CLINICAL APPLICATION OF RUSSIAN VERSION QUESTIONNARE OF SCOLIOSIS RESEARCH SOCIETY OUTCOMES INSTRUMENT-24 (SRS-24)
Abstract
Objective. The purpose of this study was to determine influence of various factors on an estimation of surgery outcomes with a Russian version of Scoliosis Research Society Outcomes Instrument-24 (SRS-24).
Materials and methods. Questionnaire SRS-24 has been developed for patient self-assessment of outcome after scoliosis surgical correction. It includes 24 questions in 7 domains. Each of 100 patients, which underwent surgery answered the questionnaires at controlled follow-up (232 questionnaires).
Results: Regarding pain and a level of professional activity, boys demonstrated the best parameters, and regarding function after operation, satisfaction by results and the consent to operation, the girls did. Patients with congenital deformations demonstrated the best parameters at an estimation of pain and a level of the general activity, and patients with idiopathic scoliosis - at an estimation of appearance and function after operation. CDI application provided the best parameters at an estimation of pain syndrome, function after operation, the general and professional activity, and Drummond technique - at an estimation of result satisfaction and the consent to operation.
Conclusion. Questionnaire SRS-24 is an attempt to estimate surgery outcomes in patients with scoliosis taking into account patient satisfaction. The questionnaire is simple in filling, does not demand additional financial expenses, and is convenient for interpretation.
About the Author
Elena Vladimirovna Gubina
Novosibirsk Research Institute of Traumatology and Orthopaedics
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
References
1. Asher M., Sue Min Lai, Burton D., et al. The reliability and concurrent validity of the Scoliosis Research Society-22 patient questionnaire for idiopathic scoliosis // Spine. 2003. Vol. 28. P. 63-69.
2. Asher M., Sue Min Lai, Burton D., et al. Scoliosis Research Society-22 patient questionnaire: responsiveness to change associated with surgical treatment // Spine. 2003. Vol. 28. P. 70-73.
3. Baker D., Pynsent P., Fairbank J. The Oswestry Disability Index revisited. In: Roland M., Jenner J., eds. Back Pain: New Approaches to Rehabilitation and Education. Manchester, 1989. P. 174-186.
4. Baker J.G, Granger C.V., Ottenbacher K.J. Validity of a brief outpatient functional assessment measure // Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 1996. Vol. 75. P. 356-363.
5. Berven S., Deviren V., Demiz-Deviren S., et al. Studies in the modified Scoliosis Research Society outcomes instrument in adults: validation, reliability, and discriminatory capacity // Spine. 2003. Vol. 28. P. 2164-2169.
6. Cassisi J., Sypert G., Salamon A. et al. Independent evaluation of a multidisciplinary rehabilitation program for chronic low back pain // Neurosurgery. 1989. Vol. 25. P. 877-883.
7. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. N. Y., 1977. P. 1-27.
8. Cook D.J., Guyatt G.H., Adachi J.D., et al. Quality-of-life issues in women with vertebral fractures due to osteoporosis // Arthritis. Rheum. 1993. Vol. 36. P. 750-756.
9. Croft P., Raspe H. Back pain // Baillieres Clin. Rheumatol. 1995. Vol. 9. P. 565-583.
10. Deyo R.A., Battie M., Beurskens A. et al. Outcome measures for low back pain research: a proposal for standardized use // Spine. 1998. Vol. 23. P. 2003-2013.
11. Deyo R.A., Phillips W.R. Low back pain: A primary care challenge // Spine. 1996. Vol. 21. P. 2826-2832.
12. Difabio R.P. Efficacy of manual therapy // Phys. Ther. 1992. Vol. 72. P. 853-864.
13. DiFabio R.P., Mackey G., Holte J.B. Physical therapy outcomes for patients receiving workers compensation following treatment for herniated lumbar disc and mechanical low back pain syndrome // J. Orthop. Sports Phy. Ther. 1996. Vol. 23. P. 180-187.
14. Doleys D.M., Klapow J.C., Hammer M. Psychological evaluation in spinal cord stimulation therapy // Pain Rev. 1997. Vol. 4. P. 189-207.
15. Fairbank J., Couper J., Davies J., et al. The Oswestry low back pain questionnaire // Physiotherapy. 1980. Vol. 66. P. 271-273.
16. Haher T.R., Gorup J.M., Shin T.M., et al. Results of the Scoliosis Research Society instrument for evaluation of surgical outcome in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: A multi-center study of 244 patients // Spine. 1999. Vol. 24. P. 1435-1440.
17. Kovacs F.M., Llobera J., Gil del Real, et al. Validation of the Spanish version of the Rolland-Morris questionnaire // Spine. 2002. Vol. 27. P. 538-542.
18. Merola A.A., Haher T.R., Brkaric M., et al. A multicenter study of the outcomes of the surgical treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis using the Scoliosis Research Society (SRS) outcome instrument // Spine. 2002. Vol. 27. P. 2046-2051.
19. Roland M., Morris R. A study of the natural history of low back pain. Part 1: Development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low-back pain // Spine. 1983. Vol. 8. P. 141-144.
20. Turk D.C., Marcus D.A. Assessment of chronic pain patients // Semin. Neurol. 1994. Vol. 14. P. 206-212.
21. Ware J.E. Jr. SF-36 health survey update // Spine. 2000. Vol. 25. P. 3130-3139.
22. White S.F., Asher M.A., Sue Min Lai, et al. Patients' perceptions of overall function, pain, and appearance after primary posterior instrumentation and fusion for idiopathic scoliosis // Spine. 1999. Vol. 16. P. 1693-1700.
Review
For citations:
Gubina E.V. CLINICAL APPLICATION OF RUSSIAN VERSION QUESTIONNARE OF SCOLIOSIS RESEARCH SOCIETY OUTCOMES INSTRUMENT-24 (SRS-24). Russian Journal of Spine Surgery (Khirurgiya Pozvonochnika). 2004;(2):34-39. (In Russ.)
Email this article 