Literature DB >> 16496190

The effect of duration of symptoms on standard outcome measures in the surgical treatment of spinal stenosis.

Leslie C L Ng1, Suhayl Tafazal, Philip Sell.   

Abstract

The effect of the duration of symptoms on the outcome of lumbar decompression surgery is not known. The aim of our study was to determine the predictors of functional outcome of lumbar decompression surgery for degenerative spinal stenosis with particular emphasis on the duration of symptoms. In this prospective cohort study, we recruited 100 patients with a full data set available at 1-year and 85% at 2-year follow-ups: 49 females and 51 males with an average age of 62 (range 52-82). The pre- and post-operative outcome measures were Oswestry disability index (ODI), low back outcome score (LBOS), pain visual analogue score (VAS), modified somatic perception (MSP) and modified Zung depression (MZD) score. Dural tear occurred in 14%, and there was one post-operative extra-dural heamatoma. Overall, the ODI improved from a pre-operative of 56 (+/-13) to a 1-year ODI of 40 (+/-22) and at 2-year ODI of 40 (+/-21). The VAS improved from an average of 8 to 5.2 at 1 year and 4.9 at 2 years. There was a statistical significant association between symptom duration and the change in ODI (P=0.007 at 1-year follow-up, P=0.001 at 2-year follow-up), LBOS (P=0.001 at 1-year follow-up, P<0.001 at 2-year follow-up) and VAS (P=0.003 at 1-year follow-up, P=0.001 at 2-year follow-up). Subgroup analyses showed that patients with symptom duration of less than 33 months had a more favourable result. In addition, the patients who rated the operation as excellent had a statistically significantly shorter duration of symptoms. We have not found a predictive value for age at operation, MSP or MZD. The number of levels of decompression and the different types of decompression surgery did not influence the surgical results. Our study indicates that the symptom duration of more than 33 months has a less favourable functional outcome.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16496190      PMCID: PMC2200689          DOI: 10.1007/s00586-006-0078-z

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


  31 in total

1.  Calcitonin treatment in lumbar spinal stenosis: a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, cross-over study with one-year follow-up.

Authors:  A Eskola; T Pohjolainen; H Alaranta; J Soini; K Tallroth; P Slätis
Journal:  Calcif Tissue Int       Date:  1992-05       Impact factor: 4.333

2.  Long-term potentiation and depression in the ventral horn of rat spinal cord in vitro.

Authors:  S Pockett; A Figurov
Journal:  Neuroreport       Date:  1993-01       Impact factor: 1.837

3.  Long-term results of surgery in lumbar stenosis. 8-year review of 64 patients.

Authors:  F Postacchini; G Cinotti; S Gumina; D Perugia
Journal:  Acta Orthop Scand Suppl       Date:  1993

Review 4.  Current concepts review. The treatment of spinal stenosis.

Authors:  S Grabias
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1980-03       Impact factor: 5.284

5.  Long-term results of surgical treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  A Herno; O Airaksinen; T Saari
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1993-09-01       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  Lumbar spinal stenosis: results of surgical treatment.

Authors:  L D Herron; C Mangelsdorf
Journal:  J Spinal Disord       Date:  1991-03

Review 7.  Long-term evaluation of decompressive surgery for degenerative lumbar stenosis.

Authors:  A J Caputy; A J Luessenhop
Journal:  J Neurosurg       Date:  1992-11       Impact factor: 5.115

8.  Surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. Attempted meta-analysis of the literature.

Authors:  J A Turner; M Ersek; L Herron; R Deyo
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1992-01       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  The natural course of lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  K E Johnsson; I Rosén; A Udén
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1992-06       Impact factor: 4.176

10.  Vascular and neural pathology of lumbosacral spinal stenosis.

Authors:  R Watanabe; W W Parke
Journal:  J Neurosurg       Date:  1986-01       Impact factor: 5.115

View more
  24 in total

Review 1.  A survey of the "medical" articles in the European Spine Journal, 2007.

Authors:  Michel Benoist
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2008-01-08       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Clinical value of motor evoked potentials with transcranial magnetic stimulation in the assessment of lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Xinyu Liu; Shunsuke Konno; Masabumi Miyamoto; Yoshikazu Gembun; Gen Horiguchi; Hiromoto Ito
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2008-07-02       Impact factor: 3.075

3.  Investigating and predicting early lumbar spine surgery outcomes.

Authors:  Saddam F Kanaan; Paul M Arnold; Douglas C Burton; Hung-Wen Yeh; Lindsay Loyd; Neena K Sharma
Journal:  J Allied Health       Date:  2015

4.  Laser-assisted endoscopic lumbar foraminotomy for failed back surgery syndrome in elderly patients.

Authors:  Yong Ahn; Han Joong Keum; Sang Ha Shin; Jung Ju Choi
Journal:  Lasers Med Sci       Date:  2019-05-17       Impact factor: 3.161

Review 5.  [Lumbar spinal stenosis].

Authors:  T L Schulte; V Bullmann; T Lerner; M Schneider; B Marquardt; U Liljenqvist; T A Pietilä; L Hackenberg
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 1.087

Review 6.  The clinical course of pain and disability following surgery for spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies.

Authors:  Carolina G Fritsch; Manuela L Ferreira; Christopher G Maher; Robert D Herbert; Rafael Z Pinto; Bart Koes; Paulo H Ferreira
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-07-21       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 7.  Lumbar spinal stenosis: syndrome, diagnostics and treatment.

Authors:  Eberhard Siebert; Harald Prüss; Randolf Klingebiel; Vieri Failli; Karl M Einhäupl; Jan M Schwab
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurol       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 42.937

8.  Outcomes and their predictors in lumbar spinal stenosis: a 12-year follow-up.

Authors:  B Adamova; S Vohanka; L Dusek; J Jarkovsky; R Chaloupka; J Bednarik
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-06-19       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  Preoperative Mental Health May Not Be Predictive of Improvements in Patient-Reported Outcomes Following a Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

Authors:  Benjamin C Mayo; Ankur S Narain; Fady Y Hijji; Dustin H Massel; Daniel D Bohl; Kern Singh
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2020-02-29

10.  Are Patient-Reported Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Influenced by Preoperative Mental Health?

Authors:  Graham S Goh; Ming Han Lincoln Liow; Wai-Mun Yue; Seang-Beng Tan; John Li-Tat Chen
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2020-03-13
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.