Literature DB >> 14658061

A predictive model for outcome after conservative decompression surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis.

K F Spratt1, T S Keller, M Szpalski, K Vandeputte, R Gunzburg.   

Abstract

This study was designed to develop predictive models for surgical outcome based on information available prior to lumbar stenosis surgery. Forty patients underwent decompressive laminarthrectomy. Preop and 1-year postop evaluation included Waddell's nonorganic signs, CT scan, Waddell disability index, Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire, low back outcome score (LBOS), visual analog scale (VAS) for pain intensity, and trunk strength testing. Statistical comparisons of data used adjusted error rates within families of predictors. Mathematical models were developed to predict outcome success using stepwise logistic regression and decision-tree methodologies (chi-squared automatic interaction detection, or CHAID). Successful outcome was defined as improvement in at least three of four criteria: VAS, LBOS, and reductions in claudication and leg pain. Exact logistic regression analysis resulted in a three-predictor model. This model was more accurate in predicting unsuccessful outcome (negative predictive value 75.0%) than in successful outcome (positive predictive value 69.6%). A CHAID model correctly classified 90.1% of successful outcomes (positive predictive value 85.7%, negative predictive value 100%). The use of conservative surgical decompression for lumbar stenosis can be recommended, as it demonstrated a success rate similar to that of more invasive techniques. Given its physiologic and biomechanical advantages, it can be recommended as the surgical method of choice in this indication. Underlying subclinical vascular factors may be involved in the complaints of spinal stenosis patients. Those factors should be investigated more thoroughly, as they may account for some of the failures of surgical relief. The CHAID decision tree appears to be a novel and useful tool for predicting the results of spinal stenosis surgery

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14658061      PMCID: PMC3468041          DOI: 10.1007/s00586-003-0583-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Spine J        ISSN: 0940-6719            Impact factor:   3.134


  28 in total

1.  The outcome of decompressive laminectomy for degenerative lumbar stenosis.

Authors:  J N Katz; S J Lipson; M G Larson; J M McInnes; A H Fossel; M H Liang
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1991-07       Impact factor: 5.284

2.  Disc degeneration/back pain and calcification of the abdominal aorta. A 25-year follow-up study in Framingham.

Authors:  L I Kauppila; T McAlindon; S Evans; P W Wilson; D Kiel; D T Felson
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1997-07-15       Impact factor: 3.468

3.  Decompression in the surgical management of degenerative spondylolisthesis: advantages of a conservative approach in 290 patients.

Authors:  N E Epstein
Journal:  J Spinal Disord       Date:  1998-04

4.  Laminectomy combined with posterolateral stabilisation: a muscle-sparing approach to the lumbosacral spine.

Authors:  R D Fraser; D J Hall
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  1993-03       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Assessment of severity in low-back disorders.

Authors:  G Waddell; C J Main
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1984-03       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  Clinical and psychofunctional measures of conservative decompression surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis: a prospective cohort study.

Authors:  R Gunzburg; T S Keller; M Szpalski; K Vandeputte; K F Spratt
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2002-11-30       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  Reproducibility of trunk isoinertial dynamic performance in patients with low back pain.

Authors:  M Szpalski; C F Federspiel; S Poty; J P Hayez; J P Debaize
Journal:  J Spinal Disord       Date:  1992-03

8.  The Modified Somatic Perception Questionnaire (MSPQ).

Authors:  C J Main
Journal:  J Psychosom Res       Date:  1983       Impact factor: 3.006

9.  Spinous process osteotomies to facilitate lumbar decompressive surgery.

Authors:  B K Weiner; R D Fraser; M Peterson
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1999-01-01       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  An assessment of surgery for spinal stenosis: time trends, geographic variations, complications, and reoperations.

Authors:  M A Ciol; R A Deyo; E Howell; S Kreif
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  1996-03       Impact factor: 5.562

View more
  22 in total

1.  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

2.  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

Review 3.  The Michel Benoist and Robert Mulholland yearly European Spine Journal Review. A survey of the "surgical and research" articles in the European Spine Journal, 2004.

Authors:  Robert C Mulholland
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2005-01-28       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 4.  Predictors of surgical outcome and their assessment.

Authors:  Anne F Mannion; Achim Elfering
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2005-12-01       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Discriminative validity and responsiveness of the Oswestry Disability Index among Japanese outpatients with lumbar conditions.

Authors:  Hideki Hashimoto; Masahi Komagata; Osamu Nakai; Masutaro Morishita; Yasuaki Tokuhashi; Shigeo Sano; Yutaka Nohara; Yukikazu Okajima
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2006-02-14       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  Patient-based outcomes for the operative treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Samo K Fokter; Scott A Yerby
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2005-12-21       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  Development of a model to predict the probability of incurring a complication during spine surgery.

Authors:  Pascal Zehnder; Ulrike Held; Tim Pigott; Andrea Luca; Markus Loibl; Raluca Reitmeir; Tamás Fekete; Daniel Haschtmann; Anne F Mannion
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2021-03-09       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  Laminarthrectomy as a surgical approach for decompressing the spinal canal: assessment of preoperative versus postoperative dural sac cross-sectional areal (DSCSA).

Authors:  Erland Hermansen; Gunnar Moen; Johan Barstad; Rune Birketvedt; Kari Indrekvam
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-03-15       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 9.  Predictive modeling of complications.

Authors:  Joseph A Osorio; Justin K Scheer; Christopher P Ames
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2016-09

10.  Magnetic resonance imaging predictors of surgical outcome in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Banu Alicioglu; Baris Yilmaz; Nail Bulakbasi; Cem Copuroglu; Erol Yalniz; Bilal Aykac; Devrim Ulas Urut
Journal:  Jpn J Radiol       Date:  2012-09-04       Impact factor: 2.374

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.