Flexible stabilisation has been utilised to maintain spinal mobility in patients with early-stage lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). Previous literature has not yet established any non-fusion solution as a viable treatment option for patients with severe posterior degeneration of the lumbar spine. This feasibility study evaluates the mean five-year outcomes of patients treated with the TOPS (Total Posterior Spine System) facet replacement system in the surgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis and degenerative spondylolisthesis. Ten patients (2 males, 8 females, mean age 59.6) were enrolled into a non-randomised prospective clinical study. Patients were evaluated with standing AP, lateral, flexion and extension radiographs and MRI scans, back and leg pain visual analog scale (VAS) scores, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ) and the SF-36 questionnaires, preoperatively, 6 months, one year, two years and latest follow-up at a mean of five years postoperatively (range 55–74 months). Flexion and extension standing lumbar spine radiographs were obtained at 2 years to assess range of motion (ROM) at the stabilised segment.Abstract
Objective
Methods
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. The Hinge osteotomy technique involves unilateral subperiosteal muscle dissection with osteotomy of the base of the spinous processes thereby preserving the integrity of the posterior elements. The objective of this study was to demonstrate the results of this technique clinically and radiologically.Study Design
Objective
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.
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. This prospective case-control study included 200 patients in an orthopaedic in- and outpatient clinic. Patients in the LBP group (n=100) had low back pain, a cross-sectional area (CSA) of the dural sac >120mm2, and a walking distance >1000m; patients in the LSS group (n=100) showed claudication, a CSA < 80mm2, and a walking distance < 200m.Hypothesis
Methods and analysis
We propose that Total Hip Replacement with correction of fixed flexion deformity of the hip and exaggerated lumbar lordosis will result in relief of symptoms from spinal stenosis, possibly avoiding a spinal surgery. A sequence of patients with this dual pathology has been assessed to examine this and suggest a possible management algorithm. A retrospective study of 19 patients who presented with dual pathology was performed and the patients were assessed with regards to pre and post-operative symptoms, walking distance, and neurological status.Introduction
Materials and methods
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.
