Effect of pre-surgical factors against degenerative lumbal patient surgical actions: evaluation using modified oswestry disability index and rolland morris

Yudha Fitrian Prasetyo , Abdul Hafid Bajamal, Hari Basuki

Yudha Fitrian Prasetyo
Departement of Neurosurgery, Faculty of Medicine Airlangga University/ Dr. Soetomo General Academic Hospital, Indonesia. Email:

Abdul Hafid Bajamal
Departement of Neurosurgery, Faculty of Medicine Airlangga University/ Dr. Soetomo General Academic Hospital, Indonesia

Hari Basuki
Departement of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine Airlangga University
Online First: April 23, 2021 | Cite this Article
Prasetyo, Y., Bajamal, A., Basuki, H. 2021. Effect of pre-surgical factors against degenerative lumbal patient surgical actions: evaluation using modified oswestry disability index and rolland morris. Indonesian Journal of Neurosurgery 4(1). DOI:10.15562/ijn.v4i1.140

Background: Lower back pain is the most common complaint in humans in their lives with a variety of heterogeneous substances that vary in their epidemiological studies. Several disability scales have been developed and developed for the assessment of low back pain patients as a measure of outcome of therapy. One of the pre- and post-operative evaluation methods that are widely used is the Modified Oswestry Disability Index (MODI) and the Rolland Morris Disability Index. This disability scale is a disability scale that assesses daily personal and social functions using a questionnaire method and has been extensively reviewed by various study centers so that it is widely used as a guide for operative evaluation

Objective: the study is aimed to knowing the effect of pre-surgical factors on surgical outcome in degenerative lumbar patients evaluated using the Modified Oswestry and Rolland Morris disability scales.

Methods: The study was conducted at the Dr. Soetomo General Academic Hospital by taking data from lumbar abnormality patients who were operated on in the period of 1 June 2018 until 30 June 2019. The data is processed by calculating the Modified Oswestry Disability Index score and the Rolland Morris Disability Index during pre and post-operative, then the variables are calculated with each categorical regression to assess the effect of each variable

Results: Total sample of 42 with 31 samples fulfilling the inclusion criteria. There are 19 male sex samples and 12 female sex samples. From the age variable data, obtained the most age range at the age of 40-60 years. Whereas in the variable body mass index was obtained the most in samples with a range of values of 18.5-25. The adjusted R2 (coefficient of determination) result is 0.746 for MODI and adjusted R2 (coefficient of determination) result of 0.513 for Rolland Morris Disability Scale.

Conclusion: There is an effect of sex, age, sitting working position and sacral slope factors on the outcome of surgical procedures in the degenerative lumbar patient evaluated with the Modified Oswestry disability scale. Whereas the age and sitting work position have an influence in surgical outcome in the patients evaluated with Rolland Morris scale.  Number of intervention levels tend to have a significant effect on disability score difference. 

Keywords: Lumbar Degenerative Disease, Disability Index, Modifies Oswestry, Rolland Morris


Allegri, M. et al. Mechanisms of low back pain: A guide for diagnosis and therapy [version 1; referees: 3 approved]. F1000Research 5, 1–11 (2016).

Aalto, T. J. et al. Preoperative predictors for postoperative clinical outcome in lumbar spinal stenosis: Systematic review. Spine (Phila. Pa. 1976). 31, 648–663 (2006).

Samartzis, D. et al. A population-based study of juvenile disc degeneration and its association with overweight and obesity, low back pain, and diminished functional status. J. Bone Jt. Surg. - Ser. A 93, 662–670 (2011).

Atlas, S. J., Keller, R. B., Chang, Y., Deyo, R. A. & Singer, D. E. Surgical and Nonsurgical Management of Sciatica Secondary to a Lumbar Disc Herniation. Spine (Phila. Pa. 1976). 26, 1179–1187 (2001).

Delitto, A. et al. Low Back Pain Clinical Practice Guidelines Linked to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health from the Orthopaedic Section of the American Physical Therapy Association. J. Orthop. Sports Phys. Ther. 42, (2012).

Fritz, J. M. & Irrgang, J. J. A comparison of a modified Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire and the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale. Phys. Ther. 81, 776–788 (2001).

Battié, M. C., Videman, T. & Parent, E. Lumbar disc degeneration: Epidemiology and genetic influences. Spine (Phila. Pa. 1976). 29, 2679–2690 (2004).

Eichler, J., Rachinger-Adam, B., Kraft, E. & Azad, S. C. Efficacy of biofeedback in patients with chronic low back pain: Impact on pain intensity, psychological factors and stress markers. Schmerz 33, 539–548 (2019).

Heuch, I., Hagen, Kurt, Heuch, I., Nygaard, Ø. & Zwart, J. The Impact of Body Mass Index on the Prevalence of. Spine (Phila. Pa. 1976). 35, 764–768 (2010).

Su, C. A., Kusin, D. J., Li, S. Q., Ahn, U. M. & Ahn, N. U. The Association between Body Mass Index and the Prevalence, Severity, and Frequency of Low Back Pain. Spine (Phila. Pa. 1976). 43, 848–852 (2018).

Ostgaard, H. C., Andersson, G. B. J. & Karlsson, K. Prevalence of Back Pain in Pregnancy. (1991).

Kristiansson, P., Svärdsudd, K. & Von Schoultz, B. Back pain during pregnancy: A prospective study. Spine 21, 702–709 (1996).

Winn, H. Youmans & Winn Neurological Surgery. (Elsevier, 2017).

Leboeuf-Yde, C., Kyvik, K. O. & Bruun, N. H. Low back pain and lifestyle. Part II--Obesity. Information from a population-based sample of 29,424 twin subjects. Spine 24, 779–83; discussion 783-4 (1999).

Tissot, F., Messing, K. & Stock, S. Studying the relationship between low back pain and working postures among those who stand and those who sit most of the working day. Ergonomics 52, 1402–1418 (2009).

Heneweer, H., Staes, F., Aufdemkampe, G., Van Rijn, M. & Vanhees, L. Physical activity and low back pain: A systematic review of recent literature. Eur. Spine J. 20, 826–845 (2011).

Hoogendoorn, W. E. et al. High physical work load and low job satisfaction increase the risk of sickness absence due to low back pain: Results of a prospective cohort study. Occup. Environ. Med. 59, 323–328 (2002).

Aggarwal, N., Anand, T., Kishore, J. & Ingle, G. K. Low back pain and associated risk factors among undergraduate students of a medical college in Delhi. Educ. Heal. Chang. Learn. Pract. 26, 103–108 (2013).

Król, A., Polak, M., Szczygieł, E., Wójcik, P. & Gleb, K. Relationship between mechanical factors and pelvic tilt in adults with and without low back pain. J. Back Musculoskelet. Rehabil. 30, 699–705 (2017).

Chaléat-Valayer, E. et al. Sagittal spino-pelvic alignment in chronic low back pain. Eur. Spine J. 20 Suppl 5, 634–640 (2011).

Lurie, J. & Tomkins-Lane, C. Management of lumbar spinal stenosis. BMJ 352, (2016).

Hanley, E. N. The indications for lumbar spinal fusion with and without instrumentation. Spine 20, 143–153 (1995).

Detwiler, P. W., Marciano, F. F., Porter, R. W. & Sonntag, V. K. H. Lumbar stenosis: indications for fusion with and without instrumentation. Neurosurg. Focus 3, E6 (2008).

Mobbs, R. J., Phan, K., Malham, G., Seex, K. & Rao, P. J. Lumbar interbody fusion: techniques, indications and comparison of interbody fusion options including PLIF, TLIF, MI-TLIF, OLIF/ATP, LLIF and ALIF. J. spine Surg. (Hong Kong) 1, 2–18 (2015).

Rittenberg, J. D. & Ross, A. E. Functional rehabilitation for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Phys. Med. Rehabil. Clin. N. Am. 14, 111–120 (2003).

Peul, W. C. & Moojen, W. A. Fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis - safeguard or superfluous surgical implant? N. Engl. J. Med. 374, 1478–1479 (2016).

Wu, A.-M., Tong, T.-J. & Wang, X.-Y. A rethink of fusion surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. J. Evid. Based. Med. 9, 166–169 (2016).

Ainslie, P. N. & Brassard, P. Why is the neural control of cerebral autoregulation so controversial. F1000Prime Rep. 6, 5–10 (2014).

Ammendolia, C. et al. Nonoperative treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication: A systematic review. Spine (Phila. Pa. 1976). 37, 609–616 (2012).

Zaina, F., Tomkins-Lane, C., Carragee, E. & Negrini, S. Surgical versus non-surgical treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis (Cochrane review) [with consumer summary]. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2016;Issue 1 (2016). doi:10.1002/

Shen, J., Xu, S., Xu, S., Ye, S. & Hao, J. Fusion or not for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: A meta-analysis and systematic review. Pain Physician 21, 1–7 (2018).

Phillips, F. M., Slosar, P. J., Youssef, J. A., Andersson, G. & Papatheofanis, F. Lumbar spine fusion for chronic low back pain due to degenerative disc disease: A systematic review. Spine (Phila. Pa. 1976). 38, 409–422 (2013).

Article Views      : 26
PDF Downloads : 15