Effectiveness of posterior decompression techniques compared with conventional laminectomy for lumbar stenosis

Effect of two-level decompressive procedures on the biomechanics of the lumbo-sacral spine: an ex vivo study

Hemilaminectomy and laminectomy are decompressive procedures commonly used in case of lumbar spinal stenosis, which involve the removal of the posterior elements of the spine. These procedures may compromise the stability of the spine segment and create critical strains in the intervertebral discs. Thus, this study aimed to investigate if decompressive procedures could alter the biomechanics of the lumbar spine. The focus was on the changes in the range of motion and strain distribution of the discs after two-level hemilaminectomy and laminectomy. Twelve L2-S1 cadaver specimens were prepared and mechanically tested in flexion, extension and both left and right lateral bending, in the intact condition, after a two-level hemilaminectomy on L4 and L5 vertebrae, and a full laminectomy. The range of motion (ROM) of the entire segment was assessed in all the conditions and loading configurations. In addition, Digital Image Correlation was used to measure the strain distribution on the surface of each specimen during the mechanical tests, focusing on the disc between the two decompressed vertebrae and in the two adjacent discs. Hemilaminectomy did not significantly affect the ROM, nor the strain on the discs. Laminectomy significantly increased the ROM in flexion, compared to the intact state. Laminectomy significantly increased the tensile strains on both L3-L4 and L4-L5 disc (p = 0.028 and p = 0.014) in ipsilateral bending, and the compressive strains on L4-L5 intervertebral disc, in both ipsilateral and contralateral bending (p = 0.014 and p = 0.0066), with respect to the intact condition. In conclusion, this study found out that hemilaminectomy did not significantly impact the biomechanics of the lumbar spine. Conversely, after the full laminectomy, flexion significantly increased the range of motion and lateral bending was the most critical configuration for largest principal strain.

Finite element analysis of endoscopic cross-overtop decompression for single-segment lumbar spinal stenosis based on real clinical cases

Introduction: For severe degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS), the conventional percutaneous endoscopic translaminar decompression (PEID) has some limitations. The modified PEID, Cross-Overtop decompression, ensures sufficient decompression without excessive damage to the facet joints and posterior complex integrity. Objectives: To evaluate the biomechanical properties of Cross-Overtop and provide practical case validation for final decision-making in severe DLSS treatment. Methods: A finite element (FE) model of L4-L5 (M0) was established, and the validity was verified against prior studies. Endo-ULBD (M1), Endo-LOVE (M2), and Cross-Overtop (M3) models were derived from M0 using the experimental protocol. L4-L5 segments in each model were evaluated for the range of motion (ROM) and disc Von Mises stress extremum. The real clinical Cross-Overtop model was constructed based on clinical CT images, disregarding paraspinal muscle influence. Subsequent validation using actual FE analysis results enhances the credibility of the preceding virtual FE analysis. Results: Compared with M0, ROM in surgical models were less than 10°, and the growth rate of ROM ranged from 0.10% to 11.56%, while those of disc stress ranged from 0% to 15.75%. Compared with preoperative, the growth rate of ROM and disc stress were 2.66%-11.38% and 1.38%-9.51%, respectively. The ROM values in both virtual and actual models were less than 10°, verifying the affected segment stability after Cross-Overtop decompression. Conclusion: Cross-Overtop, designed for fully expanding the central canal and contralateral recess, maximizing the integrity of the facet joints and posterior complex, does no significant effect on the affected segmental biomechanics and can be recommended as an effective endoscopic treatment for severe DLSS.

A Randomized Controlled Trial Using Epidural Analgesia for Pain Relief After Lumbar Interlaminar Decompressive Spine Surgery: The RAPID trial

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective, double-blind randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE

If an intraoperative single bolus of epidural bupivacaine can result in less postoperative pain following lumbar spinal decompression surgery.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Adequate postoperative pain management following lumbar spinal decompression surgery is important, as it will lead to early mobilization, less complications, and a shorter hospital stay. Opioid consumption should be limited due to their frequently accompanied side effects and their addictive nature. During the final phase of lumbar decompression surgery, the epidural space becomes easily accessible. This might be an ideal moment for surgeons to administer an epidural bolus of analgesia as a safe and effective method for postoperative pain relief.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this trial, we compared a single intraoperative bolus of epidural analgesia using bupivacaine 0.25% to placebo (NaCl 0.9%) and its effect on postoperative pain following lumbar spinal decompression surgery. The primary outcome was the difference in Numeric (Pain) Rating Scale between the intervention and placebo groups during the first 48 hours after surgery.

RESULTS

Both the intervention group and the placebo group consisted of 20 randomized patients (N=40). Statistically significant lower mean Numeric (Pain) Rating Scale pain scores were observed in the intervention group in comparison with the control group (main effect group: -2.35±0.77, P =0.004). The average pain score was lower in the intervention group at all postoperative time points. No study-related complications occurred.

CONCLUSION

This randomized controlled trial shows that administrating a bolus of intraoperative epidural bupivacaine is a safe and effective method for reducing early postoperative pain following lumbar decompression surgery.

Acute disc herniation following surgical decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis: a retrospective comparison of mini-open and minimally invasive techniques

BACKGROUND

Disc herniation following decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis is a less familiar surgical complication. Previous studies suggested that open lumbar decompression techniques, associated with relative segmental instability especially in the presence of degenerated disc in older patients, are more likely to result in disc herniation compared to minimally invasive techniques. The current study compares the incidence of acute disc herniation following mini-open and minimally invasive decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study reviewing 563 patients who underwent spinal decompression for symptomatic lumbar stenosis by mini-open bilateral partial laminectomy technique or minimally invasive laminotomy utilizing a tubular system. Demographic and clinical data were collected and compared between the groups.

RESULTS

Postoperative disc herniation rate was significantly lower in the minimally invasive group with 2 of 237 cases (0.8%) versus 19 of 326 cases (5.8%) in the mini-open group (p = 0.002). This finding was more noticeable following multi-level procedures with no case of postdecompression disc herniation in the minimally invasive group compared to 8 of 39 cases (20.5%) in the mini-open group (p = 0.003).

CONCLUSION

The incidence of postoperative disc herniation following spinal decompression for symptomatic lumbar stenosis was 5.8% following mini-open bilateral partial laminectomy compared to only 0.8% after minimally invasive laminotomy (p = 0.002). These findings highlight the more extensive nature of mini-open surgery associated with relative segmental instability that poses a greater risk for postoperative disc herniation.

Minimally invasive fenestration for decompression of C2-C3 spinal stenosis

Conventional techniques in neurosurgery such as laminectomy have been extensively displaced by minimally invasive types, owing to the character of complexity of cervical spinal region. Spinal canal stenosis at C2-C3 level is documented in the literature with the majority being caused by intervertebral disc herniations.This case reports a patient who presented with classical myelopathy symptoms and significant thickening of ligamentum flavum, while minimal spondylosis was detected at C2-C3 level. The decompression was performed from posterior approach and limited to the removal of ligamentum flavum with minimal resection of adjacent laminae, no fixation and no disc evacuation. After surgery, there was a significant improvement with preserved spinal stability.Although the anterior approach is more common for cervical spine, universal access site has not been defined in literature. We suggest that minimal decompression produces desirable effects with no need for fusion and preserving adequate stability of spinal complex.

Cooled Radiofrequency Treatment for Radicular Pain Related to Lumbar Disc Herniation

BACKGROUND

Lower back and radicular pain are leading causes of disability and loss of quality of life, especially due to its high prevalence in the general population. Cooled radiofrequency treatment (CRT) has emerged as a novel non-invasive technique for the management of discogenic pain with safe and effective results. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of CRT in the treatment of radicular pain secondary to a lumbar hernia in patients with chronic neuropathic pain after receiving conservative treatment that did not achieve adequate pain management.

METHODS

A prospective study of patients undergoing CRT for the management of discogenic low back pain was carried out. When attending the first evaluation and corroborating the lumbar hernias by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), treatment was offered one month of physiotherapy before CRT. To assess the evolution of the patients, measurements were taken before and after the intervention with the visual analog scale (VAS) and the Oswestry low back pain disability scale (OLBPDS) scores.

RESULTS

A total of 74 patients (mean age: 48.42 ± 14.32 years, 66.11% female) were included, who were undergoing a total of 134 herniated intervertebral lumbar discs. When comparing the initial perception of low back pain and after finding a non-significant partial improvement with one month of physiotherapy treatment, it was observed that the patients who were offered CRT showed an average improvement in discogenic pain of 79.92% (p = <0.0001, 95% CI: -7.010 to -6.379) in 98.64% of cases. This was accompanied by an increase in their functionality of daily living activities, as measured by OLBPDS. No patients presented significant adverse events, and in the only case where the desired pain management was not obtained, the patient's discomfort did not worsen.

CONCLUSIONS

Intradiscal biacuplasty by CRT is a considerable treatment for lumbar radiculopathy. Postoperative results demonstrated its effectiveness and safety in the management of radicular pain without the presence of significant adverse effects.

Less-invasive decompression procedures can reduce risk of reoperation for lumbar spinal stenosis with diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis extended to the lumbar segment: analysis of two retrospective cohorts

PURPOSE

Clinical outcomes after decompression procedures are reportedly worse for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) with diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis (DISH), especially DISH extended to the lumbar segment (L-DISH). However, no studies have compared the effect of less-invasive surgery versus conventional decompression techniques for LSS with DISH. The purpose of this study was to compare the long-term risk of reoperation after decompression surgery focusing on LSS with L-DISH.

METHODS

This study compared open procedure cohort (open conventional fenestration) and less-invasive procedure cohort (bilateral decompression via a unilateral approach) with ≥ 5 years of follow-up. After stratified analysis by L-DISH, patients with L-DISH were propensity score-matched by age and sex.

RESULTS

There were 57 patients with L-DISH among 489 patients in the open procedure cohort and 41 patients with L-DISH among 297 patients in the less-invasive procedure cohort. The reoperation rates in L-DISH were higher in the open than less-invasive procedure cohort for overall reoperations (25% and 7%, p = 0.026) and reoperations at index levels (18% and 5%, p = 0.059). Propensity score-matched analysis in L-DISH demonstrated that open procedures were significantly associated with increased overall reoperations (hazard ratio [HR], 6.18; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.37-27.93) and reoperations at index levels (HR, 4.80; 95% CI, 1.04-22.23); there was no difference in reoperation at other lumbar levels.

CONCLUSIONS

Less-invasive procedures had a lower risk of reoperation, especially at index levels for LSS with L-DISH. Preserving midline-lumbar posterior elements could be desirable as a decompression procedure for LSS with L-DISH.

Validity of outcome measures used in randomized clinical trials and observational studies in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis

It is unclear whether outcome measures used in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS) have been validated for this condition. Cross-sectional analysis of studies for DLSS included in systematic reviews (SA) and meta-analyses (MA) indexed in the Cochrane Library. We extracted all outcome measures for pain and disability. We assessed whether the studies provided external references for the validity of the outcome measures and the quality of the validation studies. Out of 20 SA/MA, 95 primary studies used 242 outcome measures for pain and/or disability. Most commonly used were the VAS (n = 69), the Oswestry Disability Index (n = 53) and the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (n = 22). Although validation references were provided in 45 (47.3%) primary studies, only 14 validation studies for 9 measures (disability n = 7, pain and disability combined n = 2) were specifically validated in a DLSS population. The quality of the validation studies was mainly poor. The Zurich Claudication Questionnaire was the only disease specific tool with adequate validation for assessing treatment response in DLSS. To compare results from clinical studies, outcome measures need to be validated in a disease specific population. The quality of validation studies need to be improved and the validity in studies adequately cited.

Microscopic Unilateral Approach for Bilateral Decompression of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

BACKGROUND

This is a study based on single-surgeon data on spinal stenosis surgery via microscopic approach. The aim is to evaluate the effectiveness of the unilateral approach to bilateral decompression and the usage of Taylor retractors and brain spatula in patients with spinal stenosis.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study on bilateral decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis using a microscopic unilateral approach by a single surgeon, between April 2015 and March 2018. In total, 50 patients were operated due to single level lumbar spinal stenosis. All patients were evaluated by preoperative and postoperative plain radiographs and magnetic resonance (MR) images. Walking distance (WD), visual analog scale (VAS) for pain and Odom's criteria were evaluated for follow-up.

RESULTS

One level of the lumbar spine was surgically decompressed in all patients. The median age of patients was 64.6 (51- 82). Of the patients, 72% (36) were women, and 28% (14) were men. Most patients had refractory low back pain (96%) after conservative treatment. The stenotic levels of the cases were as follows: L3-4, 23(46%); L4-5, 24(48%); and L5-S1, 3 (6%). VAS scores decreased in all patients after surgery. According to Odom's criteria, an excellent or good score was found in 43 patients at the 12th follow-up examination. WDs increased up to 1000 meters for 41 patients.

CONCLUSION

The microscopic unilateral approach to bilateral decompression is an effective method for decompression in spinal stenosis. Via this approach, surgical trauma is reduced and surgically induced instability is avoided as much as possible.

Comparison of posterior decompression techniques and conventional laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis

Objectives

To compare the efficacy of posterior decompression techniques with conventional laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis.

Methods

The Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library databases were searched with no language limitations from inception to January 13, 2022. The main outcomes were functional disability, perceived recovery, leg and back pain, complications. A random effects model was used to pooled data. Risk ratio (RR), mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were used to report results. The study protocol was published in PROSPERO (CRD42022302218).

Results

14 trials including 1,106 participants were included in the final analysis. Bilateral laminotomy was significantly more efficacious in improve functionality than laminectomy [MD: -2.94; (95% CI, -4.12 to -1.76)]. Low incidence of iatrogenic instability due to bilateral laminectomy compared with laminectomy [RR: 0.11; (95% CI, 0.02 to 0.59)]. In addition, between those who received bilateral laminotomy and those undergoing laminectomy, the result showed significant difference regarding recovery [RR: 1.31; (95% CI, 1.03 to 1.67)].

Conclusions

This study provides evidence that bilateral laminotomy has advantages in functional recovery, postoperative stability, and postoperative rehabilitation outcomes. Further research is needed to determine whether posterior techniques provide a safe and effective option for conventional laminectomy.

A Pathway for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

Lumbar spinal stenosis is a prevalent condition with varied presentation. Most common in older populations, symptoms typically include back, buttock, and posterior thigh pain. Diagnosis is typically based on physical examination and clinical history, but confirmed on imaging studies. Nonsurgical management includes nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories, physical therapy, and epidural injections. If nonoperative management fails or patient presentation involves worsening symptoms, surgical intervention, most commonly in the form of a laminectomy, may be indicated. Recent literature has demonstrated improved pain and functional outcomes with surgery compared with conservative treatment in the middle to long term.

The Efficacy of Anterior Cervical Corpectomy and Fusion and Posterior Total Laminectomy on Cervical Spinal Cord Injury and Quality of Life

This study is aimed at investigating the efficacy of anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion and posterior total laminectomy in the treatment of cervical spinal cord injury and assessing the impact of the two approaches on cervical spine function and patient quality of life. Retrospectively analyze the clinical data from 180 patients with cervical spinal cord injury who were admitted to the First Affiliated Hospital of Hebei North University from June 2019 to June 2021. The patients were divided into an anterior approach group (n = 89, treated with anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion) and a posterior approach group (n = 91, treated with posterior total laminectomy). The amount of blood loss in the posterior approach group was larger compared to the anterior approach group. Patients in the posterior approach group had higher wound diameters and operation times compared to the anterior approach group, as well as the operation cost. The visual analogue scale (VAS) scores of patients in the posterior approach group were significantly higher than in the anterior approach group one month after operation. The Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA), neck disability index (NDI), and American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) scores of patients in both groups at 1, 6, and 9 months after surgery were higher compared to those before surgery, yet no significant differences were observed between the two groups. Also, no significant difference was observed in the incidence of complication and the quality of life between the two groups before and after treatment. Anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion and posterior total laminectomy can effectively restore the cervical nerve function in the treatment of cervical spinal cord injury. However, anterior subtotal vertebral resection is associated with improved perioperative indicators compared to posterior total laminectomy. Clinically, surgical methods can be selected according to imaging findings, the general condition of patients, and individual economic status.

Comparison of Microendoscopic Laminotomy (MEL) Versus Spinous Process-Splitting Laminotomy (SPSL) for Multi Segmental Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

Aims 

This study was aimed to compare the perioperative and postoperative outcomes of patients who underwent posterior decompression for multi-segmental lumbar spinal stenosis by microendoscopic laminotomy (MEL) versus spinous process-splitting laminotomy (SPSL) retrospectively.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed 73 consecutive patients who underwent two or three levels MEL (n=51) or SPSL (n=22) for lumbar spinal stenosis between 2012 and 2018. The perioperative outcomes were operative time, intraoperative blood loss, length of postoperative hospital stay, complications, and reoperation rate. The postoperative outcomes were evaluated using a visual analog scale (VAS) and the Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ) scores at one year postoperatively.

Results

The mean follow-up time was 26.6 months in MEL and 35.6 months in SPSL. The mean operative time was significantly longer in MEL than SPSL (two levels, 183.6 ± 43.2 versus 134.8 ± 26.7 min, respectively; three levels: 241.6 ± 47.8 versus 179.9 ± 28.8 min, respectively). MEL's mean postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter than SPSL (12.3 ± 5.9 versus 15.5 ± 7.2 days, respectively). There was no significant difference in the mean intraoperative blood loss, complication rate, reoperation rate, and postoperative outcomes between the two groups.

Conclusions

This study suggests that both techniques are effective in treating multi-segmental lumbar spinal stenosis. There was no significant difference between the two procedures in intraoperative blood loss (IBL), complications rate, reoperation rate, or improvement in VAS and Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ) scores. MEL had an advantage in the postoperative hospital stay.

Decompression Using Minimally Invasive Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Associated with Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: A Review

Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS), which often occurs concurrently with degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS), is a common disease in the elderly population, affecting the quality of life of aged people significantly. Notwithstanding the frequently good effect of conservative therapy on LSS, a minority of the patients ultimately require surgery. Surgery for LSS aims to decompress the narrowed spinal canals with preservation of spinal stability. Traditional open surgery, either pure decompression or decompression with fusion, was considered effective for the treatment of LSS with or without DS. However, the long-term clinical outcomes of traditional open surgery are still unclear. Moreover, the disadvantages of conventional open surgery are extensive, examples including tissue injuries or secondary instability, with limited outcomes and significant reoperation rates. With the development and improvement of surgical tools, various minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS) methods, including indirect decompression techniques of interspinous process devices (IPDs) and direct decompression techniques such as microscopic spine surgery or endoscopic spine surgery (ESS), have been updated with enhancement. IPDs, such as Superion devices, were reported to behave with comparable physical function, disability, and symptoms outcomes to laminectomy decompression. As an emerging technique of MISS, ESS has beneficial hallmarks including minimal tissue injuries, reduced complication rates, and shortened recovery periods, thus gaining popularity in recent years. ESS can be classified in terms of endoscopic hallmarks and approaches. Predictably, with the continuous development and gradual maturity, MISS is expected to replace traditional open surgery widely in the surgical treatment of LSS associated with DS in the future.

Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis in Patients With Mild Leg Pain Levels Is Associated With Unsatisfactory Outcome

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective register cohort study.

OBJECTIVES

The indication for surgery in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is considered to be leg pain and neurogenic claudication (NC). Nevertheless, a significant part of patients operated for LSS have mild leg pain levels defined as leg pain ≤minimally important clinical difference (MICD). Information is lacking on how to inform these patients about the probable outcome of surgery. The objective was to report the outcome of surgery for LSS in patients with a mild preoperative level of leg pain.

METHODS

A total of 2559 patients operated upon for LSS with preoperative leg pain ≤3 NRS (Numerical Rating Scale) were evaluated for outcome at the 1-year follow-up. NRS for back pain, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and the EuroQol (EQ-5D) were used.

RESULTS

In the period 2007 to 2017, we identified 3239 patients (14%) who had mild leg pain (≤3 on the NRS). In this cohort, leg pain increased 0.40 (0.56-0.37) and back pain decreased 1.0 (0.95-1.2) at the 1-year follow up. ODI decreased 11.1 (10.2-11.4) and the EQ-5D increased 0.15 (0.17-0.14). A total of 31% reached successful outcome in terms of back pain, 43% in terms of ODI and 48% in terms of EQ-5D. 63% of the patients were satisfied with the outcome.

CONCLUSION

A minority of patients with mild leg pain levels operated upon for LSS attain MICD for back pain, ODI, and EQ-5D. The results from this study can aid the surgeon in the shared decision-making process before surgery.

[Degenerative lumbar spine stenosis: minimally invasive microsurgical methods of treatment]

Degenerative lumbar spine stenosis is one of the main causes of chronic pain and radiculopathy in advanced age people. Along with increase in average life expectancy, degenerative lumbar spine stenosis becomes the most common indication for spinal surgery. There is still no consensus regarding the most optimal surgical approach due to the variety of modern surgical methods. In recent years, minimally invasive spinal surgery has become a more advisable alternative to open surgery due to its advanced technical features combined with less soft tissue damage, lower risk of complications and shorter postoperative recovery.

How much change in symptoms do spinal surgeons expect following lumbar decompression and microdiscectomy?

The study aimed to determine how much change in neurogenic claudication spinal surgeons expect in patients following lumbar decompression for lumbar spine stenosis (LSS), and radicular leg pain following microdiscectomy. Secondary aims were to identify surgeons' preferences regarding surgical techniques for lumbar decompression, and their rating of the quality of current evidence for lumbar decompression. All Australian spine surgeons were invited, of whom 71 completed the survey (31% response rate). Only registered spinal surgeons were included. The online survey, administered using REDCap, included 4 sections: demographics and background; expected change in symptoms on a +/- 100% scale (-100% worst, 0% no change and 100% best possible); surgical preference; and rating of current evidence for lumbar decompression compared with other treatments. There were 71 complete responses, 76% were neurosurgeons (N = 54), predominantly male (96%; N = 68). On average, surgeons expected an 86% (median: 87%, inter-quartile range (IQR): 80%, 91%) improvement in neurogenic claudication following lumbar decompression for LSS and 89% (median: 91%, IQR: 85%, 95%) improvement in radicular pain following microdiscectomy. A multiple linear regression found no surgeon characteristics were associated with expected change following surgery. The preferred surgical technique for LSS was full laminectomy (58%; N = 41). Thirty-five percent of surgeons accurately rated the evidence supporting the superiority of lumbar decompression compared with non-surgical care for LSS as low quality. Spine surgeons expect large symptom improvements following lumbar decompression and microdiscectomy. Understanding of the current evidence was higher for lumbar decompression with fusion, than for decompression alone for LSS.

Effect of lumbar laminectomy on spinal sagittal alignment: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Positive spinal sagittal alignment is known to correlate with pain and disability. The association between lumbar spinal stenosis and spinal sagittal alignment is less known, as is the effect of lumbar decompressive surgery on the change in that alignment. The objective was to study the evidence on the effect of lumbar decompressive surgery on sagittal spinopelvic alignment.

METHODS

The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CENTRAL), Medline, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science databases were searched in October 2019, unrestricted by date of publication. The study selection was performed by two independent reviewers. The risk of systematic bias was assessed according to the NIH Quality Assessment Tool. The data were extracted using a pre-defined standardized form.

RESULTS

The search resulted in 807 records. Of these, 18 were considered relevant for the qualitative analysis and 15 for the meta-synthesis. The sample size varied from 21 to 89 and the average age was around 70 years. Decompression was mostly performed on one or two levels and the surgical techniques varied widely. The pooled effect sizes were most statistically significant but small. For lumbar lordosis, the effect size was 3.0 (95% CI 2.2 to 3.7) degrees. Respectively, for pelvic tilt and sagittal vertical axis, the effect sizes were - 1.6 (95% CI .2.6 to - 0.5) degrees and - 9.6 (95% CI - 16.0 to - 3.3) mm.

CONCLUSIONS

It appears that decompression may have a small, statistically significant but probably clinically insignificant effect on lumbar lordosis, sagittal vertical axis and pelvic tilt.

Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Lumbar Decompression Surgery: A Review of 2699 Cases

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective case series.

OBJECTIVE

Despite numerous advances in the technology and techniques available to spinal surgeons, lumbar decompression remains the mainstay of degenerative lumbar spine surgery. It has proven efficacy in trials, but only limited evidence of advantage over conservative management in large scale systematic reviews. We collated data from a large surgically managed cohort to evaluate the patient-reported outcomes.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of a prospectively populated database. Patient demographics, surgical details, and patient outcomes (Spine Tango core outcome measures index [COMI]-Low Back) were collected for 2699 lumbar decompression surgeries.

RESULTS

Lumbar decompression was shown to be successful at improving leg pain (mean improvement in visual analogue scale [VAS] at 3 months = 4) and to a lesser extent, back pain (mean improvement in VAS at 3 months = 2.61). Mean improvement in COMI score was 3.15 for all-comers. Minimal clinically important improvement (MCID) in COMI score (-2 points) was achieved in 73% of patients by 2-year follow-up. Primary surgery was more effective than redo surgery: odds ratio 0.547 (95% CI 0.408-0.733, P < .001). The benefits across all outcomes were maintained for the 2-year follow-up period. Patients can be classified according to their outcome as "early responders"; achieving MCID by 3 months (61% primary vs 41% redo), "late responders"; achieving MCID by 2 years (15% vs 20%) or nonresponders (24% vs 39%).

CONCLUSIONS

Lumbar decompression is effective in improving quality of life in appropriately selected patients. Patient-reported outcome measures collected routinely and collated within a registry are a powerful tool for assessing the efficacy of lumbar spine interventions and allow accurate counseling of patients perioperatively.

Intraoperative epidural analgesia for pain relief after lumbar decompressive spine surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction

Research question

Material and method

Results

Discussion and conclusion

•

Literature on intraoperative nonsteroidal epidural analgesia as a bolus in decompressive lumbar surgery was reviewed.

•

Primary outcome measures were reduction in postoperative pain, analgesics consumption and duration of hospital stay.

•

The extracted data was heterogenic and challenging to compare.

•

Intraoperative nonsteroidal epidural analgesia is effective in reducing postoperative pain and analgesics consumption.

•

More data from well-powered randomized placebo-controlled trials is required to draw indisputable conclusions.

Correlation between clinical outcomes and spinopelvic parameters in patients with lumbar stenosis undergoing decompression surgery

PURPOSE

The aim of this study is to determine if there is a relation between preoperative sagittal alignment, based on radiographic parameters, and clinical outcomes, after lumbar decompressive procedures, in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).

METHODS

This study enrolled patients with LSS who underwent lumbar decompressive procedures, between January 2016 and December 2017. Preoperative spinopelvic parameters were measured, and patients were divided into radiological groups according to the median of the following variables: relative lumbar lordosis (measured minus ideal lumbar lordosis), relative pelvic tilt (measured minus ideal pelvic tilt) and sagittal vertical axis (SVA). Clinical outcomes were compared between these groups and included the Core Outcome Measures Index, EuroQoL Five Dimension Questionnaire (EQ-5D) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores before and 1 year after surgery. Further correlation statistics between sagittal radiological measurements and the postoperative outcome scores were performed.

RESULTS

The study included 104 patients. We did not find any clinically important difference in clinical outcomes between radiological groups. However, in correlation analyses we found a significant but weak statistical correlation between relative lumbar lordosis and both preoperative and postoperative ODI, as well as a significant statistical negative correlation between SVA and postoperative EQ-5D.

CONCLUSION

Preoperative spinopelvic parameters did not significantly correlate with clinical outcomes after decompression surgery for LSS on non-deformity patients. Patients had a comparable improvement after surgery, regardless of their preoperative sagittal alignment.

Inside-Out Approach of Lumbar Endoscopic Unilateral Laminotomy for Bilateral Decompression: A Detailed Technical Description, Rationale and Outcomes

Although lumbar stenosis was recognized as a contraindication for endoscopic spine surgery in the past, the advancement in endoscopic system design and development of approach techniques and strategies now enabled the endoscopic spine surgeons to manage all types of lumbar stenosis safely and more effectively. A full-endoscopic lumbar technique for surgical management of spinal canal stenosis is now used today in many advanced spine centers around the world as one of their standard procedures which can be done under general, regional, local anesthesia with sedation. In this technical report, we described in detail the inside-out approach of performing lumbar endoscopic unilateral laminotomy with bilateral decompression (LE-ULBD) and retrospectively reviewed hospital records of 127 patients who underwent the approach from December 2018 to March 2019 to address 1 level lumbar spinal stenosis and determined its outcome after 12-month follow-up period. Perioperative outcomes, operation time, length of hospital stay, and surgical complications were recorded and analyzed. The cross-sectional area of the thecal sac at the operated level was measured. The visual analogue scale (VAS) was assessed preoperatively, 1 month, and 12 months as well as the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). The data were statistically analyzed (using SPSS ver. 17.0). The inside-out approach LE-ULBD was shown to effect statistically significant improvement in the VAS of leg and back pain as well as the ODI. It is a familiar, safe, and effective way of performing spinal stenosis decompression with good reproducible outcomes.

Comparable increases in dural sac area after three different posterior decompression techniques for lumbar spinal stenosis: radiological results from a randomized controlled trial in the NORDSTEN study

PURPOSE

To investigate changes in dural sac area after three different posterior decompression techniques in patients undergoing surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. Decompression of the nerve roots is the main surgical treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis. The aim of this study was to radiologically investigate three commonly used posterior decompression techniques.

METHODS

The present study reports data from one of two multicenter randomized trials included in the NORDSTEN study. In the present trial, involving 437 patients undergoing surgery, we report radiological results after three different midline retaining posterior decompression techniques: unilateral laminotomy with crossover (UL) (n = 146), bilateral laminotomy (BL) (n = 142) and spinous process osteotomy (SPO) (n = 149). MRI was performed before and three months after surgery. The increase in dural sac area and Schizas grade at the most stenotic level was evaluated. Three different predefined surgical indicators of substantial decompression were used: (1) postoperative dural sac area of > 100 mm², (2) increase in the dural sac area of at least 50% and (3) postoperative Schizas grade A or B.

RESULTS

No differences between the three surgical groups were found in the mean increase in dural sac area. Mean values were 66.0 (SD 41.5) mm² in the UL-group, 71.9 (SD 37.1) mm² in the BL-group and 68.1 (SD 41.0) mm² in the SPO-group (p = 0.49). No differences in the three predefined surgical outcomes between the three groups were found.

CONCLUSION

For patients with lumbar spinal stenosis, the three different surgical techniques provided the same increase in dural sac area.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov reference on November 22th 2013 under the identifier NCT02007083.

A Review of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis with Intermittent Neurogenic Claudication: Disease and Diagnosis

Objective

Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a degenerative spinal condition affecting nearly 50% of patients presenting with lower back pain. The goal of this review is to present and summarize the current data on how LSS presents in various populations, how it is diagnosed, and current therapeutic strategies. Properly understanding the prevalence, presentation, and treatment options for individuals suffering from LSS is critical to providing patients the best possible care.

Results

The occurrence of LSS is associated with advanced age. In elderly patients, LSS can be challenging to identify due to the wide variety of presentation subtleties and common comorbidities such as degenerative disc disease. Recent developments in imaging techniques can be useful in accurately identifying the precise location of the spinal compression. Treatment options can range from conservative to surgical, with the latter being reserved for when patients have neurological compromise or conservative measures have failed. Once warranted, there are several surgical techniques at the physician’s disposal to best treat each individual case.

Metrics Development for Minimal Invasive Unilateral Laminotomy for Bilateral Decompression of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis With and Without Spondylolisthesis by an International Expert Panel

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective study.

OBJECTIVES

To develop, operationally define, and seek consensus from procedure experts on the metrics that best characterize a reference approach to the performance of a minimally invasive unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (ULBD) for lumbar spinal stenosis.

METHODS

A Metrics Group consisting of 3 experienced spine surgeons (2 neurosurgeons, 1 orthopedic surgeon), each with over 25 years of clinical practice, and an educational expert formed the Metrics Group that characterized a lumbar decompression surgery for spinal stenosis as a "reference" procedure. In a modified Delphi panel, 26 spine surgeons from 14 countries critiqued these metrics and their operational definitions before reaching consensus.

RESULTS

Performance metrics consisting of 6 phases with 42 steps, 21 errors, and 17 sentinel errors were identified that characterize the procedure. During the peer review, these were evaluated, modified, and agreed.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical procedures can be broken down into elemental tasks necessary for the safe and effective completion of a reference approach to a specified surgical procedure. Spinal experts from 16 countries reached consensus on performance metrics for the procedure. This metric-based characterization can be used in a training curriculum and also for assessment of training and performance in clinical practice.

Tandem Microscopic Slalom Technique: The Use of 2 Microscopes Simultaneously Performing Unilateral Laminotomy for Bilateral Decompression in Multilevel Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

STUDY DESIGN

Technical note, retrospective case series.

OBJECTIVE

Lumbar stenosis can be effectively treated using tubular unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (ULBD). For multilevel stenosis, a multilevel ULBD through separate, alternating crossover approaches has been described as the "slalom technique." To increase efficacy, we introduced this approach with 2 microscopes simultaneously.

METHODS

We collected data on 13 patients, with multilevel lumbar stenosis, operated at our institution between 2015 and 2016 by the aforementioned technique. We assessed surgical time (ST), estimated blood loss (EBL), complications, and revision surgeries. Furthermore, we provide a stepwise instruction for performing the tandem microscopic slalom technique in a safe and efficient manner.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients was 68 ± 8 years. The ST per level was 68 ± 19 minutes with an EBL per level of 39 ± 30 mL. We had no intraoperative complications and none of our patients required a revision surgery during a mean follow-up of 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

We have shown that this technique is feasible and can be performed safely for multisegmental lumbar spinal stenosis with minimal tissue trauma and low EBL. Furthermore, randomized controlled studies with a larger sample size may be necessary to drive any final conclusions.

Characteristics of stakeholder involvement in systematic and rapid reviews: a methodological review in the area of health services research

OBJECTIVE

Engaging stakeholders in reviews is considered to generate more relevant evidence and to facilitate dissemination and use. As little is known about stakeholder involvement, we assessed the characteristics of their engagement in systematic and rapid reviews and the methodological quality of included studies. Stakeholders were people with a particular interest in the research topic.

DESIGN

Methodological review.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Four databases (Medline, Embase, Cochrane database of systematic reviews, databases of the University of York, Center for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD)) were searched based on an a priori protocol. Four types of reviews (Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews, rapid and CRD rapid reviews) were retrieved between January 2011 and October 2015, pooled by potential review type and duplicates excluded. Articles were randomly ordered and screened for inclusion and exclusion criteria until 30 reviews per group were reached. Their methodological quality was assessed using AMSTAR and stakeholder characteristics were collected.

RESULTS

In total, 57 822 deduplicated citations were detected with potential non-Cochrane systematic reviews being the biggest group (56 986 records). We found stakeholder involvement in 13% (4/30) of Cochrane, 20% (6/30) of non-Cochrane, 43% (13/30) of rapid and 93% (28/30) of CRD reviews. Overall, 33% (17/51) of the responding contact authors mentioned positive effects of stakeholder involvement. A conflict of interest statement remained unmentioned in 40% (12/30) of non-Cochrane and in 27% (8/30) of rapid reviews, but not in Cochrane or CRD reviews. At most, half of non-Cochrane and rapid reviews mentioned an a priori study protocol in contrast to all Cochrane reviews.

CONCLUSION

Stakeholder engagement was not general practice, except for CRD reviews, although it was more common in rapid reviews. Reporting factors, such as including an a priori study protocol and a conflict of interest statement should be considered in conjunction with involving stakeholders.

What decreases low back pain? A qualitative study of patient perspectives

Background and aims

This study aimed to determine, from the perspective of individuals living with the condition, what decreases their low back pain (LBP). LBP affects most people at some point during their life. The condition has a meaningful effect on people’s lives including pain, reduced physical and social function, mood fluctuations, and a reduced ability to work. Despite a considerable amount of research on the topic, few strategies to reduce LBP are considered successful, and there has been little investigation into what individuals with the condition believe reduce it. This study aimed to address this gap in the literature by investigating what individuals with the condition believe reduces their LBP.

Methods

We employed a descriptive qualitative design using a custom-built online survey. Participants were 130 adults in Australia who self-identified as having current or having had previous LBP with or without co-morbidities. Data from the survey responses were analysed using content analysis to determine which management approaches participants considered to be effective in reducing their LBP.

Results

Participants most commonly said that they believed their LBP was reduced by: heat/cold (86, 66%), medication (84, 64.1%), and rest (78, 60%). Next most common was activity/exercise (73, 55.7%). Other factors such as consulting a health professional (52, 39.7%), stretching/therapeutic exercise (50, 38.1%), resting from aggravating activities (45, 34.3%), and psychological changes (41, 31.3%) were mentioned, but considerably less often.

Conclusions

Current literature points to the inefficacy of many of the factors participants reported as helping to reduce the effects of their condition, including the treatments that were most commonly listed by the participants in this study, namely: heat/cold, medication and rest. A possible cause of this discrepancy might be that individuals with LBP consider temporary relief (on a scale of hours) to be an acceptable outcome, whereas clinical trials tend to consider efficacy by long term outcomes (on a scale of weeks, months or years).

Implications

There are several implications of this research. From one perspective, there is the implication that public education about efficacious treatments may need to be enhanced as there is a discrepancy between research findings and the perspectives of individuals living with LBP. On the other hand, these findings also suggest that it is timely to re-examine the focus of LBP research to consider outcomes that are valuable to people living with the condition, which this study implies should include short term or temporary effects. The findings may also help clinicians tailor management to suit the individual patients by increasing the awareness that patient and research perspectives may at times diverge.

Comparative efficacy and safety of surgical and invasive treatments for adults with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: protocol for a network meta-analysis and systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Surgical and invasive procedures are widely used in adults with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis when conservative treatments fail. However, little is known about the comparative efficacy and safety of these interventions. To address this, we will perform a network meta-analysis (NMA) and systematic review to compare the efficacy and safety of surgical and invasive procedures for adults with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will include randomised controlled trials assessing surgical and invasive treatments for adults with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. We will search AMED, CINAHL, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and MEDLINE. Only English studies will be included and no restriction will be set for publication status. For efficacy, our primary outcome will be physical function. Secondary outcomes will include pain intensity, health-related quality of life, global impression of recovery, work absenteeism and mobility. For safety, our primary outcome will be all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes will include adverse events (number of events or number of people with an event) and treatment withdrawal due to adverse effect. Two reviewers will independently select studies, extract data and assess the risk of bias (Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials) of included studies. The quality of the evidence will be evaluated through the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. Random-effects NMA will be performed to combine all the evidence under the frequentist framework and the ranking results will be presented through the surface under the cumulative ranking curve and mean rank. All analyses will be performed in Stata and R.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

No ethical approval is required. The research will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018094180.

Comparative Analysis between Three Different Lumbar Decompression Techniques (Microscopic, Tubular, and Endoscopic) in Lumbar Canal and Lateral Recess Stenosis: Preliminary Report

PURPOSE

The purpose of our study is to compare the results of spinal decompression using the full-endoscopic interlaminar technique, tubular retractor, and a conventional microsurgical laminotomy technique and evaluate the advantages and clinical feasibility of minimally invasive spinal (MIS) lumbar decompression technique in the lumbar canal and lateral recess stenosis.

METHODS

The authors retrospectively reviewed clinical and radiological data from 270 patients who received microsurgical (group E: 72 patients), tubular (group T: 34 patients), or full-endoscopic decompression surgery (group E: 164 patients) for their lumbar canal and lateral recess stenosis from June 2016 to August 2017. Clinical (VAS, ODI, and Mcnab criteria), radiologic (spinal canal diameter, segmental dynamic angle, and disc height), and surgical outcome parameters (CPK level, Operative time, blood loss, and hospital stay) were evaluated pre- and postoperatively and compared among the three groups by means of statistical analysis. Failed cases and complications were reviewed in all groups.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up period was 6.38 months. The Overall clinical success rate was 89.4%. All groups showed favorable clinical outcome. The clinical and radiologic results were similar in all groups. Regarding surgical outcome, group E showed longer operation time than group M and T (group E: 84.17 minutes/level, group M: 52.22 minutes/level, and group T: 66.12 minutes/level) (p<0.05). However, groups E and T showed minimal surgical invasiveness compared with group M. Groups E and T showed less immediate postoperative back pain (VAS) (group E: 3.13, group M: 4.28, group T: 3.54) (p<0.05), less increase of serum CPK enzyme (group E: 66.38 IU/L, group M: 120 IU/L, and group T: 137.5 IU/L) (p<0.05), and shorter hospital stay (group E: 2.12 days, group M: 4.85 days, and group T: 2.83 days) (p<0.05). The rates of complications and revisions were not significantly different among the three groups.

CONCLUSIONS

MIS decompression technique is clinically feasible and safe to treat the lumbar canal and lateral recess stenosis, and it has many surgical advantages such as less muscle trauma, minimal postoperative back pain, and fast recovery of the patient compared to traditional open microscopic technique.

[Operative treatment of degenerative diseases of the lumbar spine]

BACKGROUND

Degenerative diseases of the lumbar spine and associated lower back pain represent a major epidemiological and health-related economic challenge. A distinction is made between specific and unspecific lower back pain. In specific lower back pain lumbar disc herniation and spinal canal stenosis with or without associated segment instability are among the most frequent pathologies. Diverse conservative and operative strategies for treatment of these diseases are available.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this article is to present an overview of current data and an evidence-based assessment of the possible forms of treatment.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An extensive literature search was carried out via Medline plus an additional evaluation of the authors' personal experiences.

RESULTS

Conservative and surgical treatment represent efficient treatment options for degenerative diseases of the lumbar spine. Surgical treatment of lumbar disc herniation shows slight advantages compared to conservative treatment consisting of faster recovery of neurological deficits and a faster restitution of pain control. Surgical decompression is superior to conservative measures for the treatment of spinal canal stenosis and degenerative spondylolisthesis. In this scenario conservative treatment represents an important supporting measure for surgical treatment in order to improve the mobility of patients and the outcome of surgical treatment.

CONCLUSION

The treatment of specific lower back pain due to degenerative lumbar pathologies represents an interdisciplinary challenge, requiring both conservative and surgical treatment strategies in a synergistic treatment concept in order to achieve the best results for patients.

Navigated minimally invasive unilateral laminotomy with crossover for intraoperative prediction of outcome in degenerative lumbar stenosis

BACKGROUND

Different surgical techniques have been described for treatment of degenerative lumbar stenosis (DLS). Only postoperative measures have been identified as predictors of efficacy of decompression. The objective of this study is to assess the role of navigated unilateral laminotomy with crossover to achieve and predict a satisfying decompression and outcome in DLS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We enrolled patients with DLS who underwent navigation-assisted unilateral laminotomy with crossover. The extent of decompression was evaluated during surgery using neuronavigation. The outcome was assessed through the Oswestry disability index (ODI) and visual analog scale (VAS) for leg pain. Outcome correlation with the extent of the intraoperative bone decompression was analyzed. Finally, the outcome, surgical time, and in-hospital length-of-stay were compared with a control group treated through standard unilateral laminotomy.

RESULTS

Twenty-five patients were treated using the navigated technique (Group A), 25 using the standard unilateral laminotomy (Group B). In Group A, a cut-off value ≥0.9 cm for bone decompression revealed to be an intraoperative predictor of good outcome, both regarding the ODI and VAS scores (P = 0.0005; P = 0.002). As compared with Group B, patients operated using the navigated technique showed similar operative times, in-hospital length-of-stay, ODI scores, but improved VAS scores for leg pain (P = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

The intraoperative navigated evaluation of the bone decompression could predict the outcome allowing satisfactory results in unilateral laminotomy for DLS. The navigated technique also could lead to an improved decompression of lateral recesses resulting in better control of leg pain as compared to standard unilateral laminotomy.

Comparative study of two spinous process (SP) osteotomy techniques for posterior decompression surgery in lumbar spinal stenosis: SP base versus splitting osteotomy

PURPOSE

To compare the postoperative clinical and radiological outcomes of the SP base osteotomy versus SP splitting techniques for PD for treating LSS.

METHODS

Of 139 patients who underwent PD surgery for LSS, 97 who met the study criteria were enrolled in the study. Group A comprised 53 patients who underwent SP base osteotomy, and group B included 44 patients who underwent SP splitting osteotomy. The primary study endpoint was intensity of lower back pain (LBP) and pain radiation to the lower extremities measured with the visual analogue scale (VAS). Secondary endpoints included (1) clinical outcomes assessed using Oswestry disability index and 12-short health form questionnaire; (2) surgical outcomes; and (3) procedure-related complications.

RESULTS

LBP was more or less greater in SP base osteotomy group than in SP splitting osteotomy group at postoperative 1 week and 1 year (P = 0.04 and 0.03), but radiating pain was no significant difference between the groups throughout the 1-year follow-up period. One year after the surgery, the fusion rate at the osteotomized site was significantly greater in SP splitting osteotomy group (77%) than in SP base osteotomy group (55%) (P = 0.03). Clinical outcomes, surgical outcomes, and complications did not differ significantly between groups during follow-up times.

CONCLUSIONS

The two SP osteotomy techniques offer excellent clinical and radiological outcomes at least for the first year after the surgery. In fusion rate at the osteotomized SP site, the SP splitting technique was superior to the SP base osteotomy technique. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

The Recent Trend in Diagnosis and Treatment of Chronic Low Back Pain

INTRODUCTION

Development of evidence-based medicine has made a big change in diagnosis and treatment of chronic low back pain. The recent trend is assessed through a review of literature.

METHODS

The articles published in these 10 years are reviewed, and important points are examined.

RESULTS

In diagnosis, challenges for history taking and limit of imaging or clinical guidelines are revealed. In treatment, cognitive behavioral treatment and exercises are proved effective. Sleep disturbance has recently attracted attention as a factor associated with low back pain. Cost-effectiveness of diagnosis and treatment modalities has come to be emphasized.

CONCLUSIONS

Diagnosis and treatment of chronic low back pain have been significantly changing. Multidisciplinary and multidimensional approach is essential. Chronic low back pain should be treated as a total pain, not a local pain.

Interlaminar endoscopic lateral recess decompression-surgical technique and early clinical results

BACKGROUND

Lateral recess stenosis is a common pathology causing de-novo or residual radicular pain following lumbar spine surgery. Diagnostic criteria and treatment strategies for symptomatic lateral recess stenosis are not well established.

METHODS

We identified ten patients in our prospective patient database (n=146) who underwent endoscopic interlaminar decompression for unilateral symptomatic lateral recess stenosis. Lateral recess height and angle were measured on axial T2-weighted MRI. Values from the symptomatic side were compared to the contralateral side which served as asymptomatic control. Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for back and leg pain were collected preoperatively, postoperatively and at last follow-up.

RESULTS

Preoperative MRI revealed that both lateral recess angle and height were significantly smaller on the symptomatic compared to the asymptomatic side (angle: 19.3° vs. 35.7°; height: 2.9 vs. 5.7 mm; P<0.01). All patients tolerated endoscopic interlaminar decompression well and half of the patients were discharged on the day of surgery. At last follow-up (12.6±1.7 months), 8 out of 10 patients experienced a minimally clinically important improvement of their VAS for ipsilateral leg pain, which improved from 7.2±0.5 preoperatively to 2.5±0.8 postoperatively (P=0.001). The back pain VAS also improved (preoperatively 5.1±1.1 vs. postoperatively 1.7±0.9, P<0.05). The ODI improved from 50±5.8 preoperatively to 22.2±5.1 at last follow-up (P=0.001). One patient experienced persistent leg pain.

CONCLUSIONS

Lateral recess height and angle correlate with symptomatic lateral recess stenosis which is effectively treated utilizing interlaminar endoscopic lateral recess decompression.

Study-protocol for a randomized controlled trial comparing clinical and radiological results after three different posterior decompression techniques for lumbar spinal stenosis: the Spinal Stenosis Trial (SST) (part of the NORDSTEN Study)

Background

There are several posterior decompression techniques for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). There is a trend towards performing less invasive surgical procedures, but no multicentre randomized controlled trials have evaluated the relative efficacy of these techniques at short and long-term.

Method/design

A multicentre randomized controlled trial [the Spinal Stenosis Trial (SST) (part of the NORDSTEN study)] including 465 patients aged 18–80 years with neurogenic claudication or radiating pain and MRI findings indicating lumbar spinal stenosis without spondylolisthesis is performed to compare three posterior decompression techniques: unilateral laminotomy with crossover, bilateral laminotomy and spinous process osteotomy. The primary outcome is change in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI 2 years postoperatively). Secondary outcomes are change in EQ-5D, Zurich Claudication Questionnaire, and Numeric Rating Scale for leg-pain and back-pain. Also recorded were Global Perceived Effect score, complications, length of hospital stay, reoperation rate 2 years postoperatively, difference in recurrence of symptoms or postoperative instability, and MRI change in the dural sac area. Further, a 5 and 10 years follow-up is planned with the same outcome measures.

Discussion

Newer and less invasive techniques are increasingly favoured in surgery for LSS. This trial will compare the clinical and radiological results of three different techniques, and may contribute to better clinical decision making in the surgical treatment of LSS.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov reference: NCT02007083 (November 22, 2013).

Management of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: an evidence-based review

Lumbar spinal stenosis has become one of the most disabling pathologies in the elderly population.Some additional conditions such as foraminal stenosis or degenerative spondylosis with a history of back pain and leg pain must be considered before treatment.A completely appropriate protocol and unified management of spinal stenosis have not yet been well defined.The objective of this literature review is to provide evidence-based recommendations reflected in the highest-quality clinical literature available to address key clinical questions surrounding the management of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Cite this article: Covaro A, Vilà-Canet G, García de Frutos A, Ubierna MT, Ciccolo F, Caceres E. Management of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: an evidence-based review article. EFORT Open Rev 2016;1:267-274. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.1.000030.

Predictors of Reoperation after Microdecompression in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

OBJECTIVE

The risk factors of reoperation after microdecompression (MD) for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) are unclear. In this study, we presented the outcomes of MD for degenerative LSS and investigated the risk factors associated with reoperation.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted using the clinical records and radiographs of patients with LSS who underwent MD. For clinical evaluation, we used the Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) scoring system for low back pain, body mass index, and Charlson comorbidity index. For radiological evaluation, disc height, facet angle, and sagittal rotation angle were measured in operated segments. Also the Modic change and Pfirrmann grade for degeneration in the endplate and disc were scored.

RESULTS

Forty-three patients aged 69±9 years at index surgery were followed for 48±25 months. The average preoperative JOA score was 6.9±1.6 points. The score improved to 9.1±2.1 points at the latest follow-up (p<0.001). Seven patients (16.3%) underwent reoperation. Clinical and radiological factors except operation level and Pfirrmann grade showed a p-value >0.1. Patients with Pfirrmann grade IV and lower lumbar segment had a 29.1% rate of reoperation (p=0.001), whereas patients without these factors had a 0% rate of reoperation.

CONCLUSION

Moderate disk degeneration (Pfirrmann IV) in lower lumbar segments is a risk factor of disk herniation or foraminal stenosis requiring reoperation after MD in LSS.

Interspinous Process Decompression: Expanding Treatment Options for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

Interspinous process decompression is a minimally invasive implantation procedure employing a stand-alone interspinous spacer that functions as an extension blocker to prevent compression of neural elements without direct surgical removal of tissue adjacent to the nerves. The Superion® spacer is the only FDA approved stand-alone device available in the US. It is also the only spacer approved by the CMS to be implanted in an ambulatory surgery center. We computed the within-group effect sizes from the Superion IDE trial and compared them to results extrapolated from two randomized trials of decompressive laminectomy. For the ODI, effect sizes were all very large (>1.0) for Superion and laminectomy at 2, 3, and 4 years. For ZCQ, the 2-year Superion symptom severity (1.26) and physical function (1.29) domains were very large; laminectomy effect sizes were very large (1.07) for symptom severity and large for physical function (0.80). Current projections indicate a marked increase in the number of patients with spinal stenosis. Consequently, there remains a keen interest in minimally invasive treatment options that delay or obviate the need for invasive surgical procedures, such as decompressive laminectomy or fusion. Stand-alone interspinous spacers may fill a currently unmet treatment gap in the continuum of care and help to reduce the burden of this chronic degenerative condition on the health care system.

Surgical options for lumbar spinal stenosis

BACKGROUND

Hospital charges for lumbar spinal stenosis have increased significantly worldwide in recent times, with great variation in the costs and rates of different surgical procedures. There have also been significant increases in the rate of complex fusion and the use of spinal spacer implants compared to that of traditional decompression surgery, even though the former is known to incur costs up to three times higher. Moreover, the superiority of these new surgical procedures over traditional decompression surgery is still unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of surgery in the management of patients with symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis and the comparative effectiveness between commonly performed surgical techniques to treat this condition on patient-related outcomes. We also aimed to investigate the safety of these surgical interventions by including perioperative surgical data and reoperation rates.

SEARCH METHODS

Review authors performed electronic searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, AMED, Web of Science, LILACS and three trials registries from their inception to 16 June 2016. Authors also conducted citation tracking on the reference lists of included trials and relevant systematic reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

This review included only randomised controlled trials that investigated the efficacy and safety of surgery compared with no treatment, placebo or sham surgery, or with another surgical technique in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed the studies for inclusion and performed the 'Risk of bias' assessment, using the Cochrane Back and Neck Review Group criteria. Reviewers also extracted demographics, surgery details, and types of outcomes to describe the characteristics of included studies. Primary outcomes were pain intensity, physical function or disability status, quality of life, and recovery. The secondary outcomes included measurements related to surgery, such as perioperative blood loss, operation time, length of hospital stay, reoperation rates, and costs. We grouped trials according to the types of surgical interventions being compared and categorised follow-up times as short-term when less than 12 months and long-term when 12 months or more. Pain and disability scores were converted to a common 0 to 100 scale. We calculated mean differences for continuous outcomes and relative risks for dichotomous outcomes. We pooled data using the random-effects model in Review Manager 5.3, and used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 24 randomised controlled trials (reported in 39 published research articles or abstracts) in this review. The trials included 2352 participants with lumbar spinal stenosis with symptoms of neurogenic claudication. None of the included trials compared surgery with no treatment, placebo or sham surgery. Therefore, all included studies compared two or more surgical techniques. We judged all trials to be at high risk of bias for the blinding of care provider domain, and most of the trials failed to adequately conceal the randomisation process, blind the participants or use intention-to-treat analysis. Five trials compared the effects of fusion in addition to decompression surgery. Our results showed no significant differences in pain relief at long-term (mean difference (MD) -0.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) -7.32 to 6.74). Similarly, we found no between-group differences in disability reduction in the long-term (MD 3.26, 95% CI -6.12 to 12.63). Participants who received decompression alone had significantly less perioperative blood loss (MD -0.52 L, 95% CI -0.70 L to -0.34 L) and required shorter operations (MD -107.94 minutes, 95% CI -161.65 minutes to -54.23 minutes) compared with those treated with decompression plus fusion, though we found no difference in the number of reoperations (risk ratio (RR) 1.25, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.92). Another three trials investigated the effects of interspinous process spacer devices compared with conventional bony decompression. These spacer devices resulted in similar reductions in pain (MD -0.55, 95% CI -8.08 to 6.99) and disability (MD 1.25, 95% CI -4.48 to 6.98). The spacer devices required longer operation time (MD 39.11 minutes, 95% CI 19.43 minutes to 58.78 minutes) and were associated with higher risk of reoperation (RR 3.95, 95% CI 2.12 to 7.37), but we found no difference in perioperative blood loss (MD 144.00 mL, 95% CI -209.74 mL to 497.74 mL). Two trials compared interspinous spacer devices with decompression plus fusion. Although we found no difference in pain relief (MD 5.35, 95% CI -1.18 to 11.88), the spacer devices revealed a small but significant effect in disability reduction (MD 5.72, 95% CI 1.28 to 10.15). They were also superior to decompression plus fusion in terms of operation time (MD 78.91 minutes, 95% CI 30.16 minutes to 127.65 minutes) and perioperative blood loss (MD 238.90 mL, 95% CI 182.66 mL to 295.14 mL), however, there was no difference in rate of reoperation (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.51). Overall there were no differences for the primary or secondary outcomes when different types of surgical decompression techniques were compared among each other. The quality of evidence varied from 'very low quality' to 'high quality'.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results of this Cochrane review show a paucity of evidence on the efficacy of surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis, as to date no trials have compared surgery with no treatment, placebo or sham surgery. Placebo-controlled trials in surgery are feasible and needed in the field of lumbar spinal stenosis. Our results demonstrate that at present, decompression plus fusion and interspinous process spacers have not been shown to be superior to conventional decompression alone. More methodologically rigorous studies are needed in this field to confirm our results.

Surgical and nonsurgical treatments for lumbar spinal stenosis

Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is the most common indication for spinal surgery in older adults; however, the efficacy of surgery for LSS as compared to nonsurgical treatments remains unclear. Here, we reviewed numerous studies, including randomized control trails (RCTs), to compare nonsurgical and surgical treatments for LSS. The nonsurgical management of LSS includes medication, epidural injections, physiotherapy, lifestyle modification, and multidisciplinary rehabilitative approaches. Patients with LSS who do not improve after nonsurgical treatments are typically treated surgically using decompressive surgery, which has the strongest evidence base. Although decompressive surgical treatment is associated with modestly successful outcomes, it remains unclear whether decompression combined with fusion surgery results in clinical outcomes that are superior to those following decompression surgery alone. Future RCTs assessing the effectiveness of specific treatments based on high-quality scientific evidence are expected to aid clinical decision-making and improve treatment outcomes for LSS.

Does surgical technique influence clinical outcome after lumbar spinal stenosis decompression? A comparative effectiveness study from the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcome of spinal process osteotomy with two other midline-retaining methods, bilateral laminotomy and unilateral laminotomy with crossover, among patients undergoing surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis.

METHODS

This cohort study was based on data from the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery (NORspine). Patients were operated on between 2009 and 2013 at 31 Norwegian hospitals. The patients completed questionnaires at admission for surgery, and after 3 and 12 months. The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were duration of surgery and hospital stay, Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) for back pain and leg pain, and EQ-5D and EQ-VAS. The patients were classified into one of three treatment groups according to the surgery they had received, and a propensity score was utilized to minimize bias. The three treatment groups were divided into subgroups based on Propensity Scores, and the statistical analyses were performed with and within the Propensity Score stratified subgroups.

RESULTS

103 patients had spinal process osteotomy, 966 patients had bilateral laminotomy, and 462 patients had unilateral laminotomy with crossover. Baseline clinical scores were similar in the three groups. There were no differences in improvement after 3 and 12 months between treatment groups. At 12 months, mean ODI improvement was 15.2 (SD 16.7) after spinous process osteotomy, 16.9 (SD 17.0) after bilateral laminotomy, and 16.7 (SD 16.9) after unilateral laminotomy with crossover. There were no differences in the secondary clinical outcomes or complication rates. Mean duration of surgery was greatest for spinal process osteotomy (p < 0.05). Length of stay was 2.1 days (SD 2.1) in the bilateral laminotomy group, 3.5 (SD 2.4) days for unilateral laminotomy, and 6.9 days (SD 4.1) for spinous process osteotomy group (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

In a propensity scored matched cohort, there were no differences in the clinical outcome 12 months after surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis performed using the three different posterior decompression techniques. Bilateral laminotomy had shortest duration of surgery and shortest length of hospital stay. Surgical technique does not seem to affect clinical outcome after three different midline-retaining posterior decompression techniques.

Management of lumbar spinal stenosis

Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) affects more than 200,000 adults in the United States, resulting in substantial pain and disability. It is the most common reason for spinal surgery in patients over 65 years. Lumbar spinal stenosis is a clinical syndrome of pain in the buttocks or lower extremities, with or without back pain. It is associated with reduced space available for the neural and vascular elements of the lumbar spine. The condition is often exacerbated by standing, walking, or lumbar extension and relieved by forward flexion, sitting, or recumbency. Clinical care and research into lumbar spinal stenosis is complicated by the heterogeneity of the condition, the lack of standard criteria for diagnosis and inclusion in studies, and high rates of anatomic stenosis on imaging studies in older people who are completely asymptomatic. The options for non-surgical management include drugs, physiotherapy, spinal injections, lifestyle modification, and multidisciplinary rehabilitation. However, few high quality randomized trials have looked at conservative management. A systematic review concluded that there is insufficient evidence to recommend any specific type of non-surgical treatment. Several different surgical procedures are used to treat patients who do not improve with non-operative therapies. Given that rapid deterioration is rare and that symptoms often wax and wane or gradually improve, surgery is almost always elective and considered only if sufficiently bothersome symptoms persist despite trials of less invasive interventions. Outcomes (leg pain and disability) seem to be better for surgery than for non-operative treatment, but the evidence is heterogeneous and often of limited quality.