Literature DB >> 31195133

Decompression alone vs. decompression plus fusion for claudication secondary to lumbar spinal stenosis.

Kenneth Thomas1, Peter Faris1, Greg McIntosh2, Simon Manners3, Edward Abraham4, Christopher S Bailey5, Jerome Paquet6, David Cadotte1, W Bradley Jacobs1, Y Raja Rampersaud7, Neil A Manson4, Hamilton Hall8, Charles G Fisher9.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis is a common condition, predominantly affecting middle-aged and elderly people. This study focused on patients with neurogenic claudication secondary to lumbar stenosis without spondylolisthesis or deformity.
PURPOSE: To determine whether the addition of fusion to decompression resulted in improved clinical outcomes at 3, 12, and 24 months postsurgery. STUDY DESIGN/
SETTING: The Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network (CSORN) prospective database that includes pre- and postoperative data from tertiary care hospitals. PATIENT SAMPLE: The CSORN database was queried for consecutive spine surgery cases of degenerative lumbar stenosis receiving surgical decompression for neurogenic claudication or radiculopathy. Neurogenic claudication patients with baseline and 2-year follow-up data, from four sites, formed the study sample (n=306). The sample was categorized into two groups: (1) those that had decompression alone, and (2) those that underwent decompression plus fusion. OUTCOME MEASURES: Change in modified Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), numerical rating scale for back/leg pain, the EuroQol EQ5D, the SF-12 physical, and mental component scores. The primary outcome measure was the ODI at 2 years postoperative.
METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, ambispective review of consecutive spine surgery patients enrolled between October 2012 and January 2018.
RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were comparable between groups except for female sex and multilevel pathology (both with greater proportion in the decompression plus fusion group). The decompression plus fusion group had clinically meaningfully more operative time, blood loss, rate of perioperative complication, and length of hospital stay (p<.05). These differences were preserved following adjustment for baseline differences between the groups. Both decompression and decompression plus fusion had a large clinically meaningful impact on generic and disease-specific patient-reported outcome measures within 3 months of surgery which was maintained out to 24-month follow-up. At any follow-up time point, there was no statistical evidence of a difference in these effects favoring decompression plus fusion over decompression alone.
CONCLUSIONS: The addition of fusion to decompression did not result in improved outcomes at 3-, 12-, or 24-month follow-up. The addition of fusion to decompression provides no advantage to decompression alone for the treatment of patients with neurogenic claudication secondary to lumbar stenosis without spondylolisthesis or deformity.
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Decompression; Degenerative stenosis; Fusion; Neurogenic claudication; Patient-reported outcome; Surgery; Treatment

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31195133     DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2019.06.003

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


  5 in total

1.  Construct validity and responsiveness of commonly used patient reported outcome instruments in decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Karthik Vishwanathan; Ian Braithwaite
Journal:  J Clin Orthop Trauma       Date:  2021-01-13

2.  Which is the most effective treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis: Decompression, fusion, or interspinous process device? A Bayesian network meta-analysis.

Authors:  Yijian Zhang; Dongdong Lu; Wei Ji; Fan He; Angela Carley Chen; Huilin Yang; Xuesong Zhu
Journal:  J Orthop Translat       Date:  2020-09-26       Impact factor: 5.191

3.  Surgeons' Perspective, Learning Curve, Motivation, and Obstacles of Full-Endoscopic Spine Surgery in Thailand: Results From A Nationwide Survey.

Authors:  Vit Kotheeranurak; Wongthawat Liawrungrueang; Verapan Kuansongtham; Pornpavit Sriphirom; Narongsak Bamrungthin; Gun Keorochana; Pritsanai Pruttikul; Worawat Limthongkul; Weerasak Singhatanadgige; Suthipas Pongmanee; Rattalerk Arunakul; Monchai Ruangchainikom; Phanunan Sasiprapha; Roongrath Chitragarn; Saran Pairuchvej; Teerachat Tanasansomboon; Khanathip Jitpakdee
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2022-03-11       Impact factor: 3.411

4.  Comparison of lumbar endoscopic unilateral laminotomy bilateral decompression and minimally invasive surgery transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for one-level lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Wenbin Hua; Bingjin Wang; Wencan Ke; Xinghuo Wu; Yukun Zhang; Shuai Li; Shuhua Yang; Cao Yang
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2020-11-27       Impact factor: 2.362

5.  Percutaneous endoscopic unilateral laminotomy and bilateral decompression under 3D real-time image-guided navigation for spinal stenosis in degenerative lumbar kyphoscoliosis patients: an innovative preliminary study.

Authors:  Tsung-Yu Ho; Chung-Wei Lin; Chien-Chun Chang; Hsien-Te Chen; Yen-Jen Chen; Yuan-Shun Lo; Pan-Hsuan Hsiao; Po-Chen Chen; Chih-Sheng Lin; Hsi-Kai Tsou
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2020-11-10       Impact factor: 2.362

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.