{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,6,6]],"date-time":"2026-06-06T09:00:52Z","timestamp":1780736452852,"version":"3.54.1"},"reference-count":22,"publisher":"Journal of Neurosurgery Publishing Group (JNSPG)","issue":"6","content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["FOC"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2010,6]]},"abstract":"\n Object<\/jats:title>\n The goal of the study was to determine patient factors predictive of good outcome after lumbar disc arthroplasty. Specifically, the paper examines the relationship of the preoperative Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) to patient outcome at 1 year.<\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>\n \n Methods<\/jats:title>\n The study is a retrospective review of 20 patients undergoing a 1-level lumbar disc arthroplasty at the author's institution between 2004 and 2008. All data were collected prospectively. Data included the ODI, visual analog scale scores, and patient demographics.<\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>\n \n Results<\/jats:title>\n All patients underwent a 1-level disc arthroplasty at L4\u20135 or L5\u2013S1. The patients were divided into 2 groups based on their baseline ODI. Patients with an ODI between 38 and 59 demonstrated better outcomes with lumbar disc arthroplasty. Only 1 (20%) of 5 patients with a baseline ODI higher than 60 reported a good outcome. In contrast, 13 (87%) of 15 patients with an ODI between 38 and 59 showed a good outcome (p = 0.03). The negative predictive value of using ODI > 60 is 60% in patients who are determined to be candidates for lumbar arthroplasty.<\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>\n \n Conclusions<\/jats:title>\n Lumbar arthroplasty is very effective in some patients. Other patients do not improve after surgery. The baseline ODI results are predictive of outcome in patients selected for lumbar disc arthroplasty. A baseline ODI > 60 is predictive of poor outcome. A high ODI may be indicative of psychosocial overlay.<\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.3171\/2010.3.focus1060","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2011,2,23]],"date-time":"2011-02-23T11:43:05Z","timestamp":1298461385000},"page":"E7","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":9,"title":["The predictive value of the baseline Oswestry Disability Index in lumbar disc arthroplasty"],"prefix":"10.3171","volume":"28","author":[{"given":"Harel","family":"Deutsch","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"1754","reference":[{"key":"b1-0280007","series-title":"Spine","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"505","DOI":"10.1097\/01.brs.0000201242.85984.76","article-title":"Low-pressure positive discography in subjects asymptomatic of significant low back pain illness","volume":"31","author":"Carragee","year":"2006"},{"key":"b2-0280007","series-title":"Spine","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"2115","DOI":"10.1097\/01.brs.0000231436.30262.dd","article-title":"A gold standard evaluation of the \u201cdiscogenic pain\u201d diagnosis as determined by provocative discography","volume":"31","author":"Carragee","year":"2006"},{"key":"b3-0280007","series-title":"Spine","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1066","DOI":"10.1097\/BRS.0b013e3181a1390d","article-title":"Interventional therapies, surgery, and interdisciplinary rehabilitation for low back pain: an evidence-based clinical practice guideline from the American Pain Society","volume":"34","author":"Chou","year":"2009"},{"key":"b4-0280007","series-title":"Spine J","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"968","DOI":"10.1016\/j.spinee.2007.11.006","article-title":"Minimum clinically important difference in lumbar spine surgery patients: a choice of methods using the Oswestry Disability Index, Medical Outcomes Study questionnaire Short Form 36, and pain scales","volume":"8","author":"Copay","year":"2008"},{"key":"b5-0280007","series-title":"J Neurosurg Spine","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"13","DOI":"10.3171\/SPI-08\/01\/013","article-title":"Patient selection for lumbar arthroplasty and arthrodesis: the effect of revision surgery in a controlled, multicenter, randomized study","volume":"8","author":"Geisler","year":"2008"},{"key":"b6-0280007","series-title":"Spine J","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"13","DOI":"10.1016\/j.spinee.2008.08.011","article-title":"Lumbar fusion outcomes stratified by specific diagnostic indication","volume":"9","author":"Glassman","year":"2009"},{"key":"b7-0280007","series-title":"Spine J","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"374","DOI":"10.1016\/j.spinee.2008.08.007","article-title":"Prospective, randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of lumbar total disc replacement with the CHARITE artificial disc versus lumbar fusion: five-year follow-up","volume":"9","author":"Guyer","year":"2009"},{"key":"b8-0280007","series-title":"Spine","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"2579","DOI":"10.1097\/BRS.0b013e3181b612bd","article-title":"Dynamics of improvement following total lumbar disc replacement: is the outcome predictable?","volume":"34","author":"Siepe","year":"2009"},{"key":"b9-0280007","series-title":"Spine","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1974","DOI":"10.1097\/01.brs.0000229252.30903.b9","article-title":"The impact of comorbidities on the change in short-form 36 and Oswestry scores following lumbar spine surgery","volume":"31","author":"Slover","year":"2006"},{"issue":"2","key":"b10-0280007","series-title":"Neurosurg Focus","first-page":"E10","article-title":"Spinal arthroplasty","volume":"13","author":"Traynelis","year":"2002"},{"key":"b11-0280007","series-title":"Spine","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1155","DOI":"10.1097\/BRS.0b013e318054e377","article-title":"Results of the prospective, randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of the ProDisc-L total disc replacement versus circumferential fusion for the treatment of 1-level degenerative disc disease","volume":"32","author":"Zigler","year":"2007"},{"key":"b1-0280007","series-title":"Spine","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"505","DOI":"10.1097\/01.brs.0000201242.85984.76","article-title":"Low-pressure positive discography in subjects asymptomatic of significant low back pain illness","volume":"31","author":"Carragee","year":"2006"},{"key":"b2-0280007","series-title":"Spine","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"2115","DOI":"10.1097\/01.brs.0000231436.30262.dd","article-title":"A gold standard evaluation of the \u201cdiscogenic pain\u201d diagnosis as determined by provocative discography","volume":"31","author":"Carragee","year":"2006"},{"key":"b3-0280007","series-title":"Spine","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1066","DOI":"10.1097\/BRS.0b013e3181a1390d","article-title":"Interventional therapies, surgery, and interdisciplinary rehabilitation for low back pain: an evidence-based clinical practice guideline from the American Pain Society","volume":"34","author":"Chou","year":"2009"},{"key":"b4-0280007","series-title":"Spine J","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"968","DOI":"10.1016\/j.spinee.2007.11.006","article-title":"Minimum clinically important difference in lumbar spine surgery patients: a choice of methods using the Oswestry Disability Index, Medical Outcomes Study questionnaire Short Form 36, and pain scales","volume":"8","author":"Copay","year":"2008"},{"key":"b5-0280007","series-title":"J Neurosurg Spine","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"13","DOI":"10.3171\/SPI-08\/01\/013","article-title":"Patient selection for lumbar arthroplasty and arthrodesis: the effect of revision surgery in a controlled, multicenter, randomized study","volume":"8","author":"Geisler","year":"2008"},{"key":"b6-0280007","series-title":"Spine J","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"13","DOI":"10.1016\/j.spinee.2008.08.011","article-title":"Lumbar fusion outcomes stratified by specific diagnostic indication","volume":"9","author":"Glassman","year":"2009"},{"key":"b7-0280007","series-title":"Spine J","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"374","DOI":"10.1016\/j.spinee.2008.08.007","article-title":"Prospective, randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of lumbar total disc replacement with the CHARITE artificial disc versus lumbar fusion: five-year follow-up","volume":"9","author":"Guyer","year":"2009"},{"key":"b8-0280007","series-title":"Spine","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"2579","DOI":"10.1097\/BRS.0b013e3181b612bd","article-title":"Dynamics of improvement following total lumbar disc replacement: is the outcome predictable?","volume":"34","author":"Siepe","year":"2009"},{"key":"b9-0280007","series-title":"Spine","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1974","DOI":"10.1097\/01.brs.0000229252.30903.b9","article-title":"The impact of comorbidities on the change in short-form 36 and Oswestry scores following lumbar spine surgery","volume":"31","author":"Slover","year":"2006"},{"issue":"2","key":"b10-0280007","series-title":"Neurosurg Focus","first-page":"E10","article-title":"Spinal arthroplasty","volume":"13","author":"Traynelis","year":"2002"},{"key":"b11-0280007","series-title":"Spine","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1155","DOI":"10.1097\/BRS.0b013e318054e377","article-title":"Results of the prospective, randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of the ProDisc-L total disc replacement versus circumferential fusion for the treatment of 1-level degenerative disc disease","volume":"32","author":"Zigler","year":"2007"}],"container-title":["Neurosurgical Focus"],"original-title":[],"link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/thejns.org\/view\/journals\/neurosurg-focus\/28\/6\/2010.3.focus1060.xml","content-type":"text\/html","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/thejns.org\/downloadpdf\/journals\/neurosurg-focus\/28\/6\/2010.3.focus1060.xml","content-type":"text\/html","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"syndication"},{"URL":"https:\/\/thejns.org\/downloadpdf\/journals\/neurosurg-focus\/28\/6\/2010.3.focus1060.xml","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2026,6,6]],"date-time":"2026-06-06T08:16:22Z","timestamp":1780733782000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/thejns.org\/view\/journals\/neurosurg-focus\/28\/6\/2010.3.focus1060.xml"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2010,6]]},"references-count":22,"journal-issue":{"issue":"6"},"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3171\/2010.3.focus1060","relation":{},"ISSN":["1092-0684"],"issn-type":[{"value":"1092-0684","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2010,6]]}}}