Literature DB >> 28962914

Objective measurement of function following lumbar spinal stenosis decompression reveals improved functional capacity with stagnant real-life physical activity.

Matthew Smuck1, Amir Muaremi2, Patricia Zheng2, Justin Norden3, Aman Sinha4, Richard Hu5, Christy Tomkins-Lane6.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a prevalent and costly condition associated with significant dysfunction. Alleviation of pain and improvement of function are the primary goals of surgical intervention. Although prior studies have measured subjective improvements in function after surgery, few have examined objective markers of functional improvement.
PURPOSE: We aimed to objectively measure and quantify changes in physical capacity and physical performance following surgical decompression of LSS. STUDY DESIGN/
SETTING: Prospective cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE: Thirty-eight patients with LSS determined by the treating surgeon's clinical and imaging evaluation, and who were scheduled for surgical treatment, were consecutively recruited at two academic medical facilities, with 28 providing valid data for analysis at baseline and 6 months after surgery. OUTCOME MEASURES: Before surgery and at 6 months after surgery, participants provided 7 days of real-life physical activity (performance) using ActiGraph accelerometers; completed two objective functional capacity measures, the Short Physical Performance Battery and Self-Paced Walking Test; and completed three subjective functional outcome questionnaires, Oswestry Disability Index, Spinal Stenosis Symptom Questionnaire, and Short-Form 36.
METHODS: Physical activity, as measured by continuous activity monitoring, was analyzed as previously described according to the 2008 American Physical Activity Guidelines. Paired t tests were performed to assess for postsurgical changes in all questionnaire outcomes and all objective functional capacity measures. Chi-square analysis was used to categorically assess whether patients were more likely to meet these physical activity recommendations after surgery.
RESULTS: Participants were 70.1 years old (±8.9) with 17 females (60.7%) and an average body mass index of 28.4 (±6.2). All subjective measures (Oswestry Disability Index, Spinal Stenosis Symptom Questionnaire, and Short-Form 36) improved significantly at 6 months after surgery, as did objective functional measures of capacity including balance, gait speed, and ambulation distance (Short Physical Performance Battery, Self-Paced Walking Test). However, objectively measured performance (real-life physical activity) did not change following surgery. Although fewer participants qualified as inactive (54% vs. 71%), and more (11% vs. 4%) met the physical activity guideline recommendations at the 6-month follow-up, these differences were not statistically significant (p=.22)
CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study, of which we are aware, to objectively evaluate changes in postsurgical performance (real-life physical activity) in people with LSS. We found that at 6 months after surgery for LSS, participants demonstrated significant improvements in self-reported function and objectively measured physical capacity, but not physical performance as measured by continuous activity monitoring. This lack of improvement in performance, despite improvements in self-reported function and objective capacity, suggests a role for postoperative rehabilitation focused specifically on increasing performance after surgery in the LSS population.
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Capacity; Function; Lumbar spinal stenosis; Outcome; Performance; Physical activity; Surgery

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28962914      PMCID: PMC5732871          DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2017.08.262

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine J        ISSN: 1529-9430            Impact factor:   4.166


  33 in total

1.  Surgical vs nonoperative treatment for lumbar disk herniation: the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT): a randomized trial.

Authors:  James N Weinstein; Tor D Tosteson; Jon D Lurie; Anna N A Tosteson; Brett Hanscom; Jonathan S Skinner; William A Abdu; Alan S Hilibrand; Scott D Boden; Richard A Deyo
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2006-11-22       Impact factor: 56.272

2.  The reliability of the Shuttle Walking Test, the Swiss Spinal Stenosis Questionnaire, the Oxford Spinal Stenosis Score, and the Oswestry Disability Index in the assessment of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Roland K Pratt; Jeremy C T Fairbank; Andrew Virr
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2002-01-01       Impact factor: 3.468

3.  Minimum acceptable outcomes after lumbar spinal fusion.

Authors:  Eugene J Carragee; Ivan Cheng
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 4.166

4.  Long-term outcomes of surgical and nonsurgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis: 8 to 10 year results from the maine lumbar spine study.

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

5.  Surgical treatment of spinal stenosis with and without degenerative spondylolisthesis: cost-effectiveness after 2 years.

Authors:  Anna N A Tosteson; Jon D Lurie; Tor D Tosteson; Jonathan S Skinner; Harry Herkowitz; Todd Albert; Scott D Boden; Keith Bridwell; Michael Longley; Gunnar B Andersson; Emily A Blood; Margaret R Grove; James N Weinstein
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2008-12-16       Impact factor: 25.391

6.  The Maine Lumbar Spine Study, Part III. 1-year outcomes of surgical and nonsurgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  S J Atlas; R A Deyo; R B Keller; A M Chapin; D L Patrick; J M Long; D E Singer
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1996-08-01       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  Depressive burden in the preoperative and early recovery phase predicts poorer surgery outcome among lumbar spinal stenosis patients: a one-year prospective follow-up study.

Authors:  Sanna Sinikallio; Timo Aalto; Olavi Airaksinen; Arto Herno; Heikki Kröger; Heimo Viinamäki
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2009-11-01       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  Physical activity in the United States measured by accelerometer.

Authors:  Richard P Troiano; David Berrigan; Kevin W Dodd; Louise C Mâsse; Timothy Tilert; Margaret McDowell
Journal:  Med Sci Sports Exerc       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 5.411

9.  Health-related quality of life (EQ-5D) before and one year after surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  K-A Jansson; G Németh; F Granath; B Jönsson; P Blomqvist
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2009-02

Review 10.  Accelerometers and pedometers: methodology and clinical application.

Authors:  Kirsten Corder; Søren Brage; Ulf Ekelund
Journal:  Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 4.294

View more
  20 in total

Review 1.  The past, present, and future of remote patient monitoring in spine care: an overview.

Authors:  Harry M Lightsey; Caleb M Yeung; Dino Samartzis; Melvin C Makhni
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2021-07-09       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Relationship between patient-based scoring systems and the activity level of patients measured by wearable activity trackers in lumbar spine disease.

Authors:  Masahiro Inoue; Sumihisa Orita; Kazuhide Inage; Miyako Suzuki; Kazuki Fujimoto; Yasuhiro Shiga; Hirohito Kanamoto; Koki Abe; Hideyuki Kinoshita; Masaki Norimoto; Tomotaka Umimura; Takashi Sato; Masashi Sato; Masahiro Suzuki; Keigo Enomoto; Yawara Eguchi; Yasuchika Aoki; Tsutomu Akazawa; Yohei Kawasaki; Seiji Ohtori
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2019-06-03       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  CORR Insights®: The Dubousset Functional Test is a Novel Assessment of Physical Function and Balance.

Authors:  Walter F Krengel
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2019-10       Impact factor: 4.176

4.  Accelerometry Data Delineate Phases of Recovery and Supplement Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Following Lumbar Laminectomy.

Authors:  Dennis M Bienstock; Dhruv Shankar; Jinseong Kim; Michael Gao; Komal Srivastava; Wesley H Bronson; Saad B Chaudhary; Jashvant Poeran; James C Iatridis; Andrew C Hecht
Journal:  World Neurosurg       Date:  2022-01-29       Impact factor: 2.210

5.  Inertial Sensor-Based Gait and Attractor Analysis as Clinical Measurement Tool: Functionality and Sensitivity in Healthy Subjects and Patients With Symptomatic Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.

Authors:  S Kimberly Byrnes; Corina Nüesch; Stefan Loske; Andrea Leuenberger; Stefan Schären; Cordula Netzer; Annegret Mündermann
Journal:  Front Physiol       Date:  2018-08-14       Impact factor: 4.566

6.  Inferring Physical Function From Wearable Activity Monitors: Analysis of Free-Living Activity Data From Patients With Knee Osteoarthritis.

Authors:  Vibhu Agarwal; Matthew Smuck; Christy Tomkins-Lane; Nigam H Shah
Journal:  JMIR Mhealth Uhealth       Date:  2018-12-18       Impact factor: 4.773

7.  Safety and feasibility of an early telephone-supported home exercise program after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a case series.

Authors:  Rogelio A Coronado; Clinton J Devin; Jacquelyn S Pennings; Oran S Aaronson; Christine M Haug; Erin E Van Hoy; Susan W Vanston; Kristin R Archer
Journal:  Physiother Theory Pract       Date:  2019-10-30       Impact factor: 2.176

8.  Patients with severe low back pain exhibit a low level of physical activity before lumbar fusion surgery: a cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Hanna Lotzke; Max Jakobsson; Annelie Gutke; Maria Hagströmer; Helena Brisby; Olle Hägg; Rob Smeets; Mari Lundberg
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2018-10-11       Impact factor: 2.362

9.  Predictors of substantial improvement in physical function six months after lumbar surgery: is early post-operative walking important? A prospective cohort study.

Authors:  Sarah J Gilmore; Andrew J Hahne; Megan Davidson; Jodie A McClelland
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2019-09-11       Impact factor: 2.362

10.  Prediction of walking ability following posterior decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Suzanne McIlroy; Feroz Jadhakhan; David Bell; Alison Rushton
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2021-08-05       Impact factor: 3.134

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.