Literature DB >> 22772352

Prediction of long-term clinical outcome in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.

B Micankova Adamova1, S Vohanka, L Dusek, J Jarkovsky, J Bednarik.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The natural course of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) fluctuates and is not necessarily progressive. The aim of this study was to explore the predictors of clinical outcome in patients with LSS that might eventually help to optimise the therapeutic choices.
METHODS: A group of 56 patients (27 men, 29 women, median age 55; range 31-72 years) with clinically symptomatic mild-to-moderate LSS were re-examined after a median period of 88 months and their clinical outcomes classified as satisfactory (34 patients, 60.7 % with stable or improved clinical status) or unsatisfactory (22 patients, 39.3 % for whom clinical status deteriorated). A wide range of demographical, clinical, imaging and electrophysiological entry parameters were evaluated as possible predictors of clinical outcome.
RESULTS: Unlike the demographical, clinical and imaging variables, certain electrophysiological parameters were significantly associated with unsatisfactory outcomes. There was a significantly higher prevalence of pluriradicular involvement detected by EMG in patients with unsatisfactory outcome than those with satisfactory outcome (68.2 vs. 32.3 %; p = 0.035). Patients with unsatisfactory outcome had more frequent bilateral abnormalities of the soleus H-reflex (50.0 vs. 14.7 %; p = 0.015) and lower mean H-reflex amplitude. Multivariate logistic regression proposed two variables as mutually independent predictors of unsatisfactory outcome: EMG signs of pluriradicular involvement (OR = 3.72) and averaged soleus H-reflex amplitude ≤ 2.8 mV (OR = 2.87).
CONCLUSIONS: Satisfactory outcomes were disclosed in about 61 % of the patients with mild-to-moderate LSS in a 7-year follow-up. Electrophysiological abnormalities, namely the presence of pluriradicular involvement and abnormalities of the soleus H-reflex, were predictive of deterioration of clinical status in these patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22772352      PMCID: PMC3508241          DOI: 10.1007/s00586-012-2424-7

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


  24 in total

Review 1.  The Oswestry Disability Index.

Authors:  J C Fairbank; P B Pynsent
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2000-11-15       Impact factor: 3.468

2.  Surgical versus nonsurgical therapy for lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  James N Weinstein; Tor D Tosteson; Jon D Lurie; Anna N A Tosteson; Emily Blood; Brett Hanscom; Harry Herkowitz; Frank Cammisa; Todd Albert; Scott D Boden; Alan Hilibrand; Harley Goldberg; Sigurd Berven; Howard An
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2008-02-21       Impact factor: 91.245

3.  Electromyographic and magnetic resonance imaging to predict lumbar stenosis, low-back pain, and no back symptoms.

Authors:  Andrew J Haig; Michael E Geisser; Henry C Tong; Karen S J Yamakawa; Douglas J Quint; Julian T Hoff; Anthony Chiodo; Jennifer A Miner; Vaishali V Phalke
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 5.284

4.  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

5.  Nonoperative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis. Clinical and outcome results and a 3-year survivorship analysis.

Authors:  A C Simotas; F J Dorey; K K Hansraj; F Cammisa
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2000-01-15       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  Surgical and nonsurgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis: four-year outcomes from the maine lumbar spine study.

Authors:  S J Atlas; R B Keller; D Robson; R A Deyo; D E Singer
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2000-03-01       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  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

8.  Predictors of pain and function in persons with spinal stenosis, low back pain, and no back pain.

Authors:  Andrew J Haig; Henry C Tong; Karen S J Yamakawa; Christopher Parres; Douglas J Quint; Anthony Chiodo; Jennifer A Miner; Vaishali C Phalke; Julian T Hoff; Michael E Geisser
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2006-12-01       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 9.  Lumbar spinal stenosis: syndrome, diagnostics and treatment.

Authors:  Eberhard Siebert; Harald Prüss; Randolf Klingebiel; Vieri Failli; Karl M Einhäupl; Jan M Schwab
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurol       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 42.937

10.  Lumbar spinal stenosis: assessment of cauda equina involvement by electrophysiological recordings.

Authors:  D Egli; O Hausmann; M Schmid; N Boos; V Dietz; A Curt
Journal:  J Neurol       Date:  2007-04-11       Impact factor: 4.849

View more
  9 in total

1.  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

2.  The Michel Benoist and Robert Mulholland yearly European Spine Journal Review: a survey of the "medical" articles in the European Spine Journal, 2012.

Authors:  Michel Benoist
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-01-09       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Probability for surgical treatment in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis according to the stenotic lesion severity: a 5-10-year follow-up study.

Authors:  Dong-Ho Kang; Sanghoon Lee; Ho-Joong Kim; Sang-Min Park; Jin S Yeom
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2022-06-14       Impact factor: 2.562

4.  Neurological impairment score in lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  B Micankova Adamova; S Vohanka; M Hnojcikova; I Okacova; L Dusek; J Bednarik
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-03-13       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Outcomes and their predictors in lumbar spinal stenosis: a 12-year follow-up.

Authors:  B Adamova; S Vohanka; L Dusek; J Jarkovsky; R Chaloupka; J Bednarik
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-06-19       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  Analysis of factors contributing to postoperative spinal instability after lumbar decompression for spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Joo Chul Yang; Sung Gon Kim; Tae Wan Kim; Kwan Ho Park
Journal:  Korean J Spine       Date:  2013-09-30

7.  Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial with clinical, neurophysiological, laboratory and radiological outcome for surgical versus non-surgical treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis: the Uppsala Spinal Stenosis Trial (UppSten).

Authors:  Konstantinos Pazarlis; Anna Punga; Nikos Schizas; Bengt Sandén; Karl Michaëlsson; Peter Försth
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-08-20       Impact factor: 2.692

8.  Natural Course and Diagnosis of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: WFNS Spine Committee Recommendations.

Authors:  Mehmet Zileli; Marco Crostelli; Marco Grimaldi; Osvaldo Mazza; Carla Anania; Maurizio Fornari; Francesco Costa
Journal:  World Neurosurg X       Date:  2020-02-28

Review 9.  Informed appropriate imaging for low back pain management: A narrative review.

Authors:  Yì Xiáng J Wáng; Ai-Min Wu; Fernando Ruiz Santiago; Marcello H Nogueira-Barbosa
Journal:  J Orthop Translat       Date:  2018-08-27       Impact factor: 5.191

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.