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

The multimodal management of canal stenosis is increasing, and inhibitors of central sensitization are playing a crucial role in central sensitization processes. Pregabalin and gabapentin are antiepileptic drugs that reduce presynaptic excitability. The objective of this study was to investigate whether the use of pregabalin and gabapentin is effective in the symptomatic management of canal stenosis.

A literature search was conducted in four databases. The inclusion criteria were studies that compared pregabalin or gabapentin with a control group in lumbar canal stenosis. Randomized clinical trials and a comparative retrospective cohort study were included. The main clinical endpoints were VAS/NRS, ODI, and RDQ (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire) at 2, 4, 8 weeks, and 3 months, adverse events, and walking distance were also collected. Data were combined using Review Manager 5.4 software.

Six studies and 392 patients were included. The mean age was 60.25. No significant differences were observed in VAS at 2, 4, and 8 weeks: (MD: 0.23; 95% CI: −0.63-1.09), (MD: −0.04; 95% CI: −0.64 to −0.57), and (MD: −0.6; 95% CI: −1.22 to 0.02). Significant differences were observed in favor of pregabalin with respect to VAS at three months: (MD: −2.97; 95% CI: −3.43 to −2.51). No significant differences were observed in ODI (MD: −3.47; 95% CI: −7.15 to −0.21). Adverse events were significantly higher in the pregabalin/gabapentin group (OR 5.88, 95%CI 1.28-27.05). Walking distance and RDQ could not be compared, although the results were controversial.

Gabapentinoids have not been shown to be superior to other drugs used in the treatment of LSS or to placebo. However, they have shown a higher incidence of adverse effects, improved results in VAS at 3 months, and a slight improvement in ambulation at 4 months in combination with NSAIDs compared to NSAIDs in monotherapy.

Abstract

Aims

Symptomatic spinal stenosis is a very common problem, and decompression surgery has been shown to be superior to nonoperative treatment in selected patient groups. However, performing an instrumented fusion in addition to decompression may avoid revision and improve outcomes. The aim of the SpInOuT feasibility study was to establish whether a definitive randomized controlled trial (RCT) that accounted for the spectrum of pathology contributing to spinal stenosis, including pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis (PI-LL) mismatch and mobile spondylolisthesis, could be conducted.

Initial treatment of traumatic spinal cord injury remains as controversial in 2023 as it was in the early 19th century, when Sir Astley Cooper and Sir Charles Bell debated the merits or otherwise of surgery to relieve cord compression. There has been a lack of high-class evidence for early surgery, despite which expeditious intervention has become the surgical norm. This evidence deficit has been progressively addressed in the last decade and more modern statistical methods have been used to clarify some of the issues, which is demonstrated by the results of the SCI-POEM trial. However, there has never been a properly conducted trial of surgery versus active conservative care. As a result, it is still not known whether early surgery or active physiological management of the unstable injured spinal cord offers the better chance for recovery. Surgeons who care for patients with traumatic spinal cord injuries in the acute setting should be aware of the arguments on all sides of the debate, a summary of which this annotation presents.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(4):347–355.

Aims

To compare the efficacy of decompression alone (DA) with i) decompression and fusion (DF) and ii) interspinous process device (IPD) in the treatment of lumbar stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis. Outcomes of interest were both patient-reported measures of postoperative pain and function, as well as the perioperative measures of blood loss, operation duration, hospital stay, and reoperation.

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

Abstract. Purpose. No clinical CT based classification system is currently in use for Lumbar Foraminal Stenosis. MRI scanners are not easily available, are expensive and may be contraindicated in an increasing number of patients. This study aims to propose and evaluate the reproducibility of a novel CT based classification for lumbar foraminal stenosis. Materials and Methods. The grading was developed as 4 grades. Normal foramen – Grade 0, Anteroposterior(AP)/Superoinferior (SI)(single plane) fat compression – Grade 1, Both AP/SI compression (two planes) – Grade 2 (both AP and SI) without distortion of nerve root, Grade 2 with distortion of nerve root – Grade 3. 800 lumbar foramen of a cohort of 100 random patients over the age of 60 who had undergone both CT and MRI scans were reviewed by two radiologists independently to assess agreement of the novel CT classification against the MRI based grading system of Lee et al. Interobserver(n=400) and intraobserver agreement(n=160) was also evaluated. Agreement analysis was performed using the Weighted Kappa statistic. Results. 100 patients (M:F = 45:55) with a mean age of 68.5 years (range 60 – 83 years were included in the study. The duration between CT and MRI scans was 98 days(range 0 – 540, SD – 108). There was good correlation between CT and MRI with Kappa scores (k=0.81) and intraobserver Kappa of 0.89 and 0.98 for the two readers. Conclusion. The novel CT based classification correlates well with the MRI grading system and can safely and accurately replace it where required

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.

Objective

Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a common spinal disorder mostly caused by the arthritic process. In cases with refractory complaints or significant neurologic deficit, decompressive surgery with or without instrumented fusion may be indicated. We aimed to investigate the surgical outcome of multi-level LSS in the patient with stable spine treated by simple decompression versus decompression and instrumented fusion. Methods: We retrospectively studied 51 patients (25 male, 26 female) with stable multi-level (>2 levels) LSS who were treated by decompressive surgery alone (group A, 31 cases) and decompression and instrumented fusion (group B, 20 cases) and followed them for more than two years. The patients’ disability and pain were assessed with Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), respectively. At the last follow-up visit, patient satisfaction with surgery was also scored. Results: The two groups were homogeneous in terms of age, sex, severity of disability and pain. Surgery could significantly improve pain and disability in both groups. Preoperative ODI in group A and B were 51.0±23.7 and 54.5±22.9, respectively, however at the last follow-up visit these parameters improved to 23.1±21.1 and 36.6±21.4 showing a statistical significance. Mean patient satisfaction with surgical intervention was also higher in the simple decompression group, but this difference was not significant. Conclusion: In surgical treatment of the patients with multi-level but stable LSS, simple decompression versus decompression and instrumented fusion could achieve more disability improvement for more than two years of follow-up.

Aims

Early cases of cauda equina syndrome (CES) often present with nonspecific symptoms and signs, and it is recommended that patients undergo emergency MRI regardless of the time since presentation. This creates substantial pressure on resources, with many scans performed to rule out cauda equina rather than confirm it. We propose that compression of the cauda equina should be apparent with a limited sequence (LS) scan that takes significantly less time to perform.

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.

Aims

Patients seeking cervical spine surgery are thought to be increasing in age, comorbidities and functional debilitation. The changing demographics of this population may significantly impact the outcomes of their care, specifically with regards to complications. In this study, our goals were to determine the rates of functionally dependent patients undergoing elective cervical spine procedures and to assess the effect of functional dependence on 30-day morbidity and mortality using a large, validated national cohort.

There is limited long term evidence to support instrumented fusion as an adjunct to decompression for foraminal stenosis in the presence of single level degenerative disc disease.

We report the long term outcome of a prospective randomised controlled trial. Forty-four patients with single-level disc disease were randomly assigned to three groups (spinal decompression (Group 1), decompression and instrumented posterolateral fusion (Group 2), or decompression and instrumented posterolateral fusion plus transforaminal interbody fusion (Group 3). Spinal disability (Dallas, Roland Morris, and Lower Back Outcome Score [LBOS]), and quality of life (EuroQol (EQ) and short form (SF-) 36 questionnaires) were assessed before and at after surgery by independent researchers.

At mean of 15 years follow up 33 (75%) patients were available for assessment. All groups observed a significant improvement in the EQ-5D at final follow up. Group 1 demonstrated significantly better functional outcome at final follow up according to the Dallas, Roland Morris, LBOS, and EQ-5D (3L and VAS) scores when compared to the other two groups (p<0.01). The SF-36 score demonstrated that group 1 had significantly better generic health scores compared to groups 2 and 3. Regression analysis was used to adjust for the differences in general health between the groups and demonstrated no significant difference between the groups in the spine specific scores: Dallas (p>0.15), Roland Morris (p>0.37), or the LBOS (p>0.32).

Fusion in combination with decompression for the treatment of foraminal stenosis and single level degenerative disc disease offers no long term functional benefit over decompression in isolation.

Purpose of study and background

The use of NRB (Nerve Root Block) in radicular pain caused by stenosis is considered controversial in some centres, whereas its indication in radiculitis caused by disc herniation is widely accepted. Most studies evaluating NRB have combined disc herniation and stenosis pathologies in their inclusion criteria. This study explores the efficacy of NRB in different categories of stenosis: lateral recess, foraminal and combined.