Literature DB >> 31473813

Outcomes after decompression surgery without fusion for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis and substantial low back pain.

Soichiro Masuda1, Yusuke Kanba2, Jun Kawai2, Noboru Ikeda2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of decompression surgery alone for patients with intolerable low back pain.
METHODS: We retrospectively identified 222 patients who underwent spinal decompression without fusion surgery who had substantial preoperative low back pain (preoperative numerical rating scale score ≥ 5). Their clinical outcomes were assessed using the numerical rating scale and the Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ) preoperatively and at 3 months and 1 year after surgery.
RESULTS: At 3 months and 1 year after surgery compared with baseline, there was a significant improvement in the overall mean numerical rating scale scores for low back pain (baseline = 6.8, 3 months = 2.1, 1 year = 2.7), leg pain (6.8, 2.1, 2.7), and leg numbness (6.4, 2.9, 3.2) (P < 0.05). The efficacy rate assessed by JOABPEQ was 68.1% for pain-related disorders, 47.0% for lumbar spine dysfunction, 63.3% for walking ability, 48.2% for social life dysfunction, and 21.6% for psychological disorders. When patients were classified into three groups depending on their degree of leg pain (mild, moderate, and severe), there was no significant difference in the efficacy rate between the three groups.
CONCLUSION: Decompression surgery can improve low back pain, regardless of the degree of preoperative leg pain, but the average score for LBP and leg pain slightly worsened between 3 months and 1 year after surgery. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Clinical outcomes; Decompression surgery; Leg pain; Low back pain; Lumbar spinal stenosis

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31473813     DOI: 10.1007/s00586-019-06130-x

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


  17 in total

1.  JOA Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ)/JOA Cervical Myelopathy Evaluation Questionnaire (JOACMEQ). The report on the development of revised versions. April 16, 2007. The Subcommittee of the Clinical Outcome Committee of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association on Low Back Pain and Cervical Myelopathy Evaluation.

Authors:  Mitsuru Fukui; Kazuhiro Chiba; Mamoru Kawakami; Shinichi Kikuchi; Shinichi Konno; Masabumi Miyamoto; Atsushi Seichi; Tadashi Shimamura; Osamu Shirado; Toshihiko Taguchi; Kazuhisa Takahashi; Katsushi Takeshita; Toshikazu Tani; Yoshiaki Toyama; Kazuo Yonenobu; Eiji Wada; Takashi Tanaka; Yoshio Hirota
Journal:  J Orthop Sci       Date:  2009-05       Impact factor: 1.601

2.  Lumbar spinous process-splitting laminectomy for lumbar canal stenosis. Technical note.

Authors:  Kota Watanabe; Toshihiko Hosoya; Tateru Shiraishi; Morio Matsumoto; Kazuhiro Chiba; Yoshiaki Toyama
Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine       Date:  2005-11

3.  Impact of sagittal spinopelvic alignment on clinical outcomes after decompression surgery for lumbar spinal canal stenosis without coronal imbalance.

Authors:  Tomohiro Hikata; Kota Watanabe; Nobuyuki Fujita; Akio Iwanami; Naobumi Hosogane; Ken Ishii; Masaya Nakamura; Yoshiaki Toyama; Morio Matsumoto
Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine       Date:  2015-07-03

4.  Changes of posture and muscle activities in the trunk and legs during walking in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis after decompression surgery. A preliminary report.

Authors:  Tsuyoshi Goto; Toshinori Sakai; Tetsuya Enishi; Nori Sato; Koji Komatsu; Koichi Sairyo; Shinsuke Katoh
Journal:  Gait Posture       Date:  2016-10-06       Impact factor: 2.840

5.  Nationwide trends in the surgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Hyun W Bae; Sean S Rajaee; Linda E Kanim
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2013-05-15       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  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

7.  The influence of preoperative back pain on the outcome of lumbar decompression surgery.

Authors:  Frank S Kleinstück; Dieter Grob; Friederike Lattig; Viktor Bartanusz; Francois Porchet; Dezsö Jeszenszky; David O'Riordan; Anne F Mannion
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2009-05-15       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  Back pain improvement after decompression without fusion or stabilization in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis and clinically significant preoperative back pain.

Authors:  Charles H Crawford; Steven D Glassman; Praveen V Mummaneni; John J Knightly; Anthony L Asher
Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine       Date:  2016-06-10

9.  Sagittal malalignment has a significant association with postoperative leg pain in adult spinal deformity patients.

Authors:  Mitsuru Takemoto; Louis Boissière; Felipe Novoa; Jean-Marc Vital; Ferran Pellisé; Francisco Javier Sanchez Pérez-Grueso; Frank Kleinstück; Emre R Acaroglu; Ahmet Alanay; Ibrahim Obeid; Ibrahim Obeid
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-05-25       Impact factor: 3.134

10.  Patient-reported outcomes unbiased by length of follow-up after lumbar degenerative spine surgery: Do we need 2 years of follow-up?

Authors:  Victor E Staartjes; Alessandro Siccoli; Marlies P de Wispelaere; Marc L Schröder
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2018-10-05       Impact factor: 4.166

View more
  5 in total

1.  Comparison of Microendoscopic Laminotomy (MEL) Versus Spinous Process-Splitting Laminotomy (SPSL) for Multi Segmental Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.

Authors:  Ryunosuke Oyama; Takeshi Arizono; Akihiko Inokuchi; Ryuta Imamura; Takahiro Hamada; Hirofumi Bekki
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2022-02-09

Review 2.  Surgical decompression timing for patients with foot drop from lumbar degenerative diseases: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Sang-Youn Song; Dae Cheol Nam; Dong-Kyu Moon; Dong-Yeong Lee; Eun-Chang Lee; Dong-Hee Kim
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2021-10-31       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Decompression and Interlaminar Stabilization for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Cohort Study and Two-Dimensional Operative Video.

Authors:  Olivia E Gilbert; Sarah E Lawhon; Twila L Gaston; Jared M Robichaux; Gabriel Claudiu Tender
Journal:  Medicina (Kaunas)       Date:  2022-04-05       Impact factor: 2.948

4.  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

5.  The Influence of Unemployment and Disability Status on Clinical Outcomes in Patients Receiving Surgery for Low Back-Related Disorders: An Observational Study.

Authors:  Chad E Cook; Alessandra N Garcia; Christopher Shaffrey; Oren Gottfried
Journal:  Spine Surg Relat Res       Date:  2020-11-20
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.