Surgical and nonsurgical treatments for lumbar spinal stenosis

Preference Sensitive Care and Shared Decision-Making in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Scoping Review

STUDY DESIGN

Scoping review.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to conduct a scoping review exploring the extent to which preference sensitivity has been studied in treatment decisions for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS), utilizing shared decision-making (SDM) as a proxy.

BACKGROUND

Preference-sensitive care involves situations where multiple treatment options exist with significant tradeoffs in cost, outcome, recovery time, and quality of life. LSS has gained research focus as a preference-sensitive care scenario.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A scoping review protocol in accordance with "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews" regulations was registered with the Open Science Framework (ID: 9ewup) and conducted across multiple databases from January 2000 to October 2022. Study selection and characterization were performed by 3 independent reviewers and an unbiased moderator.

RESULTS

The search resulted in the inclusion of 16 studies varying in design and sample size, with most published between 2016 and 2021. The studies examined variables related to SDM, patient preferences, surgeon preferences, and decision aids (DAs). The outcomes assessed included treatment choice, patient satisfaction, and patient understanding. Several studies reported that SDM influenced treatment choice and patient satisfaction, while the impact on patient understanding was less clear. DAs were used in some studies to facilitate SDM.

CONCLUSION

The scoping review identified a gap in comprehensive studies analyzing the preference sensitivity of treatment for LSS and the role of DAs. Further research is needed to better understand the impact of patient preferences on treatment decisions and the effectiveness of DAs in LSS care. This review provides a foundation for future research in preference-sensitive care and SDM in the context of lumbar stenosis treatment.

Efficacy and Safety of Lumbar Dynamic Stabilization Device Coflex for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to investigate evidence for the comparison of lumbar dynamic stabilization device Coflex (Surgalign, Deerfield, IL) with posterior lumbar fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis).

METHODS

Relational databases were searched to October 2022. The main outcome measures included operation time, Japanese Orthopedic Association score (JOA), visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI), total complications, and adjacent segment degeneration (ASD). Statistical analysis was performed with Review Manager 5.3 (Cochrane Collaboration).

RESULTS

A total of 26 studies were included. The main results of this meta-analysis showed lumbar dynamic stabilization device Coflex had shorter operation time (mean difference [MD] -50.77 min, 95% CI -57.24 to -44.30, P < 0.00001), less intraoperative blood loss (MD -122.21 mL, 95% CI -129.68 to -94.74, P < 0.00001), and shorter hospital stays (MD -3.21 days, 95% CI -4.04 to -2.37, P < 0.00001). What's more, the JOA score and ODI score were higher in the Coflex group during early follow-up. Yet, there was no significant difference between the 2 groups with the extension of follow-up time. Moreover, the Coflex group had a lower VAS score than fusion treatment (P < 0.00001). Finally, the Coflex group had lower total complications rate (P = 0.03), lower ASD rate (P = 0.001), and higher range of motion (P < 0.00001), but there was no significant difference in reoperation rate and internal fixation problems rate.

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence suggests that lumbar dynamic stabilization device Coflex is superior to posterior lumbar fusion in early follow-up. However, considering that the dynamic stabilization device group also has its limitations, these findings need to be further verified by multicenter, double-blind, and large-sample randomized controlled trials.

Lumbar spinal stenosis - surgical outcome and the odds of revision-surgery: Is it all due to the surgeon?

BACKGROUND

Surgical decompression is the intervention of choice for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) when non-operative treatment has failed. Apart from acute complications such as hematoma and infections, same-level recurrent lumbar stenosis and adjacent-segment disease (ASD) are factors that can occur after index lumbar spine surgery.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this retrospective case series was to evaluate the outcome of surgery and the odds of necessary revisions.

METHODS

Patients who had undergone either decompressive lumbar laminotomy or laminotomy and spinal fusion due to lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) between 2000 and 2011 were included in this analysis. Demographic, perioperative and radiographic data were collected. Clinical outcome was evaluated using numeric rating scale (NRS), the symptom subscale of the adapted version of the german Spinal Stenosis Measure (SSM) and patient-sreported ability to walk.

RESULTS

Within the LSS- cohort of 438 patients, 338 patients underwent decompression surgery only, while instrumentation in addition to decompression was performed in 100 cases (22.3%). 38 patients had prior spinal operations (decompression, disc herniation, fusion) either at our hospital or elsewhere. Thirty-five intraoperative complications were documented with dural tear with CSF leak being the most common (33/35; 94.3%). Postoperative complications were defined as complications that needed surgery and differentiated between immediate postoperative complications (⩽ 3 weeks post operation) and complications that needed revisions surgery at a later date. Within all patients 51 revisions were classified as immediate complications of the index operation with infections, neurological deficits and hematoma being the most common. Within this group only 22 patients had fusion surgery in the first place, while 29 were treated by decompression. Revision surgery was indicated by 53 patients at a later date. While 4 patients decided against surgery, 49 revision surgeries were planned. 28 were performed at the same level, 10 at the same level plus an adjacent level, and 10 were executed at index level with indications of adjacent level spinal stenosis, adjacent level spinal stenosis plus instability and stand-alone instability. Pre- operative VAS score and ability to walk improved significantly in all patients.

CONCLUSIONS

While looking for predictors of revision surgery due to re-stenosis, instability or same/adjacent segment disease none of these were found. Within our cohort no significant differences concerning demographic, peri-operative and radiographic data of patients with or without revision wer noted. Patients, who needed revision surgery were older but slightly healthier while more likely to be male and smoking. Surprisingly, significant differences were noted regarding the distribution of intraoperative and early postoperative complications among the 6 main surgeons while these weren't obious within the intial index group of late revisions.

A short-term oral corticosteroid for refractory lumbar spinal stenosis: a double-blinded randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial

Although epidural corticosteroids have been evaluated for the lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) as an alternative treatment, oral corticosteroids have not been considered as a possible option for the patients with constant pain who have resistant against routine treatments. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the efficacy of the short-term, low-dose oral prednisolone for refractory LSS. In this double-blinded randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial, 100 participants with the refractory LSS were selected from the out-patient clinics; however, 7 of them excluded before randomization. The patients were randomly allocated into two groups with a 1:1 ratio: the intervention group that received 10 mg prednisolone per day for 1 week and the control group that received the exact placebo. The patients' severity of pain in terms of the numerical rating scale, ability to walk in meters, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were assessed and then compared to the baseline after 2 months. The baseline variables were NS between these two groups. At the 2-month follow-up, the ability to walk in meters has increased and the severity of pain and ODI have decreased in both groups. Notably, except for the walking distance, none of the differences were statistically significant. Except for the significant change in walking distance between the groups, no other significant difference was observed in any variables when comparing the delta of each variable (after-before). One-week treatment with daily 10 mg oral prednisolone was not effective on the patients with refractory LSS in the short-term follow-up.

Short-term effectiveness of precise safety decompression via double percutaneous lumbar foraminoplasty and percutaneous endoscopic lumbar decompression for lateral lumbar spinal canal stenosis: a prospective cohort study

Purpose

This prospective cohort study reports on a modified technique, namely precise safety decompression via double percutaneous lumbar foraminoplasty (DPLF) and percutaneous endoscopic lumbar decompression (PELD) for lateral lumbar spinal canal (LLSC) stenosis, and its short-term clinical outcomes.

Methods

The study analyzed 69 patients with single-level LLSC stenosis simultaneously occurring in both zones 1 and 2 (defined as retrodiscal space and upper bony lateral recess respectively by new LLSC classification) who underwent DPLF–PELD from November 2018 to April 2019. Clinical outcomes were evaluated according to preoperative, 3 months postoperatively, and last follow-up, via leg pain/low back pain (LBP) visual analog scale (VAS) scores, Oswestry disability index (ODI) scores, and the Macnab criteria. The postoperative MRI and CT were used to confirm the complete decompression, and flexion-extension x-rays at the last follow-up were used to observe lumbar stability.

Results

All patients successfully underwent DPLF–PELD, and the stenosis was completely decompressed, confirmed by postoperative MRI and CT. The mean follow-up duration was 13 months (range: 8–17 months). The mean preoperative leg pain VAS score is 7.05 ± 1.04 (range 5–9), which decreased to 1.03 ± 0.79(range: 0–3) at 3 months postoperatively and to 0.75 ± 0.63 (range: 0–2) by the last follow-up visit (p < 0.05). The mean preoperative ODI was 69.8 ± 9.05 (range: 52–85), which decreased to 20.3 ± 5.52 (range: 10–35) at the third month postoperatively and to 19.6 ± 5.21 (range: 10–34) by the final follow-up visit (p < 0.05). The satisfactory (excellent or good) results were 94.2%. There was one patient with aggravated symptoms, which were relieved after an open surgery. Two patients had a dural tear, and two patients suffered postoperative LBP. No recurrence or segmental instability was observed at the final follow-up.

Conclusion

DPLF–PELD could be a good alternative for the treatment of LLSC stenosis patients whose stenosis occurred in both zones 1 and 2.

Trial registration

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR1800019551). Registered 18 November 2018.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12891-021-03956-9.

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.

Treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis secondary to ligamentum flavum hypertrophy using percutaneous endoscopy through interlaminar approach: a retrospective study

Background

This paper is to describe percutaneous endoscopy in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis secondary to ligamentum flavum hypertrophy targeted and to investigate the efficacy and safety of percutaneous endoscopy in the treatment of this kind of lumbar spinal stenosis in elderly patients.

Method

A retrospective analysis of 40 elderly patients with lumbar spinal stenosis secondary to ligamentum flavum hypertrophy admitted between January 2016 and January 2018 was performed. According to different surgical methods, they were divided into two groups: the control group and the endoscopy group (interlaminar approach), 20 people per group. There were 9 males and 11 females in the control group; the age of patients was 65.65 ± 4.44 years, and the average disease duration was 4.55 ± 1.85 years. Besides, there were 10 males and 10 females in the endoscopy group; the age of patients was 67.30 ± 4.23 years, and the average disease duration was 4.95 ± 2.04 years. Collect and count surgical-related indicators, preoperative and postoperative radiologic findings, incision visual analog scale (VAS), lumbar and leg pain VAS, lumbar Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA), and Oswestry disability index (ODI) scores of all patients.

Result

A series of surgical indicators (including the operation time, the quantity of bleeding, and postoperative hospital stay) in the endoscopy group was significantly lower than that in the control group (p < 0.05). The incision VAS score in the endoscopy group was also significantly lower than that in the control group at each time after surgery (p < 0.05). Besides, compared with the control group, in the endoscopy group, the leg pain VAS score and lumbar ODI score after surgery were significantly decreased (p < 0.05). Compared with the control group, in the endoscopy group, the lumbar JOA score was significantly higher (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

Percutaneous endoscopic technique is a small trauma, quick recovery, safe, and effective minimally invasive surgery for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis secondary to ligamentum flavum hypertrophy.

A new interspinous process distraction device BacFuse in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis with 5 years follow-up study

To explore a suitable indication of interspinous process distraction device for lumbar spinal stenosis with BacFuse.Patients of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) who experienced interspinous process distraction device surgery with BacFuse from June 2014 to January 2015 in our institute were included. We classified LSS into central and lateral types, and then divided these into severe and moderate according to the degree of stenosis. Each type was divided into 2 groups. Patients in group A underwent distraction without bone decompression (stand-alone), while patients in group B underwent bone decompression combined with distraction. Follow-up was performed at 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 2 years, and 5 years after surgery. Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ) was recorded to assess the patient's postoperative condition at each follow-up.A total of 142 patients were available for follow up at each time interval. There was a significant difference between the preoperative and final follow-up ZCQ scores for every LSS type. In addition, there was no difference between group A and group B in the postoperative ZCQ scores with the exception of the lateral severe type. In the study, 22 of the 23 patients (95.65%) in the lateral moderate type were considered to have a satisfactory result in group B, with a similar result of 93.33% (14/15) in group A (P = .75). In the lateral severe type, the patient satisfaction rate was 65.22% (15/23) and 90.63% (29/32) in group A and group B (P = .02), respectively. In the central moderate type, the patient satisfaction rate was 81.82% (15/23) and 76.92% (10/13) in group A and group B (P = .77), respectively. Satisfaction rate for the follow-up results in the central severe type reached 57.14% (4/7) in group A, and 54.55% (6/11) in group B (P = .91). Moreover, no relationship was found between satisfaction and neurogenic intermittent claudication.The most suitable indication for BacFuse treatment was the lateral moderate type. For lateral severe patients, distraction combined with decompression is suggested for a higher satisfaction rate. Severe central spinal stenosis was shown to be a relative contraindication for BacFuse.

Biomechanics and Mechanism of Action of Indirect Lumbar Decompression and the Evolution of a Stand-alone Spinous Process Spacer

Objective

Objective Interspinous process spacers are used in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis by preventing extension at the implanted level and reducing claudication, which is a common symptom of lumbar spinal stenosis. This review assessed the current safety and performance of lumbar spinal stenosis treatments and the biomechanical effects of spinal position, range of motion, and the use of interspinous process spacers.

Method

Method EMBASE and PubMed were searched to find studies reporting on the safety and performance of nonsurgical treatment, including physical therapy and pharmacological treatment, and surgical treatment, including direct and indirect lumbar decompression treatment. Results were supplemented with manual searches to include studies reporting on the use of interspinous process spacers and the review of biomechanical testing performed on the Superion device.

Results

Results The effects of spinal position in extension and flexion have been shown to have an impact in the variation in dimensions of the spinal canal and foramina areas. Overall studies have shown that spinal positions from flexion to extension reduce the spinal canal and foramina dimensions and increase ligamentum flavum thickness. Biomechanical test data have shown that the Superion device resists extension and reduces angular movement at the implantation level and provides significant segmental stability.

Conclusions

Conclusions Superion interspinous lumbar decompression is a minimally invasive, low-risk procedure for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis, which has been shown to have a low safety profile by maintaining sagittal alignment, limiting the potential for device dislodgment or migration, and to preserve mobility and structural elements.