Advertisement

Quantitative dynamic wearable motion-based metric compared to patient-reported outcomes as indicators of functional recovery after lumbar fusion surgery

      Highlights

      • Low back pain is a debilitating condition with poor patient outcomes despite the high medical cost.
      • One reason for these poor outcomes may be the lack of objective metrics.
      • Motion-based metric can provide a unique perspective to assessing functional recovery.

      Abstract

      Background

      Low back pain is a debilitating condition with poor patient outcomes despite the use of a wide variety of diagnostic and treatment modalities. A lack of objective metrics to support clinical decision-making may be a reason for these poor outcomes. This study aimed to compare patient recovery following lumbar fusion surgery using an objective motion-based metric (functional performance) and subjective patient-reported outcomes for pain, disability and kinesophobia.

      Methods

      A prospective observational study was conducted on 121 patients that received a lumbar fusion surgery. A wearable motion system was used to quantify three-dimensional multi-planar lumbar motion and benchmark each patient's lumbar function prior to surgery and post-operatively at follow-up time points for up to 2 years. Patient recovery profiles after surgery were evaluated using the acquired functional motion data and compared to patient-reported outcomes.

      Findings

      Our results found significant improvement after surgery in objective functional performance as well as patient-reported pain, disability, and kinesophobia. However, we found a delayed response in the objective metric, with meaningful improvement occurring only 6 months after fusion surgery. In contrast, we found significant improvement in all subjective scores as early as 6 weeks post-surgery.

      Interpretation

      Objective motion-based metric provides a unique perspective to assessing patient's functional recovery. While it is associated with dimensions of pain, disability and fear avoidance, it is also distinct and assesses a uniquely different dimension of functional health. This information can form the basis for the use of objective metrics to gauge patient recovery after lumbar fusion surgery.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Clinical Biomechanics
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Cohen J.
        Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences.
        Academic press, 2013
        • Deyo R.A.
        • Mirza S.K.
        • Turner J.A.
        • Martin B.I.
        Overtreating chronic back pain: time to back off?.
        J. Am. Board Fam. Med. 2009; 22: 62-68https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2009.01.080102
        • Dieleman J.L.
        • et al.
        US spending on personal health care and public health, 1996-2013.
        Jama-J. Am. Med. Assoc. 2016; 316: 2627-2646https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.16885
        • Fairbank J.C.T.
        • Pynsent P.B.
        The Oswestry disability index.
        Spine. 2000; 25: 2940-2952https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200011150-00017
        • Ferguson S.A.
        • Marras W.S.
        Spine kinematics predict symptom and lost time recurrence: how much recovery is enough?.
        J. Occup. Rehabil. 2013; 23: 329-335https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-012-9413-x
        • Ferguson S.A.
        • Marras W.S.
        • Gupta P.
        Longitudinal quantitative measures of the natural course of low back pain recovery.
        Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000; 25: 1950-1956
        • Ferguson S.A.
        • Gallagher S.
        • Marras W.S.
        Validity and reliability of sincerity test for dynamic trunk motions.
        Disabil. Rehabil. 2003; 25: 236-241https://doi.org/10.1080/0963828021000030945
        • Ferguson S.A.
        • Marras W.S.
        • Burr D.L.
        Differences among outcome measures in occupational low back pain.
        J. Occup. Rehabil. 2005; 15: 329-341https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-005-5940-4
        • Ferguson S.A.
        • et al.
        Quantification of a meaningful change in low back functional impairment.
        Spine. 2009; 34: 2060-2065
        • Ferguson S.A.
        • Grooms D.R.
        • Onate J.A.
        • Khan S.N.
        • Marras W.S.
        Low back functional health status of patient handlers.
        J. Occup. Rehabil. 2015; 25: 296-302https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-014-9538-1
        • Ferguson S.A.
        • et al.
        Patient and practitioner experience with clinical lumbar motion monitor wearable technology.
        Health Technol-Ger. 2019; 9: 289-295https://doi.org/10.1007/s12553-019-00330-7
        • Frost H.
        • Lamb S.E.
        • Stewart-Brown S.
        Responsiveness of a patient specific outcome measure compared with the oswestry disability index v2.1 and roland and morris disability questionnaire for patients with subacute and chronic low back pain.
        Spine. 2008; 33: 2450-2457https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31818916fd
        • Gülbahar S.
        • et al.
        The relationship between objective and subjective evaluation criteria in lumbar spinal stenosis.
        Acta Orthop. Traumatol. Turc. 2006; 40: 111-116
        • Guyatt G.H.
        • et al.
        The 6-minute walk - a new measure of exercise capacity in patients with chronic heart-failure.
        Can. Med. Assoc. J. 1985; 132: 919-923
        • Hartvigsen J.
        • et al.
        What low back pain is and why we need to pay attention.
        Lancet. 2018; 391: 2356-2367https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30480-X
        • Haws B.E.
        • et al.
        Validity of PROMIS in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a preliminary evaluation.
        J. Neurosurg. Spine. 2018; 29: 28-33https://doi.org/10.3171/2017.11.SPINE17989
        • Lehman G.J.
        Biomechanical assessments of lumbar spinal function. How low back pain sufferers differ from normals. Implications for outcome measures research. Part I: kinematic assessments of lumbar function.
        J. Manipulative Physiol. Ther. 2004; 27: 57-62
        • Marras W.
        • Parnianpour M.
        • Kim J.
        A normal database of dynamic trunk motion characteristics during repetitive trunk flexion and extension as a function of task asymmetry, age and gender.
        IEEE Trans. Rehab. Eng. 1994; 2: 137-146
        • Marras W.S.
        • et al.
        The classification of anatomic-based and symptom-based low-Back disorders using motion measure models.
        Spine. 1995; 20: 2531-2546https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199512000-00013
        • Marras W.S.
        • et al.
        The quantification of low back disorder using motion measures - methodology and validation.
        Spine. 1999; 24: 2091-2100https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199910150-00005
        • Marras W.S.
        • Lewis K.E.K.
        • Ferguson S.A.
        • Parnianpour M.
        Impairment magnification during dynamic trunk motions.
        Spine. 2000; 25: 587-595https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200003010-00009
        • Marras W.S.
        • Ferguson S.A.
        • Burr D.
        • Schabo P.
        • Maronitis A.
        Low back pain recurrence in occupational environments.
        Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007; 32: 2387-2397https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181557be9
        • Mattiuzzi C.
        • Lippi G.
        • Bovo C.
        Current epidemiology of low back pain.
        J Hosp Management Health Policy. 2020; 4: 15
        • Melzack R.
        The McGill pain questionnaire: major properties and scoring methods.
        Pain. 1975; 1: 277-299https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3959(75)90044-5
        • Nattrass C.L.
        • Nitschke J.E.
        • Disler P.B.
        • Chou M.J.
        • Ooi K.T.
        Lumbar spine range of motion as a measure of physical and functional impairment: an investigation of validity.
        Clin. Rehabil. 1999; 13: 211-218
        • Poitras S.
        • Loisel P.
        • Prince F.
        • Lemaire J.
        Disability measurement in persons with back pain: a validity study of spinal range of motion and velocity.
        Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2000; 81: 1394-1400
        • Staartjes V.E.
        • Schroder M.L.
        The five-repetition sit-to-stand test: evaluation of a simple and objective tool for the assessment of degenerative pathologies of the lumbar spine.
        J. Neurosurg. Spine. 2018; 29: 380-387https://doi.org/10.3171/2018.2.SPINE171416
        • Stienen M.N.
        • et al.
        Objective measures of functional impairment for degenerative diseases of the lumbar spine: a systematic review of the literature.
        Spine J. 2019; 19: 1276-1293
        • Thome C.
        • Wolfla C.E.
        Validity and reliability of a measurement of objective functional impairment in lumbar degenerative disc disease: the timed up and go (TUG) test COMMENTS.
        Neurosurgery. 2016; 79: 278
        • Waddell G.
        • Newton M.
        • Henderson I.
        • Somerville D.
        • Main C.J.
        A fear-avoidance beliefs questionnaire (Fabq) and the role of fear-avoidance beliefs in chronic low-Back-pain and disability.
        Pain. 1993; 52: 157-168https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3959(93)90127-B
        • Waterman B.R.
        • Belmont P.J.
        • Schoenfeld A.J.
        Low back pain in the United States: incidence and risk factors for presentation in the emergency setting.
        Spine J. 2012; 12: 63-70https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2011.09.002
        • Zuberbier O.A.
        • et al.
        Analysis of the convergent and discriminant validity of published lumbar flexion, extension, and lateral flexion scores.
        Spine. 2001; 26: E472-E478