Literature DB >> 24307067

Elderly patients have similar outcomes compared to younger patients after minimally invasive surgery for spinal stenosis.

Ilyas S Aleem1, Y Raja Rampersaud.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Older patients undergo surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis in great numbers, but as a result of substantial diagnostic and surgical heterogeneity, the impact of age on results after surgery is poorly defined. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We compared groups of patients younger and older than 70 years with relative clinical and surgical homogeneity to determine differences in (1) interval improvement in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) at 6 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months postoperatively and (2) perioperative adverse events.
METHODS: We performed a subgroup analysis of an ongoing prospective observational study. Patients were divided based primarily on age (younger than 70 years [n = 68] and 70 years or older [n = 41]) and secondarily on procedure (minimally invasive decompression alone or decompression and instrumented fusion). With the exception of age and American Society of Anesthesiologists status, the two age groups were similar (p > 0.3) in baseline demographics and ODI. Mean pre- and postoperative ODI were compared between groups at 6 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months. Perioperative adverse events were also compared.
RESULTS: At all time intervals, both younger and older patients demonstrated (p = 0.05 to < 0.001) improvements in ODI. At the 1-year mark, no differences in ODI were demonstrated between the younger and older patients for decompression only (21 versus 26 [p = 0.29]) or decompression and fusion (19 versus 18 [p = 0.97]). Interval improvement in ODI was not different between younger and older patients at any time point for decompression only (6 weeks: -18 versus -20 [p = 0.66]; 6 months: -21 versus -17 [p = 0.41]; 12 months: -21 versus -15 [p = 0.29]) or decompression and fusion (6 weeks: -11 versus -12 [p = 0.58]; 6 months: -21 versus -22 [p = 0.69]; 12 months: -23 versus -27 [p = 0.97]). There were no differences in perioperative adverse events between groups (p = 0.67).
CONCLUSIONS: When clinical and surgical heterogeneity is minimized, improvements in terms of disability as measured by the ODI and the frequency of adverse events after surgery in elderly patients with lumbar spinal stenosis are comparable to those of younger patients. For patients with focal lumbar spinal stenosis, age alone should not dissuade us from considering surgical intervention if otherwise indicated. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24307067      PMCID: PMC4016446          DOI: 10.1007/s11999-013-3411-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res        ISSN: 0009-921X            Impact factor:   4.176


  30 in total

1.  Perioperative complications of posterior lumbar decompression and arthrodesis in older adults.

Authors:  Leah Y Carreon; Rolando M Puno; John R Dimar; Steven D Glassman; John R Johnson
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 5.284

Review 2.  Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a review of techniques and outcomes.

Authors:  Isaac O Karikari; Robert E Isaacs
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2010-12-15       Impact factor: 3.468

3.  Predicting morbidity and mortality of lumbar spine arthrodesis in patients in their ninth decade.

Authors:  Christopher S Raffo; William C Lauerman
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2006-01-01       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  Minimally invasive microendoscopy-assisted transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with instrumentation.

Authors:  Robert E Isaacs; Vinod K Podichetty; Paul Santiago; Faheem A Sandhu; John Spears; Kevin Kelly; Laurie Rice; Richard G Fessler
Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine       Date:  2005-08

5.  Spine adverse events severity system: content validation and interobserver reliability assessment.

Authors:  Yoga Raja Rampersaud; Mary Ann Neary; Kevin White
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2010-04-01       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  Surgical treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis in patients older than 75 years of age.

Authors:  T W Vitaz; G H Raque; C B Shields; S D Glassman
Journal:  J Neurosurg       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 5.115

Review 7.  Does this older adult with lower extremity pain have the clinical syndrome of lumbar spinal stenosis?

Authors:  Pradeep Suri; James Rainville; Leonid Kalichman; Jeffrey N Katz
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2010-12-15       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  Lumbar spinal fusion. A cohort study of complications, reoperations, and resource use in the Medicare population.

Authors:  R A Deyo; M A Ciol; D C Cherkin; J D Loeser; S J Bigos
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1993-09-01       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  Assessment of health-related quality of life after surgical treatment of focal symptomatic spinal stenosis compared with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee.

Authors:  Y Raja Rampersaud; Bheesma Ravi; Stephen J Lewis; Venessa Stas; Ronald Barron; Roderick Davey; Nizar Mahomed
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2007-06-18       Impact factor: 4.166

10.  Complications of spinal fusion in adult patients more than 60 years of age.

Authors:  T Fujita; J P Kostuik; C B Huckell; A N Sieber
Journal:  Orthop Clin North Am       Date:  1998-10       Impact factor: 2.472

View more
  9 in total

1.  Cochrane in CORR ®: Surgical Versus Non-surgical Treatment for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.

Authors:  Ilyas S Aleem; Brian Drew
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2017-07-28       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 2.  Effectiveness of posterior decompression techniques compared with conventional laminectomy for lumbar stenosis.

Authors:  Gijsbert Overdevest; Carmen Vleggeert-Lankamp; Wilco Jacobs; Claudius Thomé; Robert Gunzburg; Wilco Peul
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-07-17       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 3.  The clinical course of pain and disability following surgery for spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies.

Authors:  Carolina G Fritsch; Manuela L Ferreira; Christopher G Maher; Robert D Herbert; Rafael Z Pinto; Bart Koes; Paulo H Ferreira
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-07-21       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Minimally Invasive Decompression and Physiotherapy for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis in Geriatric Patients.

Authors:  Haydn Hoffman; Shelley S Bennett; Charles H Li; Piia Haakana; Daniel C Lu
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2018-06-11

5.  Age-related Differences in Clinical Outcomes of Lumbar Discectomy.

Authors:  Eyal Behrbalk; Ofir Uri; Rawan Masarwa; Liad Alfandari; Shifra Fatal; Yoram Folman
Journal:  Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil       Date:  2021-12-24

Review 6.  Influence of the geometric and material properties of lumbar endplate on lumbar interbody fusion failure: a systematic review.

Authors:  Yihang Yu; Dale L Robinson; David C Ackland; Yi Yang; Peter Vee Sin Lee
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2022-04-10       Impact factor: 2.359

7.  Elderly Patients Undergoing Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion May Have Similar Clinical Outcomes, Perioperative Complications, and Fusion Rates As Their Younger Counterparts.

Authors:  Graham Seow-Hng Goh; You Wei Adriel Tay; Ming Han Lincoln Liow; Cheryl Gatot; Zhixing Marcus Ling; Poh Ling Fong; Reuben Chee Cheong Soh; Chang Ming Guo; Wai-Mun Yue; Seang-Beng Tan; John Li-Tat Chen
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2020-04       Impact factor: 4.755

8.  Minimally Invasive Lumbar Spinal Decompression in Elderly Patients with Magnetic Resonance Imaging Morphological Analysis.

Authors:  Seungman Ha; Youngho Hong; Seungcheol Lee
Journal:  Asian Spine J       Date:  2018-04-16

9.  Percutaneous endoscopic unilateral laminotomy and bilateral decompression under 3D real-time image-guided navigation for spinal stenosis in degenerative lumbar kyphoscoliosis patients: an innovative preliminary study.

Authors:  Tsung-Yu Ho; Chung-Wei Lin; Chien-Chun Chang; Hsien-Te Chen; Yen-Jen Chen; Yuan-Shun Lo; Pan-Hsuan Hsiao; Po-Chen Chen; Chih-Sheng Lin; Hsi-Kai Tsou
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2020-11-10       Impact factor: 2.362

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.