Preoperative Predictors of Patient Satisfaction with Outcome after Cervical Laminoplasty
20 August 2013
17 December 2013
27 January 2014 (eFirst)
Study design Prospective cohort study.
Objective The purpose of the present study was to identify the predictors of patient satisfaction with outcome after cervical laminoplasty for compressive cervical myelopathy.
Methods A cohort of 143 patients with compressive myelopathy who underwent cervical double-door laminoplasty between 2008 and 2011 was studied prospectively. The principal outcome was patient satisfaction with outcome at 1 year after surgery. Patient satisfaction was graded on an ordinal scale from 1 to 7. Subjective health-related quality of life (QOL) and objective disease-specific outcome was measured by Short Form-36 (SF-36) and the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, respectively, before surgery and at 1-year follow-up. We evaluated the association between patient satisfaction at 1-year follow-up and various baseline parameters, including patient demographics, duration of symptoms, comorbidities, imaging findings, JOA score, and SF-36 scores.
Results A total of 116 patients completed subjective and objective follow-up for a minimum of 1 year. Of 116 patients, 95 patients (81.9%) were satisfied with the outcome (“satisfied a little” or more). The unsatisfied group (“neutral” or less) showed significantly lower baseline SF-36 scores in bodily pain (BP), general health perceptions (GH), and vitality (VT) domains compared with the satisfied group. At the 1-year follow-up, SF-36 scores showed significant differences between the groups in all eight domains, whereas the JOA score showed no significant difference.
Conclusions Lower baseline QOL measured by SF-36 scores, specifically in BP, GH, and VT domains, are associated with lower satisfaction with outcome after cervical laminoplasty.
- 1 Carr-Hill RA. The measurement of patient satisfaction. J Public Health Med 1992; 14 (3) 236-249
- 2 Ware Jr JE, Davies-Avery A, Stewart AL. The measurement and meaning of patient satisfaction. Health Med Care Serv Rev 1978; 1 (1) 3-15
- 3 Ware Jr JE, Hays RD. Methods for measuring patient satisfaction with specific medical encounters. Med Care 1988; 26 (4) 393-402
- 4 Nurick S. The pathogenesis of the spinal cord disorder associated with cervical spondylosis. Brain 1972; 95 (1) 87-100
- 5 Herdmann J, Linzbach M, Krzan M, Dvorák J, Bock WJ. The European Myelopathy Score. In: Bauer BL, Brock M, Klinger M, , eds. Advances in Neurosurgery. Vol. 22. Berlin: Springer; 1994: 266-268
- 6 Casey AT, Bland JM, Crockard HA. Development of a functional scoring system for rheumatoid arthritis patients with cervical myelopathy. Ann Rheum Dis 1996; 55 (12) 901-906
- 7 Yonenobu K, Abumi K, Nagata K, Taketomi E, Ueyama K. Interobserver and intraobserver reliability of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association scoring system for evaluation of cervical compression myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2001; 26: 1890-1894
- 8 Salvi F, Miller MD, Grilli A , et al. A manual of guidelines to score the modified cumulative illness rating scale and its validation in acute hospitalized elderly patients. J Am Geriatr Soc 2008; 56 (10) 1926-1931
- 9 Kimura A, Seichi A, Inoue H, Hoshino Y. Long-term results of double-door laminoplasty using hydroxyapatite spacers in patients with compressive cervical myelopathy. Eur Spine J 2011; 20 (9) 1560-1566
- 10 Chen CJ, Lyu RK, Lee ST, Wong YC, Wang LJ. Intramedullary high signal intensity on T2-weighted MR images in cervical spondylotic myelopathy: prediction of prognosis with type of intensity. Radiology 2001; 221 (3) 789-794
- 11 Soroceanu A, Ching A, Abdu W, McGuire K. Relationship between preoperative expectations, satisfaction, and functional outcomes in patients undergoing lumbar and cervical spine surgery: a multicenter study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2012; 37: 103-108
- 12 Katz JN, Stucki G, Lipson SJ, Fossel AH, Grobler LJ, Weinstein JN. Predictors of surgical outcome in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1999; 24: 2229-2233
- 13 Yee A, Adjei N, Do J, Ford M, Finkelstein J. Do patient expectations of spinal surgery relate to functional outcome?. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2008; 466 (5) 1154-1161
- 14 Holly LT, Matz PG, Anderson PA , et al; Joint Section on Disorders of the Spine and Peripheral Nerves of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons and Congress of Neurological Surgeons. Clinical prognostic indicators of surgical outcome in cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Neurosurg Spine 2009; 11 (2) 112-118
- 15 Karpova A, Arun R, Davis AM, Kulkarni AV, Massicotte EM, Mikulis DJ, Lubina ZI, Fehlings MG. Predictors of surgical outcome in cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2013; 38: 392-400
- 16 Tetreault LA, Karpova A, Fehlings MG. Predictors of outcome in patients with degenerative cervical spondylotic myelopathy undergoing surgical treatment: results of a systematic review. Eur Spine J 2013; ; February 6 (Epub ahead of print)
- 17 Lyu H, Cooper M, Freischlag JA, Makary MA. Patient satisfaction as a possible indicator of quality surgical care—reply. JAMA Surg 2013; 148 (10) 986-987
- 18 Kane RL, Maciejewski M, Finch M. The relationship of patient satisfaction with care and clinical outcomes. Med Care 1997; 35 (7) 714-730