Literature DB >> 20680372

Five-year outcome of surgical decompression of the lumbar spine without fusion.

Anne F Mannion1, R Denzler, J Dvorak, D Grob.   

Abstract

As the average life expectancy of the population increases, surgical decompression of the lumbar spine is being performed with increasing frequency. It now constitutes the most common type of lumbar spinal surgery in older patients. The present prospective study examined the 5-year outcome of lumbar decompression surgery without fusion. The group comprised 159 patients undergoing decompression for degenerative spinal disorders who had been participants in a randomised controlled trial of post-operative rehabilitation that had shown no between-group differences at 2 years. Leg pain and back pain intensity (0-10 graphic rating scale), self-rated disability (Roland Morris), global outcome of surgery (5-point Likert scale) and re-operation rates were assessed 5 years post-operatively. Ten patients had died before the 5-year follow-up. Of the remaining 149 patients, 143 returned a 5-year follow-up (FU) questionnaire (effective return rate excluding deaths, 96%). Their mean age was 64 (SD 11) years and 92/143 (64%) were men. In the 5-year follow-up period, 34/143 patients (24%) underwent re-operation (17 further decompressions, 17 fusions and 1 intradural drainage/debridement). In patients who were not re-operated, leg pain decreased significantly (p < 0.05) from before surgery to 2 months FU, after which there was no significant change up to 5 years. Low back pain also decreased significantly by 2 months FU, but then showed a slight, but significant (p < 0.05), gradual increase of <1 point by 5-year FU. Disability decreased significantly from pre-operative to 2 months FU and showed a further significant decrease at 5 months FU. Thereafter, it remained stable up to the 5-year FU. Pain and disability scores recorded after 5 years showed a significant correlation with those at earlier follow-ups (r = 0.53-0.82; p < 0.05). Patients who were re-operated at some stage over the 5-year period showed significantly worse final outcomes for leg pain and disability (p < 0.05). In conclusion, pain and disability showed minimal change in the 5-year period after surgery, but the re-operation rate was relatively high. Re-operation resulted in worse final outcomes in terms of leg pain and disability. At the 5-year follow-up, the "average" patient experienced frequent, but relatively low levels of, pain and moderate disability. This knowledge on the long-term outcome should be incorporated into the pre-operative patient information process.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20680372      PMCID: PMC2989258          DOI: 10.1007/s00586-010-1535-2

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


  41 in total

1.  Biomechanical comparison of facet-sparing laminectomy and Christmas tree laminectomy.

Authors:  Paul W Detwiler; Christina B Spetzler; Sara B Taylor; Neil R Crawford; Randall W Porter; Volker K H Sonntag
Journal:  J Neurosurg       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 5.115

Review 2.  Pain assessment.

Authors:  Mathias Haefeli; Achim Elfering
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2005-12-01       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Lumbar spinal stenosis: conservative or surgical management?: A prospective 10-year study.

Authors:  T Amundsen; H Weber; H J Nordal; B Magnaes; M Abdelnoor; F Lilleâs
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2000-06-01       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  Long-term follow up in lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  M Scholz; R Firsching; W R Lanksch
Journal:  Spinal Cord       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 2.772

5.  Long-term outcomes of surgical and nonsurgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis: 8 to 10 year results from the maine lumbar spine study.

Authors:  Steven J Atlas; Robert B Keller; Yen A Wu; Richard A Deyo; Daniel E Singer
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2005-04-15       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  A study of the natural history of back pain. Part I: development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low-back pain.

Authors:  M Roland; R Morris
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1983-03       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 7.  Spinal stenosis: pathophysiology, clinical and radiologic classification.

Authors:  Eeric Truumees
Journal:  Instr Course Lect       Date:  2005

8.  The quality of spine surgery from the patient's perspective: part 2. Minimal clinically important difference for improvement and deterioration as measured with the Core Outcome Measures Index.

Authors:  A F Mannion; F Porchet; F S Kleinstück; F Lattig; D Jeszenszky; V Bartanusz; J Dvorak; D Grob
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-03-19       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  Does the outcome 2 months after lumbar disc surgery predict the outcome 12 months later?

Authors:  Arja Hakkinen; Jari Ylinen; Hannu Kautiainen; Olavi Airaksinen; Arto Herno; Ilkka Kiviranta
Journal:  Disabil Rehabil       Date:  2003-09-02       Impact factor: 3.033

10.  The influence of preoperative back pain on the outcome of lumbar decompression surgery.

Authors:  Frank S Kleinstück; Dieter Grob; Friederike Lattig; Viktor Bartanusz; Francois Porchet; Dezsö Jeszenszky; David O'Riordan; Anne F Mannion
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2009-05-15       Impact factor: 3.468

View more
  20 in total

1.  RhBMP-2 use in lumbar fusion surgery is associated with transient immediate post-operative leg pain.

Authors:  Fiachra E Rowan; Natasha O'Malley; Ashley Poynton
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-12-14       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Should age be a contraindication for degenerative lumbar surgery?

Authors:  Daniel Pérez-Prieto; Carlos Lozano-Álvarez; Guillem Saló; Antoni Molina; Andreu Lladó; Lluís Puig-Verdié; Manuel Ramírez-Valencia
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-01-24       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 3.  The Michel Benoist and Robert Mulholland yearly European Spine Journal Review: a survey of the "surgical and research" articles in the European Spine Journal, 2010.

Authors:  Robert C Mulholland
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-01-20       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  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

5.  Cognitive-Behavioral-Based Physical Therapy for Patients With Chronic Pain Undergoing Lumbar Spine Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Kristin R Archer; Clinton J Devin; Susan W Vanston; Tatsuki Koyama; Sharon E Phillips; Shannon L Mathis; Steven Z George; Matthew J McGirt; Dan M Spengler; Oran S Aaronson; Joseph S Cheng; Stephen T Wegener
Journal:  J Pain       Date:  2015-10-23       Impact factor: 5.820

6.  Health behavior change counseling in surgery for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Part II: patient activation mediates the effects of health behavior change counseling on rehabilitation engagement.

Authors:  Richard L Skolasky; Anica M Maggard; David Li; Lee H Riley; Stephen T Wegener
Journal:  Arch Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  2015-03-28       Impact factor: 3.966

7.  Telephone-Based Intervention to Improve Rehabilitation Engagement After Spinal Stenosis Surgery: A Prospective Lagged Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Richard L Skolasky; Anica M Maggard; Stephen T Wegener; Lee H Riley
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2018-01-03       Impact factor: 5.284

Review 8.  Decompression plus fusion versus decompression alone for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Hai-Feng Liang; Shu-Hao Liu; Zi-Xian Chen; Qin-Ming Fei
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-06-24       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  Chiropractic Distraction Spinal Manipulation on Postsurgical Continued Low Back and Radicular Pain Patients: A Retrospective Case Series.

Authors:  Maruti R Gudavalli; Kurt Olding; George Joachim; James M Cox
Journal:  J Chiropr Med       Date:  2016-05-25

Review 10.  Rehabilitation after lumbar disc surgery.

Authors:  Teddy Oosterhuis; Leonardo O P Costa; Christopher G Maher; Henrica C W de Vet; Maurits W van Tulder; Raymond W J G Ostelo
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2014-03-14
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.