Literature DB >> 17520297

The outcome of spinal decompression surgery 5 years on.

N K Anjarwalla1, L C Brown, A H McGregor.   

Abstract

Decompression surgery is an increasingly common operation for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. Although good relief from leg pain is expected after surgery, long term results of pain relief and function are more uncertain. This study prospectively followed a cohort of patients presenting with the signs and symptoms of spinal stenosis, who underwent decompression surgery to ascertain the long term outcome with respect to pain and function using visual analogue pain scores, the Oswestry Disability Index, and the Short Form 36, a general health questionnaire. From an initial pool of 84 recruited patients, 7 withdrew from surgical intervention; of the remaining 77, 51 (66%) returned for follow up assessments at 5 years. In these responders, a significant improvement was observed in back and leg pain, which was sustained for at least 1 year (P < 0.01). A significant improvement was also seen in physical function (P < 0.05) as assessed by Oswestry and SF-36. Although an initial improvement was noted in social function, this was not observed at 5 years. This study has demonstrated that decompression surgery is successful in relieving symptoms of lumbar spinal stenosis. Physical function, back and leg pain are significantly improved after 5 years but initial significant improvements in social function diminish over time.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17520297      PMCID: PMC2223332          DOI: 10.1007/s00586-007-0393-z

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


  42 in total

1.  Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis. A prospective study comparing decompression with decompression and intertransverse process arthrodesis.

Authors:  H N Herkowitz; L T Kurz
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1991-07       Impact factor: 5.284

2.  Surgical or nonoperative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis? A randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Antti Malmivaara; Pär Slätis; Markku Heliövaara; Päivi Sainio; Heikki Kinnunen; Jyrki Kankare; Nina Dalin-Hirvonen; Seppo Seitsalo; Arto Herno; Pirkko Kortekangas; Timo Niinimäki; Hannu Rönty; Kaj Tallroth; Veli Turunen; Paul Knekt; Tommi Härkänen; Heikki Hurri
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2007-01-01       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 3.  The development of an evidence-based patient booklet for patients undergoing lumbar discectomy and un-instrumented decompression.

Authors:  A H McGregor; A K Burton; P Sell; G Waddell
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2006-05-11       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  The lumbar multifidus muscle five years after surgery for a lumbar intervertebral disc herniation.

Authors:  J Rantanen; M Hurme; B Falck; H Alaranta; F Nykvist; M Lehto; S Einola; H Kalimo
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1993-04       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  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

6.  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

7.  Validating the SF-36 health survey questionnaire: new outcome measure for primary care.

Authors:  J E Brazier; R Harper; N M Jones; A O'Cathain; K J Thomas; T Usherwood; L Westlake
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1992-07-18

8.  Evidence of lumbar multifidus muscle wasting ipsilateral to symptoms in patients with acute/subacute low back pain.

Authors:  J A Hides; M J Stokes; M Saide; G A Jull; D H Cooper
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1994-01-15       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  Back muscle injury after posterior lumbar spine surgery. Part 2: Histologic and histochemical analyses in humans.

Authors:  Y Kawaguchi; H Matsui; H Tsuji
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1994-11-15       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  The SF36 health survey questionnaire: an outcome measure suitable for routine use within the NHS?

Authors:  A M Garratt; D A Ruta; M I Abdalla; J K Buckingham; I T Russell
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1993-05-29
View more
  14 in total

1.  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

2.  Survivorship analysis of 150 consecutive patients with DIAM™ implantation for surgery of lumbar spinal stenosis and disc herniation.

Authors:  Yoo-Joon Sur; Chae-Gwan Kong; Jong-Beom Park
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2010-10-17       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Role of coflex as an adjunct to decompression for symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Naresh Kumar; Siddarth M Shah; Yau Hong Ng; Vinodh Kumar Pannierselvam; Sudeep Dasde; Liang Shen
Journal:  Asian Spine J       Date:  2014-04-08

4.  Does pre-operative magnetic resonance imaging of the lumbar multifidus muscle predict clinical outcomes following lumbar spinal decompression for symptomatic spinal stenosis?

Authors:  Mario G T Zotti; F Vilas Boas; T Clifton; M Piche; W W Yoon; B J C Freeman
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-02-08       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Influence of gender on patient-oriented outcomes in spine surgery.

Authors:  L Pochon; F S Kleinstück; F Porchet; Anne F Mannion
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-07-05       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  Step activity monitoring in lumbar stenosis patients undergoing decompressive surgery.

Authors:  Tobias L Schulte; Tim Schubert; Corinna Winter; Mirko Brandes; Lars Hackenberg; Hansdetlef Wassmann; Dennis Liem; Dieter Rosenbaum; Viola Bullmann
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2010-02-26       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  [Hybrid stabilization technique with spinal fusion and interlaminar device to reduce the length of fusion and to protect symptomatic adjacent segments : Clinical long-term follow-up].

Authors:  C Fleege; M Rickert; I Werner; M Rauschmann; M Arabmotlagh
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 1.087

8.  Does an interspinous device (Coflex) improve the outcome of decompressive surgery in lumbar spinal stenosis? One-year follow up of a prospective case control study of 60 patients.

Authors:  Alexander Richter; Christian Schütz; Michael Hauck; Henry Halm
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-12-05       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 9.  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

10.  A prospective randomised controlled trial to assess the efficacy of dynamic stabilisation of the lumbar spine with the Wallis ligament.

Authors:  Gavin David John Marsh; Shah Mahir; Antonio Leyte
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-07-30       Impact factor: 3.134

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.