BACKGROUND: Primary care management decisions for patients with symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) are challenging, and nonsurgical guidance is limited by lack of evidence. OBJECTIVE: To compare surgical decompression with physical therapy (PT) for LSS and evaluate sex differences. DESIGN: Multisite randomized, controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00022776). SETTING:Neurologic and orthopedic surgery departments and PT clinics. PARTICIPANTS: Surgical candidates with LSS aged 50 years or older who consented to surgery. INTERVENTION: Surgical decompression or PT. MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcome was physical function score on the Short Form-36 Health Survey at 2 years assessed by masked testers. RESULTS: The study took place from November 2000 to September 2007. A total of 169 participants were randomly assigned and stratified by surgeon and sex (87 to surgery and 82 to PT), with 24-month follow-up completed by 74 and 73 participants in the surgery and PT groups, respectively. Mean improvement in physical function for the surgery and PT groups was 22.4 (95% CI, 16.9 to 27.9) and 19.2 (CI, 13.6 to 24.8), respectively. Intention-to-treat analyses revealed no difference between groups (24-month difference, 0.9 [CI, -7.9 to 9.6]). Sensitivity analyses using causal-effects methods to account for the high proportion of crossovers from PT to surgery (57%) showed no significant differences in physical function between groups. LIMITATION: Without a control group, it is not possible to judge success attributable to either intervention. CONCLUSION: Surgical decompression yielded similar effects to a PT regimen among patients with LSS who were surgical candidates. Patients and health care providers should engage in shared decision-making conversations that include full disclosure of evidence involving surgical and nonsurgical treatments for LSS. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health and National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Primary care management decisions for patients with symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) are challenging, and nonsurgical guidance is limited by lack of evidence. OBJECTIVE: To compare surgical decompression with physical therapy (PT) for LSS and evaluate sex differences. DESIGN: Multisite randomized, controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00022776). SETTING: Neurologic and orthopedic surgery departments and PT clinics. PARTICIPANTS: Surgical candidates with LSS aged 50 years or older who consented to surgery. INTERVENTION: Surgical decompression or PT. MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcome was physical function score on the Short Form-36 Health Survey at 2 years assessed by masked testers. RESULTS: The study took place from November 2000 to September 2007. A total of 169 participants were randomly assigned and stratified by surgeon and sex (87 to surgery and 82 to PT), with 24-month follow-up completed by 74 and 73 participants in the surgery and PT groups, respectively. Mean improvement in physical function for the surgery and PT groups was 22.4 (95% CI, 16.9 to 27.9) and 19.2 (CI, 13.6 to 24.8), respectively. Intention-to-treat analyses revealed no difference between groups (24-month difference, 0.9 [CI, -7.9 to 9.6]). Sensitivity analyses using causal-effects methods to account for the high proportion of crossovers from PT to surgery (57%) showed no significant differences in physical function between groups. LIMITATION: Without a control group, it is not possible to judge success attributable to either intervention. CONCLUSION: Surgical decompression yielded similar effects to a PT regimen among patients with LSS who were surgical candidates. Patients and health care providers should engage in shared decision-making conversations that include full disclosure of evidence involving surgical and nonsurgical treatments for LSS. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health and National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases.
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
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
Authors: Kristen E Radcliff; Jeff Rihn; Alan Hilibrand; Timothy DiIorio; Tor Tosteson; Jon D Lurie; Wenyan Zhao; Alexander R Vaccaro; Todd J Albert; James N Weinstein Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2011-12-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Jeffrey A Rihn; Kristen Radcliff; Alan S Hilibrand; David T Anderson; Wenyan Zhao; Jon Lurie; Alexander R Vaccaro; Mitch K Freedman; Todd J Albert; James N Weinstein Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2012-11-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Jeffrey N Katz; John Wright; Kurt P Spindler; Lisa A Mandl; Clare E Safran-Norton; Emily K Reinke; Bruce A Levy; Rick W Wright; Morgan H Jones; Scott D Martin; Robert G Marx; Elena Losina Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2016-11-16 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: David W Polly; John Swofford; Peter G Whang; Clay J Frank; John A Glaser; Robert P Limoni; Daniel J Cher; Kathryn D Wine; Jonathan N Sembrano Journal: Int J Spine Surg Date: 2016-08-23
Authors: Catherine T Schmidt; Rachel E Ward; Pradeep Suri; Laura Kurlinski; Dennis E Anderson; Dan K Kiely; Jonathan F Bean Journal: J Geriatr Phys Ther Date: 2017 Jul/Sep Impact factor: 3.381