Surgical Versus Nonsurgical Treatment for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

Decompression alone or decompression with fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis: five-year clinical results from a randomized clinical trial

Aims

We compared decompression alone to decompression with fusion surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis, with or without degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS). The aim was to evaluate if five-year outcomes differed between the groups. The two-year results from the same trial revealed no differences.

Methods

The Swedish Spinal Stenosis Study was a multicentre randomized controlled trial with recruitment from September 2006 to February 2012. A total of 247 patients with one- or two-level central lumbar spinal stenosis, stratified by the presence of DS, were randomized to decompression alone or decompression with fusion. The five-year Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were the EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D), visual analogue scales for back and leg pain, and patient-reported satisfaction, decreased pain, and increased walking distance. The reoperation rate was recorded.

Results

Five-year follow-up was completed by 213 (95%) of the eligible patients (mean age 67 years; 155 female (67%)). After five years, ODI was similar irrespective of treatment, with a mean of 25 (SD 18) for decompression alone and 28 (SD 22) for decompression with fusion (p = 0.226). Mean EQ-5D was higher for decompression alone than for fusion (0.69 (SD 0.28) vs 0.59 (SD 0.34); p = 0.027). In the no-DS subset, fewer patients reported decreased leg pain after fusion (58%) than with decompression alone (80%) (relative risk (RR) 0.71 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 0.97). The frequency of subsequent spinal surgery was 24% for decompression with fusion and 22% for decompression alone (RR 1.1 (95% CI 0.69 to 1.8)).

Conclusion

Adding fusion to decompression in spinal stenosis surgery, with or without spondylolisthesis, does not improve the five-year ODI, which is consistent with our two-year report. Three secondary outcomes that did not differ at two years favoured decompression alone at five years. Our results support decompression alone as the preferred method for operating on spinal stenosis.

24-Month Outcomes of Indirect Decompression Using a Minimally Invasive Interspinous Fixation Device versus Standard Open Direct Decompression for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Prospective Comparison

Purpose

An early-stage, multi-centre, prospective, randomised control trial with five-year follow-up was approved by Health Research Authority to compare the efficacy of a minimally invasive, laterally implanted interspinous fixation device (IFD) to open direct surgical decompression in treating lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). Two-year results are presented.

Patients and Methods

Forty-eight participants were randomly assigned to IFD or decompression. Primary study endpoints included changes from baseline at 8-weeks, 6, 12 and 24-months follow-ups for leg pain (visual analogue scale, VAS), back pain (VAS), disability (Oswestry Disability Index, ODI), LSS physical function (Zurich Claudication Questionnaire), distance walked in five minutes and number of repetitions of sitting-to-standing in one minute. Secondary study endpoints included patient and clinician global impression of change, adverse events, reoperations, operating parameters, and fusion rate.

Results

Both treatment groups demonstrated statistically significant improvements in mean leg pain, back pain, ODI disability, LSS physical function, walking distance and sitting-to-standing repetitions compared to baseline over 24 months. Mean reduction of ODI from baseline levels was between 35% and 56% for IFD (p<0.002), and 49% to 55% for decompression (p<0.001) for all follow-up time points. Mean reduction of IFD group leg pain was between 57% and 78% for all time points (p<0.001), with 72% to 94% of participants having at least 30% reduction of leg pain from 8-weeks through 24-months. Walking distance for the IFD group increased from 66% to 94% and sitting-to-standing repetitions increased from 44% to 64% for all follow-up time points. Blood loss was 88% less in the IFD group (p=0.024) and operating time parameters strongly favoured IFD compared to decompression (p<0.001). An 89% fusion rate was assessed in a subset of IFD participants. There were no intraoperative device issues or re-operations in the IFD group, and only one healed and non-symptomatic spinous process fracture observed within 24 months.

Conclusion

Despite a low number of participants in the IFD group, the study demonstrated successful two-year safety and clinical outcomes for the IFD with significant operation-related advantages compared to surgical decompression.

Early Clinical and Radiologic Evaluation of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Unilateral Laminotomy and Bilateral Decompression in Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

 The aim of this study is to evaluate the changes in radiologic parameters and clinical outcomes following unilateral biportal endoscopic unilateral laminotomy and bilateral decompression (UBE ULBD) for treatment of central lumbar spinal stenosis.

METHODS

 Forty-one central lumbar spinal stenosis patients who underwent UBE ULBD were enrolled from April 2021 to February 2023. Visual analog scale (VAS) for back pain and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score, and the modified MacNab criteria were assessed preoperatively and postoperatively. The preoperative and postoperative cross-sectional area of the spinal canal (CSAC), anteroposterior diameter, horizontal width, and ipsilateral and contralateral lateral recess height were calculated from axial computed tomography (CT) scans. Percentage of facet joint preservation measured on axial CT scans was obtained preoperation and postoperation.

RESULTS

 The VAS for back and leg pain improved from 7.24 ± 0.80 and 7.59 ± 0.59 preoperatively to 2.41 ± 0.55 and 2.37 ± 0.62 (p < 0.05) postoperatively and 1.37 ± 0.54 and 1.51 ± 0.55 at the last follow-up (p < 0.05). For ODI, improvement from 60.37 ± 4.44 preoperatively to 18.90 ± 4.66 (p < 0.05) at the last follow-up was observed. CT scans demonstrated that the postoperative CSAC increased significantly from 287.84 ± 87.81 to 232.97 ± 88.42 mm (p < 0.05). The mean postoperative anteroposterior diameter and horizontal width increased significantly from 18.01 ± 3.13 and 19.57 ± 3.80 to 22.19 ± 4.56 and 21.04 ± 3.72 mm, respectively (p < 0.05). The ipsilateral lateral recess height and contralateral lateral recess height were 3.39 ± 1.12 and 3.20 ± 1.14 mm preoperatively and 4.03 ± 1.37 and 3.83 ± 1.32 mm (p < 0.05) postoperatively, with significant differences. The ipsilateral and contralateral facet joint preservations were 88.17 and 93.18%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

 The UBE ULBD surgery is a safe and effective treatment for central lumbar spinal stenosis, associated with significant improvement in clinical outcomes and radiologic parameters. Studies with larger samples and longer follow-up periods are needed for further research.

Spinal manipulation and electrical dry needling as an adjunct to conventional physical therapy in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: a multi-center randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Nonoperative management of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) includes activity modification, medication, injections, and physical therapy. Conventional physical therapy includes a multimodal approach of exercise, manual therapy, and electro-thermal modalities. There is a paucity of evidence supporting the use of spinal manipulation and dry needling as an adjunct to conventional physical therapy in patients with LSS.

PURPOSE

This study aimed to determine the effects of adding thrust spinal manipulation and electrical dry needling to conventional physical therapy in patients with LSS.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Randomized, single-blinded, multi-center, parallel-group clinical trial.

PATIENT SAMPLE

One hundred twenty-eight (n=128) patients with LSS from 12 outpatient clinics in 8 states were recruited over a 34-month period.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcomes included the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Secondary outcomes included the Roland Morris Disability Index (RMDI), Global Rating of Change (GROC), and medication intake. Follow-up assessments were taken at 2 weeks, 6 weeks, and 3 months.

METHODS

Patients were randomized to receive either spinal manipulation, electrical dry needling, and conventional physical therapy (MEDNCPT group, n=65) or conventional physical therapy alone (CPT group, n=63).

RESULTS

At 3 months, the MEDNCPT group experienced greater reductions in overall low back, buttock, and leg pain (NPRS: F=5.658; p=.002) and related-disability (ODI: F=9.921; p<.001; RMDI: F=7.263; p<.001) compared to the CPT group. Effect sizes were small at 2 and 6 weeks, and medium at 3 months for the NPRS, ODI, and RMDI. At 3 months, significantly (p=.003) more patients in the MEDNCPT group reported a successful outcome (GROC≥+5) than the CPT group.

CONCLUSION

Patients with LSS who received electrical dry needling and spinal manipulation in addition to impairment-based exercise, manual therapy and electro-thermal modalities experienced greater improvements in low back, buttock and leg pain and related-disability than those receiving exercise, manual therapy, and electro-thermal modalities alone at 3 months, but not at the 2 or 6 week follow-up.

1. Lumbosacral radicular pain

INTRODUCTION

Patients suffering lumbosacral radicular pain report radiating pain in one or more lumbar or sacral dermatomes. In the general population, low back pain with leg pain extending below the knee has an annual prevalence that varies from 9.9% to 25%.

METHODS

The literature on the diagnosis and treatment of lumbosacral radicular pain was reviewed and summarized.

RESULTS

Although a patient's history, the pain distribution pattern, and clinical examination may yield a presumptive diagnosis of lumbosacral radicular pain, additional clinical tests may be required. Medical imaging studies can demonstrate or exclude specific underlying pathologies and identify nerve root irritation, while selective diagnostic nerve root blocks can be used to confirm the affected level(s). In subacute lumbosacral radicular pain, transforaminal corticosteroid administration provides short-term pain relief and improves mobility. In chronic lumbosacral radicular pain, pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) treatment adjacent to the spinal ganglion (DRG) can provide pain relief for a longer period in well-selected patients. In cases of refractory pain, epidural adhesiolysis and spinal cord stimulation can be considered in experienced centers.

CONCLUSIONS

The diagnosis of lumbosacral radicular pain is based on a combination of history, clinical examination, and additional investigations. Epidural steroids can be considered for subacute lumbosacral radicular pain. In chronic lumbosacral radicular pain, PRF adjacent to the DRG is recommended. SCS and epidural adhesiolysis can be considered for cases of refractory pain in specialized centers.

Oblique lateral internal fusion combined with percutaneous pedicle screw fixation in severe lumbar spinal stenosis: clinical and radiographic outcome

BACKGROUND

Oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) has been a popular technique for treating lumbar degenerative diseases. Previous studies have shown its efficiency in lumbar spinal stenosis; yet, only a few studies have investigated its application to severe lumbar spinal stenosis. Herein, we investigated the clinical and radiographic outcome of OLIF with percutaneous pedicle screws in the treatment of severe lumbar spinal stenosis.

METHODS

A total of 15 patients who underwent OLIF with percutaneous pedicle screws were retrospectively analysed. All patients were diagnosed with severe lumbar stenosis (Schizas grade C or D) through preoperative magnetic resonance image (MRI) and received OLIF combined with percutaneous pedicle screw surgery. Clinical outcomes, including visual analogue scale (VAS)-back and VAS-leg scores, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), as well as mean disc height (DH), mean foraminal height (FH), segmental lumbar lordosis (SLL) and cross-sectional area (CSA) of the spinal canal, were analysed before and after surgery and at the last follow-up. Intraoperative data, complications and fusion rate were also investigated.

RESULTS

OLIF combined with percutaneous pedicle screws was performed on 18 segments in 15 patients. Mean follow-up was 23.1 ± 4.6 months (range 15-29 months). VAS-back, VAS-leg, and ODI scores were significantly improved at the last follow-up. DH increased from 8.86 ± 3.06 mm before surgery to 13.31 ± 2.14 mm after; at the last follow-up, DH was 11.69 ± 1.87 mm. FH increased from 17.85 ± 2.26 mm before surgery to 22.09 ± 1.36 mm after; at the last follow-up, FH was 20.41 ± 0.99 mm. CSA of the spinal canal increased from 30.83 ± 21.15 mm2 before surgery to 74.99 ± 33.65 mm2 after the operation and 81.22 ± 35.53 mm2 at the last follow-up. The segmental LL before surgery, after surgery and at last follow-up was 20.27 ± 6.25 degrees, 20.83 ± 6.52 degrees and 19.75 ± 5.87 degrees, respectively. All patients have gained fusion at the last follow-up.

CONCLUSION

OLIF with percutaneous pedicle screws could achieve satisfactory clinical and radiographic effects through indirect compression by increasing DH, FH and CSA of the spinal canal in severe lumbar stenosis patients.

A Simple Preoperative Score Predicting Failure Following Decompression Surgery for Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Proper patient selection is crucial for the outcome of surgically treated degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS). Nevertheless, there is still not a clear consensus regarding the optimal treatment option for patients with DLSS.

PURPOSE

To investigate the treatment failure rate and introduce a simple, preoperative score to aid surgical decision-making.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Retrospective observational study.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Four hundred forty-five patients who underwent surgical decompression for DLSS.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Treatment failure (defined as conversion to a fusion of a previously decompressed level) of lumbar decompression.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Several risk factors associated with worse outcomes and treatment failures, such as age, body mass index, smoking status, previous surgery, low back pain (LBP), facet joint effusion, disk degeneration, fatty infiltration of the paraspinal muscles, the presence of degenerative spondylolisthesis and the facet angulation, were investigated.

RESULTS

At a mean follow-up of 44±31 months, 6.5% (29/445) of the patients underwent revision surgery with spinal fusion at an average of 3±9 months following the lumbar decompression due to low back or leg pain. The baseline LBP (≥7) [odds ratio (OR)=5.4, P <0.001], the presence of facet joint effusion (>2 mm) in magnetic resonance imaging (OR=4.2, P <0.001), and disk degeneration (Pfirrmann >4) (OR=3.2, P =0.03) were associated with an increased risk for treatment failure following decompression for DLSS. The receiver operating characteristic curve analysis demonstrated that a score≥6 points yielded a sensitivity of 90% and specificity of 64% for predicting a treatment failure following lumbar decompression for DLSS in the present cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

The newly introduced score quantifying amounts of LBP, facet effusions, and disk degeneration, could predict treatment failure and the need for revision surgery for DLSS patients undergoing lumbar decompression without fusion. Patients with scores >6 have a high chance of needing fusion following decompression surgery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Retrospective observational study, Level III.

Economic costs, health-related quality of life outcomes and cost-utility of a physical and psychological group intervention targeted at older adults with neurogenic claudication

BACKGROUND

Emerging evidence suggests that structured and progressive exercise underpinned by a cognitive behavioural approach can improve functional outcomes in patients with neurogenic claudication (NC). However, evidence surrounding its economic benefits is lacking.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the economic costs, health-related quality of life outcomes and cost-effectiveness of a physical and psychological group intervention (BOOST programme) versus best practice advice (BPA) in older adults with NC.

METHODS

An economic evaluation was conducted based on data from a pragmatic, multicentre, superiority, randomised controlled trial. The base-case economic evaluation took the form of an intention-to-treat analysis conducted from a UK National Health Service (NHS) and personal social services (PSS) perspective and separately from a societal perspective. Costs (£ 2018-2019 prices) were collected prospectively over a 12 month follow-up period. A bivariate regression of costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), with multiple imputation of missing data, was conducted to estimate the incremental cost per QALY gained and the incremental net monetary benefit (INMB) of the BOOST programme in comparison to BPA. Sensitivity and pre-specified subgroup analyses explored uncertainty and heterogeneity in cost-effectiveness estimates.

RESULTS

Participants (N = 435) were randomised to the BOOST programme (n = 292) or BPA (n = 143). Mean (standard error [SE]) NHS and PSS costs over 12 months were £1,974 (£118) in the BOOST arm versus £1,827 (£169) in the BPA arm (p = 0.474). Mean (SE) QALY estimates were 0.620 (0.009) versus 0.599 (0.006), respectively (p = 0.093). The probability that the BOOST programme is cost-effective ranged between 67 and 83% (NHS and PSS perspective) and 79-89% (societal perspective) at cost-effectiveness thresholds between £15,000 and £30,000 per QALY gained. INMBs ranged between £145 and £464 at similar cost-effectiveness thresholds. The cost-effectiveness results remained robust to sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

The BOOST programme resulted in modest QALY gains over the 12 month follow-up period. Future studies with longer intervention and follow-up periods are needed to address uncertainty around the health-related quality of life impacts and cost-effectiveness of such programmes. Trial registration This study has been registered in the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number registry, reference number ISRCTN12698674. Registered on 10 November 2015.

Factors associated with an increased risk of developing postoperative symptomatic lumbar spondylolisthesis after decompression surgery: an explorative two-centre international cohort study

PURPOSE

Symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis can be treated with decompression surgery. A recent review reported that, after decompression surgery, 1.6-32.0% of patients develop postoperative symptomatic spondylolisthesis and may therefore be indicated for lumbar fusion surgery. The latter can be more challenging due to the altered anatomy and scar tissue. It remains unclear why some patients get recurrent neurological complaints due to postoperative symptomatic spondylolisthesis, though some associations have been suggested. This study explores the association between key demographic, biological and radiological factors and postoperative symptomatic spondylolisthesis after lumbar decompression.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included patients who had undergone lumbar spinal decompression surgery between January 2014 and December 2016 at one of two Spine Centres in the Netherlands or Switzerland and had a follow-up of two years. Patient characteristics, details of the surgical procedure and recurrent neurological complaints were retrieved from patient files. Preoperative MRI scans and conventional radiograms (CRs) of the lumbar spine were evaluated for multiple morphological characteristics. Postoperative spondylolisthesis was evaluated on postoperative MRI scans. For variables assessed on a whole patient basis, patients with and without postoperative symptomatic spondylolisthesis were compared. For variables assessed on the basis of the operated segment(s), surgical levels that did or did not develop postoperative spondylolisthesis were compared. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to identify associations with postoperative symptomatic spondylolisthesis.

RESULTS

Seven hundred and sixteen patients with 1094 surgical levels were included in the analyses. (In total, 300 patients had undergone multilevel surgery.) ICCs for intraobserver and interobserver reliability of CR and MRI variables ranged between 0.81 and 0.99 and 0.67 and 0.97, respectively. In total, 66 of 716 included patients suffered from postoperative symptomatic spondylolisthesis (9.2%). Multivariable regression analyses of patient-basis variables showed that being female [odds ratio (OR) 1.2, 95%CI 1.07-3.09] was associated with postoperative symptomatic spondylolisthesis. Higher BMI (OR 0.93, 95%CI 0.88-0.99) was associated with a lower probability of having postoperative symptomatic spondylolisthesis. Multivariable regression analyses of surgical level-basis variables showed that levels with preoperative spondylolisthesis (OR 17.30, 95%CI 10.27-29.07) and the level of surgery, most importantly level L4L5 compared with levels L1L3 (OR 2.80, 95%CI 0.78-10.08), were associated with postoperative symptomatic spondylolisthesis; greater facet joint angles (i.e. less sagittal-oriented facets) were associated with a lower probability of postoperative symptomatic spondylolisthesis (OR 0.97, 95%CI 0.95-0.99).

CONCLUSION

Being female was associated with a higher probability of having postoperative symptomatic spondylolisthesis, while having a higher BMI was associated with a lower probability. When looking at factors related to postoperative symptomatic spondylolisthesis at the surgical level, preoperative spondylolisthesis, more sagittal orientated facet angles and surgical level (most significantly level L4L5 compared to levels L1L3) showed significant associations. These associations could be used as a basis for devising patient selection criteria, stratifying patients or performing subgroup analyses in future studies regarding decompression surgery with or without fusion.

A Protocol for a Single-Centered, Pragmatic, Randomized, Controlled, Parallel Trial Comparing Comprehensive Nonsurgical Therapy Options for Individuals with Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

Aim

Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a long-term degenerative disease. Considering the risks and advantages of the patient's age range and the characteristics of the condition, non-surgical treatment is recommended. To determine the best first-line non-surgical therapy for LSS, few studies have examined different non-surgical therapies. Therefore, the main objective of this study is to determine whether the selection of comprehensive Chinese medicine (CM) treatment for LSS is more successful than non-surgical conservative treatment.

Patients and Methods

In this two-armed, parallel, single-centered, pragmatic randomized controlled study, 94 LSS participants will be randomized to receive 24 sessions of comprehensive CM therapy or conservative treatment for 3 months, with follow-up assessments at 6, 9, 12, and 15 months. The primary outcome will be based on the success rate of the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ) for the most clinical important difference (MCID) at 3 and 15 months. Secondary outcomes include Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) scores for back and leg pain, ZCQ scores, Oswestry Disability Index scores for lumbar dysfunction, and Short-Form 12 scores for health-related quality of life at 3, 6, 9, 12, and 15 months. Adverse events and incidences of surgery will be reported anytime during the trial and follow-up.

Conclusion

This protocol examines the comparative efficacy of comprehensive CM therapy compared with conventional care through a pragmatic randomized controlled trial to present data to facilitate clinical or policy decision-making. The outcomes will make it easier to decide which patient-centered treatments to prioritize for LSS.

Influence of Initial Health Care Provider on Subsequent Health Care Utilization for Patients With a New Onset of Low Back Pain: A Scoping Review

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this research was to examine the scope of evidence for the influence of a nonmedical initial provider on health care utilization and outcomes in people with low back pain (LBP).

METHODS

Using scoping review methodology, we conducted an electronic search of 4 databases from inception to June 2021. Studies investigating the management of patients with a new onset of LBP by a nonmedical initial health care provider were identified. Pairs of reviewers screened titles, abstracts, and eligible full-text studies. We extracted health care utilization and patient outcomes and assessed the methodological quality of the included studies using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist. Two reviewers descriptively analyzed the data and categorized findings by outcome measure.

RESULTS

A total of 26,462 citations were screened, and 11 studies were eligible. Studies were primarily retrospective cohort designs using claims-based data. Four studies had a low risk of bias. Five health care outcomes were identified: medication, imaging, care seeking, cost of care, and health care procedures. Patient outcomes included patient satisfaction and functional recovery. Compared with patients initiating care with medical providers, those initiating care with a nonmedical provider showed associations with reduced opioid prescribing and imaging ordering rates but increased rates of care seeking. Results for cost of care, health care procedures, and patient outcomes were inconsistent.

CONCLUSIONS

Prioritizing nonmedical providers at the first point of care may decrease the use of low-value care, such as opioid prescribing and imaging referral, but may lead to an increased number of health care visits in the care of people with LBP. High-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm our findings.

IMPACT

This scoping review provides preliminary evidence that nonmedical practitioners, as initial providers, may help reduce opioid prescription and selective imaging in people with LBP. The trend observed in this scoping review has important implications for pathways of care and the role of nonmedical providers, such as physical therapists, within primary health care systems.

LAY SUMMARY

This scoping review provides preliminary evidence that nonmedical practitioners, as initial providers, might help reduce opioid prescription and selective imaging in people with LBP. High-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Decompression alone or decompression with fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis: a randomized clinical trial with two-year MRI follow-up

AIMS

The aims of this study were first, to determine if adding fusion to a decompression of the lumbar spine for spinal stenosis decreases the rate of radiological restenosis and/or proximal adjacent level stenosis two years after surgery, and second, to evaluate the change in vertebral slip two years after surgery with and without fusion.

METHODS

The Swedish Spinal Stenosis Study (SSSS) was conducted between 2006 and 2012 at five public and two private hospitals. Six centres participated in this two-year MRI follow-up. We randomized 222 patients with central lumbar spinal stenosis at one or two adjacent levels into two groups, decompression alone and decompression with fusion. The presence or absence of a preoperative spondylolisthesis was noted. A new stenosis on two-year MRI was used as the primary outcome, defined as a dural sac cross-sectional area ≤ 75 mm² at the operated level (restenosis) and/or at the level above (proximal adjacent level stenosis).

RESULTS

A total of 211 patients underwent surgery at a mean age of 66 years (69% female): 103 were treated by decompression with fusion and 108 by decompression alone. A two-year MRI was available for 176 (90%) of the eligible patients. A new stenosis at the operated and/or adjacent level occurred more frequently after decompression and fusion than after decompression alone (47% vs 29%; p = 0.020). The difference remained in the subgroup with a preoperative spondylolisthesis, (48% vs 24%; p = 0.020), but did not reach significance for those without (45% vs 35%; p = 0.488). Proximal adjacent level stenosis was more common after fusion than after decompression alone (44% vs 17%; p < 0.001). Restenosis at the operated level was less frequent after fusion than decompression alone (4% vs 14%; p = 0.036). Vertebral slip increased by 1.1 mm after decompression alone, regardless of whether a preoperative spondylolisthesis was present or not.

CONCLUSION

Adding fusion to a decompression increased the rate of new stenosis on two-year MRI, even when a spondylolisthesis was present preoperatively. This supports decompression alone as the preferred method of surgery for spinal stenosis, whether or not a degenerative spondylolisthesis is present preoperatively.Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(12):1343-1351.

Revealing the novel autophagy-related genes for ligamentum flavum hypertrophy in patients and mice model

Background

Fibrosis is a core pathological factor of ligamentum flavum hypertrophy (LFH) resulting in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Autophagy plays a vital role in multi-organ fibrosis. However, autophagy has not been reported to be involved in the pathogenesis of LFH.

Methods

The LFH microarray data set GSE113212, derived from Gene Expression Omnibus, was analyzed to obtain differentially expressed genes (DEGs). Potential autophagy-related genes (ARGs) were obtained with the human autophagy regulator database. Functional analyses including Gene Ontology (GO), Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) enrichment, Gene Set Enrichment Analysis (GSEA), and Gene Set Variation Analysis (GSVA) were conducted to elucidate the underlying biological pathways of autophagy regulating LFH. Protein-protein interaction (PPI) network analyses was used to obtain hub ARGs. Using transmission electron microscopy, quantitative RT-PCR, Western blotting, and immunohistochemistry, we identified six hub ARGs in clinical specimens and bipedal standing (BS) mouse model.

Results

A total of 70 potential differentially expressed ARGs were screened, including 50 up-regulated and 20 down-regulated genes. According to GO enrichment and KEGG analyses, differentially expressed ARGs were mainly enriched in autophagy-related enrichment terms and signaling pathways related to autophagy. GSEA and GSVA results revealed the potential mechanisms by demonstrating the signaling pathways and biological processes closely related to LFH. Based on PPI network analysis, 14 hub ARGs were identified. Using transmission electron microscopy, we observed the autophagy process in LF tissues for the first time. Quantitative RT-PCR, Western blotting, and immunohistochemistry results indicated that the mRNA and protein expression levels of FN1, TGFβ1, NGF, and HMOX1 significantly higher both in human and mouse with LFH, while the mRNA and protein expression levels of CAT and SIRT1 were significantly decreased.

Conclusion

Based on bioinformatics analysis and further experimental validation in clinical specimens and the BS mouse model, six potential ARGs including FN1, TGFβ1, NGF, HMOX1, CAT, and SIRT1 were found to participate in the fibrosis process of LFH through autophagy and play an essential role in its molecular mechanism. These potential genes may serve as specific therapeutic molecular targets in the treatment of LFH.

Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) compared to observation for benign thyroid nodules: emerging considerations for judicious use

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for thyroid nodules confers tangible advantages over surgery, which include promising outcomes in the context of a minimally invasive procedure and the functional benefits of organ preservation. However, the ubiquity of benign nodules worldwide may spur the risk of misuse in cases where there is negligible gain over conventional surveillance. This review summarizes new developments in RFA and examines its judicious utilization in benign nodules.

RECENT FINDINGS

RFA appears to be safe and effective for addressing compressive or cosmetic issues caused by benign functional and nonfunctional thyroid nodules. Volume regression occurs over 12 months, with some cases requiring multiple staged RFA procedures to achieve adequate shrinkage or to address regrowth. Complication rates including recurrent laryngeal nerve injury are reportedly low and are mitigated by strategic technical maneuvers, training, and experience. Consensus guidelines across international societies have emerged to better define appropriate patient candidates. Although association of overuse in analogous disciplines has been well established, no evidence of misuse in thyroid RFA has been described thus far.

SUMMARY

Compelling multi-institutional data support RFA as first-line treatment for select benign thyroid nodules. Defining the nuances of patient selection and long-term surveillance are necessary to substantiate current observed results. Given the high incidence of thyroid nodules worldwide, it is important to emphasize that the majority of benign nodules will not require any intervention. Thorough consideration and careful implementation of recommended guidelines will hopefully lead to measurable benefit and avoid financial misuse.

Long-Term Outcomes of Laminectomy in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) patients suffer from significant pain and disability. To assess long-term safety and efficacy of laminectomy in LSS patients, a systematic review and meta-analysis study was conducted.

Methods Literature review in MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases was performed using a predefined search strategy. Articles were included if they met the following characteristics: human studies, LSS, and at least 5 years of follow-up. Outcome measures included patient satisfaction, pain, disability, claudication, reoperation rates, and complications.

Results Twelve articles met the eligibility criteria for our study. Overall, there was low-quality evidence that patients undergoing laminectomy, with at least 5 years of follow-up, have significantly more satisfaction, and less pain and disability, compared with the preoperative baseline. Assessment of neurogenic intermittent claudication showed significant improvement in walking abilities. We also reviewed the postoperative complication and adverse events in the included studies. After meta-analysis was performed, the reoperation rate was found to be 14% (95% confidence interval: 13–16%).

Conclusion Our study provides low-quality evidence suggesting that patients undergoing laminectomy for LSS have less disability and pain and can be more physically active postoperatively.

The Learning Curve of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic (UBE) Spinal Surgery by CUSUM Analysis

Objective

To assess the learning curve of the unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) technique for the treatment of single-level lumbar disc herniation by cumulative summation (CUSUM) method analysis.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was conducted to assess 97 patients' general condition, operation time, complications, and curative effect of single segmental UBE surgery performed by a spinal surgeon in his early stage of this technique. The learning curve of operation time was studied using a CUSUM method, and the cut-off point of the learning curve was obtained.

Results

The operation time was 30 – 241(97.9 ± 34.7) min. The visual analog scale score of lower limb pain decreased from 5.75 ± 0.81 before the operation to 0.39 ± 0.28 at the last follow-up (P &lt; 0.05). The Oswestry disability index score decreased from 66.48 ± 4.43 before the operation to 14.57 ± 3.99 at the last follow-up (P &lt; 0.05). The CUSUM assessment of operation time revealed the learning curve was the highest in 24 cases. In the learning stage (1–24 cases), the operation time was 120.3 ± 43.8 min. In the skilled stage (25–97 cases), the operation time was 90.5 ± 27.8 min.

Conclusions

About 24 cases of single segmental UBE operation are needed to master the UBE technique.

Decompression and Interlaminar Stabilization for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Cohort Study and Two-Dimensional Operative Video

Background and Objectives: Lumbar spinal stenosis is one of the most common causes of disability in the elderly and often necessitates surgical intervention in patients over the age of 65. Our study aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of interlaminar stabilization following decompressive laminectomy in patients with lumbar stenosis without instability. Materials and Methods: Twenty patients with lumbar stenosis underwent decompressive laminectomy and interlaminar stabilization at our academic institution. Clinical outcomes were measured using the visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI) at the 2-month, 6-month, and 1-year postoperative visits, and these outcomes were compared to the preoperative scores. Results: The average VAS scores for low back pain significantly improved from 8.8 preoperatively to 4.0, 3.7, and 3.9 at 2 months, 6 months, and 1 year postoperatively, respectively (p < 0.001). The average VAS scores for lower extremity pain significantly improved from 9.0 preoperatively to 2.7, 2.5, and 2.5 at 2 months, 6 months, and 1 year postoperatively, respectively (p < 0.001). The average ODI scores significantly improved from 66.6 preoperatively to 23.8, 23.3, and 24.5 at 2 months, 6 months, and 1 year postoperatively, respectively (p < 0.001). There was no statistical significance for difference in VAS or ODI scores between 2 months, 6 months, and 1 year. One patient had an intraoperative durotomy that was successfully treated with local repair and lumbar drainage. Another patient had progression of stenosis and had to undergo bilateral facetectomy and fusion. Conclusions: Decompressive laminectomy and interlaminar stabilization in patients with spinal claudication and low back pain is a good surgical option in the absence of instability and may provide significant clinical improvement of pain and functional disability.

Comparison of 3 Different Minimally Invasive Surgical Techniques for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Operations for lumbar spinal stenosis is the most often performed surgical procedure in the adult lumbar spine. This study reports the clinical outcome of the 3 most commonly used minimally invasive posterior decompression techniques.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of 3 minimally invasive posterior decompression techniques for lumbar spinal stenosis.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This randomized clinical trial used a parallel group design and included patients with symptomatic and radiologically verified lumbar spinal stenosis without degenerative spondylolisthesis. Patients were enrolled between February 2014 and October 2018 at the orthopedic and neurosurgical departments of 16 Norwegian public hospitals. Statistical analysis was performed in the period from May to June 2021.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomized to undergo 1 of the 3 minimally invasive posterior decompression techniques: unilateral laminotomy with crossover, bilateral laminotomy, and spinous process osteotomy.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Primary outcome was change in disability measured with Oswestry Disability Index (ODI; range 0-100), presented as mean change from baseline to 2-year follow-up and proportions of patients classified as success (>30% reduction in ODI). Secondary outcomes were mean change in quality of life, disease-specific symptom severity measured with Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ), back pain and leg pain on a 10-point numeric rating score (NRS), patient perceived benefit of the surgical procedure, duration of the surgical procedure, blood loss, perioperative complications, number of reoperations, and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

In total, 437 patients were included with a median (IQR) age of 68 (62-73) years and 230 men (53%). Of the included patients, 146 were randomized to unilateral laminotomy with crossover, 142 to bilateral laminotomy, and 149 to spinous process osteotomy. The unilateral laminotomy with crossover group had a mean change of -17.9 ODI points (95% CI, -20.8 to -14.9), the bilateral laminotomy group had a mean change of -19.7 ODI points (95% CI, -22.7 to -16.8), and the spinous process osteotomy group had a mean change of -19.9 ODI points (95% CI, -22.8 to -17.0). There were no significant differences in primary or secondary outcomes among the 3 surgical procedures, except a longer duration of the surgical procedure in the bilateral laminotomy group.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

No differences in clinical outcomes or complication rates were found among the 3 minimally invasive posterior decompression techniques used to treat patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02007083.

Non-operative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication: an updated systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Neurogenic claudication due to lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a growing health problem in older adults. We updated our previous Cochrane review (2013) to determine the effectiveness of non-operative treatment of LSS with neurogenic claudication.

DESIGN

A systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Index to Chiropractic Literature databases were searched and updated up to 22 July 2020.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We only included randomised controlled trials published in English where at least one arm provided data on non-operative treatment and included participants diagnosed with neurogenic claudication with imaging confirmed LSS.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 1. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation was used for evidence synthesis.

RESULTS

Of 15 200 citations screened, 156 were assessed and 23 new trials were identified. There is moderate-quality evidence from three trials that: Manual therapy and exercise provides superior and clinically important short-term improvement in symptoms and function compared with medical care or community-based group exercise; manual therapy, education and exercise delivered using a cognitive-behavioural approach demonstrates superior and clinically important improvements in walking distance in the immediate to long term compared with self-directed home exercises and glucocorticoid plus lidocaine injection is more effective than lidocaine alone in improving statistical, but not clinically important improvements in pain and function in the short term. The remaining 20 new trials demonstrated low-quality or very low-quality evidence for all comparisons and outcomes, like the findings of our original review.

CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-quality evidence that a multimodal approach which includes manual therapy and exercise, with or without education, is an effective treatment and that epidural steroids are not effective for the management of LSS with neurogenic claudication. All other non-operative interventions provided insufficient quality evidence to make conclusions on their effectiveness.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020191860.

Uniportal Full-Endoscopic versus Minimally Invasive Decompression for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

 In this study, we systematically analyze the effectiveness of the uniportal full-endoscopic (UPFE) and minimally invasive (MIS) decompression for treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis patients.

METHODS

 We performed a systematic search in Medline, Embase, Europe PMC, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane databases, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, China national knowledge infrastructure, and Wanfang Data databases for all relevant studies. All statistical analyses were performed using Review Manager version 5.3.

RESULTS

 A total of 9 articles with 522 patients in the UPFE group and 367 patients in the MIS group were included. The results of the meta-analysis showed that the UPFE group had significantly better results in hospital stay time (mean difference [MD]: -2.05; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -2.87 to -1.23), intraoperative blood loss (MD: -36.56; 95% CI: -54.57 to -18.56), and wound-related complications (MD: -36.56; 95%CI: -54.57 to -18.56) compared with the MIS group, whereas the postoperative clinical scores (MD: -0.66; 95%CI: -1.79 to 0.47; MD: -0.75; 95%CI: -1.86 to 0.36; and MD: -4.58; 95%CI: -16.80 to 7.63), satisfaction rate (odds ratio [OR] = 1.24; 95%CI: 0.70-2.20), operation time (MD: 30.31; 95%CI: -12.55 to 73.18), complication rates for dural injury (OR = 0.60; 95%CI: 0.29-1.26), epidural hematoma (OR = 0.60; 95%CI: 0.29-1.26), and postoperative transient dysesthesia and weakness (OR = 0.73; 95%CI: 0.36-1.51) showed no significant differences between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

 The UPFE decompression is associated with shorter hospital stay time and lower intraoperative blood loss and wound-related complications compared with MIS decompression for treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis patients. The postoperative clinical scores, satisfaction rate, operation time, complication rates for dural injury, epidural hematoma, and postoperative transient dysesthesia and weakness did not differ significantly between two groups.

Surgical decompression via the unilateral intervertebral foraminal approach with local anesthesia for treating elderly patients with lumbar central canal stenosis

OBJECTIVE

Surgical decompression via a posterior interlaminar approach is widely used for treating lumbar central canal stenosis (LCCS). However, this surgical approach poses a challenge for elderly patients with comorbidities. Thus, the authors tried a new surgical decompression via the unilateral intervertebral foraminal approach with local anesthesia to treat such patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of surgical decompression via the unilateral intervertebral foraminal approach with local anesthesia for patients with LCCS.

METHODS

Patients with LCCS who underwent surgical decompression, performed by a single surgeon, between January 2016 and March 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. All patients received decompression via the unilateral intervertebral foraminal approach with local anesthesia. Visual analog scale (VAS) scores, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores, modified Macnab criteria, walking distance, and Schizas classification were used as outcome predictors. Additionally, a decompression evaluation method was designed for use after spinal endoscopic surgery.

RESULTS

Overall, 23 patients with a mean age of 69 years were included in this study, with a mean follow-up of 28 months. Low-back and leg pain were significantly improved after decompression surgery. Postoperative ODI scores and walking distances were statistically significantly better than before surgery. Postoperatively, the Schizas classification for all patients was improved by at least 1 grade compared with the preoperative grade. No complications occurred during the follow-up period. According to the novel decompression evaluation method, all patients had at least achieved decompression in part 123+B.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical decompression via the unilateral intervertebral foraminal approach with local anesthesia showed promising outcomes in the treatment of elderly patients with LCCS. Additionally, a proposed postoperative decompression evaluation method can help guide surgical decompression.

Thread Embedding Acupuncture and Complex Korean Medicine Treatment for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis with Degenerative Scoliosis: A Clinical Case Report

Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a common degenerative spinal condition that can have unpredictable improvement and worsening of symptoms which include low back pain, radiating pain, claudication, and degenerative lumbar scoliosis affecting quality of life. In this study, thread embedding acupuncture (TEA) was used as a conservative treatment for LSS in combination with complex Korean medicine treatments (acupuncture, herbal medicines, and physical therapy). The treatment was evaluated using the numerical rating scale, walking distance and duration, and inclination of radiological lumbar scoliosis according to antalgic posture. TEA was performed 27 times between June 8, 2020, and March 16, 2021. The patient showed improvement in numerical rating scale score from 7 to 2, pain-free walking distance from 10 m to 900 m, and scoliosis inclination following treatment. The findings of this study suggest that TEA may be helpful in the treatment of LSS.

Early results of full-endoscopic decompression of lumbar central canal stenosis by outside-in technique: A clinical and radiographic study

Retrospective cohort study.Full-endoscopic decompression of lumbar spinal canal stenosis is being performed by endoscopic surgeons as an alternative to micro-lumbar decompression in the recent years. The outcomes of the procedure are reported by few authors only. The aim of this paper is to report the clinical and radiographic outcomes of full endoscopic lumbar decompression of central canal stenosis by outside-in technique at 1-year follow-up.We reviewed patients operated for lumbar central canal stenosis by full endoscopic decompression from May 2018 to November 2018. We analyzed the visual analogue scale scores for back and leg pain and Oswestry disability index at pre-op, post-op, and 1-year follow-up. At the same periods, we also evaluated disc height, segmental lordosis, whole lumbar lordosis on standing X-rays and canal cross sectional area at the affected level and at the adjacent levels on magnetic resonance imaging and the facet length and facet cross-sectional area on computed tomography scans. The degree of stenosis was judged by Schizas grading and the outcome at final follow-up was evaluated by MacNab criteria.We analyzed 32 patients with 43 levels (M:F = 14:18) with an average age of 63 (±11) years. The visual analogue scale back and leg improved from 5.4 (±1.3) and 7.8 (±2.3) to 1.6 (±0.5) and 1.4 (±1.2), respectively, and Oswestry disability index improved from 58.9 (±11.2) to 28 (±5.4) at 1-year follow-up. The average operative time per level was 50 (±16.2) minutes. The canal cross sectional area, on magnetic resonance imaging, improved from 85.78 mm2 (±28.45) to 150.5 mm2 (±38.66). The lumbar lordosis and segmental lordosis also improved significantly. The disc height was maintained in the postoperative period. All the radiographic improvements were maintained at 1-year follow-up. The MacNab criteria was excellent in 18 (56%), good in 11 (34%), and fair in 3 (9%) patients. None of the patients required conversion to open surgery or a revision surgery at follow-up. There was 1 patient with dural tear that was sealed with fibrin sealant patch endoscopically. There were 10 patients who had grade I stable listhesis preoperatively that did not progress at follow-up. No other complications like infection, hematoma formations etc. were observed in any patient.Full endoscopic outside-in decompression method is a safe and effective option for lumbar central canal stenosis with advantages of minimal invasive technique.

Associated factors of patients with spinal stenosis who undergo reoperation after a posterior lumbar spinal fusion in a Hispanic-American population

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the associated factors of patients with LSS who undergo reoperation after a PLSF in a Hispanic-American population.

METHODS

A retrospective single-center review was performed from all non-age-related Hispanic-Americans with LSS who underwent one or two-level PLSF from 2008 to 2018. Baseline characteristics were analyzed between the reoperation and no-reoperation group using a bivariate and multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

Out of 425 patients who underwent PLSF, 38 patients underwent reoperation. At a two-year follow-up, the reoperation rate was 6.1% (26/425), mostly due to pseudoarthrosis (39.5%), recurrent stenosis (26.3%), new condition (15.8%), infection (10.5%), hematoma (5.3%), and dural tear (2.6%). Patients who underwent reoperation were more likely to have a preoperative history of epidural steroid injection (ESI) (OR 5.18, P = 0.009), four or more comorbidities (OR 2.69, P = 0.028), and operated only with a posterolateral fusion without intervertebral fusion (OR 2.15, P = 0.032). Finally, the multivariable analysis showed that ESI was the only independent associated factor in patients who underwent reoperation after a PLSF in our group.

CONCLUSION

Among this population who underwent surgery, a reoperation rate at two years of follow-up was less than ten percent. Our study did not find any associated factor inherent to Hispanic-Americans, as ethnic group, who were reoperated after LSS.

True Differences in Poor Outcome Risks Between Revision and Primary Lumbar Spine Surgeries

Background: Previous studies have shown that the rates of complications associated with revision spine surgery are higher than those of primary spine surgery. However, there is a lack of research exploring the difference in magnitude of risk of poor outcomes between primary and revision lumbar spine surgeries. Purposes: We sought to compare the risks of poor outcomes for primary and revision lumbar spine surgeries and to analyze different measures of risk to better understand the true differences between the 2 forms of surgery. Methods: This retrospective observational study used data from the Quality Outcomes Database Lumbar Spine Surgical Registry from 2012 to 2018. We included individuals who received primary or revision surgery due to degenerative lumbar disorders. Outcome variables collected were complications within 30 days of surgery and 3 destination variables, specifically, (1) 30-day hospital readmission, (2) 30-day return to operating room, and (3) revision surgery within 3 months. Measures of risk considered were odds ratio (OR), relative risk (RR), relative risk increase (RRI), and absolute risk increase (ARI). Results: There were 31,843 individuals who received primary surgery and 7889 who received revision surgery. After controlling for baseline descriptive variables and comorbidities, revision surgery increased the odds of 4 complications and all 3 destination variables. Risk ratios reflected smaller magnitudes but similar findings as the statistically significant ORs. Conclusion: Revision surgery is related to higher overall risks than primary surgery, but the true magnitudes of these risks are very small. RRI and ARI should be included when reporting ORs to better clarify the significance.

Facet Arthrodesis with the FFX Device: One-Year Results from a Prospective Multicenter Study

BACKGROUND

Facet osteosynthesis can be performed to treat facet syndrome (FS) and reduce spinal instability following laminectomy in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). The present study evaluated clinical and radiological outcomes following facet osteosynthesis with the FFX device.

METHODS

Patients with FS or LSS were prospectively enrolled in a single-arm, multicenter study. The device was placed at affected levels with or without concomitant posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) procedures. The visual analog scale (VAS) for back and leg pain and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were evaluated preoperatively and postoperatively. Computed tomography scans to assess fusion and migration were performed 1 year following surgery.

RESULTS

Fifty-three patients (26 men/27 women) with a mean age of 65.0 ± 9.6 years (range: 37-83 years) were enrolled. A total of 205 FFX devices were implanted with 15 patients undergoing concurrent PLIF procedures. There were no intraoperative or postoperative surgical complication reported, and no patient required revision surgery. Mean VAS leg and back pain scores significantly improved from 5.57 to 2.09 (P < .001) and 5.74 to 3.13 (P < .001), respectively, between the preoperative and 1 year follow-up assessments. Mean ODI scores also significantly improved from 44.7% to 24.0% (P < .001) during the same time period. Facet fusion occurred with 86.3% of device placements after 12 months. There was 1 (0.5%) asymptomatic device migration. Eight devices (3.9%) were considered misplaced.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of the FFX device is associated with a significant reduction in both pain and disability following surgery with a high facet joint fusion rate.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This is the first study reporting clinical experience using the FFX device to facilitate facet osteosynthesis. The ability of the device to relieve pain, reduce disability, and enhance lumbar facet fusion with a low rate of device misplacement and migration was demonstrated.

Factors associated with the reporting quality of low back pain systematic review abstracts in physical therapy: a methodological study

BACKGROUND

Abstracts of systematic reviews (SR) are frequently used to guide clinical decision-making. However, if the abstract is inadequately reported, key information may be missing and it may not accurately summarize the results of the review.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to investigate 1) if abstracts are fully reported; 2) if abstract reporting is associated with review/journal characteristics in physical therapy for low back pain (LBP); and 3) if these abstracts are consistent with the corresponding full texts.

METHODS

We searched the Physiotherapy Evidence Database for SRs in physical therapy for LBP published between 2015 and 2017. Associations between abstract reporting quality and review/journal characteristics were explored with linear regression. Abstract reporting was assessed with the 12 item Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for abstracts (PRISMA-A) checklist. Consistency of reporting between abstracts and the full text was evaluated by comparing responses to each item of the PRISMA-A using Kappa coefficients. Methodological quality of the reviews was assessed with A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2).

RESULTS

We included 66 SRs, 9 Cochrane and 57 non-Cochrane. Review methodological quality ranged from 'high' (8%) to 'critically low' (76%). The mean ± SD of the "total number of PRISMA-A fully reported items" (range 0-12 points for fully reported items) was 4.1 ± 1.9 points for non-Cochrane review abstracts and 9.9 ± 1.1 points for Cochrane abstracts. Factors associated with reporting quality of abstracts were: journal impact factor (ß 0.20; 95% CI: 0.06, 0.35), number of words in abstract (ß 0.01; 95% CI: 0.00, 0.01) and review methodological quality ('critically low' with ß -3.06; 95% CI: -5.30, -0.82; with 'high' as reference variable). There was typically inconsistent reporting between abstract and full text, with most Kappa values lower than 0.60.

CONCLUSIONS

The abstracts of SRs in physical therapy for LBP were poorly reported and inconsistent with the full text. The reporting quality of abstracts was higher in journals with a higher impact factor, in abstracts with a greater number of words, and when the review was of higher methodological quality.

Understanding the mechanisms of a combined physical and psychological intervention for people with neurogenic claudication: protocol for a causal mediation analysis of the BOOST trial

INTRODUCTION

Conservative treatments such as exercise are recommended for the management of people with neurogenic claudication from spinal stenosis. However, the effectiveness and mechanisms of effect are unknown. This protocol outlines an a priori plan for a secondary analysis of a multicentre randomised controlled trial of a physiotherapist-delivered, combined physical and psychological intervention (Better Outcomes for Older people with Spinal Trouble (BOOST) programme).

METHODS AND ANALYSES

We will use causal mediation analysis to estimate the mechanistic effects of the BOOST programme on the primary outcome of disability (measured by the Oswestry Disability Index). The primary mechanism of interest is walking capacity, and secondary mediators include fear-avoidance behaviour, walking self-efficacy, physical function, physical activity and/or symptom severity. All mediators will be measured at 6 months and the outcome will be measured at 12 months from randomisation. Patient characteristics and possible confounders of the mediator-outcome effect will be measured at baseline. Sensitivity analyses will be conducted to evaluate the robustness of the estimated effects to varying levels of residual confounding.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval was given on 3 March 2016 (National Research Ethics Committee number: 16/LO/0349). The results of this analysis will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and at relevant scientific conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN12698674.

Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis is the most frequent cause of low back pain and/or sciatica in the elderly patient. Epidemiology, pathophysiology, clinical manifestations and testing are reviewed in a wide current bibliographic investigation. The importance of the relationship between clinical presentation and imaging study, especially magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), is emphasized. Prior to treatment indication, it is necessary to identify the precise location of pain, as well as the differential diagnosis between neurological and vascular lameness. Conservative treatment combining medications with various physical therapy techniques solves the problem in most cases, while therapeutic testing with injections, whether epidural, foraminal or facetary, is performed when pain does not subside with conservative treatment and before surgery is indicated. Injections usually perform better results in relieving sciatica symptoms and less in neurological lameness. Equine tail and/or root decompression associated or not with fusion is the gold standard when surgical intervention is required. Fusion after decompression is necessary in cases with segmental instability, such as degenerative spondylolisthesis. When canal stenosis occurs at multiple levels and is accompanied by axis deviation, whether coronal and/or sagittal, correction of axis deviations should be performed in addition to decompression and fusion, especially of the sagittal axis, in which a lumbar lordosis correction is required with techniques that correct the rectified lordosis to values close to the pelvic incidence.

Comparative study between full-endoscopic laminectomy and microendoscopic laminectomy for the treatment of lumbar spinal canal stenosis

Background

Lumbar spinal canal stenosis (LSCS) is a common disease in the elderly. Although surgical decompression using a posterior approach is commonly used to treat LSCS, there are several different strategies. We compared the outcomes of uniportal full-endoscopic laminectomy (FEL) and microendoscopic laminectomy (MEL) for treating LSCS.

Methods

FEL was performed using a 6.4-mm working channel endoscope and MEL was performed using a 16-mm diameter tubular retractor and endoscope. Patients with LSCS treated with FEL (n=60) and MEL (n=54) in our hospital during the same period were retrospectively reviewed. Patient background information and operative data were collected. The satisfaction score was also recorded at discharge and 3 months postoperatively.

Results

The mean operation time for FEL and MEL was 77.8 min and 54.6 min, respectively. The mean hospital stay after FEL and MEL surgery was 2.1 days and 4.7 days, respectively. These outcomes were significantly different between the two approaches. The satisfaction scores at both stages were not significantly different between the two groups. A dural tear occurred in one patient who underwent FEL and three patients who underwent MEL, but no symptoms resulted from the tear. Although postoperative hematoma occurred in seven who underwent FEL and two who underwent MEL, only one patient who underwent FEL required operative evacuation of the hematoma.

Conclusions

FEL using a 6.4-mm working channel endoscope can be used to treat patients with LSCS. Shortening of the operation time and prevention of postoperative hematoma are essential for this approach to be completely superior to MEL.

Patients With Persistent Low Back Pain and Nerve Root Involvement: To Operate, or Not to Operate, That Is the Question

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

The aims of this study were to evaluate the outcome of surgical and nonsurgical treatment for patients with lumbar herniated disc (LHD) or lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) after 2 years and to identify predictors for nonsuccess.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Studies regarding the clinician's ability to identify patients with a poor prognosis are not in concurrence and further studies are warranted.

METHODS

This study included 390 patients with LHD or LSS referred for surgical evaluation after unsuccessful conservative treatment. Nonsuccess was defined as a Roland-Morris Disability score above 4 (0-23) or a Numeric Rating Scale back and leg pain score above 20 (0-60). Uni- and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to investigate potential predictive factors including sociodemographic characteristics, history findings, levels of pain and disability, and magnetic resonance imaging findings.

RESULTS

Rates of nonsuccess at 2 years were approximately 30% in surgically treated patients with LHD, approximately about 60% in patients with LSS for disability, and 30% and 40%, respectively for pain. For the main outcome variable, disability, in the final multiple logistic regression model, nonsuccess after surgery was associated with male sex (odds ratio [OR] 2.04, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.02-4.11, P = 0.04), low level of education (OR 2.60, 95% CI: 1.28-5.29, P = 0.01), high pain intensity (OR 3.06, 95% CI: 1.51-6.21, P < 0.01), and widespread pain (OR 3.59, 95% CI: 1.36-9.46, P = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

The results indicate that the prognosis for patients referred for surgery with persistent LHD or LSS and unsuccessful conservative treatment is substantially better when surgery is performed as opposed to not performed. The predictive value of the variables male sex, low level of education, high pain intensity, and widespread pain location found in our study are partly in accordance with results of previous studies. Thus, our results warrant further investigation until firm conclusions can be made.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

Wide Variability in Patient-Reported Outcomes Measures After Fusion for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study is to review outcomes reporting methodology in studies evaluating fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis.

METHODS

A systematic review of PubMed and Embase databases was conducted from January 2007 to June 2017 for English language studies with minimum of 2 years postoperative follow-up reporting outcomes after fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis. Two reviewers assessed each study; those meeting inclusion criteria were examined for pertinent data. Outcome measures were categorized into relevant domains: pain/symptomatology, function/disability, and surgical satisfaction. Return to work reporting was also recorded.

RESULTS

Of 123 studies meeting inclusion criteria, 76% included posterior-only fusion, 32% included posterior/transforaminal interbody fusion, and 5% included anterior/lateral interbody fusion (non-mutually exclusive). There was significant variation in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) used-studies reported 31 unique PROs assessing at least one domain: 22 evaluating pain, 23 evaluating function, and 3 evaluating surgical satisfaction. Most commonly utilized PROs were the Oswestry Disability Index (73% of studies), Visual Analog Scale (55%), and 36-Item Short Form Survey (32%). The remaining 28 measures were used in 14% of studies or fewer. PROs specific to symptoms of lumbar spinal stenosis, such as the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire, were only used rarely (7/123 studies). Only 14% of studies reported on time to return to work.

CONCLUSIONS

The literature surrounding fusion in the setting of lumbar stenosis is characterized by substantial variability in outcomes reporting. Very few studies utilized measures specific to lumbar spinal stenosis. Efforts to standardize outcomes reporting would facilitate comparisons of surgical interventions.

Eight in Every 10 Abstracts of Low Back Pain Systematic Reviews Presented Spin and Inconsistencies With the Full Text: An Analysis of 66 Systematic Reviews

STUDY DESIGN

Overview study.

BACKGROUND

Abstracts of systematic reviews have presented 'spin' (i.e. overstated interpretation of study results) and inconsistency with the full text.

OBJECTIVES

1. Do abstracts of low back pain reviews contain spin? 2. Do these abstracts consistently represent the full text? 3. Is abstract spin associated with the type of conclusion?

METHODS

We searched the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) on 10th January 2018. Data were extracted from systematic reviews of physiotherapy interventions for low back pain, published between 2015 and 2017. Spin was assessed using a 7-item checklist. We evaluated consistency by comparing information contained in the abstract and the full text using the 7-item checklist with Kappa coefficient analysis. We used logistic regression analysis to evaluate the association between spin in the abstract and type of conclusion. We evaluated methodological quality using the AMSTAR-2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews).

RESULTS

We included 66 eligible systematic reviews, subdivided into Cochrane (n=9) and non-Cochrane (n=57) reviews. There was some form of spin in 80% of abstracts. Abstracts of non-Cochrane reviews were not consistent with the full text (fair to moderate agreement). Cochrane review abstracts had substantial to almost perfect agreement with the full text. Spin was not associated with the type of conclusion in all systematic reviews (P < 0.05). The methodological quality ranged from 'high' to 'critically low'.

CONCLUSIONS

The abstracts of systematic reviews evaluating physiotherapy interventions for low back pain need improvement. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther, Epub 23 Aug 2019. doi:10.2519/jospt.2020.8962.

Severity of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis affects pelvic rigidity during walking

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

To understand the role of compensation mechanisms in the development and treatment of symptomatic degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS), pelvic stability during walking should be objectively assessed in the context of clinical parameters.

PURPOSE

To determine the association among duration of symptoms, lumbar muscle atrophy, disease severity, pelvic stability during walking, and surgical outcome in patients with DLSS scheduled for decompression surgery.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Prospective observational study with intervention.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Patients with symptomatic DLSS.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Oswestry Disability Index score; duration of symptoms; lumbar muscle atrophy; severity grade; pelvis rigidity during walking.

METHODS

Patients with symptomatic DLSS were analyzed on the day before surgery and 10 weeks and 12 months postoperatively. Duration of symptoms was categorized as: <2years, <5years, and >5years. Muscle atrophy at the stenosis level was categorized according to Goutallier. Bilateral cross-sectional areas of the erector spinae and psoas muscles were quantified from magnetic resonance imaging. Stenosis grade was assessed using the Schizas classification. Pelvic tilt was measured in standing radiographs. Pelvic rigidity during walking was assessed as root mean square of the pelvic acceleration in each direction (anteroposterior, mediolateral, and vertical) normalized to walking speed measured using an inertial sensor attached to the skin between the posterior superior iliac spine.

RESULTS

Body mass index but not duration of symptoms, lumbar muscle atrophy, pelvic rigidity, and stenosis grade explained changes in Oswestry Disability Index from before to after surgery. Patients with greater stenosis grade had greater pelvic rigidity during walking. Lumbar muscle atrophy did not correlate with pelvic rigidity during walking. Patients with lower stenosis grade had greater muscle atrophy and patients with smaller erector spinae and psoas muscle cross-sectional areas had a greater pelvis tilt.

CONCLUSIONS

Greater pelvic rigidity during walking may represent a compensatory mechanism of adopting a protective body position to keep the spinal canal more open during walking and hence reduce pain. Pelvic rigidity during walking may be a useful screening parameter for identifying early compensating mechanisms. Whether it can be used as a parameter for personalized treatment planning or outcome prognosis necessitates further evaluation.

Costs Associated with the Treatment of Low Back Disorders: A Comparison of Surgeons and Physiatrists

BACKGROUND

Spine care is costly and subject to wide variability. Defining costs and patterns of care for different specialties is critical to improving value.

OBJECTIVE

Determine costs, utilization, and differences therein for nonoperative and operative specialists in treating low back disorders. We hypothesized costs associated with nonoperative specialists would be lower.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort.

SETTING

Medicare Limited Data Set (5% sample), 2011 to 2014.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 170 011 patients saw a primary care provider for a low back disorder between 1 July 2011, and 1 January 2013. Excluding those seen for a low back disorder in the preceding 6 months, final cohorts totaled 11 829 patients subsequently evaluated by a physiatrist (specialist in physical medicine and rehabilitation; 3183 patients) or surgeon (orthopedic or neurosurgeon; 8646 patients) within the following 6 months.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Total Medicare expenditures, spine-specific costs, spine surgical rates over 24 months.

RESULTS

Cohorts had comparable demographics, initial diagnoses, and baseline mean per-member per-month (PMPM) total spending. Mean 2-year spine-specific spending was $3978 for the physiatrist cohort and $7387 for the surgeon cohort. Comparatively, the physiatrist cohort had lower total mean 2-year spine-specific spending (-$3409; 95% confidence interval [CI] -$3824 to -$2994), mean PMPM total spending (-$122/mo; CI -$184 to -$60), and surgical rate (7.8% vs. 18.9%, risk ratio [RR] = 0.41; CI 0.36-0.47). Surgery predominantly drove cost differential. Mean PMPM total spending for both cohorts remained elevated at 24 months compared to baseline mean spending (physiatrist: +$293; CI $447 to $138; surgeon: +$325; CI $425 to $225).

CONCLUSIONS

Following a new episode of a low back disorder, substantial costs were seen for those subsequently evaluated by a physiatrist or surgeon. Costs were considerably lower for those first seen by a physiatrist. Patients in both cohorts displayed long-term increases in health care costs. Our data suggest that early engagement in nonoperative care, when appropriate, may improve value.

Clinical outcome of percutaneous lumbar foraminoplasty using a safety-improved device in patients with lumbar foraminal spinal stenosis

Lumbar foraminal spinal stenosis (LFSS) is defined as the narrowing of the nerve root exit associated with a herniated intervertebral disc, osteoarthritic changes in the facet joints, or a hypertrophied ligamentum flavum, which can provoke neurogenic claudication. To achieve effective and safe decompression of the lumbar spinal foramen, a specially designed instrument (Claudicare, SEAWON Meditech, Bucheon-si, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea) for percutaneous lumbar foraminoplasty (PLF) was invented. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of the newly devised instrument in patients with LFSS.PLF was performed for LFSS by a single pain physician. For each patient, an 11-point numerical rating scale (NRS) pain score-the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI)-and the duration of walking without radicular pain were evaluated at the 3-month follow-up. The successful responder percentage was defined as ≥50% reduction from the baseline NRS score with improvement in ODI and duration of walking.Among 24 patients who underwent PLF, 15 patients showed successful responses. The NRS pain score and duration of walking without radicular pain were improved significantly from baseline at the 3-month follow-up (P < .01). The ODI was also decreased, but the difference was not statistically significant (P = .09). The NRS pain score and walking duration without pain at 3 months were statistically significantly different between the groups (P < .001 and P = .01, respectively), whereas there was no statistically significant difference in improvement in ODI between the groups (P = .23). No serious adverse events occurred in the study.In conclusion, PLF using the Claudicare device may be an optimal and safe option for managing intractable LFSS on an outpatient basis.

Nonsurgical integrative inpatient treatments for symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis: a multi-arm randomized controlled pilot trial

Background

Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a chronic condition that causes low back pain and neurogenic claudication, often resulting in significant limitation of daily activities. In this open-label randomized controlled pilot study, we assessed the safety and feasibility of 4-week novel integrative inpatient treatments for LSS.

Methods

Thirty-six symptomatic LSS patients were randomly and equally allocated to one of the three groups: Mokhuri Chuna treatment 1 (MT1) group, Mokhuri Chuna treatment 2 (MT2) group, or conventional management treatment (CMT) group. MT1 patients were treated with herbal medication, Mokhuri Chuna, and acupuncture, and received daily physician consultation; MT2 patients were treated with Mokhuri Chuna and acupuncture without any herbal medication, and received daily physician consultation; and CMT patients received conventional pain management therapy that included epidural steroid injection, oral NSAID, and muscle relaxant medication, along with daily physiotherapy. The primary outcome of this pilot study was safety as measured by the type and incidence of adverse events (AEs). The secondary outcome measures included VAS score for low back pain and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index, Oxford Claudication Score (OCS), walking capacity on a 50 m flat track and treadmill, and EuroQol-5D score. Magnetic resonance imaging was also performed up to 6 months after treatment cessation.

Results

Thirty-four treated patients were included in the analysis, based on the modified intention-to-treat principle. No serious AEs were observed or reported. Compared to the CMT group, the MT1 and MT2 groups did show significant improvement at 3 and 6 months in various domains, including pain (VAS score for leg and back pain) and function (OCS and treadmill walking).

Conclusion

These novel multimodal integrative treatments for LSS are both clinically safe and logistically feasible. Larger, adequately powered randomized controlled trials will be necessary to assess comparative efficacy and thoroughly analyze the cost-effectiveness of each treatment approach.

Clinical trial registration number (CRIS)

KCT0001218.

Neurogenic Claudication: a Review of Current Understanding and Treatment Options

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

With an aging population and increased prevalence of the disease, we set out to evaluate the validity of current diagnostic criteria for neurogenic claudication as well as the efficacy of the treatment options for the main cause, lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).

RECENT FINDINGS

Epidural steroid injections (ESI) were most efficacious when the injectate is a steroid combined with lidocaine or lidocaine only. There are promising results regarding the efficacy of the minimally invasive lumbar decompression (MILD) procedure as well as interspinous process spacers (IPS) compared to surgical alternatives. Spinal cord stimulators are gaining ground as an effective alternative to surgery in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis that is not responsive to conservative measures or epidural injections. We found that there continues to be a lack of consensus on the diagnostic criteria, management, and treatment options for patients with LSS. The Delphi consensus is the most current recommendation to assist clinicians with making the diagnosis. Physical therapy, NSAIDs, gabapentin, and other conservative therapy measures are unproven in providing long-lasting relief. In patients with radicular symptoms, an ESI may be indicated when a combination of lidocaine with steroids is used or using lidocaine alone. In addition, there is not enough high-quality evidence to make a recommendation regarding the use of MILD versus interspinous spacers for neurogenic claudication. There remains a need for high-quality evidence regarding the efficacy of different conservative treatments, interventional procedures, and surgical outcomes in patients with neurogenic claudication in LSS.

Lumbar epidural steroid injections for herniation and stenosis: incidence and risk factors of subsequent surgery

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Lumbosacral epidural steroid injections (ESIs) have increased dramatically despite a narrowing of the clinical indications for use. One potential indication is to avoid or delay surgery, yet little information exists regarding surgery rates after ESI.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this research was to determine the proportion of patients having surgery after lumbar ESI for disc herniation or stenosis and to identify the timing and factors associated with this progression.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

This study was a retrospective review of nationally representative administrative claims data from the Truven Health MarketScan databases from 2007 to 2014.

PATIENT SAMPLE

The study cohort was comprised of 179,025 patients (54±15 years, 48% women) having lumbar ESIs for diagnoses of stenosis and/or herniation.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measure was the time from ESI to surgery.

METHODS

Inclusion criteria were ESI for stenosis and/or herniation, age ≥18 years, and health plan enrollment for 1 year before ESI to screen for exclusions. Patients were followed longitudinally until they progressed to surgery or had a lapse in enrollment, at which time they were censored. Rates of surgery were assessed with the Kaplan-Meier survival curves. Demographic and treatment factors associated with surgery were assessed with multivariable Cox proportional hazard models. No external funding was procured for this research and the authors' conflicts of interest are not pertinent to the present work.

RESULTS

Within 6 months, 12.5% of ESI patients underwent lumbar surgery. By 1 year, 16.9% had surgery, and by 5 years, 26.1% had surgery. Patients with herniation had surgery at rates of up to five-fold to seven-fold higher, with the highest rates of surgery in younger patients and those with both herniation and stenosis. Other concomitant spine diagnoses, male sex, previous tobacco use, and residence a rural areas or regions other than the Northeastern United States were associated with higher surgery rates. Medical comorbidities (previous treatment for drug use, congestive heart failure, obesity, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypercholesterolemia, and other cardiac complications) were associated with lower surgery rates.

CONCLUSIONS

In the long term, more than one out of every four patients undergoing ESI for lumbar herniation or stenosis subsequently had surgery, and nearly one of six had surgery within the first year. After adjusting for other patient demographics and comorbidities, patients with herniation were more likely have surgery than those with stenosis. The improved understanding of the progression from lumbar ESI to surgery will help to better inform discussions regarding the value of ESI and aid in the shared decision-making process.

Clinical outcome after surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis in patients with insignificant lower extremity pain. A prospective cohort study from the Norwegian registry for spine surgery

Background

Spinal stenosis is a clinical diagnosis in which the main symptom is pain radiating to the lower extremities, or neurogenic claudication. Radiological spinal stenosis is commonly observed in the population and it is debated whether patients with no lower extremity pain should be labelled as having spinal stenosis. However, these patients is found in the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery, the main object of the present study was to compare the clinical outcomes after decompressive surgery in patients with insignificant lower extremity pain, with those with more severe pain.

Methods

This study is based on data from the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery (NORspine). Patients who had decompressive surgery in the period from 7/1–2007 to 11/3–2013 at 31 hospitals were included. The patients was divided into four groups based on preoperative Numeric Rating Scale (NRS)-score for lower extremity pain. Patients in group 1 had insignificant pain, group 2 had mild or moderate pain, group 3 severe pain and group 4 extremely severe pain. The primary outcome was change in the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Successfully treated patients were defined as patients reporting at least 30% reduction of baseline ODI, and the number of successfully treated patients in each group were recorded.

Results

In total, 3181 patients were eligible; 154 patients in group 1; 753 in group 2; 1766 in group 3; and 528 in group 4. Group 1 had significantly less improvement from baseline in all the clinical scores 12 months after surgery compared to the other groups. However, with a mean reduction of 8 ODI points and 56% of patients showing a reduction of at least 30% in their ODI score, the proportion of patients defined as successfully treated in group 1, was not significantly different from that of other groups.

Conclusion

This national register study shows that patients with insignificant lower extremity pain had less improvement in primary and secondary outcome parameters from baseline to follow-up compared to patients with more severe lower extremity pain.

Comparative Clinical Effectiveness of Nonsurgical Treatment Methods in Patients With Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is the most common reason for spine surgery in older US adults. There is an evidence gap about nonsurgical LSS treatment options.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the comparative clinical effectiveness of 3 nonsurgical interventions for patients with LSS.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Three-arm randomized clinical trial of 3 years' duration (November 2013 to June 2016). Analysis began in August 2016. All interventions were delivered during 6 weeks with follow-up at 2 months and 6 months at an outpatient research clinic. Patients older than 60 years with LSS were recruited from the general public. Eligibility required anatomical evidence of central canal and/or lateral recess stenosis (magnetic resonance imaging/computed tomography) and clinical symptoms associated with LSS (neurogenic claudication; less symptoms with flexion). Analysis was intention to treat.

INTERVENTIONS

Medical care, group exercise, and manual therapy/individualized exercise. Medical care consisted of medications and/or epidural injections provided by a physiatrist. Group exercise classes were supervised by fitness instructors in senior community centers. Manual therapy/individualized exercise consisted of spinal mobilization, stretches, and strength training provided by chiropractors and physical therapists.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Primary outcomes were between-group differences at 2 months in self-reported symptoms and physical function measured by the Swiss Spinal Stenosis questionnaire (score range, 12-55) and a measure of walking capacity using the self-paced walking test (meters walked for 0 to 30 minutes).

RESULTS

A total of 259 participants (mean [SD] age, 72.4 [7.8] years; 137 women [52.9%]) were allocated to medical care (88 [34.0%]), group exercise (84 [32.4%]), or manual therapy/individualized exercise (87 [33.6%]). Adjusted between-group analyses at 2 months showed manual therapy/individualized exercise had greater improvement of symptoms and physical function compared with medical care (-2.0; 95% CI, -3.6 to -0.4) or group exercise (-2.4; 95% CI, -4.1 to -0.8). Manual therapy/individualized exercise had a greater proportion of responders (≥30% improvement) in symptoms and physical function (20%) and walking capacity (65.3%) at 2 months compared with medical care (7.6% and 48.7%, respectively) or group exercise (3.0% and 46.2%, respectively). At 6 months, there were no between-group differences in mean outcome scores or responder rates.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

A combination of manual therapy/individualized exercise provides greater short-term improvement in symptoms and physical function and walking capacity than medical care or group exercises, although all 3 interventions were associated with improvements in long-term walking capacity.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01943435.

The MIST Guidelines: The Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Consensus Group Guidelines for Minimally Invasive Spine Treatment

BACKGROUND

Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) can lead to compression of neural elements and manifest as low back and leg pain. LSS has traditionally been treated with a variety of conservative (pain medications, physical therapy, epidural spinal injections) and invasive (surgical decompression) options. Recently, several minimally invasive procedures have expanded the treatment options.

METHODS

The Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Consensus Group convened to evaluate the peer-reviewed literature as the basis for making minimally invasive spine treatment (MIST) recommendations. Eleven consensus points were clearly defined with evidence strength, recommendation grade, and consensus level using U.S. Preventive Services Task Force criteria. The Consensus Group also created a treatment algorithm. Literature searches yielded 9 studies (2 randomized controlled trials [RCTs]; 7 observational studies, 4 prospective and 3 retrospective) of minimally invasive spine treatments, and 1 RCT for spacers.

RESULTS

The LSS treatment choice is dependent on the degree of stenosis; spinal or anatomic level; architecture of the stenosis; severity of the symptoms; failed, past, less invasive treatments; previous fusions or other open surgical approaches; and patient comorbidities. There is Level I evidence for percutaneous image-guided lumbar decompression as superior to lumbar epidural steroid injection, and 1 RCT supported spacer use in a noninferiority study comparing 2 spacer products currently available.

CONCLUSIONS

MISTs should be used in a judicious and algorithmic fashion to treat LSS, based on the evidence of efficacy and safety in the peer-reviewed literature. The MIST Consensus Group recommend that these procedures be used in a multimodal fashion as part of an evidence-based decision algorithm.

Is There Still a Role for Interspinous Spacers in the Management of Neurogenic Claudication?

Lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication is prevalent in the elderly population. Decompression for this condition is the operation most commonly used to treat older patients. Because of the risks associated with open decompression procedures, particularly in older patients with comorbidities, minimally invasive procedures with implantation of interspinous process devices have been developed. This article reviews the current role of interspinous spacers in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication and discusses the body of literature surrounding this treatment alternative.

The Timing of Surgery Affects Return to Work Rates in Patients With Degenerative Lumbar Stenosis in a Workers' Compensation Setting

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to determine how time to surgery affects outcomes for degenerative lumbar stenosis (DLS) in a workers' compensation (WC) setting.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

WC subjects are known to be a clinically distinct population with variable outcomes following lumbar surgery. No study has examined the effect of time to surgery in this clinically distinct population.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 227 Ohio WC subjects were identified who underwent primary decompression for DLS between 1993 and 2013. We allocated patients into 2 groups: those that received operative decompression before and after 1 year of symptom onset. Our primary outcome was, if patients were able to make a stable return to work (RTW). The authors classified subjects as RTW if they returned within 2 years after surgery and remained working for >6 months.

RESULTS

The early cohort had a significantly higher RTW rate [50% (25/50) vs. 30% (53/117); P=0.01]. A logistic regression was performed to identify independent variables that predicted RTW status. Our regression model showed that time to surgery remained a significant negative predictor of RTW status (P=0.04; odds ratio, 0.48; 95% confidence interval, 0.23-0.91). Patients within the early surgery cohort cost on average, $37,332 less in total medical costs than those who opted for surgery after 1 year (P=0.01). Furthermore, total medical costs accrued over 3 years after index surgery was on average, $13,299 less when patients received their operation within 1 year after symptom onset (P=0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, time to surgery had a significant impact on clinical outcomes in WC subjects receiving lumbar decompression for DLS. Patients who received their operation within 1 year had a higher RTW rate, lower medical costs, and lower costs accrued over 3 years after index surgery. The results presented can perhaps be used to guide surgical decision-making and provide predictive value for the WC population.

Prognostic Factors for Satisfaction After Decompression Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

BACKGROUND

Surgical treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis is associated with both short- and long-term benefits with improvements in patient function and pain. Even though most patients are satisfied postoperatively, some studies report that up to one-third of patients are dissatisfied.

OBJECTIVE

To present clinical outcome data and identify prognostic factors related to patient satisfaction 1 yr after posterior decompression surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis.

METHODS

This multicenter register study included 2562 patients. Patients were treated with various types of posterior decompression. Patients with previous spine surgery or concomitant fusion were excluded. Patient satisfaction was analyzed for associations with age, sex, body mass index, smoking status, duration of pain, number of decompressed vertebral levels, comorbidities, and patient-reported outcome measures, which were used to quantify the effect of the surgical intervention.

RESULTS

At 1-yr follow-up, 62.4% of patients were satisfied but 15.1% reported dissatisfaction. The satisfied patients showed significantly greater improvement in all outcome measures compared to the dissatisfied patients. The outcome scores for the dissatisfied patients were relatively unchanged or worse compared to baseline. Association was seen between dissatisfaction, duration of leg pain, smoking status, and patient comorbidities. Patients with good walking capacity at baseline were less prone to be dissatisfied compared to patients with poor walking capacity.

CONCLUSION

This study found smoking, long duration of leg pain, and cancerous and neurological disease to be associated with patient dissatisfaction, whereas good walking capacity at baseline was positively associated with satisfaction after 1 yr.

Percutaneous Full Endoscopic Bilateral Lumbar Decompression of Spinal Stenosis Through Uniportal-Contralateral Approach: Techniques and Preliminary Results

BACKGROUND

When considering various risk factors such as age, comorbidities, and complications related to the surgical procedure itself, open surgery in degenerative spinal stenosis is likely to cause more complications. Here, we report the surgical procedure and preliminary clinical results of percutaneous endoscopic stenosis lumbar decompression (PESLD) technique using a uniportal-contralateral approach for bilateral decompression of degenerative spinal stenosis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Electronic medical records of 48 consecutive patients who were treated between January 2016 and August 2016 were reviewed retrospectively. All patient received PESLD through the uniportal-contralateral approach. We analyzed the outcomes using the visual analogue scale, Macnab criteria, Oswestry Disability Index, and complication rate.

RESULTS

There were 48 cases (15 men, 33 women). Mean age of patients was 62.44 ± 8.68 years. Mean symptom duration was 20.13 ± 16.87 months. Neurogenic intermittent claudication was 550 m on average. Follow-up period was 7.75 ± 2.28 months (range, 5-13 months). Visual analogue scale and Oswestry Disability Index decreased significantly (P < 0.001) and decreased by 1.073 and 5.795 odds ratio, respectively, in contralateral foraminotomy cases. Macnab outcome grade was good to excellent in 96% of patients. Dural tear occurred in 3 cases (6.25%), and 2 cases (4.17%) required transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion operation after this procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

The preliminary result of this uniportal-contralateral PESLD technique is encouraging (96% demonstrated a good-to-excellent outcome), and the procedure is safe. However, we need long-term follow-up and a more detailed study for more accurate results of this technique.