Literature DB >> 27904964

Only walking matters-assessment following lumbar stenosis decompression.

S Budithi1, Rohit Dhawan2, Andrew Cattell1, Birender Balain1, David Jaffray1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Multiple outcome measures exist to evaluate the outcomes of spinal decompression surgery; however, these tend to be complex and are difficult to express to the patient pre-operatively to accurately guide their expectations. We present outcomes, in terms of walking distance measurement, of a prospective single surgeon series of 76 consecutive patients with spinal stenosis.
METHODS: 76 patients (mean age 68.8 years; 48-91 years) had decompression surgery using spinous process osteotomy. Accurate measurement of walking distance was used as an outcome measure, and factors that affect it were evaluated. Walking distance was measured pre-operatively, post-operatively and at 3 months follow-up using a measuring wheel. The minimum follow-up was 5 years.
RESULTS: The mean distances walked were 78.1, 419.9 and 1285 m, respectively. Pre-operative disc height (p = 0.023) and male gender (p = 0.039) predicted a significant improvement in walking distance, while age (p = 0.23), ASA grade (p = 0.39) and the number of levels operated on (p = 0.89) did not significantly affect the increase in walking distance. 12 patients experienced post-operative complications (15.8%), and at last clinical follow-up (6.3 years, 5.1-6.9 years) 27 patients (35.5%) had residual leg symptoms and 8 had undergone further revision procedures (10.5%).
CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that walking distance is an accurate and accessible method of determining surgical outcomes.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Measuring wheel; Self-paced walking test; Spinal stenosis decompression; Walking distance

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27904964     DOI: 10.1007/s00586-016-4881-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Spine J        ISSN: 0940-6719            Impact factor:   3.134


  27 in total

1.  Incidental durotomy in spine surgery.

Authors:  F P Cammisa; F P Girardi; P K Sangani; H K Parvataneni; S Cadag; H S Sandhu
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2000-10-15       Impact factor: 3.468

2.  Validity and reproducibility of self-report measures of walking capacity in lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Christy C Tomkins-Lane; Michele C Battié
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2010-11-01       Impact factor: 3.468

3.  Risk Factors for Reoperation in Patients Treated Surgically for Lumbar Stenosis: A Subanalysis of the 8-year Data From the SPORT Trial.

Authors:  Michael C Gerling; Dante Leven; Peter G Passias; Virginie Lafage; Kristina Bianco; Alexandra Lee; Jon D Lurie; Tor D Tosteson; Wenyan Zhao; Kevin F Spratt; Kristen Radcliff; Thomas J Errico
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2016-05       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  Lumbar spinal stenosis: conservative or surgical management?: A prospective 10-year study.

Authors:  T Amundsen; H Weber; H J Nordal; B Magnaes; M Abdelnoor; F Lilleâs
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2000-06-01       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  Assessing performance-related disability in patients with knee osteoarthritis.

Authors:  W J Rejeski; W H Ettinger; S Schumaker; P James; R Burns; J T Elam
Journal:  Osteoarthritis Cartilage       Date:  1995-09       Impact factor: 6.576

6.  Spine patient outcomes research trial: radiographic predictors of clinical outcomes after operative or nonoperative treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis.

Authors:  Adam M Pearson; Jon D Lurie; Emily A Blood; John W Frymoyer; Heike Braeutigam; Howard An; Federico P Girardi; James N Weinstein
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2008-12-01       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  Response shift in self-reported functional scores after knee microfracture for full thickness cartilage lesions.

Authors:  B Balain; O Ennis; G Kanes; R Singhal; S N J Roberts; Dai Rees; J H Kuiper
Journal:  Osteoarthritis Cartilage       Date:  2009-02-28       Impact factor: 6.576

8.  Dural tears secondary to operations on the lumbar spine. Management and results after a two-year-minimum follow-up of eighty-eight patients.

Authors:  J C Wang; H H Bohlman; K D Riew
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1998-12       Impact factor: 5.284

9.  Clinical correlates of patient satisfaction after laminectomy for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  J N Katz; S J Lipson; G W Brick; L J Grobler; J N Weinstein; A H Fossel; R A Lew; M H Liang
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1995-05-15       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  Lumbar spinal stenosis-specific symptom scale: validity and responsiveness.

Authors:  Miho Sekiguchi; Takafumi Wakita; Koji Otani; Yoshihiro Onishi; Shunichi Fukuhara; Shin-Ichi Kikuchi; Shin-ichi Konno
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2014-11-01       Impact factor: 3.468

View more
  2 in total

1.  Level of Evidence for Reliability, Validity, and Responsiveness of Physical Capacity Tasks Designed to Assess Functioning in Patients With Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review Using the COSMIN Standards.

Authors:  Max Jakobsson; Annelie Gutke; Lidwine B Mokkink; Rob Smeets; Mari Lundberg
Journal:  Phys Ther       Date:  2019-04-01

Review 2.  The Michel Benoist and Robert Mulholland yearly European Spine Journal Review: a survey of the "surgical and research" articles in the European Spine Journal, 2017.

Authors:  Robert C Mulholland
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2018-01-08       Impact factor: 3.134

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.