Background. Neurogenic claudication is a well recognised symptom of spinal stenosis. Pain in the lower limbs and back limit walking speed and distance. Outcome of treatment should be easily measurable, but in practice is not. Walking tests are difficult to perform reliably. It is possible to measure speed and endurance with a treadmill, but this is expensive, of doubtful reliability, and many elderly patients are reasonably worried about falling off. Commonly used back pain outcome questionnaires are probably invalid for this population, and few questionnaires have been designed specifically for this complaint. The purpose of this study was to evaluate 3 questionnaires (Swiss Spinal Stenosis Score (SSS), Oxford Claudication Score (OCS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI)) and a Shuttle Walking Test (SWT). The Shuttle Walking Test, developed originally in respiratory medicine, shows promise as both a clinical measure and outcome measure for patients with neurogenic claudication. In an internal study, we have found that none of our patients selected for surgery can manage more than 200 metres. A fit adult can usually manage about 600 metres on this test. Study Design: Shuttle Walking Test (SWT), Swiss Spinal Stenosis Score (SSS), Oxford Claudication Score (OCS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were administered to patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) and neurogenic claudication. Objective: To determine reliability of SWT, SSS (Q1–12), OCS and ODI in LSS assessment. Methods: Thirty two clinic patients with LSS were assessed twice with one week between assessments to determine reliability. Retrospective data from 17 patients assessed before and 18 months after surgery for LSS were used to investigate use of reliability in a clinical setting. Results: Test-retest reliability was 0.92 for SWT, 0.92 for SSS, 0.83 for OCS and 0.89 for ODI (Intraclass correlation coefficient). Mean scores (percent) were SSS 51, OCS 45 and ODI 40. For 95% certainty of change between assessments for a single patient, SSS would need to change by 15, OCS by 20 and ODI by 16. Mean SWT was 150m, with change of 76m required for 95% confidence. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.91 for SSS, 0.90 for OCS and 0.89 for ODI. Change in ODI correlated most strongly with patient satisfaction after surgery (_=0.80, p< 0.001). Conclusions: Fluctuations in patient’s symptoms result in wide individual confidence intervals. Performance of SSS, OCS and ODI questionnaires are broadly similar. The condition specific SSS is most precise but not much better than the non-specific ODI. SWT gives a snapshot of physical function which is acceptable for group analysis. Use of SWT for individual assessment after surgery is feasible but multiple testing would improve sensitivity for change

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

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

Introduction: We report the outcome two years following Dynesys for the treatment of Spinal Canal Stenosis. In both the FDA trial and the European multicentre study, stenosis was invariably combined with decompression, invalidating conclusions on the results of Dynesys alone. Method: Eighteen patients had symptomatic Spinal Canal Stenosis with root claudication sufficient to justify surgical intervention. Average age of patients was 68 with a range between 44–86 years. Dynesys was applied for the treatment of a single level in 4, two levels in 8, and more than two levels in 6. Patients were evaluated preoperatively using ODI, SF36, VAS, plain x-ray, MRI scanning & discography. Questionnaires were evaluated at the first and second years. Results: 2 patients had undergone previous spinal decompression, and decompression at the time of Dynesys surgery in 7. In the remaining 9 cases, no decompression was used, relying on distraction alone as in the X stop system. In this latter group, stenotic symptoms failed to resolve. Removal of Dynesys was indicated in 3 (16.6%). Discussion & Conclusions: Dynesys alone is not recommended as a treatment for symptomatic spinal stenosis. A separate study is required to address the question of whether Dynesys adjunct improves the back pain outcome compared with decompression alone

To evaluate Radiological changes in the lumbosacral spine after insertion of Wallis Ligament for Foraminal Stenosis. Thirty two Levels in Twenty Six patients were followed up with standardised radiographs after insertion of Wallis Ligaments for Foraminal Stenosis. Wallis ligaments as a top-off or those with prolapsed discs were not included. The Radiological parameters compared were Anterior and Posterior Disc height, Foraminal height and width, The inter-vertebral angle (IVA), Lumbar lordosis and Scoliosis if any. The presence of slips and their progression post-op was noted, as was bony lysis if any. There were ten males with thirteen levels and sixteen females with nineteen levels in the study. Eighteen levels (56.25%) were L4/L5, ten (31.25%) were L5/S1 and 4 (12.5%)were L3/L4. The average age in the series was 59.6 years (Range 37 – 89 yrs). Average follow up was 9.5 months (Range 2 to 36). The Average increase in Anterior disc height was 1.89 mm (+/−1.39), the posterior disc height increased by an average 1.09 mm (+/−1.14). Foraminal height increased by an average 3.85 mm (+/− 2.72), while foraminal width increased by 2.14 mm (+/− 1.38). The IVA increased in 16 and reduced in 15 patients, with no change in 1. Lumbar Lordosis increased in 23 patients, with an average value of 2.3°. No patient exhibited progression in scoliosis and no lysis could be identified. There were three Grade I slips pre-op; none progressed. Foraminal dimensions and Disc height were consistently improved after Wallis insertion. Changes in IVA and Lumbar lordosis were however variable. A longer follow up is suggested to look for sustained improvement and the presence of lysis

Purpose. To evaluate Radiological changes in the lumbosacral spine after insertion of Wallis Ligament for Foraminal Stenosis. Methods and Results. Thirty two Levels in Twenty Six patients were followed up with standardised radiographs after insertion of Wallis Ligaments for Foraminal Stenosis. Wallis ligaments as a top-off or those with prolapsed discs were not included. The Radiological parameters compared were Anterior and Posterior Disc height, Foraminal height and width, The inter-vertebral angle (IVA), Lumbar lordosis and Scoliosis if any. The presence of slips and their progression post-op was noted, as was bony lysis if any. There were ten males with thirteen levels and sixteen females with nineteen levels in the study. Eighteen levels (56.25%) were L4/L5, ten (31.25%) were L5/S1 and 4 (12.5%)were L3/L4. The average age in the series was 59.6 years (Range 37 – 89 yrs). Average follow up was 9.5 months (Range 2 to 36). The Average increase in Anterior disc height was 1.89 mm (+/−1.39), the posterior disc height increased by an average 1.09 mm (+/−1.14). Foraminal height increased by an average 3.85 mm (+/− 2.72), while foraminal width increased by 2.14 mm (+/− 1.38). The IVA increased in 16 and reduced in 15 patients, with no change in 1. Lumbar Lordosis increased in 23 patients, with an average value of 2.3°. No patient exhibited progression in scoliosis and no lysis could be identified. There were three Grade I slips pre-op; none progressed. Conclusion. Foraminal dimensions and Disc height were consistently improved after Wallis insertion. Changes in IVA and Lumbar lordosis were however variable. A longer follow up is suggested to look for sustained improvement and the presence of lysis. Ethics approval- None, Audit/service standard in trust. Interest statement - None

Surgical decompression is the recommended treatment for patients with moderate to severe degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS). Although complication risk has been shown to be higher with concomitant fusion, the success rate is not necessarily superior. This study analyzed the success rates of 58 DLSS patients treated with decompressive surgery. Twenty patients received concomitant instrumented fusion. Outcomes were measured with the Swiss Spinal Stenosis Questionnaire (SSSQ) completed pre-operatively and at least 12 months post-operatively (range 12 to 54 months). Overall, 63.8% of the patients had significant clinical improvement in Symptom Severity, 55.2% had significant clinical improvement in Physical Function, and 58.6% of the patients were at least somewhat satisfied; 43.1% (25/58) of the patients met all three criteria and were considered to be clinically successful. There were no statistically significant differences between the clinical success rates of the non-fusion and fusion groups, but the change in mean change of the Symptom Severity score for the fusion group was significantly greater than that of the non-fusion group. Also, patients with more severe pre-operative symptoms and more physical function restrictions had better success results than those patients with more mild symptoms and less restrictive physical function. The results of this study demonstrate that decompressive surgery with concomitant fusion does not impose a greater risk than decompressive surgery alone and the clinical results of the added fusion are somewhat superior to decompressive surgery alone

Abstract

Introduction

In degenerative lumbar spine, it seems possible that foraminal stenosis is over-diagnosed as axial scanning is not performed in the plane of the exiting nerve root. We carried out a two-part study to determine the true incidence of foraminal stenosis.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Abstract

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.

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.

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.

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.

1. Nine patients with radiological evidence of narrowing of the lumbar spinal canal, proved at operation, are reviewed.

2. They presented with either a claudicant or a sciatic clinical picture.

3. A classification into primary or secondary spinal stenosis is described. The primary type may be due to a reduction in either the sagittal, coronal or both diameters of the spinal canal.

4. Secondary narrowing of the canal may be superimposed upon a primary anatomical abnormality or may cause narrowing in a previously normal canal.

5. The symptoms are thought to be caused by a further reduction in the size of an already narrow canal, producing traction on the nerve tissue, which is then unable to move freely.

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.