{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,8,29]],"date-time":"2026-08-29T02:16:49Z","timestamp":1787969809196,"version":"build-2784847793"},"reference-count":21,"publisher":"Journal of Neurosurgery Publishing Group (JNSPG)","issue":"6","content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["SPI"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2016,12]]},"abstract":"<jats:sec>\n<jats:title>OBJECTIVE<\/jats:title>\n<jats:p>With the recent passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, there has been a dramatic shift toward critical analyses of quality and longitudinal assessment of subjective and objective outcomes after lumbar spine surgery. Accordingly, the emergence and routine use of real-world institutional registries have been vital to the longitudinal assessment of quality. However, prospectively obtaining longitudinal outcomes for patients at 24 months after spine surgery remains a challenge. The aim of this study was to assess if 12-month measures of treatment effectiveness accurately predict long-term outcomes (24 months).<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec>\n<jats:sec>\n<jats:title>METHODS<\/jats:title>\n<jats:p>A nationwide, multiinstitutional, prospective spine outcomes registry was used for this study. Enrollment criteria included available demographic, surgical, and clinical outcomes data. All patients had prospectively collected outcomes measures and a minimum 2-year follow-up. Patient-reported outcomes instruments (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI], SF-36, and visual analog scale [VAS]-back pain\/leg pain) were completed before surgery and then at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after surgery. The Health Transition Index of the SF-36 was used to determine the 1- and 2-year minimum clinically important difference (MCID), and logistic regression modeling was performed to determine if achieving MCID at 1 year adequately predicted improvement and achievement of MCID at 24 months.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec>\n<jats:sec>\n<jats:title>RESULTS<\/jats:title>\n<jats:p>The study group included 969 patients: 300 patients underwent anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), 606 patients underwent transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), and 63 patients underwent lateral interbody fusion (LLIF). There was a significant correlation between the 12- and 24-month ODI (r = 0.82; p &lt; 0.0001), SF-36 Physical Component Summary score (r = 0.89; p &lt; 0.0001), VAS-back pain (r = 0.90; p &lt; 0.0001), and VAS-leg pain (r = 0.85; p &lt; 0.0001). For the ALIF cohort, patients achieving MCID thresholds for ODI at 12 months were 13-fold (p &lt; 0.0001) more likely to achieve MCID at 24 months. Similarly, for the TLIF and LLIF cohorts, patients achieving MCID thresholds for ODI at 12 months were 13-fold and 14-fold (p &lt; 0.0001) more likely to achieve MCID at 24 months. Outcome measures obtained at 12 months postoperatively are highly predictive of 24-month outcomes, independent of the surgical procedure.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec>\n<jats:sec>\n<jats:title>CONCLUSIONS<\/jats:title>\n<jats:p>In a multiinstitutional prospective study, patient-centered measures of surgical effectiveness obtained at 12 months adequately predict long-term (24-month) outcomes after lumbar spine surgery. Patients achieving MCID at 1 year were more likely to report meaningful and durable improvement at 24 months, suggesting that the 12-month time point is sufficient to identify effective versus ineffective patient care.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.3171\/2015.8.spine15476","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2016,1,1]],"date-time":"2016-01-01T15:01:48Z","timestamp":1451660508000},"page":"689-696","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":65,"title":["Do measures of surgical effectiveness at 1 year after lumbar spine surgery accurately predict 2-year outcomes?"],"prefix":"10.3171","volume":"25","author":[{"given":"Owoicho","family":"Adogwa","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"Division of Neurosurgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina; and"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Aladine A.","family":"Elsamadicy","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Division of Neurosurgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina; and"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Jing L.","family":"Han","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Division of Neurosurgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina; and"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Joseph","family":"Cheng","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Neurosurgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Isaac","family":"Karikari","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Division of Neurosurgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina; and"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Carlos A.","family":"Bagley","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Division of Neurosurgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina; and"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"1754","reference":[{"key":"b1-spine15476","series-title":"J Spinal Disord Tech","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"479","DOI":"10.1097\/BSD.0b013e3182055cac","article-title":"Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: 2-year assessment of narcotic use, return to work, disability, and quality of life","volume":"24","author":"Adogwa","year":"2011"},{"key":"b2-spine15476","series-title":"J Neurosurg Spine","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"138","DOI":"10.3171\/2011.3.SPINE10562","article-title":"Cost-effectiveness of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for Grade I degenerative spondylolisthesis","volume":"15","author":"Adogwa","year":"2011"},{"key":"b3-spine15476","series-title":"World Neurosurg","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"893","DOI":"10.1016\/j.wneu.2011.12.082","article-title":"Laminectomy and extension of instrumented fusion improves 2-year pain, disability, and quality of life in patients with adjacent segment disease: defining the long-term effectiveness of surgery","volume":"80","author":"Adogwa","year":"2013"},{"key":"b4-spine15476","series-title":"Eur Spine J","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1137","DOI":"10.1007\/s00586-014-3238-6","article-title":"Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion vs. posterolateral instrumented fusion: cost-utility evaluation along side an RCT with a 2-year follow-up","volume":"23","author":"Christensen","year":"2014"},{"key":"b5-spine15476","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":"b6-spine15476","series-title":"Spine (Phila Pa 1976)","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"2126","DOI":"10.1097\/BRS.0b013e3181b612db","article-title":"Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus anterior lumbar interbody fusion as an adjunct to posterior instrumented correction of degenerative lumbar scoliosis: three year clinical and radiographic outcomes","volume":"34","author":"Crandall","year":"2009"},{"key":"b7-spine15476","series-title":"J Neurosurg Spine","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"91","DOI":"10.3171\/2014.4.SPINE14282","article-title":"Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 14: brace therapy as an adjunct to or substitute for lumbar fusion","volume":"21","author":"Dailey","year":"2014"},{"key":"b8-spine15476","series-title":"JAMA","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1259","DOI":"10.1001\/jama.2010.338","article-title":"Trends, major medical complications, and charges associated with surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis in older adults","volume":"303","author":"Deyo","year":"2010"},{"key":"b9-spine15476","series-title":"Spine (Phila Pa 1976)","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"E755","DOI":"10.1097\/BRS.0b013e31828d6ca3","article-title":"Transforaminal versus anterior lumbar interbody fusion in long deformity constructs: a matched cohort analysis","volume":"38","author":"Dorward","year":"2013"},{"key":"b10-spine15476","series-title":"J Bone Joint Surg Am","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1839","DOI":"10.2106\/JBJS.G.01095","article-title":"Defining substantial clinical benefit following lumbar spine arthrodesis","volume":"90","author":"Glassman","year":"2008"},{"key":"b11-spine15476","series-title":"Spine J","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"317","DOI":"10.1016\/j.spinee.2008.06.450","article-title":"Do 1-year outcomes predict 2-year outcomes for adult deformity surgery?","volume":"9","author":"Glassman","year":"2009"},{"key":"b12-spine15476","series-title":"Spine J","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"2885","DOI":"10.1016\/j.spinee.2014.04.023","article-title":"Accurately measuring the quality and effectiveness of lumbar surgery in registry efforts: determining the most valid and responsive instruments","volume":"14","author":"Godil","year":"2014"},{"key":"b13-spine15476","series-title":"Am J Ind Med","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"591","DOI":"10.1002\/ajim.4700280504","article-title":"Back pain among workers in the United States: national estimates and workers at high risk","volume":"28","author":"Guo","year":"1995"},{"key":"b14-spine15476","series-title":"Spine (Phila Pa 1976)","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1596","DOI":"10.1097\/BRS.0000000000000482","article-title":"Outcomes and complications of diabetes mellitus on patients undergoing degenerative lumbar spine surgery","volume":"39","author":"Guzman","year":"2014"},{"key":"b15-spine15476","series-title":"Spine J","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"2799","DOI":"10.1016\/j.spinee.2014.03.024","article-title":"Outcomes are not different for patient-matched versus nonmatched treatment in subjects with chronic recurrent low back pain: a randomized clinical trial","volume":"14","author":"Henry","year":"2014"},{"key":"b16-spine15476","series-title":"Spine J","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1237","DOI":"10.1016\/j.spinee.2013.08.018","article-title":"How do coverage policies influence practice patterns, safety, and cost of initial lumbar fusion surgery? A population-based comparison of workers' compensation systems","volume":"14","author":"Martin","year":"2014"},{"key":"b17-spine15476","series-title":"Spine (Phila Pa 1976)","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"E1115","DOI":"10.1097\/BRS.0b013e3181e7b315","article-title":"The visual analog scale and a five-item verbal rating scale are not interchangeable for back pain assessment in lumbar spine disorders","volume":"35","author":"Matamalas","year":"2010"},{"key":"b18-spine15476","series-title":"Bone Joint J","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"807","DOI":"10.1302\/0301-620X.96B6.31149","article-title":"National trends in revision spinal fusion in the USA: patient characteristics and complications","volume":"96-B","author":"Rajaee","year":"2014"},{"key":"b19-spine15476","series-title":"Acta Orthop","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"196","DOI":"10.3109\/17453674.2013.786634","article-title":"Can we define success criteria for lumbar disc surgery?: estimates for a substantial amount of improvement in core outcome measures","volume":"84","author":"Solberg","year":"2013"},{"key":"b20-spine15476","series-title":"Phys Ther","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"359","DOI":"10.1093\/ptj\/76.4.359","article-title":"Defining the minimum level of detectable change for the Roland-Morris questionnaire","volume":"76","author":"Stratford","year":"1996"},{"key":"b21-spine15476","series-title":"Spine (Phila Pa 1976)","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"3130","DOI":"10.1097\/00007632-200012150-00008","article-title":"SF-36 health survey update","volume":"25","author":"Ware","year":"2000"}],"container-title":["Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine"],"original-title":[],"link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/thejns.org\/view\/journals\/j-neurosurg-spine\/25\/6\/article-p689.xml","content-type":"text\/html","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/thejns.org\/downloadpdf\/journals\/j-neurosurg-spine\/25\/6\/article-p689.xml","content-type":"text\/html","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"syndication"},{"URL":"https:\/\/thejns.org\/downloadpdf\/journals\/j-neurosurg-spine\/25\/6\/article-p689.xml","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2023,4,15]],"date-time":"2023-04-15T22:06:19Z","timestamp":1681596379000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/thejns.org\/view\/journals\/j-neurosurg-spine\/25\/6\/article-p689.xml"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2016,12]]},"references-count":21,"journal-issue":{"issue":"6"},"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3171\/2015.8.spine15476","relation":{},"ISSN":["1547-5654"],"issn-type":[{"value":"1547-5654","type":"print"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2016,12]]}}}