Dataset Information

Lumbar disc herniation in the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial: does educational attainment impact outcome?

ABSTRACT:

Study design

Randomized trial with concurrent observational cohort. A total of 1171 patients were divided into subgroups by educational attainment: high school or less, some college, and college degree or above.

Objective

To assess the influence of education level on outcomes for treatment of lumbar disc herniation.

Summary of background data

Educational attainment has been demonstrated to have an inverse relationship with pain perception, comorbidities, and mortality.

Methods

The Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial enrolled surgical candidates (imaging-confirmed disc herniation with at least 6 weeks of persistent signs and symptoms of radiculopathy) from 13 multidisciplinary spine clinics in 11 US states. Treatments were standard open discectomy versus nonoperative treatment. Outcomes were changes from baseline for 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), bodily pain (BP), and physical function (PF) scales and the modified Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and yearly through 4 years.

Results

Substantial improvement was seen in all patient cohorts. Surgical outcomes did not differ by level of education. For nonoperative outcomes, however, higher levels of education were associated with significantly greater overall improvement over 4 years in BP (P = 0.007), PF (P = 0.001), and ODI (P = 0.003). At 4 years a "dose-response" type relationship was shown for BP (high school or less = 25.5, some college = 31, and college graduate or above = 36.3, P = 0.004) and results were similar for PF and ODI. The success of nonoperative treatment in the more educated cohort resulted in an attenuation of the relative benefit of surgery.

Conclusion

Patients with higher educational attainment demonstrated significantly greater improvement with nonoperative treatment while educational attainment was not associated with surgical outcomes.

SUBMITTER: Olson PR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3107370 | biostudies-literature | 2011 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Lumbar disc herniation in the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial: does educational attainment impact outcome?

Olson Patrick R PR Lurie Jon D JD Frymoyer John J Walsh Thomas T Zhao Wenyan W Morgan Tamara S TS Abdu William A WA Weinstein James N JN

Spine 20111201 26

<h4>Study design</h4>Randomized trial with concurrent observational cohort. A total of 1171 patients were divided into subgroups by educational attainment: high school or less, some college, and college degree or above.<h4>Objective</h4>To assess the influence of education level on outcomes for treatment of lumbar disc herniation.<h4>Summary of background data</h4>Educational attainment has been demonstrated to have an inverse relationship with pain perception, comorbidities, and mortality.<h4>M ...[more]

PMID: 21311402

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundQuestions remain as to the effect that obesity has on patients managed for symptomatic lumbar disc herniation. The purpose of this study was to determine if obesity affects outcomes following the treatment of symptomatic lumbar disc herniation.MethodsAn as-treated analysis was performed on patients enrolled in the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation. A comparison was made between patients with a body mass index of <30 kg/m² (nonobese) (n = 854) and those with a body mass index of ≥30 kg/m² (obese) (n = 336). Baseline patient demographic and clinical characteristics were documented. Primary and secondary outcomes were measured at baseline and at regular follow-up time intervals up to four years. The difference in improvement from baseline between operative and nonoperative treatment was determined at each follow-up period for both groups.ResultsAt the time of the four-year follow-up evaluation, improvements over baseline in primary outcome measures were significantly less for obese patients as compared with nonobese patients in both the operative treatment group (Short Form-36 physical function, 37.3 compared with 47.7 points [p < 0.001], Short Form-36 bodily pain, 44.2 compared with 50.0 points [p = 0.005], and Oswestry Disability Index, -33.7 compared with -40.1 points [p < 0.001]) and the nonoperative treatment group (Short Form-36 physical function, 23.1 compared with 32.0 points [p < 0.001] and Oswestry Disability Index, -21.4 compared with -26.1 points [p < 0.001]). The one exception was that the change from baseline in terms of the Short Form-36 bodily pain score was statistically similar for obese and nonobese patients in the nonoperative treatment group (30.9 compared with 33.4 points [p = 0.39]). At the time of the four-year follow-up evaluation, when compared with nonobese patients who had been managed operatively, obese patients who had been managed operatively had significantly less improvement in the Sciatica Bothersomeness Index and the Low Back Pain Bothersomeness Index, but had no significant difference in patient satisfaction or self-rated improvement. In the present study, 77.5% of obese patients and 86.9% of nonobese patients who had been managed operatively were working a full or part-time job. No significant differences were observed in the secondary outcome measures between obese and nonobese patients who had been managed nonoperatively. The benefit of surgery over nonoperative treatment was not affected by body mass index.ConclusionsObese patients realized less clinical benefit from both operative and nonoperative treatment of lumbar disc herniation. Surgery provided similar benefit over nonoperative treatment in obese and nonobese patients.

Project description:BackgroundThe Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial showed an overall advantage for operative compared with nonoperative treatment of lumbar disc herniations. Because a recent randomized trial showed no benefit for operative treatment of a disc at the lumbosacral junction (L5-S1), we reviewed subgroups within the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial to assess the effect of herniation level on outcomes of operative and nonoperative care.MethodsThe combined randomized and observation cohorts of the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial were analyzed by actual treatment received stratified by level of disc herniation. Overall, 646 L5-S1 herniations, 456 L4-L5 herniations, and eighty-eight upper lumbar (L2-L3 or L3-L4) herniations were evaluated. Primary outcome measures were the Short Form-36 bodily pain and physical functioning scales and the modified Oswestry Disability Index assessed at six weeks, three months, six months, one year, and two years. Treatment effects (the improvement in the operative group minus the improvement in the nonoperative group) were estimated with use of longitudinal regression models, adjusting for important covariates.ResultsAt two years, patients with upper lumbar herniations (L2-L3 or L3-L4) showed a significantly greater treatment effect from surgery than did patients with L5-S1 herniations for all outcome measures: 24.6 and 7.1, respectively, for bodily pain (p = 0.002); 23.4 and 9.9 for Short Form-36 physical functioning (p = 0.014); and -19 and -10.3 for Oswestry Disability Index (p = 0.033). There was a trend toward greater treatment effect for surgery at L4-L5 compared with L5-S1, but this was significant only for the Short Form-36 physical functioning subscale (p = 0.006). Differences in treatment effects between the upper lumbar levels and L4-L5 were significant for Short Form-36 bodily pain only (p = 0.018).ConclusionsThe advantage of operative compared with nonoperative treatment varied by herniation level, with the smallest treatment effects at L5-S1, intermediate effects at L4-L5, and the largest effects at L2-L3 and L3-L4. This difference in effect was mainly a result of less improvement in patients with upper lumbar herniations after nonoperative treatment.

Project description:The purpose of the present study was to determine if the duration of symptoms affects outcomes following the treatment of intervertebral lumbar disc herniation.An as-treated analysis was performed on patients enrolled in the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) for the treatment of intervertebral lumbar disc herniation. Randomized and observational cohorts were combined. A comparison was made between patients who had had symptoms for six months or less (n = 927) and those who had had symptoms for more than six months (n = 265). Primary and secondary outcomes were measured at baseline and at regular follow-up intervals up to four years. The treatment effect for each outcome measure was determined at each follow-up period for the duration of symptoms for both groups.At all follow-up intervals, the primary outcome measures were significantly worse in patients who had had symptoms for more than six months prior to treatment, regardless of whether the treatment was operative or nonoperative. When the values at the time of the four-year follow-up were compared with the baseline values, patients in the operative treatment group who had had symptoms for six months or less had a greater increase in the bodily pain domain of the Short Form-36 (SF-36) (mean change, 48.3 compared with 41.9; p < 0.001), a greater increase in the physical function domain of the SF-36 (mean change, 47.7 compared with 41.2; p < 0.001), and a greater decrease in the Oswestry Disability Index score (mean change, -41.1 compared with -34.6; p < 0.001) as compared with those who had had symptoms for more than six months (with higher scores indicating less severe symptoms on the SF-36 and indicating more severe symptoms on the Oswestry Disability Index). When the values at the time of the four-year follow-up were compared with the baseline values, patients in the nonoperative treatment group who had had symptoms for six months or less had a greater increase in the bodily pain domain of the SF-36 (mean change, 31.8 compared with 21.4; p < 0.001), a greater increase in the physical function domain of the SF-36 (mean change, 29.5 compared with 22.6; p = 0.015), and a greater decrease in the Oswestry Disability Index score (mean change, -24.9 compared with -18.5; p = 0.006) as compared with those who had had symptoms for more than six months. Differences in treatment effect between the two groups related to the duration of symptoms were not significant.Increased symptom duration due to lumbar disc herniation is related to worse outcomes following both operative and nonoperative treatment. The relative increased benefit of surgery compared with nonoperative treatment was not dependent on the duration of the symptoms.

Project description:Study designThis study was a post-hoc subgroup analysis of prospectively collected data in the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT).ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to determine the risk factors for and to compare the outcomes of patients undergoing revision disc excision surgery in SPORT.Summary of background dataRisk factors for reherniation and outcomes after revision surgery have not been well-studied. This information is critical for proper patient counseling and decision-making.MethodsPatients who underwent primary discectomy in the SPORT intervertebral disc herniation cohort were analyzed to determine risk factors for undergoing revision surgery. Risk factors for undergoing revision surgery for reherniation were evaluated using univariate and multivariate analysis. Primary outcome measures consisted of Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), the Sciatica Bothersomeness index (SBI), and the Short Form 36 (SF-36) at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and yearly to 4 years.ResultsOf 810 surgical patients, 74 (9.1%) received revision surgery for reherniation. Risk factors for reherniation included: younger age (hazard ratio [HR] 0.96 [0.94-0.99]), lack of a sensory deficit (HR 0.61 [0.37-0.99]) lack of motor deficit (HR 0.54 [0.32-0.91]), and higher baseline ODI score (HR 1.02 [1.01-1.03]). The time-adjusted mean improvement from baseline to 4 years was less for the reherniation group on all outcome measures (Bodily Pain Index [BP] 39.5 vs. 44.9, P = 0.001; Physical Function Index [PF] 37.1 vs. 44.5, P < 0.001; ODI 33.9 vs. 38.3, P < 0.001; SBI 8.7 vs. 10.5, P < 0.001). At 4 years, only SBI (-9 vs. -11.4, P = 0.002) was significantly lower in the reherniation group.ConclusionYounger patients with higher baseline disability without neurological deficit are at increased risk of undergoing revision surgery for reherniation. Those considering revision surgery for reherniation will likely improve significantly following surgery, but possibly not as much as with primary discectomy.Level of evidence3.

Project description:ContextFor patients with lumbar disk herniation, the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) randomized trial intent-to-treat analysis showed small but not statistically significant differences in favor of diskectomy compared with usual care. However, the large numbers of patients who crossed over between assigned groups precluded any conclusions about the comparative effectiveness of operative therapy vs usual care.ObjectiveTo compare the treatment effects of diskectomy and usual care.Design, setting, and patientsProspective observational cohort of surgical candidates with imaging-confirmed lumbar intervertebral disk herniation who were treated at 13 spine clinics in 11 US states and who met the SPORT eligibility criteria but declined randomization between March 2000 and March 2003.InterventionsStandard open diskectomy vs usual nonoperative care.Main outcome measuresChanges from baseline in the Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) bodily pain and physical function scales and the modified Oswestry Disability Index (American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons/MODEMS version).ResultsOf the 743 patients enrolled in the observational cohort, 528 patients received surgery and 191 received usual nonoperative care. At 3 months, patients who chose surgery had greater improvement in the primary outcome measures of bodily pain (mean change: surgery, 40.9 vs nonoperative care, 26.0; treatment effect, 14.8; 95% confidence interval, 10.8-18.9), physical function (mean change: surgery, 40.7 vs nonoperative care, 25.3; treatment effect, 15.4; 95% CI, 11.6-19.2), and Oswestry Disability Index (mean change: surgery, -36.1 vs nonoperative care, -20.9; treatment effect, -15.2; 95% CI, -18.5. to -11.8). These differences narrowed somewhat at 2 years: bodily pain (mean change: surgery, 42.6 vs nonoperative care, 32.4; treatment effect, 10.2; 95% CI, 5.9-14.5), physical function (mean change: surgery, 43.9 vs nonoperavtive care 31.9; treatment effect, 12.0; 95% CI; 7.9-16.1), and Oswestry Disability Index (mean change: surgery -37.6 vs nonoperative care -24.2; treatment effect, -13.4; 95% CI, -17.0 to -9.7).ConclusionsPatients with persistent sciatica from lumbar disk herniation improved in both operated and usual care groups. Those who chose operative intervention reported greater improvements than patients who elected nonoperative care. However, nonrandomized comparisons of self-reported outcomes are subject to potential confounding and must be interpreted cautiously.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00000410.

Project description:ContextLumbar diskectomy is the most common surgical procedure performed for back and leg symptoms in US patients, but the efficacy of the procedure relative to nonoperative care remains controversial.ObjectiveTo assess the efficacy of surgery for lumbar intervertebral disk herniation.Design, setting, and patientsThe Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial, a randomized clinical trial enrolling patients between March 2000 and November 2004 from 13 multidisciplinary spine clinics in 11 US states. Patients were 501 surgical candidates (mean age, 42 years; 42% women) with imaging-confirmed lumbar intervertebral disk herniation and persistent signs and symptoms of radiculopathy for at least 6 weeks.InterventionsStandard open diskectomy vs nonoperative treatment individualized to the patient.Main outcome measuresPrimary outcomes were changes from baseline for the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short-Form Health Survey bodily pain and physical function scales and the modified Oswestry Disability Index (American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons MODEMS version) at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 and 2 years from enrollment. Secondary outcomes included sciatica severity as measured by the Sciatica Bothersomeness Index, satisfaction with symptoms, self-reported improvement, and employment status.ResultsAdherence to assigned treatment was limited: 50% of patients assigned to surgery received surgery within 3 months of enrollment, while 30% of those assigned to nonoperative treatment received surgery in the same period. Intent-to-treat analyses demonstrated substantial improvements for all primary and secondary outcomes in both treatment groups. Between-group differences in improvements were consistently in favor of surgery for all periods but were small and not statistically significant for the primary outcomes.ConclusionsPatients in both the surgery and the nonoperative treatment groups improved substantially over a 2-year period. Because of the large numbers of patients who crossed over in both directions, conclusions about the superiority or equivalence of the treatments are not warranted based on the intent-to-treat analysis.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00000410.

Dataset Information

Lumbar disc herniation in the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial: does educational attainment impact outcome?

Study design

Objective

Summary of background data

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Lumbar disc herniation in the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial: does educational attainment impact outcome?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets