Literature DB >> 19050582

Spine patient outcomes research trial: radiographic predictors of clinical outcomes after operative or nonoperative treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis.

Adam M Pearson1, Jon D Lurie, Emily A Blood, John W Frymoyer, Heike Braeutigam, Howard An, Federico P Girardi, James N Weinstein.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: Subgroup analyses according to treatment received.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether baseline radiographic findings predicted outcomes in patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The spine patient outcomes research trial combined randomized and observational DS cohorts.
METHODS: The Meyerding listhesis grade was determined on the neutral radiograph (n = 222). Patients were classified as having low disc height if disc height was less than 5 mm. Flexion-extension radiographs (n = 185) were evaluated for mobility. Those with greater than 10 degrees rotation or 4 mm translation were considered hypermobile. Changes in outcome measures were compared between listhesis (grade 1 vs. grade 2), disc height (low vs. normal), and mobility (stable vs. hypermobile) groups using longitudinal regression models adjusted for potential confounders. Outcome measures included SF-36 bodily pain and physical function scales, oswestry disability index (ODI), stenosis bothersomeness index, and low back pain bothersomeness scale.
RESULTS: Overall, 86% had a grade 1 listhesis, 78% had normal disc height, and 73% were stable. Baseline symptom severity was similar between groups. Overall, surgery patients improved more than patients treated nonoperatively. At 1 year, outcomes were similar in surgery patients across listhesis, disc height, and mobility groups (ODI: grade 1 -23.7 vs. grade 2 -23.3, P = 0.90; normal disc height -23.5 vs. low disc height -21.9, P = 0.66; stable -21.6 vs. hypermobile -25.2, P = 0.30). Among those treated nonoperatively, grade 1 patients improved more than grade 2 patients (bodily pain + 13.1 vs. -4.9, P = 0.019; ODI -8.0 vs. + 4.8, P = 0.010 at 1 year), and hypermobile patients improved more than stable patients (ODI -15.2 vs. -6.6, P = 0.041; stenosis bothersomeness index -7.8 vs. -2.7, P = 0.002 at 1 year). DISCUSSION: Regardless of listhesis grade, disc height or mobility, patients who had surgery improved more than those treated nonoperatively. These differences were due, in part, to differences in nonoperative outcomes, which were better in patients classified as grade 1 or hypermobile.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 19050582      PMCID: PMC2775527          DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31818e2d8b

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


  47 in total

Review 1.  Diagnosing instability.

Authors:  M H Pope; J W Frymoyer; M H Krag
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1992-06       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Lumbar instability: a dynamic approach by traction-compression radiography.

Authors:  O Friberg
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1987-03       Impact factor: 3.468

3.  Etiology of spondylolisthesis. Assessment of the role played by lumbar facet joint morphology.

Authors:  L J Grobler; P A Robertson; J E Novotny; M H Pope
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1993-01       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  Computer-assisted measurement of lumbar spine radiographs.

Authors:  D J Quint; G F Tuite; J D Stern; S E Doran; S M Papadopoulos; J E McGillicuddy; C A Lundquist
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  1997-11       Impact factor: 3.173

5.  Global spinal motion in subjects with lumbar spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis: does the grade or type of slip affect global spinal motion?

Authors:  A H McGregor; H R Cattermole; S P Hughes
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2001-02-01       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  Usefulness of Posner's definition of spinal instability for selection of surgical treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  K Yone; T Sakou
Journal:  J Spinal Disord       Date:  1999-02

7.  The Maine Lumbar Spine Study, Part III. 1-year outcomes of surgical and nonsurgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  S J Atlas; R A Deyo; R B Keller; A M Chapin; D L Patrick; J M Long; D E Singer
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1996-08-01       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  Treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis.

Authors:  J S Lombardi; L L Wiltse; J Reynolds; E H Widell; C Spencer
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1985-11       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  Radiographic evaluation of instability in spondylolisthesis.

Authors:  K B Wood; C A Popp; E E Transfeldt; A E Geissele
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1994-08-01       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  Disc degeneration and angular movement of the lumbar spine: comparative study using plain and flexion-extension radiography and discography.

Authors:  J Soini; I Antti-Poika; K Tallroth; Y T Konttinen; V Honkanen; S Santavirta
Journal:  J Spinal Disord       Date:  1991-06
View more
  23 in total

Review 1.  Surgery for adult spondylolisthesis: a systematic review of the evidence.

Authors:  Tobias L Schulte; Florian Ringel; Markus Quante; Sven O Eicker; Cathleen Muche-Borowski; Ralph Kothe
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-09-12       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 2.  Development of appropriateness criteria for the surgical treatment of symptomatic lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis (LDS).

Authors:  A F Mannion; V Pittet; F Steiger; J-P Vader; H-J Becker; F Porchet
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-04-24       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 3.  A Narrative Review of Lumbar Fusion Surgery With Relevance to Chiropractic Practice.

Authors:  Clinton J Daniels; Pamela J Wakefield; Glenn A Bub; James D Toombs
Journal:  J Chiropr Med       Date:  2016-10-18

4.  The outcome of decompression alone for lumbar spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis.

Authors:  Sarfraz Ahmad; Abdulkader Hamad; Amit Bhalla; Sarah Turner; Birender Balain; David Jaffray
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-06-07       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 5.  Treatment for Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: Current Concepts and New Evidence.

Authors:  Andre M Samuel; Harold G Moore; Matthew E Cunningham
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2017-12

6.  Only walking matters-assessment following lumbar stenosis decompression.

Authors:  S Budithi; Rohit Dhawan; Andrew Cattell; Birender Balain; David Jaffray
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-11-30       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  To fuse or not to fuse in lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis: do baseline symptoms help provide the answer?

Authors:  F S Kleinstueck; T F Fekete; A F Mannion; D Grob; F Porchet; U Mutter; D Jeszenszky
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-07-24       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  Surgical compared with nonoperative treatment for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. four-year results in the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) randomized and observational cohorts.

Authors:  James N Weinstein; Jon D Lurie; Tor D Tosteson; Wenyan Zhao; Emily A Blood; Anna N A Tosteson; Nancy Birkmeyer; Harry Herkowitz; Michael Longley; Lawrence Lenke; Sanford Emery; Serena S Hu
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 5.284

9.  Degenerative spondylolisthesis versus spinal stenosis: does a slip matter? Comparison of baseline characteristics and outcomes (SPORT).

Authors:  Adam Pearson; Emily Blood; Jon Lurie; Tor Tosteson; William A Abdu; Alan Hillibrand; Keith Bridwell; James Weinstein
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2010-02-01       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  Who should undergo surgery for degenerative spondylolisthesis? Treatment effect predictors in SPORT.

Authors:  Adam M Pearson; Jon D Lurie; Tor D Tosteson; Wenyan Zhao; William A Abdu; James N Weinstein
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2013-10-01       Impact factor: 3.468

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.