Search

Study Design: Cross-sectional study of agreement between patients' and surgeons' expectations of the outcome of spinal surgery., Objective: Patients' satisfaction after spinal surgery depends, in part, on whether their expectations of surgery are fulfilled. Whether the patient always fully understands the key messages conveyed by the surgeon, to formulate realistic expectations, is not known. This study evaluates the level of agreement in expectations declared preoperatively by the patient and the surgeon., Summary of Background Data: Previous studies have investigated the importance of realistic expectations for the patients' satisfaction with surgical treatments, but there is still a need for a more detailed analysis in the field of spinal surgery., Methods: The study included 225 German-speaking patients (92 men and 133 women; mean ± SD [range] age, 62 ± 15 [15-90] yr) and their treating spinal surgeons (N = 7). Following the preoperative informed consent consultation, the patient and the surgeon independently completed a questionnaire about baseline neurological status and realistic expectations regarding various patient-orientated outcomes (axial pain (back/neck), radiating pain (leg/arm), pain medication usage, sensory and motor function, and the ability to work, do household activities, and play sports). Concordance was given by percent agreement and κ coefficients., Results: Agreement between the patient and the surgeon about the existence of spine-related neurological deficits occurred in 75% (sensory) and 61% (motor) cases. The patient but not the surgeon reported a sensory deficit in 20% cases and motor deficit in 35% cases; for 4% to 5% cases, the physician reported such a deficit that the patient was seemingly unaware of. The patients consistently had higher expectations than the surgeons, especially for back or neck pain and function (work, household activities, and sports); weighted κ values for agreement were low, ranging from 0.097 to 0.222., Conclusion: The findings demonstrate wide discrepancies between the patient and the surgeon regarding the expected result of surgery. They highlight the need for clearer explanations of the association between the spinal problem and neurological deficits and the improvement that can be expected in pain and function after surgery. Systematic, routine evaluation of outcomes should assist in deriving the information necessary to document the improvement achieved and to formulate realistic expectations of surgery.

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of cervical disc arthroplasty vs fusion generally show slightly more favourable results for arthroplasty. However, RCTs in surgery often have limited external validity, since they involve a select group of patients who fit very rigid admission criteria and who are prepared to subject themselves to randomisation. The aim of this study was to examine whether the findings of RCTs are verified by observational data recorded in our Spine Center in association with the Spine Society of Europe Spine Tango surgical registry. Patients undergoing fusion/stabilisation or disc arthroplasty for degenerative cervical spinal disease were selected for inclusion. They completed a questionnaire pre-operatively and at 12 and 24 months follow-up (FU). The questionnaire comprised the multidimensional Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI; 0-10 scale) and, at FU, questions on global outcome and satisfaction with treatment (5-point scales, dichotomised to "good" and "poor"), re-operation and patient-rated complications. The surgeon completed a Spine Tango Surgery form. The outcome data from 266 (208 fusion, 58 arthroplasty) out of 284 eligible patients who had reached 12 months FU, and 169 (139 fusion, 30 arthroplasty) out of 178 who had reached 24 months FU, were included. Patients with cervical disc arthroplasty were younger [46 (SD 8) years vs 56 (SD 11) years for fusion; P < 0.05], had less comorbidity (P < 0.05), more often had only mono-segmental pathology (69% arthroplasty, 47% fusion) and only one type of degenerative pathology (69% arthroplasty, 46% fusion). Surgical complication rates were similar in each group (arthroplasty, 1.5%; fusion, 2.6%). The reduction in the COMI score was significantly greater in the arthroplasty group (at 12 months, 4.8 (SD 3.0) vs 3.7 (SD 2.9) points for fusion, and at 24 months 5.1 (SD 2.8) vs 3.8 (SD 2.9) points; each P < 0.05). In the arthroplasty group, a "good" global outcome was recorded in 90% patients (at 12 months) and 93% (at 24 months); in the fusion group the figures were 80 and 82%, respectively (group differences at each timepoint, P > 0.09). Satisfaction with treatment was similar in both groups (89-93%), at each timepoint. In multiple regression analysis, treatment group was of borderline significance as a unique predictor of the change in COMI at FU (P = 0.059 at 12 months, P = 0.055 at 24 months) in a model in which known confounders (age, comorbidity, number of affected levels) were controlled for. Being in the arthroplasty group was associated with an approximately 1-point greater reduction in the COMI score at FU. The results of this observational study appear to support those of the RCTs and suggest that, in patients with degenerative pathology of the cervical spine, disc arthroplasty is associated with a slightly better outcome than fusion. However, given the small size of the difference, its clinical relevance is questionable, especially in view of the a priori more favourable outcome expected in the arthroplasty group due to the more rigorous selection of patients.