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. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(7):705–712

Symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis is a common entity and increasing in prevalence. Limited evidence is available regarding patient reported outcomes comparing primary vs revision surgery for those undergoing lumbar decompression, with or without fusion. Evidence available suggest a lower rate of improvement in the revision group. The aim of this study was to assess patient reported outcomes in patients undergoing revision decompression, with or without fusion, when compared to primary surgery.

Patient data was collected from the Canadian Spine Outcomes Research Network (CSORN) database. Patients undergoing lumbar decompression without or without fusion were included. Patients under 18, undergoing discectomy, greater than two level decompressions, concomitant cervical or thoracic spine surgery were excluded. Demographic data, smoking status, narcotic use, number of comorbidities as well as individual comorbidities were included in our propensity scores. Patients undergoing primary vs revision decompression were matched in a four:one ratio according to their scores, whilst a separate matched cohort was created for those undergoing primary vs revision decompression and fusion. Continuous data was compared using a two-tailed t-test, whilst categorical variables were assessed using chi-square test.

A total of 555 patients were included, with 444 primary patients matched to 111 revision surgery patients, of which 373 (67%) did not have fusion. Patients undergoing primary decompression with fusion compared to revision patients were more likely to answer yes to “feel better after surgery” (87.8% vs 73.8%, p=0.023), “undergo surgery again” (90.1% vs 76.2%, P=0.021) and “improvement in mental health” (47.7% vs 28.6%, p=0.03) at six months. There was no difference in either of these outcomes at 12 or 24 months. There was no difference between the groups ODI, EQ-5D, SF 12 scores at any time point. Patients undergoing primary vs revision decompression alone showed no difference in PROMs at any time point.

In a matched cohort, there appears to be no difference in improvement in PROMS between patients undergoing primary vs revision decompression, with or without fusion, at two year follow-up. This would suggest similar outcomes can be obtained in revision cases.

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 mm. 2. 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

Purpose and background. To evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a physical and psychological group intervention (BOOST programme) compared to physiotherapy assessment and advice (best practice advice [BPA]) for older adults with neurogenic claudication (NC) which is a debilitating spinal condition. Methods and results. A randomised controlled trial of 438 participants. The primary outcome was the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) at 12 months. Data was also collected at 6 months. Other outcomes included Swiss Spinal Stenosis Questionnaire (symptoms), ODI walking item, 6-minute walk test (6MWT) and falls. The analysis was intention-to-treat. We collected the EQ5D and health and social care use to estimate cost-effectiveness. Participants were, on average, 74.9 years old (SD 6.0). There was no significant difference in ODI scores between groups at 12 months (adjusted mean difference (MD): −1.4 [95% Confidence Intervals (CI) −4.03,1.17]), but, at 6 months, ODI scores favoured the BOOST programme (adjusted MD: −3.7 [95% CI −6.27, −1.06]). Symptoms followed a similar pattern. The BOOST programme resulted in greater improvements in walking capacity (6MWT MD 21.7m [95% CI 5.96, 37.38]) and ODI walking item (MD −0.2 [95% CI −0.45, −0.01]) and reduced falls risk (odds ratio 0.6 [95% CI 0.40, 0.98]) compared to BPA at 12 months. Probability that the BOOST programme is cost-effective ranged from 67%–89% across cost-effectiveness thresholds. Conclusions. The BOOST programme improves mobility and reduces falls in older adults with NC compared to BPA at 12 months follow-up. It is good value for the NHS. Future iterations of the programme will consider ways to reduce symptoms and disability long-term. Conflicts of interest: No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: National Institute of Health Research – Programme for Applied Research NIHR - PTC-RP-PG-0213-20002: Better Outcomes for Older people with Spinal Trouble (BOOST). Publication and presentations: The clinical effectiveness paper has just been accepted for publication in the Journal of Gerontology Series A. The health economic analysis is not yet published. It was presented at the Physiotherapy UK conference and the International Back and Neck Pain Forum in 2021

Abstract

Endoscopic spine surgery is a promising and minimally invasive technique for the treatment of disc herniation and spinal stenosis. However, the literature on the outcome of interlaminar endoscopic decompression (IED) versus conventional microsurgical technique (CMT) in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis is scarce. We analyzed 88 patients (IED: 36/88, 40.9%; CMT: 52/88, 59.1%) presenting with lumbar central spinal stenosis between 2018–2020. Surgery-related (operation time, complications, time to hospital release (THR), ASA score, C-reactive protein (CRP), white blood cell count (WBC), side (unilateral/bilateral), patient-reported (ODI, NRS (leg-, back pain), eQ5D, COMI), and radiological (preoperative dural sack cross-sectional area (DSCA), Shizas score (SC), left (LRH) and right (RRH) lateral recess heights, left (LFA) and right (RFA) facet angle) parameters were extracted.

Complication (most often re-stenosis due to hematoma and/or residual sensorimotor deficits) rates were higher in the endoscopic (38.9%) than microsurgical (13.5%) treatment group (p<0.01). Age, THR, SC, CRP, and DSCA revealed significant correlations with 3 weeks and 1 year postoperatively evaluated ODI, COMI, eQ5D, NRS leg, or NRS back values in our cohort. We did not observe significant differences in the endoscopic versus microsurgical group for the patient-reported outcomes.

Age, THR, SC, CRP, and DSCA revealed significant correlations with patient-centered outcomes and should be considered in future studies. Endoscopic treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis was similarly successful as the conventional microsurgical approach, although it was associated with higher complication rates in our single-center study experience. This was probably because of the surgeons' lack of experience with this method and the resulting different learning curve compared with the conventional technique.

With the increase in the elderly population, there is a dramatic increase in the number of spinal fusions. Spinal fusion is usually performed in cases of primary instability. However it is also performed to prevent iatrogenic instability created during surgical treatment of spinal stenosis in most cases. In literature, up to 75% of adjacent segment disease (ASD) can be seen according to the follow-up time.¹ Although ASD manifests itself with pathologies such as instability, foraminal stenosis, disc herniation or central stenosis.^1,2 There are several reports in the literature regarding lumbar percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic interventions for lumbar foraminal stenosis or disc herniations. However, to the best our knowledge, there is no report about the treatment of central stenosis in ASD. In this study, we aimed to investigate the short-term results of unilateral biportal endoscopic decompressive laminotomy (UBEDL) technique in ASD cases with symptomatic central or lateral recess stenosis.

The number of patients participating in the prospective study was 8. The mean follow-up was 6.9 (ranged 6 to 11) months. The mean age of the patients was 68 (5m, 3F). The development of ASD time after fusion was 30.6 months(ranged 19 to 42). Mean fused segments were 3 (ranged 2 to 8). Preoperative instability was present in 2 of the patients which was proven by dynamic lumbar x-rays. Preoperative mean VAS-back score was 7.8, VAS Leg score was 5.6. The preoperative mean JOA (Japanese Orthopaedic Association) score was 11.25. At 6th month follow-up, the mean VAS back score of the patients was 1, and the VAS leg score was 0.5. This improvement was statistically significant (p = 0.11 and 0.016, respectively). The mean JOA score at the 6th month was 22.6 and it was also statistically significant comparing preoperative JOA score(p = 0.011). The preoperative mean dural sac area measured in MR was 0.50 cm2, and it was measured as 2.1 cm² at po 6 months.(p = 0.012). There was no progress in any patient's instability during follow-up.

In orthopedic surgery, when implant related problems develop in any region of body (pseudoarthrosis, infection, adjacent fracture, etc.), it is generally treated by using more implants in its final operation. This approach is also widely used in spinal surgery.³ However, it carries more risk in terms of devoloping ASD, infection or another complications. In the literature, endoscopic procedures have almost always been used in the treatment of ventral pathologies which constitute only 10%. In ASD, disease devolops as characterized by wide facet joint arthrosis and hypertrophied ligamentum flavum in the cranial segment and it is mostly presented both lateral recess and santal stenosis symptoms (39%). In this study, we found that UBEDL provides successful results in the treatment of patients without no more muscle and ligament damage in ASD cases with spinal stenosis. One of the most important advantages of UBE is its ability to access both ventral and dorsal pathologies by minimally invasive endoscopic aproach. I think endoscopic decompression also plays an important role in the absence of additional instability at postoperatively in patients. UBE which has already been described in the literature given successful results in most of the spinal degenerative diseases besides it can also be used in the treatment of ASD. Studies with longer follow-up and higher patient numbers will provide more accurate results.

Introduction

Limited physical activity (PA) is one indication for orthopaedic intervention and restoration of PA a treatment goal. However, the objective assessment of PA is not routinely performed and in particular the effect of spinal pathology on PA is hardly known. It is the purpose of this study using wearable accelerometers to measure if, by how much and in what manner spinal stenosis affects PA compared to age-matched healthy controls.

Summary Statement

Tandem stenosis is a prevalent condition in an Asian population with the narrowest cervical canal diameters and risk factors include advanced age and increased levels of lumbar canal stenosis.

Introduction

Decompression is the gold standard surgical technique in patients with symptomatic spinal stenosis not responding to conservative management. We present an audit of outcomes in a population of patients undergoing this procedure over a four year period.

Background

Epidural steroid injections can provide temporary relief of symptoms in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. Surgery is indicated when conservative measures fail. We hypothesise that patients who gain temporary relief of symptoms from the administration of epidural steroid injections are more likely to result in an improvement in symptoms following surgical intervention compared to patients who do not respond to injection therapy.

The Nerve Root Sedimentation Sign in transverse magnetic resonance imaging has been shown to discriminate well between selected patients with and without lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS), but the performance of this new test, when used in a broad patient population, is not yet known (Barz et al. 2010).

We conducted a retrospective study of consecutive patients with suspected LSS from 2004–2006, before the sign had been described, to assess its association with health outcomes. Based on clinical and radiological diagnostics, patients had been treated with decompression surgery or conservative treatment (physical therapy, oral pain medication). Changes in the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) from baseline to 24 month follow-up were compared between Sedimentation Sign positives and negatives in both treatment arms.

Of the 146 included patients (52% female, mean age 59 yrs), 71 underwent surgery. Baseline ODI in this treatment arm was 52%, the sign was positive in 44 patients (mean ODI improvement 25 points) and negative in 27 (ODI improvement 24), with no significant difference between groups. In the 75 patients of the conservative treatment arm, baseline ODI was 44%, the sign was negative in 45 (ODI improvement 17), and positive in 30 (ODI improvement 5). Here a positive sign was associated with a smaller ODI improvement compared with sign negatives (t-test, p=0.003).

This study allowed an unbiased clinical validation of the Sedimentation Sign by avoiding it influencing treatment selection. In the conservative treatment arm a positive sign identifies a group of patients who are less likely to benefit. In these cases, surgery might be effective; however, this needs confirmation in prospective studies.

Introduction

We present our experience of 22 patients with low grade degenerative lumbar spondylolysthesis with stenosis (21 Grade I and 1 Grade II) who were treated using new stabilization systems {Scient'x IsoBar TTL Dynamic Rod Stabilization and the Inlign™ Multi-Axial pedicle Screws (Disc Motion Technologies - DMT)}.

Lumbar spine foraminal stenosis has previously been defined by the foraminal and posterior disc height. We performed a study to determine whether residual clinically significant foraminal stenosis correlates with foraminal dimensions and peri-neural fat signal loss in a group of patients with leg pain undergoing surgery for lateral recess stenosis. We retrospectively studied the pre-operative para-sagittal MRI slices of 57 patients undergoing lumbar decompression and measured pre- and post-operative VAS as a primary outcome measure to evaluate surgical success. We performed a linear regression analysis comparing change in VAS score, 1 year VAS and percentage change in VAS with foraminal height and width and found no significant correlation (R² <0.2 for all correlations). We identified a sub-group of 16 patients with absent perineural foraminal fat signal with a significantly increased probability of post-operative VAS>2 compared to patients with present fat signal (p=0.0001) who all had foraminal height <10mm. In conclusion, we were unable to define dimensional foraminal parameters for clinically significant foraminal stenosis on para-sagittal MRI. Obliteration of perineural fat was associated with worse outcome and post-operative leg pain. The aetiology of foraminal stenosis is multi-factorial and more detailed imaging of the foramen is required. We recommend that coronal and fine para-sagittal MRI slices are analysed to evaluate patients with central and lateral recess stenosis for co-existing foraminal stenosis.

Purpose of the study

The aim of this work was to study the influence of the slice orientation of T2 axial images in numerical measurements of DSCA and study the effect that this change of slice angle would have on the morphological grading assessment.

Hypothesis

Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is diagnosed by a history of claudication, clinical investigation, cross-sectional area (CSA) of the dural sac on MRI or CT, and walking distance on the treadmill test. As radiological findings do not always correlate with clinical symptoms, additional diagnostic signs are needed. In patients without LSS, we observe the sedimentation of lumbar nerve roots to the dorsal part of the dural sac on supine MRI scans. In patients with LSS, this sedimentation is rarely seen. We named this phenomenon ‘sedimentation sign’ and defined the absence of sedimenting nerve roots as positive sedimentation sign for the diagnosis of LSS. We hypothesised that the new sedimentation sign discriminates between non-specific low back pain (LBP) and LSS.

Study Design

A prospective cohort study was carried out looking at the functional outcome and post-procedure translational segmental instability after multi-level lumbar decompression using a Hinge osteotomy technique.

Modern techniques facilitate the treatment of adult spinal deformity. Decision making is a challenge because of potential complications relating to the surgery itself and medical problems. This study aims to provide useful data in facilitating the decision making process.

Retrospective analysis of consecutive single surgeon series of patients aged >50 between 2006-2009 undergoing multi-level spinal deformity surgery with concomitant decompression. Medical co-morbidities, age and ASA were recorded.

71 patients (57 female) mean age 66 (50-83). 29 (12 multiple) failed previous stenosis surgery. 14(19.7%) in hospital complications in 11(15.5%) patients. 4 were ‘medical’. 8/11 patients were revision cases versus 3/11 primary. 4 patients (5.6%) needed further surgery. 13(18.3%) outpatient complications in 12(16.9%)patients. 7/12 occurred in revision cases versus 5/12 in primary. 11(15.5%) needed further surgery.

Revisional surgery in adult deformity presents a significantly higher overall complication rate than primary surgery (p= 0.0084), but both revisional and primary cases have a relatively high re-operation rate once initially discharged. The results indicate that complex medical and surgical factors contribute to the decision making challenge in patients with adult spinal deformity and stenosis.

We carried out a prospective study looking at the functional outcome and post-procedure segmental instability after lumbar decompression using a flip osteotomy technique that involved unilateral subperiosteal muscle dissection with hinging of the spinous processes thereby preserving the integrity of the posterior elements for unilateral or bilateral lumbar spine decompression.

Between February 2007 and February 2008, 51 patients (29 male and 22 female) diagnosed with degenerative and congenital lumbar stenosis with an average age of 60, underwent central and lateral canal decompression using the flip osteotomy technique. An average of two segments (range 1-3 segments) was decompressed. Patients with a history of previous spinal surgery, spinal fusion, existing degenerative spondylolisthesis or cauda equina syndrome were excluded.

All patients were followed up for a mean of 1.5 years. Five outcome measures were used – visual analogue scale for pain, Likert scale for functional status, symptom specific well-being score, general well-being score, number of days incapacitated in last 4 weeks. The outcomes measures were recorded pre-operatively, 6 weeks and one year post-operatively. Successful surgical outcome was defined as an improvement in at least four out of five outcome measures.

90% (46 patients) of patients had a successful surgical outcome. There was a statistically significant improvement in all outcome criteria (p<0.005) at the 6-week post-operative mark as compared to pre-operatively, with marginal improvement at one year post-surgery. There was no evidence of progressive lumbar segmental instability at one year post-operatively using our flip osteotomy technique

Decompression of the lumbar spine for lumbar stenosis using the flip osteotomy technique is a safe approach for one or multi-level stenosis with good outcomes and no evidence of significant iatrogenic segmental spinal instability.

We declare no conflict of interest and ethical approval was obtained