty” OR “vertebroplasty” OR “corpectomies” OR “corpectomy” OR “spondylodesis” OR “spondylodeses” OR “Spondylosyndesis”) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ((“spine” OR “spinal” OR “disc” OR “lumbosacral” OR “lumbar”) AND (“decompression” OR “stabilization” OR “surgery” OR “replacement arthroplasty” OR “operative” OR “operation” OR “surgery” OR “surgeries” OR “surgical”))

206,607

2

TITLE-ABS-KEY (“risk assessment” OR “Risk Adjustment” OR “risk calculator” OR “risk calculators” OR “risk prediction” OR “risk stratification” OR “risk stratified” OR “stratified risk” OR “SpineSage” OR “Outcomes Assessment Program” OR “Quality Outcomes Database” OR “prediction tool” OR “Predictive tool” OR “prediction tools” OR “Predictive tools” OR “Predictive analytics” OR “predictive model” OR “Predictive Value” OR “machine learning”)

1,191,809

3

TITLE-ABS-KEY (“patient reported outcome” OR “patient reported outcomes” OR “physical function” OR “failed back surgery syndrome” OR “failed back surgery syndrome” OR “postoperative complications” OR “postoperative complications” OR “back pain” OR “low back pain” OR “back pain” OR “Opioid-Related Disorders” OR “opioid dependency” OR “opiate dependency” OR “opiate dependence” OR “opioid dependence” OR “opiate addiction” OR “opioid addiction” OR “opiate abuse” OR “opiate misuse” OR “Functional impairment” OR “functional outcome” OR “functional outcomes” OR “disability” OR “Pain Measurement” OR “Postoperative pain” OR “pain” OR “pains” OR “painful “OR “discomfort “OR “suffering “OR “sufferings “OR “ache “OR “aches “OR “aching” OR “sore “OR “soreness” OR “analgesia “OR “quality of life” OR “function test” OR “function tests” OR “functional testing” OR “measure function” OR “functional measure” or “measuring function” OR “measure functions”)

2,756,655

4

#1 AND #2 AND #3

3755

5

#4 AND (TITLE-ABS-KEY (“aging” OR “older adult” OR “elderly” OR “geriatric” OR “adult” OR {middle age} OR {middle aged} OR “aged”))

2655

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

White, H.J., Bradley, J., Hadgis, N. et al. Predicting Patient-Centered Outcomes from Spine Surgery Using Risk Assessment Tools: a Systematic Review. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 13, 247–263 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-020-09630-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-020-09630-2

Keywords

Navigation