STUDY DESIGN: Randomized trial and concurrent observational cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To compare 4 year outcomes of surgery to nonoperative care for spinal stenosis. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Surgery for spinal stenosis has been shown to be more effective compared to nonoperative treatment over 2 years, but longer-term data have not been analyzed. METHODS:Surgical candidates from 13 centers in 11 US states with at least 12 weeks of symptoms and confirmatory imaging were enrolled in a randomized cohort (RC) or observational cohort (OC). Treatment was standard decompressive laminectomy or standard nonoperative care. Primary outcomes were SF-36 bodily pain (BP) and physical function scales and the modified Oswestry Disability index assessed at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and yearly up to 4 years. RESULTS: A total of 289 patients enrolled in the RC and 365 patients enrolled in the OC. An as-treated analysis combining the RC and OC and adjusting for potential confounders found that the clinically significant advantages for surgery previously reported were maintained through 4 years, with treatment effects (defined as mean change in surgery group minus mean change in nonoperative group) for bodily pain 12.6 (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.5-16.7); physical function 8.6 (95% CI, 4.6-12.6); and Oswestry Disability index -9.4 (95% CI, -12.6 to -6.2). Early advantages for surgical treatment for secondary measures such as bothersomeness, satisfaction with symptoms, and self-rated progress were also maintained. CONCLUSION:Patients with symptomatic spinal stenosis treated surgically compared to those treated nonoperatively maintain substantially greater improvement in pain and function through 4 years.
RCT Entities:
STUDY DESIGN: Randomized trial and concurrent observational cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To compare 4 year outcomes of surgery to nonoperative care for spinal stenosis. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Surgery for spinal stenosis has been shown to be more effective compared to nonoperative treatment over 2 years, but longer-term data have not been analyzed. METHODS: Surgical candidates from 13 centers in 11 US states with at least 12 weeks of symptoms and confirmatory imaging were enrolled in a randomized cohort (RC) or observational cohort (OC). Treatment was standard decompressive laminectomy or standard nonoperative care. Primary outcomes were SF-36 bodily pain (BP) and physical function scales and the modified Oswestry Disability index assessed at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and yearly up to 4 years. RESULTS: A total of 289 patients enrolled in the RC and 365 patients enrolled in the OC. An as-treated analysis combining the RC and OC and adjusting for potential confounders found that the clinically significant advantages for surgery previously reported were maintained through 4 years, with treatment effects (defined as mean change in surgery group minus mean change in nonoperative group) for bodily pain 12.6 (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.5-16.7); physical function 8.6 (95% CI, 4.6-12.6); and Oswestry Disability index -9.4 (95% CI, -12.6 to -6.2). Early advantages for surgical treatment for secondary measures such as bothersomeness, satisfaction with symptoms, and self-rated progress were also maintained. CONCLUSION:Patients with symptomatic spinal stenosis treated surgically compared to those treated nonoperatively maintain substantially greater improvement in pain and function through 4 years.
Authors: A L Stewart; S Greenfield; R D Hays; K Wells; W H Rogers; S D Berry; E A McGlynn; J E Ware Journal: JAMA Date: 1989-08-18 Impact factor: 56.272
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
Authors: Nancy J O Birkmeyer; James N Weinstein; Anna N A Tosteson; Tor D Tosteson; Jonathan S Skinner; Jon D Lurie; Richard Deyo; John E Wennberg Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2002-06-15 Impact factor: 3.468
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
Authors: Michael C Gerling; Dante Leven; Peter G Passias; Virginie Lafage; Kristina Bianco; Alexandra Lee; Jon D Lurie; Tor D Tosteson; Wenyan Zhao; Kevin F Spratt; Kristen Radcliff; Thomas J Errico Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2016-05 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Simon Heinrich Bayerl; Malte Dinkelbach; Petra Heiden; Vincent Prinz; Tobias Finger; Peter Vajkoczy Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2018-10-01 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Andrew J Haig; Paul Park; Peter K Henke; Karen S J Yamakawa; Christy Tomkins-Lane; Juan Valdivia; Sierra Loar Journal: Spine J Date: 2013-09-14 Impact factor: 4.166