Literature DB >> 23839003

The natural clinical course of lumbar spinal stenosis: a longitudinal cohort study over a minimum of 10 years.

Akihito Minamide1, Munehito Yoshida, Kazuhiro Maio.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the short- and long-term prognoses of conservative treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). Furthermore, there are no reports in the literature that investigate the relationship between longitudinal imaging changes and clinical symptoms in patients with LSS. This longitudinal cohort study aimed to clarify the morphologic changes and role of conservative treatment in LSS.
METHODS: This study included 34 patients with leg or low back pain who had received a diagnosis of LSS by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The patients' average age was 58 years at the initial examination. All participants received conservative treatment with or without medication for over 10 years. The clinical course was assessed by using the Japanese Orthopaedic Association scoring system, a visual analog scale for back or leg pain, and symptomatic Johnsson's classification. Additionally, patients' dural sac cross-sectional area was measured on axial MRI.
RESULTS: One patient could not be contacted and four others died during this investigation. After an average follow-up of 11.1 years, symptoms improved in approximately 30% of patients, remained unchanged in 30%, and worsened in 30%. The dural sac cross-sectional areas in both the worsened and unchanged groups were significantly smaller than that of the improved group (P < 0.05). In the worsened group, the average area at the initial examination was <50 mm(2). Some patients underwent surgery during this observation, and had severe narrowing (<40 mm(2)) of the area at the initial examination.
CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that clinical symptoms of LSS did not develop in more than 60% of patients who received conservative treatment, which was dependent on the severity of LSS. In patients with severe LSS and a dural sac cross-sectional area <50 mm(2), the clinical course may deteriorate with conservative treatment, and surgery should be considered at an early stage.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23839003     DOI: 10.1007/s00776-013-0435-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Orthop Sci        ISSN: 0949-2658            Impact factor:   1.601


  19 in total

1.  Risk factors for adjacent segment pathology requiring additional surgery after single-level spinal fusion: impact of pre-existing spinal stenosis demonstrated by preoperative myelography.

Authors:  Itaru Yugué; Seiji Okada; Muneaki Masuda; Takayoshi Ueta; Takeshi Maeda; Keiichiro Shiba
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-08-14       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 2.  Management of lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Jon Lurie; Christy Tomkins-Lane
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2016-01-04

Review 3.  Efficacy and characteristics of physiotherapy interventions in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review.

Authors:  Federico Temporiti; Silvano Ferrari; Michael Kieser; Roberto Gatti
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2022-05-05       Impact factor: 2.721

4.  Prospective one-year follow-up of lumbar spinal stenosis in a regional community.

Authors:  Koji Otani; Shin-Ichi Kikuchi; Shoji Yabuki; Akira Onda; Takuya Nikaido; Kazuyuki Watanabe; Shin-Ichi Konno
Journal:  J Pain Res       Date:  2018-03-02       Impact factor: 3.133

5.  Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Recommendations of World Federation of Neurosurgical Societies Spine Committee.

Authors:  Mehmet Zileli; Maurizio Fornari; Francesco Costa
Journal:  World Neurosurg X       Date:  2020-06-23

Review 6.  Current concepts and recent advances in understanding and managing lumbar spine stenosis.

Authors:  Carlos Bagley; Matthew MacAllister; Luke Dosselman; Jessica Moreno; Salah G Aoun; Tarek Y El Ahmadieh
Journal:  F1000Res       Date:  2019-01-31

7.  Comparative effectiveness and prognostic factors for outcome of surgical and non-surgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis in an elderly population: protocol for an observational study.

Authors:  Helle Algren Brøgger; Thomas Maribo; Robin Christensen; Berit Schiøttz-Christensen
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2018-12-19       Impact factor: 2.692

8.  Indications for prophylactic lumbar decompression at the L3/4 level in patients with L4/5 responsible lumbar spinal canal stenosis.

Authors:  Toru Asari; Shuichi Aburakawa; Gentaro Kumagai; Sunao Tanaka; Yasuyuki Ishibashi
Journal:  Spine Surg Relat Res       Date:  2017-11-27

9.  Progression of lumbar disc herniations over an eight-year period in a group of adult Danes from the general population--a longitudinal MRI study using quantitative measures.

Authors:  Per Kjaer; Andreas Tunset; Eleanor Boyle; Tue Secher Jensen
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2016-01-15       Impact factor: 2.362

Review 10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.