Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Utility for Predicting Spinal Surgery in an Integrated Spine Practice

Background: For the majority of patients, spinal surgery is an elective treatment. The decision as to whether and when to pursue surgery is complicated and influenced by myriad factors, including pain intensity and duration, impact on functional activities, referring physician recommendation, and surgeon preference. By understanding the factors that lead a patient to choose surgery, we may better understand the decision-making process, improve outcomes, and provide more effective care.

Objective: To investigate the relationship between patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) at initial physiatry clinic consultation and subsequent decision to pursue surgical treatment. We hypothesized that measures of function, pain, and mental health might identify which patients eventually elect to pursue surgical management.

Design: Retrospective chart review study.

Setting: Physiatry spine clinic in a tertiary hospital.

Patients: A total of 395 consecutive patients meeting our inclusion criteria were assessed for the presence of chronic pain, self-perceived disability, history of prior spinal surgery, and provision of chronic opioid therapy at the time of their initial visit to the integrated spine clinic.

Methods: Retrospective chart review of all patients presenting to our spine clinic between August 1, 2014, and July 31, 2015, was performed. At the initial spine clinic consultation, patients were asked to complete the General Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7), Patient Health Questionnaire-8 (PHQ-8), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) 10-item short-form questionnaire. The primary outcome was surgical intervention within 18 months from their first visit to the integrated spine clinic. We surveyed all patient records until February 2017 for CPT codes associated with spinal surgery, excluding from analysis those patients who were lost to follow-up within 1 year of the index visit. Analysis focused on the risk of spinal surgery, with data points treated as both continuous and categorical variables. We used logistic regression models to determine whether PROMs, either alone or in combination, predicted later decision to pursue surgical intervention.

Main outcome measurements: Decision to pursue spinal surgery.

Results: The baseline PROM scores spanning functional, mental health, and pain domains were collected for 94% of the patients presenting to our spine program during the interval of this study. In total, 146 patients were excluded because of missing patient-reported outcome data or less than 1 year of follow-up, leaving 395 patients for analysis. Of these, 40.3% were male with a median age of 58 years, 4.6% presented with a history of prior spinal surgery, and 3.8% were being treated with chronic opioids at their initial consultation. Male gender (P = .01) and older age (P = .05) were associated with subsequent surgery, but no relationship was observed between measured patient-reported outcomes and decision to undergo spinal surgery within 18 months of the index visit.

Conclusions: Contrary to our hypothesis, this analysis demonstrates that the PROMs evaluated in this study, alone are insufficient to identify patients who may elect to pursue spinal surgery. Male gender and increasing age correlate with decision for later spinal surgery.

Level of evidence: II.