Tiro MMOPELWA, Selim AYHAN, SELCEN YÜKSEL, Vugar NABIYEV, Asli NIYAZI, Ferrán PELLISÉ, Ahmet ALANAY, Francisco Javier Sanchez Perez GRUESO, Frank KLEINSTUCK, Ibrahim OBEID, Emre ACAROĞLU

Analysis of factors affecting baseline SF-36 Mental Component Summary in Adult Spinal Deformity and its impact on surgical outcomes

Objectives: To identify the factors that affect SF-36 mental component summary (MCS) in patients with adult spinal deformity (ASD) at the time of presentation, and to analyse the effect of SF-36 MCS on clinical outcomes in surgically treated patients. Methods: Prospectively collected data from a multicentric ASD database was analysed for baseline pa-rameters. Then, the same database for surgically treated patients with a minimum of 1-year follow-up was analysed to see the effect of baseline SF-36 MCS on treatment results. A clinically useful SF-36 MCS was determined by ROC Curve analysis. Results: A total of 229 patients with the baseline parameters were analysed. A strong correlation be-tween SF-36 MCS and SRS-22, ODI, gender, and diagnosis were found (p < 0.05). For the second part of the study, a total of 186 surgically treated patients were analysed. Only for SF-36 PCS, the un-improved cohort based on minimum clinically important differences had significantly lower mean baseline SF-36 MCS (p < 0.001). SF-36 MCS was found to have an odds ratio of 0.914 in improving SF-36 PCS score (unit by unit) (p < 0.001). A cut-off point of 43.97 for SF-36 MCS was found to be predictive of SF-36 PCS (AUC ¼ 0.631; p < 0.001). Conclusions: The factors effective on the baseline SF-36 MCS in an ASD population are other HRQOL parameters such as SRS-22 and ODI as well as the baseline thoracic kyphosis and gender. This study has also demonstrated that baseline SF-36 MCS does not necessarily have any effect on the treatment results by surgery as assessed by SRS-22 or ODI. Level of evidence: Level III, prognostic study. © 2018 Turkish Association of Orthopaedics and Traumatology. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/ 4.0/).

___

35. Sullivan MJL, Bishop SR, Pivik J. The pain catastrophizing scale: development and validation. Psychol Assess. 1995;7(4):524e532.

34. Jackson T, Iezzi T, Gunderson J, Nagasaka T, Fritch A. Gender differences in pain perception: the mediating role of self-efficacy beliefs. Sex Roles. 2002;47(11): 561e568.

33. Sullivan MJL, Tripp DA, Santor D. Gender differences in pain and pain behav-iour: the role of catastrophizing. Cognit Ther Res. 2000;24(1):121e134.

32. Emery CF, Frid DJ, Engebretson TO, et al. Gender differences in quality of life among cardiac patients. Psychosom Med. 2004;66(2):190e197.

31. da Rocha NS, Schuch FB, Fleck MP. Gender differences in perception of quality of life in adults with and without chronic health conditions: the role of depressive symptoms. J Health Psychol. 2014;19(6):721e729.

30. Keogh E, Eccleston C. Sex differences in adolescent chronic pain and pain-related coping. Pain. 2006;123(3):275e284.

29. Bartley EJ, Fillingim RB. Sex differences in pain: a brief review of clinical and experimental findings. Br J Anaesth. 2013;111(1):52e58.

28. Unruh AM, Ritchie J, Merskey H. Does gender affect appraisal of pain and pain coping strategies? Clin J Pain. 1999;15(1):31e40.

27. Kothari P, Lee NJ, Leven DM, et al. Impact of gender on 30-day complications after adult spinal deformity surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016;41(14): 1133e1138.

26. Pochon L, Kleinstuck FS, Porchet F, Mannion AF. Influence of gender on patient-oriented outcomes in spine surgery. Eur Spine J. 2016;25(1):235e246.

25. Acaroglu E, Guler UO, Olgun ZD, et al. Multiple regression analysis of factors affecting health-related quality of life in adult spinal deformity. Spine Deform. 2015;3:360e366.

24. Yuksel S, Ayhan S, Domingo-Sabat M, et al. Minimum Detectable Change (MDC) and Minimum Clinically Important Difference (MCID) of Health Related Quality of Life Parameters in Adult Spinal Deformity. In: SRS 52nd Annual Meeting & Course. 2017. Philadelphia, PA.

23. Obeid I, Boissiere L, Yilgor C, et al. Global tilt: a single parameter incorporating spinal and pelvic sagittal parameters and least affected by patient positioning. Eur Spine J. 2016 Nov;25(11):3644e3649.

22. Walsh TL, Homa K, Hanscom B, Lurie J, Sepulveda MG, Abdu W. Screening for depressive symptoms in patients with chronic spinal pain using the SF-36 Health Survey. Spine J. 2006;6(3):316e320.

21. Longworth L, Rowen D. Mapping to obtain EQ-5D utility values for use in NICE health technology assessments. Value Health. 2013;16(1):202e210.

20. Qualitymetric I. The SF-36 Health Survey: A Summary of Responsiveness to Clinical Interventions. 2000. Lincoln, RI.

19. Elliott TE, Renier CM, Palcher JA. Chronic pain, depression, and quality of life: correlations and predictive value of the SF-36. Pain Med. 2003;4(4):331e339.

18. Kristjansdottir J, Olsson GI, Sundelin C, Naessen T. Could SF-36 be used as a screening instrument for depression in a Swedish youth population? Scand J Caring Sci. 2011;25(2):262e268.

17. Pakarinen M, Vanhanen S, Sinikallio S, et al. Depressive burden is associated with a poorer surgical outcome among lumbar spinal stenosis patients: a 5-year follow-up study. Spine J. 2014;14(10):2392e2396.

16. Celestin J, Edwards RR, Jamison RN. Pretreatment psychosocial variables as predictors of outcomes following lumbar surgery and spinal cord stimula-tion: a systematic review and literature synthesis. Pain Med. 2009;10(4): 639e653.

15. Van Susante J, Van de Schaaf D, Pavlov P. Psychological distress deteriorates the subjective outcome of lumbosacral fusion. A prospective study. Acta Orthop Belg. 1998;64(4):371e377.

14. Greenough CG, Taylor LJ, Fraser RD. Anterior lumbar fusion: results, assessment techniques and prognostic factors. Eur Spine J. 1994;3(4):225e230.

13. Greenough CG, Taylor LJ, Fraser RD. Anterior lumbar fusion. A comparison of noncompensation patients with compensation patients. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994;300:30e37.

12. Trief PM, Grant W, Fredrickson B. A prospective study of psychological pre-dictors of lumbar surgery outcome. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25(20): 2616e2621.

11. Miller JA, Derakhshan A, Lubelski D, et al. The impact of preoperative depres-sion on quality of life outcomes after lumbar surgery. Spine J. 2015;15(1): 58e64.

10. Pellise F, Vila-Casademunt A, Ferrer M, et al. Impact on health related quality of life of adult spinal deformity (ASD) compared with other chronic conditions. Eur Spine J. 2015;24(1):3e11.

9. Hofstetter CP, Hofer AS, Wang MY. Economic impact of minimally invasive lumbar surgery. World J Orthop. 2015;6(2):190e201.

8. Acaroglu E, Yavuz AC, Guler UO, et al. A decision analysis to identify the ideal treatment for adult spinal deformity: is surgery better than non-surgical treatment in improving health-related quality of life and decreasing the dis-ease burden? Eur Spine J. 2016 Aug;25(8):2390e2400.

7. Smith JS, Lafage V, Shaffrey CI, et al. Outcomes of operative and nonoperative treatment for adult spinal deformity: a prospective, multicenter, propensity-matched cohort assessment with minimum 2-year follow-up. Neurosurgery. 2016;78(6):851e861.

6. Pellise F, Domingo-Sabat M, Alanay A, et al. Impact of radiographic parameters on HRQOL in adult spinal deformity. The “Lordosis Gap” better than lumbar lordosis ? Eur Spine J. 2012;21(3):S269eS337.

5. Li G, Passias P, Kozanek M, et al. Adult scoliosis in patients over sixty-five years of age: outcomes of operative versus nonoperative treatment at a minimum two-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009;34(20):2165e2170.

4. Acaroglu RE, Dede O, Pellise F, et al. Adult spinal deformity: a very heteroge-neous population of patients with different needs. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2016;50(1):57e62.

3. Glassman SD, Berven S, Bridwell K, Horton W, Dimar JR. Correlation of radio-graphic parameters and clinical symptoms in adult scoliosis. Spine. 2005;30(6): 682e688.

2. Glassman SD, Schwab FJ, Bridwell KH, Ondra SL, Berven S, Lenke LG. The se-lection of operative versus nonoperative treatment in patients with adult scoliosis. Spine. 2007;32(1):93e97.

1. Bess S, Boachie-Adjei O, Burton D, et al. Pain and disability determine treatment modality for older patients with adult scoliosis, while deformity guides treat-ment for younger patients. Spine. 2009;34(20):2186e2190.