Literature DB >> 27074067

Laminectomy plus Fusion versus Laminectomy Alone for Lumbar Spondylolisthesis.

Zoher Ghogawala1, James Dziura1, William E Butler1, Feng Dai1, Norma Terrin1, Subu N Magge1, Jean-Valery C E Coumans1, J Fred Harrington1, Sepideh Amin-Hanjani1, J Sanford Schwartz1, Volker K H Sonntag1, Fred G Barker1, Edward C Benzel1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The comparative effectiveness of performing instrumented (rigid pedicle screws affixed to titanium alloy rods) lumbar spinal fusion in addition to decompressive laminectomy in patients with symptomatic lumbar grade I degenerative spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis is unknown.
METHODS: In this randomized, controlled trial, we assigned patients, 50 to 80 years of age, who had stable degenerative spondylolisthesis (degree of spondylolisthesis, 3 to 14 mm) and symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis to undergo either decompressive laminectomy alone (decompression-alone group) or laminectomy with posterolateral instrumented fusion (fusion group). The primary outcome measure was the change in the physical-component summary score of the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36; range, 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better quality of life) 2 years after surgery. The secondary outcome measure was the score on the Oswestry Disability Index (range, 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating more disability related to back pain). Patients were followed for 4 years.
RESULTS: A total of 66 patients (mean age, 67 years; 80% women) underwent randomization. The rate of follow-up was 89% at 1 year, 86% at 2 years, and 68% at 4 years. The fusion group had a greater increase in SF-36 physical-component summary scores at 2 years after surgery than did the decompression-alone group (15.2 vs. 9.5, for a difference of 5.7; 95% confidence interval, 0.1 to 11.3; P=0.046). The increases in the SF-36 physical-component summary scores in the fusion group remained greater than those in the decompression-alone group at 3 years and at 4 years (P=0.02 for both years). With respect to reductions in disability related to back pain, the changes in the Oswestry Disability Index scores at 2 years after surgery did not differ significantly between the study groups (-17.9 in the decompression-alone group and -26.3 in the fusion group, P=0.06). More blood loss and longer hospital stays occurred in the fusion group than in the decompression-alone group (P<0.001 for both comparisons). The cumulative rate of reoperation was 14% in the fusion group and 34% in the decompression-alone group (P=0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with degenerative grade I spondylolisthesis, the addition of lumbar spinal fusion to laminectomy was associated with slightly greater but clinically meaningful improvement in overall physical health-related quality of life than laminectomy alone. (Funded by the Jean and David Wallace Foundation and others; SLIP ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00109213.).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27074067     DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1508788

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  N Engl J Med        ISSN: 0028-4793            Impact factor:   91.245


  131 in total

1.  Decompression with or without concomitant fusion in lumbar stenosis due to degenerative spondylolisthesis: a systematic review.

Authors:  M L Dijkerman; G M Overdevest; W A Moojen; C L A Vleggeert-Lankamp
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2018-02-05       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Editorial on "Lumbar spinal stenosis: comparison of surgical practice variation and clinical outcome in three national spine registries" by Lønne et al.

Authors:  Nils H Ulrich; Jakob M Burgstaller; Johann Steurer; Mazda Farshad
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2018-09

3.  ISASS Recommendations/Coverage Criteria for Decompression with Interlaminar Stabilization - Coverage Indications, Limitations, and/or Medical Necessity.

Authors:  Richard Guyer; Michael Musacchio; Frank P Cammisa; Morgan P Lorio
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2016-12-05

4.  Reversibility of nerve root sedimentation sign in lumbar spinal stenosis patients after decompression surgery.

Authors:  Christian Barz; Markus Melloh; Lukas P Staub; Sarah J Lord; Harry R Merk; Thomas Barz
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-02-04       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  South Korean degenerative spondylolisthesis patients had surgical treatment at earlier age than Japanese, American, and European patients: a published literature observation.

Authors:  Zoltán Káplár; Yì-Xiáng J Wáng
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2016-12

6.  Reoperation of decompression alone or decompression plus fusion surgeries for degenerative lumbar diseases: a systematic review.

Authors:  Zhao Lang; Jing-Sheng Li; Felix Yang; Yan Yu; Kamran Khan; Louis G Jenis; Thomas D Cha; James D Kang; Guoan Li
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2018-06-28       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  Is There Variation in Procedural Utilization for Lumbar Spine Disorders Between a Fee-for-Service and Salaried Healthcare System?

Authors:  Andrew J Schoenfeld; Heeren Makanji; Wei Jiang; Tracey Koehlmoos; Christopher M Bono; Adil H Haider
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  Fusion surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis?

Authors:  Fay E A Greenway; Marios C Papadopoulos
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2016-06

9.  A novel strategy of non-fusion instrumentation with coflex interlaminar stabilization after decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Hiroshi Nomura
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2016-06

10.  Expandable Interbody Spacers: A Two-Year Study Evaluating Radiologic and Clinical Outcomes With Patient-Reported Outcomes.

Authors:  Graham Mulvaney; Steve Monk; Jonathan D Clemente; Deborah Pfortmiller; Domagoj Coric
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2020-10-29
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.