Background. Foraminal stenosis is often encountered in patients undergoing decompression for spinal stenosis. Given the increased resection of facets and the presence of the more sensitive dorsal root ganglion, it is hypothesized that patients with foraminal stenosis have poorer postoperative outcomes. Methods. Thirty-one patients undergoing decompression without fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis were evaluated. The degree of foraminal stenosis was determined by 2 independent reviewers for absence of fat around the nerve roots. ImageJ digital imaging software was also used to evaluate the foraminal area. Patients with foraminal stenosis were compared with those without using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and a numerical pain scale for back and leg pain at a minimum of 1 year follow-up. Results. Twenty patients in the foraminal stenosis group were compared with 11 without foraminal stenosis. There were no significant differences between the 2 groups regarding age, sex, comorbidities, number of levels operated on, preoperative ODI, back pain or leg pain scores. The foraminal area was significantly smaller in the foraminal stenosis group. Patients without foraminal stenosis reported significant improvements in ODI (mean 26.0), back pain (mean 3.1) and leg pain scores (mean 5.5). Patients with foraminal stenosis reported significant improvements in ODI (mean 18.8) and leg pain (mean 2.5) but not in back pain (mean 0.3). Comparing the 2 groups, the patients with foraminal stenosis had significantly less improvement in back pain (p = 0.02) and leg pain (p = 0.02). Conclusion. The results of this study suggest that presence of foraminal stenosis is a negative predictor for successful outcome following decompression surgery. This may be related to the increased instability that occurs when a foraminotomy is required. Spinal fusion may reduce this effect, and further study is required. NO DISCLOSURES

Abstract. Objective. 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. Methods. 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. Results. The clinical outcome scores for the cohort improved significantly across all scoring systems. Radiographs at 2 years did not reveal any loss of position or loosening of metal work. There were two incidental durotomies and no failures at 5 years with no patient requiring revision surgery. Conclusions. The TOPS implant maintains clinical improvement and motion in the surgical management of LSS and spondylolisthesis, indicating it can be considered an option for these indications

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. Methods. Data were obtained from electronic searches of five online databases. Included studies were limited to randomised-controlled trials (RCTs) which compared DA with DF or IPD using patient-reported outcomes such as the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ), or perioperative data. Patient-reported data were reported as part of the systematic review, while meta-analyses were conducted for perioperative outcomes in MATLAB using the DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model. Forest plots were generated for visual interpretation, while heterogeneity was assessed using the I. 2. -statistic. Results. A total of 13 articles met the eligibility criteria. Of these, eight compared DA with DF and six studies compared DA with IPD. Patient-rated outcomes reported included the ODI and ZCQ, with mixed results for both types of comparisons. Overall, there were few statistically significant and no clinically significant differences in patient-rated outcomes. Study quality varied greatly across the included articles. Meta-analysis of perioperative outcomes revealed DF to result in greater blood loss than DA (MD = 406.74 ml); longer operation duration (MD = 108.91 min); and longer postoperative stay in hospital (MD = 2.84 days). Use of IPD in comparison to DA led to slightly reduced operation times (MD = –25.18 min), but a greater risk of reoperation compared to DA (RR = 2.70). Conclusion. Currently there is no evidence for the use of DF or IPD over DA in both patient-rated and perioperative outcomes. Indeed, both procedures can potentially lead to greater cost and risk of complications, and therefore, a stronger evidence base for their use should be established before they are promoted as routine options in patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis

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

Objectives. Neurogenic intermittent claudication secondary to lumbar spinal stenosis is a posture dependant complaint typically affecting patients aged 50 years or older. Various treatment options exist for the management of this potentially debilitating condition. Non-surgical treatments: activity modification, exercise, NSAIDs, epidural injections. Surgical treatment options include decompression surgery and interspinous process device surgery. Interspinous process decompression is a relatively new, minimally invasive, stand-alone alternative to conservative and standard surgical decompressive treatments. The aim of this review is to evaluate the use of the X-Stop interspinous implant in all patients with spinal stenosis who were managed using the device in Northern Ireland up to June 2009. Method. We performed a retrospective review of all patients who had the X-Stop device inserted for spinal stenosis by all consultant spinal surgeons in Northern Ireland. Patient demographics, clinical symptomatology, investigative modality, post-operative quality of life, cost effectiveness, complications and long-term outcomes were assessed. Information was collected from patients using a questionnaire which was posted to them, containing the SF-36 generic questionnaire and some additional questions. Results. A total of 23 patients underwent X-stop insertion in Northern Ireland at the time of this review, 19 patients returned their questionnaires and of these 17 were completed in full and therefore included. The mean age of the study population was 60.1 years and all patients included in the study had symptoms of neurogenic claudication secondary to lumbar spinal stenosis confirmed on MRI scan. The average hospital stay was 1.5 days compared to 7.5 days for decompressive laminectomy patients. Also, at a mean follow-up of 17.8 months, 2 patients suffered direct complications of device insertion requiring removal of the implant both of these patients agreed that they would undergo the operation again in the future. SF-36 scores indicate a quality of life improvement which equates to that of other popular orthopaedic operations such as total hip and total knee replacement. X-stop insertion has been shown to be much more cost-effective than decompressive laminectomy in previous studies. Conclusion. Decompression of the lumbar spine with the X-stop interspinous implant device is safe, cost-effective, minimally invasive, and at least as effective at improving symptomatology from lumbar spinal stenosis. It is obviously more invasive than non-surgical techniques, but is less invasive than lumbar decompression procedures, is less destructive to surrounding tissues and if it fails to produce the desired results can be removed easily and the option remains for the patient to under decompression

Although patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have become increasingly important in the evaluation of spine surgery patients, interpretability may be limited by a patient's ability to recall pre-intervention impairment. The accuracy of patient recall of preoperative back pain, leg pain, and disability after spine surgery remains unknown. We sought to characterise the accuracy of patient recall of preoperative symptoms in a cohort of lumbar spine surgery patients. We analysed consecutive patients undergoing lumbar decompression or decompression and fusion for lumbar radiculopathy by a single surgeon over a four-year period. Using standardised questionnaires, we recorded back and leg numeric pain scores (NPS) and Oswestry Disability Indices (ODI) preoperatively and asked patients to recall their preoperative status at a minimum of one-year following surgery. We then statistically compared and characterised patient recall of their pre-operative status and their actual pre-operative status. Patients with incomplete follow up or diagnoses other than degenerative lumbar stenosis were excluded. Sixty-seven patients with a mean age of 66.1 years (55% female) were included in the final analysis. All cases were either posterior or combined anterior/ posterior procedures. Mean levels of surgery was 1.7 and 93.8% of all cases were instrumented. Mean duration of preoperative symptoms was 44.5 months (3.7 years). Preoperative vs postoperative PROs improved with regards to NPS back (5.2 vs 2.2, p= to 2 point difference), exceeding the minimal clinical important difference (MCID) for NPS. This pattern was maintained across age, gender, and duration of preoperative symptoms. We also observed cases of symptom minimisation recall bias, and cases in which back and leg pain predominance were switched in severity during recall bias. Significant recall bias of preoperative symptoms exists in patients undergoing spine surgery, potentially limiting accurate assessment and interpretation of PROs. An understanding of PROs and their limitations is essential to assess treatment efficacy of spinal procedures

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

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. Methods and analysis. 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 >120mm. 2. , and a walking distance >1000m; patients in the LSS group (n=100) showed claudication, a CSA < 80mm. 2. , and a walking distance < 200m. Results. A positive sedimentation sign was identified in 94 patients in the LSS group but in no patient in the LBP group. There was no difference in the detection of the sign between segmental levels L1 - L5 in the LSS group. Conclusion. Our findings show that a positive sedimentation sign exclusively and reliably occurs in patients with LSS, suggesting its usefulness in clinical practice. If future accuracy studies confirm the sign's high specificity, a positive sedimentation sign can rule in LSS, and with a high sensitivity, a negative sedimentation sign can rule out LSS. The sedimentation sign is potentially a valuable tool to identify patients who will benefit from spinal surgery

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. Objective. 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. Methods. Between February 2005 and February 2007, 120 patients (51 male and 69 female) diagnosed with degenerative and/or congenital lumbar stenosis with a mean age of 64 years, underwent central and bilateral canal decompression using the hinge osteotomy technique. A mean of 2 segments (range 2-4) was decompressed. All patients were followed up for a minimum of three years. Five outcome measures were used: visual analogue scale for leg pain, Likert scale for functional status, symptom specific well-being score, general well-being score, and ODI score. The outcome measures were recorded pre-operatively and at 6 months and 3 years post-operatively. Successful surgical outcome was defined as an improvement in at least four out of five outcome measures. Results. 108 patients (90%) had a successful surgical outcome. There was a statistically significant improvement in all outcome criteria (p< 0.001) when measured at the 6-month post-operative mark as compared to pre-operatively, with further marginal significant improvement (p< 0.05) at 3 years post-surgery. There was no evidence of progressive lumbar segmental instability at 3 years post-operatively. Conclusion. Decompression of multi-level lumbar spine stenosis using the unilateral approach with the Hinge osteotomy technique is a safe approach for multi-level stenosis, with good outcome and no evidence of significant segmental translational spinal instability

Introduction. 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. Materials and methods. 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. Results. There were 17 patients with improvement in the spinal stenotic symptoms following hip replacement to an extent that none required spinal surgery. There were two patients who had spinal surgery after THR, at varying lengths following hip replacements as their spinal stenotic symptoms worsened over time, and had lateral spinal stenosis on MRI. Discussion. In advanced hip osteoarthritis, a fixed flexion deformity may develop at the hip leading to an exaggerated lumbar lordosis in erect posture. In the presence of co-existing spinal stenosis, the exaggerated lumbar lordosis may worsen the spinal stenotic symptoms while standing and walking. Cadaveric & Radiological studies have shown that canal narrowing occurs with increased lordosis/ extension in the lumbar spine. Our findings suggest that when central lumbar spinal stenosis coexists with bilateral hip arthritis and FFD at the hip, THR should be offered first. Successful hip surgery for arthritis correcting significant fixed flexion deformity would lessen the lumbar lordosis, thus correcting the excessive pathological narrowing. If a patient is fit enough, simultaneous bilateral THR via an anterior type of approach makes surgical correction of FFD easier. Although it has been suggested in the literature that patients with spinal stenosis have a increased risk of neurological impairment following THR, we did not find any clear association