Abstract :

Background: Patient satisfaction is increasingly recognised as a crucial metric for evaluating surgical outcomes, complementing traditional clinical and radiological parameters. This study assesses patient satisfaction following cervical spine surgery at the National Orthopaedic Hospital (NOH), Dala, Kano, Nigeria, and identifies factors associated with satisfaction levels.

Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted between January and December 2024 among 84 patients who underwent cervical spine surgery (anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, posterior decompression, or combined procedures) at NOH, Dala, with a minimum follow-up of six months. Data were collected using a structured questionnaire assessing demographic characteristics, clinical outcomes (pain using Visual Analogue Scale [VAS], functional status using modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association [mJOA] score), and satisfaction using a five-point Likert scale. Satisfaction was dichotomised as satisfied (very satisfied/satisfied) or dissatisfied (neutral/dissatisfied/very dissatisfied). Multivariate logistic regression identified independent predictors of satisfaction.

Results: The response rate was 82.4% (84/102). Mean age was 48.6 ± 12.4 years, with 62 males (73.8%) and 22 females (26.2%). Indications for surgery were degenerative conditions (52 patients, 61.9%) and trauma (32 patients, 38.1%). Overall satisfaction rate was 72.6% (61 patients). Mean VAS improved from 7.4 ± 1.6 preoperatively to 2.8 ± 1.2 postoperatively (p<0.001). Mean mJOA improved from 10.8 ± 2.4 to 14.2 ± 1.8 (p<0.001). Satisfied patients reported significantly greater improvement in VAS (mean change 5.2 ± 1.4 vs. 3.4 ± 1.2, p<0.001) and mJOA (mean change 4.2 ± 1.6 vs. 2.4 ± 1.4, p<0.001) compared to dissatisfied patients. Factors independently associated with satisfaction were: greater improvement in VAS (OR 3.84, 95% CI 1.92–7.68, p<0.001), higher postoperative mJOA (OR 2.96, 95% CI 1.48–5.92, p=0.002), and preoperative counselling adequacy (OR 2.54, 95% CI 1.28–5.04, p=0.008). Age, sex, indication, and surgical approach were not significant predictors.

Conclusion: Patient satisfaction following cervical spine surgery at NOH, Dala is high (72.6%) and comparable to international benchmarks. Pain relief, functional improvement, and preoperative counselling are the strongest determinants of satisfaction. These findings highlight the importance of managing patient expectations and optimising clinical outcomes to enhance satisfaction.

---

Keywords :

ACDF, cervical spine surgery, clinical outcomes, Nigeria., Patient Satisfaction

---

References :

1. Wilde B, Starrin B, Larsson G, Larsson M. Quality of care from a patient perspective: a grounded theory study. Scand J Caring Sci. 1993;7(2):113-20. [CrossRef]
2. Menendez JY, Cha TD, Tishelman JC, Sen MK, Gussous YM, Witt JP, et al. Patient satisfaction in spine surgery: a systematic review of the literature. Asian Spine J. 2019;13(6):1047-57. [CrossRef]
3. Williams J, D’Amore P, Redlich N, Gantt C, Kebaish K, Riley L, et al. Degenerative cervical myelopathy: evaluation and management. Orthop Clin North Am. 2022;53(4):509-21. [PubMed]
4. Watkins RG, Watkins RG. Cervical disc herniations, radiculopathy, and myelopathy. Clin Sports Med. 2021;40(3):513-39. [PubMed]
5. Wilde Larsson B, Larsson G. Development of a short form of the Quality from the Patient’s Perspective (QPP) questionnaire. J Clin Nurs. 2002;11(5):681-7. [CrossRef]
6. Beattie M, Murphy DJ, Atherton I, Lauder W. Instruments to measure patient experience of healthcare quality in hospitals: a systematic review. Syst Rev. 2015;4:97. [CrossRef]
7. Lehrich BM, Khalid SI, Khandpur U, Fish DE, Bydon M, Smith ZA, et al. Predictors of patient satisfaction in spine surgery: a systematic review. World Neurosurg. 2021;146:e1160-70. [CrossRef]
8. Knutsson B, Sanden B, Sjödén G, Järvholm B, Michaëlsson K. Patient satisfaction with care is associated with better outcomes in function and pain 1 year after lumbar spine surgery. J Patient Cent Res Rev. 2022;9(1):7-14. [CrossRef]
9. Liawrungrueang W, Chuaychoosakoon C, Poolsawas W, Piyapromdee U, Tangtrakulwanich B. Clinical outcomes and patient perspectives in full endoscopic cervical surgery: a systematic review. Neurospine. 2025;22(1):81-104. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
10. Campbell FC, Ndukuba KO, Ndubuisi CA, Okwunodulu O, Mezue W, Ohaegbulam S. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for subaxial cervical spine injuries; management challenges and early outcome in a neurosurgical center. Surg Neurol Int. 2025;16:23. [CrossRef]
11. Ndubuisi CA, Ndafia NM, Ohaegbulam SC. Cervical hemilaminectomy in the management of degenerative cervical spine myelopathy: utilization and outcome from a neurosurgical institution in Nigeria. Niger J Med. 2021;30(1):21-7. [CrossRef]
12. National Orthopaedic Hospital Dala Kano. About Us [Internet]. Kano: NOH Dala; 2025. Available from: https://nohkano.gov.ng/
13. Dala National Orthopedic Hospital, Kano [Internet]. 2025. Available from: https://vfmatch.org/explore/facilities/60503136542385607c9280ed
14. Noor AS, Knutsson B. Patients’ experience of care index: a new, reliable, and useful questionnaire in lumbar spine surgery. Brain Spine. 2024;4:104140. [CrossRef]
15. Benzel EC, Lancon J, Kesterson L, Hadden T. Cervical laminectomy and dentate ligament section for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Spinal Disord. 1991;4(3):286-95.
16. Copay AG, Glassman SD, Subach BR, Berven S, Schuler TC, Carreon LY. 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. Spine J. 2008;8(6):968-74.
17. Overmark T, Hansen LV, Bendix T, Rasmussen MM, Eiskjær SP. Impact of resident versus specialist performed cervical spine surgery. Brain Spine. 2025;5:105864. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
18. Yamada K, Suzuki H, Nakamura H, Takahashi J, Ohtori S, Watanabe K, et al. Disparity between early radiographic decompression and one-year patient satisfaction after single-level LLIF: proposal of the structural improvement score (SIS) and QOL improvement score (QIS). Eur Spine J. 2025;34(2):451-62. [CrossRef]
19. Ronnberg K, Lind B, Halldin K, Gellerstedt M, Brisby H. Patients’ satisfaction with provided care/information and expectations on clinical outcome after lumbar disc herniation surgery. Spine. 2007;32(2):256-61. [CrossRef]
20. Gepstein R, Arinzon Z, Adunsky A, Folman Y. Decompression surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis in the elderly: preoperative expectations and postoperative satisfaction. Spinal Cord. 2006;44(7):427-31. [CrossRef]
21. Levin JM, Winkelman RD, Tanenbaum JE, Benzel EC, Mroz TE, Steinmetz MP. Key drivers of patient satisfaction in lumbar spine surgery. J Neurosurg Spine. 2018;28(6):586-92. [CrossRef]
22. Bible JE, Kay HF, Shau DN, O’Neill KR, Segebarth B, Devin CJ. Are low patient satisfaction scores always due to the provider? Determinants of patient satisfaction scores during spine clinic visits. Spine. 2018;43(1):58-64. [CrossRef]
23. Mets EJ, Hovingh EP, Stadhouder A, Öner FC, Kruyt MC. Patient-related factors and perioperative outcomes are associated with self-reported hospital rating after spine surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2020;478(3):643-52. [CrossRef]
24. Shabat S, Folman Y, Arinzon Z, Adunsky A, Catz A, Gepstein R. Gender differences as an influence on patients’ satisfaction rates in spinal surgery of elderly patients. Eur Spine J. 2005;14(10):1027-32. [CrossRef]
25. Stromqvist B, Fritzell P, Hagg O, Jonsson B. Swespine: the Swedish spine register: the 2012 report. Eur Spine J. 2013;22(4):953-74. [CrossRef]