Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, William Beaumont Army Medical Center, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, 5005 N. Piedras Street, El Paso, TX 79920, United States.
Injury. 2011 Mar;42(3):265-70. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2010.11.040. Epub 2010 Dec 9.
Although outcome instruments have been used extensively in spine surgical research, few studies at present specifically address their use in investigations regarding spine trauma. In this review we provide a summary of the outcome instruments used most frequently in spine trauma research, identify the unique challenges of studying outcomes of spine trauma patients, and propose an integrated approach that may be beneficial for future studies.
We reviewed the use of outcome instruments applicable to spine trauma research, including generic health measures, inventories of back-specific function, pain scales, health related quality of life (HRQOL) instruments, and radiographic determinants of outcome.
Several inventories have been utilised to measure clinical outcomes following spinal trauma. Excluding measures of neurological function (e.g. ASIA motor score), none have been specifically validated for use with spine fractures. The SF-36, RMDQ, and ODI are amongst the most commonly used instruments. Importantly, the use of validated functional outcome measures in spine trauma research is hampered by the fact that the pre-morbid state of patients who sustain spine trauma may not be accurately represented by normative values established for the general population. The VAS is used most frequently to assess degree of neck and back pain. Most studies have relied on non-validated measures to determine radiographic results of treatment, although more elegant radiographic metrics exist.
Functional outcome measurement of traumatically injured spine patients is challenging because available generic and spine-specific instruments were not designed for or validated in this population. Furthermore, no single inventory is capable of capturing global data necessary to evaluate results following these injuries. Investigations seeking to quantify outcomes following spine trauma should consider the use of a combination of existing surveys in a complementary fashion that should include a generic health survey, a measure of back-specific function, and determinants of bodily pain and work-related disability.
尽管在脊柱外科研究中广泛使用了结果评估工具,但目前很少有研究专门针对脊柱创伤的研究。在本综述中,我们总结了在脊柱创伤研究中最常使用的结果评估工具,确定了研究脊柱创伤患者结果的独特挑战,并提出了一种综合方法,可能对未来的研究有益。
我们回顾了适用于脊柱创伤研究的结果评估工具的使用情况,包括一般健康测量、背部特定功能量表、疼痛量表、健康相关生活质量(HRQOL)量表以及与结果相关的放射学指标。
已经使用了几种量表来衡量脊柱创伤后的临床结果。除了神经功能测量(如 ASIA 运动评分)外,没有一种量表专门针对脊柱骨折进行验证。SF-36、RMDQ 和 ODI 是最常用的量表之一。重要的是,由于脊柱创伤患者的发病前状态可能无法通过为一般人群制定的正常值准确代表,因此在脊柱创伤研究中使用经过验证的功能结果评估工具存在障碍。VAS 最常用于评估颈部和背部疼痛的程度。大多数研究依赖于未经验证的措施来确定治疗的放射学结果,尽管存在更优雅的放射学指标。
创伤性脊柱损伤患者的功能结果评估具有挑战性,因为现有的通用和脊柱特定工具不是为此人群设计或验证的。此外,没有单一的量表能够捕获评估这些损伤后结果所需的整体数据。寻求量化脊柱创伤后结果的研究应考虑以互补的方式使用现有的调查组合,其中应包括一般健康调查、背部特定功能测量以及身体疼痛和与工作相关的残疾的决定因素。