Literature DB >> 10828926

Lumbar spinal stenosis: conservative or surgical management?: A prospective 10-year study.

T Amundsen1, H Weber, H J Nordal, B Magnaes, M Abdelnoor, F Lilleâs.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: A cohort of 100 patients with symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis, characterized in a previous article, were given surgical or conservative treatment and followed for 10 years.
OBJECTIVES: To identify the short- and long-term results after surgical and conservative treatment, and to determine whether clinical or radiologic predictors for the treatment result can be defined. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Surgical decompression has been considered the rational treatment. However, clinical experience indicates that many patients do well with conservative treatment.
METHODS: In this study, 19 patients with severe symptoms were selected for surgical treatment and 50 patients with moderate symptoms for conservative treatment, whereas 31 patients were randomized between the conservative (n = 18) and surgical (n = 13) treatment groups. Pain was decisive for the choice of treatment group. All patients were observed for 10 years by clinical evaluation and questionnaires. The results, evaluated by patient and physician, were rated as excellent, fair, unchanged, or worse.
RESULTS: After a period of 3 months, relief of pain had occurred in most patients. Some had relief earlier, whereas for others it took 1 year. After a period of 4 years, excellent or fair results were found in half of the patients selected for conservative treatment, and in four fifths of the patients selected for surgery. Patients with an unsatisfactory result from conservative treatment were offered delayed surgery after 3 to 27 months (median, 3.5 months). The treatment result of delayed surgery was essentially similar to that of the initial group. The treatment result for the patients randomized for surgical treatment was considerably better than for the patients randomized for conservative treatment. Clinically significant deterioration of symptoms during the final 6 years of the follow-up period was not observed. Patients with multilevel afflictions, surgically treated or not, did not have a poorer outcome than those with single-level afflictions. Clinical or radiologic predictors for the final outcome were not found. There were no dropouts, except for 14 deaths.
CONCLUSIONS: The outcome was most favorable for surgical treatment. However, an initial conservative approach seems advisable for many patients because those with an unsatisfactory result can be treated surgically later with a good outcome.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10828926     DOI: 10.1097/00007632-200006010-00016

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)        ISSN: 0362-2436            Impact factor:   3.468


  151 in total

Review 1.  The conservative surgical treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis in the elderly.

Authors:  Robert Gunzburg; Marek Szpalski
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2003-09-05       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Reviewer's comment on "five-year outcome of surgical decompression of the lumbar spine without fusion" by Mannion AF, Denzler R, Dvorak J, Grob D (doi:10.1007/s00586-010-1535-2).

Authors:  Alison H McGregor
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2010-08-31       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Stabilising effect of dynamic interspinous spacers in degenerative low-grade lumbar instability.

Authors:  Johannes Holinka; Petra Krepler; Michael Matzner; Josef G Grohs
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2010-04-25       Impact factor: 3.075

4.  [Biomechanics of interspinous spacers].

Authors:  H-J Wilke; J Drumm; K Häussler; C Mack; A Kettler
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 1.087

5.  Prediction of long-term clinical outcome in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  B Micankova Adamova; S Vohanka; L Dusek; J Jarkovsky; J Bednarik
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-07-10       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  Does the wait for lumbar degenerative spinal stenosis surgery have a detrimental effect on patient outcomes? A prospective observational study.

Authors:  Christopher S Bailey; Kevin R Gurr; Stewart I Bailey; David Taylor; M Patricia Rosas-Arellano; Corinne Tallon; Yves Bureau; Jennifer C Urquhart
Journal:  CMAJ Open       Date:  2016-04-28

7.  Cost-effectiveness of three treatment strategies for lumbar spinal stenosis: Conservative care, laminectomy, and the Superion interspinous spacer.

Authors:  Scott L Parker; Louise H Anderson; Teresa Nelson; Vikas V Patel
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2015-07-09

8.  Clinical outcomes of microendoscopic decompressive laminotomy for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Jwo-Luen Pao; Wein-Chin Chen; Po-Quang Chen
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-02-24       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  A prospective randomized multi-center study for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis with the X STOP interspinous implant: 1-year results.

Authors:  J F Zucherman; K Y Hsu; C A Hartjen; T F Mehalic; D A Implicito; M J Martin; D R Johnson; G A Skidmore; P P Vessa; J W Dwyer; S Puccio; J C Cauthen; R M Ozuna
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2003-12-19       Impact factor: 3.134

10.  Descriptive epidemiology and prior healthcare utilization of patients in the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial's (SPORT) three observational cohorts: disc herniation, spinal stenosis, and degenerative spondylolisthesis.

Authors:  Justin Cummins; Jon D Lurie; Tor D Tosteson; Brett Hanscom; William A Abdu; Nancy J O Birkmeyer; Harry Herkowitz; James Weinstein
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2006-04-01       Impact factor: 3.468

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.