Abstract

Objectives: This study aims to evaluate functional disability using the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) as complementary patient-reported outcome measures and to explore their associations with clinical characteristics, work disability, and rehabilitation service utilization among patients receiving postoperative rehabilitation after lumbar spine surgery (LSS).

Patients and methods: During September 2025, a total of 63 adult patients with a history of LSS enrolled in a spine rehabilitation program were included in this cross-sectional, observational study. Sociodemographic, clinical, functional-disability, work-disability, and rehabilitation service-utilization data were recorded. Functional-disability was assessed using the RMDQ and ODI. Pain severity was evaluated using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS).

Results: Of the patients, 29 were male and 34 were female with a median age of 58 (IQR, 51 to 63) years. The median level of work intensity was 3 (range, 2-4). Median pain severity was 6 (range, 4-7). Significant functional-disability was identified in 65.1% of patients using RMDQ and 92.1% using ODI. Median rehabilitation program length of stay was 689 days, and median accumulated work-disability time was 254 days. According to RMDQ, vertebral fracture was more common among patients without significant functional-disability (27.3% vs. 4.9%; p = 0.018), whereas lower-limb pain radiation was more frequent among those with significant functional-disability (63.4% vs. 31.8%; p = 0.017). Rehabilitation service-utilization did not differ significantly between RMDQ-defined groups. Based on ODI, accumulated work-disability time was significantly greater among patients with significant functional-disability (median 554 vs. 218 days; p = 0.012), while no other variables differed significantly (p > 0.05).

Conclusion: Significant functional-disability is highly prevalent among LSS patients receiving rehabilitation, particularly when assessed with ODI, and is usually accompanied by prolonged work-disability. Lower-limb pain radiation is associated with greater functional-disability, whereas rehabilitation service-utilization is not associated with lower functional-disability. These findings support the development of targeted multidisciplinary rehabilitation strategies to optimize postoperative recovery after LSS.

Citation: De la Cerna-Luna R, Aparicio-Farfan D, Mendoza-Cabrera F, Santayana-Calisaya N, Arnillas Brigneti P, Cabanillas-Lazo M. Disability after lumbar spine surgery in a Peruvian rehabilitation setting: A cross-sectional study using the Roland-Morris Questionnaire and Oswestry Disability Index. Arch ISPRM 2026;1(3):236-244. https://doi.org/10.5606/archisprm.2026.96.

R.D.L.: Idea/concept, design, control/supervision, data collection and/or processing, literature review, writing the article, critical review, references and funding; D.A.F.: Idea/concept, design, control/supervision, data collection and/or processing, analysis and/or interpretation; F.M.C.: Idea/concept, design, control/supervision, data collection and/or processing, analysis and/or interpretation; N.S.C.: Idea/concept, critical review, references and funding, materials; P.A.B.: Critical review, references and funding, materials; M.C.L.: Analysis and/or interpretation, critical review.

Roger De la Cerna-Luna, Fiorella Mendoza-Cabrera, Paula Arnillas Brigneti and Nives Santayana-Calisaya work at Hospital Nacional Edgardo Rebagliati Martins. The other authors do not report any potential conflicts of interest related to this study.

Data Availability
The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not‑for‑profit sectors.

AI Disclosure
The authors declare that artificial intelligence (AI) tools were not used, or were used solely for language editing, and had no role in data analysis, interpretation, or the formulation of conclusions. All scientific content, data interpretation, and conclusions are the sole responsibility of the authors. The authors further confirm that AI tools were not used to generate, fabricate, or ‘hallucinate’ references, and that all references have been carefully verified for accuracy.