Literature DB >> 27849674

Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: How Is It Classified?

Gregory D Schroeder1, Mark F Kurd, Alexander R Vaccaro.   

Abstract

The prevalence of lumbar spinal stenosis is approximately 9.3%, with people most commonly affected in the sixth or seventh decade of life. Patients often have pain, cramping, and weakness in their legs that is worsened with standing and walking. Although the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial clearly demonstrated that surgery improves health-related quality of life, treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis varies widely from the type of decompression performed to the need for fusion. This variability can be attributed largely to the lack of an accepted classification system. A good classification system serves as a common language to define the severity of a condition, guide treatment, and facilitate clinical research.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27849674     DOI: 10.5435/JAAOS-D-15-00034

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Acad Orthop Surg        ISSN: 1067-151X            Impact factor:   3.020


  23 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.  [Diagnostics and conservative treatment of cervical and lumbar spinal stenosis].

Authors:  A Hug; S Hähnel; N Weidner
Journal:  Nervenarzt       Date:  2018-06       Impact factor: 1.214

3.  Evaluation of 2 Novel Ratio-Based Metrics for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.

Authors:  U U Bharadwaj; A R Ben-Natan; J Huang; V Pedoia; D Chou; S Majumdar; T M Link; C T Chin
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2022-09-15       Impact factor: 4.966

4.  Comparative Study of Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression versus Decompressive Laminectomy with Posterolateral Transpedicular Fixation for the Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Canal Stenosis.

Authors:  Ahmed Reda Aldahshory; Hazem Mashaly; Shafik Tahseen El Molla; Ibrahim Abdelmohsen Ismaiel; Khaled Saoud
Journal:  Asian J Neurosurg       Date:  2020-05-29

5.  Minimal Clinically Important Difference in Patient-Reported Outcome Measures with the Transforaminal Endoscopic Decompression for Lateral Recess and Foraminal Stenosis.

Authors:  Kai-Uwe Lewandrowski; Paulo Sérgio Teixeira DE Carvalho; Paulo DE Carvalho; Anthony Yeung
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2020-04-30

6.  High prevalence of symptomatic spinal stenosis in Norwegian adults with achondroplasia: a population-based study.

Authors:  Svein O Fredwall; Unni Steen; Olga de Vries; Cecilie F Rustad; Heidi Beate Eggesbø; Harald Weedon-Fekjær; Ingeborg B Lidal; Ravi Savarirayan; Grethe Månum
Journal:  Orphanet J Rare Dis       Date:  2020-05-25       Impact factor: 4.123

Review 7.  Interspinous process devices for treatment of degenerative lumbar spine stenosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Arthur Werner Poetscher; Andre Felix Gentil; Mario Ferretti; Mario Lenza
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-07-06       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Patient selection protocols for endoscopic transforaminal, interlaminar, and translaminar decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Álvaro Dowling; Kai-Uwe Lewandrowski; Fabio Henrique Pinto da Silva; Jaime Andrés Araneda Parra; Daniela Molero Portillo; Yohanna Carolina Pineda Giménez
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2020-01

9.  A new interspinous process distraction device BacFuse in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis with 5 years follow-up study.

Authors:  Mengmeng Chen; Hai Tang; Jianlin Shan; Hao Chen; Pu Jia; Li Bao; Fei Feng; Guan Shi; Ruideng Wang
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2020-06-26       Impact factor: 1.817

10.  WISP-1 induced by mechanical stress contributes to fibrosis and hypertrophy of the ligamentum flavum through Hedgehog-Gli1 signaling.

Authors:  Chao Sun; Qinghong Ma; Jian Yin; Han Zhang; Xinhui Liu
Journal:  Exp Mol Med       Date:  2021-06-22       Impact factor: 8.718

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.