Literature DB >> 17545903

Foraminal stenosis and single-level degenerative disc disease: a randomized controlled trial comparing decompression with decompression and instrumented fusion.

Alison Hallett1, James S Huntley, J N Alastair Gibson.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: A randomized controlled trial with 5-year outcome data.
OBJECTIVE: To compare clinical outcomes following spinal decompression (Group 1) with those following decompression and instrumented posterolateral fusion (Group 2) and decompression and instrumented posterolateral fusion plus transforaminal interbody fusion (TLIF) (Group 3). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Decompression is frequently advocated for the relief of nerve root stenosis in the presence of degenerate disc disease. It is uncertain if spinal fusion is also necessary.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Following completion of a standardized physiotherapy program, 44 patients with single-level disc disease were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 surgical groups. In those patients undergoing instrumentation, segmental pedicle screw fixation was used to stabilize the spine. Titanium interbody cages filled with autologous bone were inserted into patients in Group 3. Spinal disability, quality of life, and pain were assessed before surgery, and then at 1, 2, and 5 years by an independent researcher.
RESULTS: At 2 years, 82% of the patients were pain free or moderately improved. Disability (Low Back Outcome Score and Roland Morris index) were both better in Group 1, but only Low Back Outcome Score was better in Group 2 (P < 0.05). By 5 years, although patients in all 3 groups showed some improvements in all the ratings used (Low Back Outcome Score, SF-36 Physical Functioning, and Roland Morris score), only Group 1 patients showed significant changes in all 3 outcomes (P < 0.05). There was no difference in any score between groups (P > 0.05). Two had secondary surgery for adjacent level stenosis (Group 2 and 3). One patient (Group 1) underwent subsequent lateral mass fusion for chronic pain. No patient required revision surgery for instrumentation failure, cage displacement, or pseudarthrosis. Evidence of at least unilateral lateral mass bone graft incorporation was evident in 95% of Groups 2 and 3.
CONCLUSIONS: The results are encouraging in that almost all patients had improved by 5 years. However, it is a concern that no significant additional benefit has been noted from the more complex surgery. This suggests that patients are optimally treated by decompression alone, with the proviso that further operations may be required.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17545903     DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318064520f

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


  24 in total

1.  Clinical outcomes of microscopic decompression for degenerative lumbar foraminal stenosis: a comparison between patients with and without degenerative lumbar scoliosis.

Authors:  Kentaro Yamada; Hideki Matsuda; Masaharu Nabeta; Hiroshi Habunaga; Akinobu Suzuki; Hiroaki Nakamura
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2010-10-15       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 2.  Effect of fusion following decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: a meta-analysis and systematic review.

Authors:  Lin Liang; Wei-Min Jiang; Xue-Feng Li; Heng Wang
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Med       Date:  2015-09-15

3.  Surgery for disc disease.

Authors:  J N Alastair Gibson
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2007-11-10

4.  Comparative observational study of surgical outcomes of lumbar foraminal stenosis using minimally invasive microsurgical extraforaminal decompression alone versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion: a prospective cohort study.

Authors:  Ho-Joong Kim; Jin-Hwa Jeong; Hyeon-Guk Cho; Bong-Soon Chang; Choon-Ki Lee; Jin S Yeom
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-09-25       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 5.  Fusion rates of instrumented lumbar spinal arthrodesis according to surgical approach: a systematic review of randomized trials.

Authors:  Choon Sung Lee; Chang Ju Hwang; Dong-Ho Lee; Yung-Tae Kim; Hee Sang Lee
Journal:  Clin Orthop Surg       Date:  2011-02-15

Review 6.  Variation in eligibility criteria from studies of radiculopathy due to a herniated disc and of neurogenic claudication due to lumbar spinal stenosis: a structured literature review.

Authors:  Stephane Genevay; Steve J Atlas; Jeffrey N Katz
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2010-04-01       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  Interspinous spacers for lumbar foraminal stenosis: formal trials are justified.

Authors:  Jeremy Hobart; Catherine Gilkes; William Adams; Tim Germon
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-01-25       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  Bi-portal Arthroscopic Spinal Surgery (BASS) with 30° arthroscopy for far lateral approach of L5-S1 - Technical note.

Authors:  Ju-Eun Kim; Dae-Jung Choi
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2018-03-05

9.  Analytical comparison study of the clinical and radiological outcome of spine fixation using posterolateral, posterior lumber interbody and transforaminal lumber interbody spinal fixation techniques to treat lumber spine degenerative disc disease.

Authors:  Moh'd M Al Barbarawi; Ziad M Audat; Mohammed Z Allouh
Journal:  Scoliosis       Date:  2015-05-27

Review 10.  The contribution of RCTs to quality management and their feasibility in practice.

Authors:  Jens Ivar Brox
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-05-01       Impact factor: 3.134

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.