Literature DB >> 33437287

A comparative study of Lumbar Decompression and Fusion with Internal Fixation versus Simple Decompression in elderly patients with two-segment Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.

Pengfa Tu1, Shuo Cao2, Chenyang Jiang3, Chong-Chao Yan4.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To investigate and compare the effect of decompression and fusion with internal fixation vs. simple decompression in the treatment of elderly patients with two-segment lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) in perioperative and postoperative follow-up periods.
METHODS: Twenty-eight elderly patients with two-segment LSS admitted in Baoding First Hospital between Mar. 2017 and Jan. 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. Fifteen patients who underwent simple decompression were included in the simple decompression group, and 13 who underwent decompression and fusion with internal fixation were included in the decompression-fixation group. The general data and perioperative conditions including wound complications, operation time, blood loss, and VAS (legs) and JOA score were analyzed and compared between the two groups.
RESULTS: There was no significant difference in postoperative leg pain (VAS) between the two groups, and a statistically significant difference in JOA score was found between the two groups one month after the operation. The operation time, length of stay, and blood loss in the decompression-fixation group were significantly different from those in the simple decompression group and no significant difference in wound complications was observed between the two groups.
CONCLUSION: There is no significant difference in leg pain relief in elderly patients with two-segment LSS when treated with decompression and fusion with internal fixation or simple decompression. Simple decompression is associated with less intraoperative injuries, better postoperative functional recovery, and reduced hospital stay. Copyright: © Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Decompression and fusion with internal fixation; Lumbar spinal stenosis; Simple decompression

Year:  2021        PMID: 33437287      PMCID: PMC7794151          DOI: 10.12669/pjms.37.1.2287

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pak J Med Sci        ISSN: 1681-715X            Impact factor:   1.088


  13 in total

1.  Error in trends, major medical complications, and charges associated with surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis in older adults.

Authors:  Richard A Deyo; Sohail K Mirza; Brook I Martin
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2011-09-14       Impact factor: 56.272

2.  Decompression Versus Decompression and Fusion for Degenerative Lumbar Stenosis in a Workers' Compensation Setting.

Authors:  Erik Y Tye; Joshua Anderson; Arnold Haas; Rick Percy; Stephen T Woods; Nicholas Ahn
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2017-07-01       Impact factor: 3.468

3.  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

4.  Functional outcome after decompression and instrumented arthrodesis in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: factors influencing unsuccessful outcome change.

Authors:  Gun Keorochana; Wichien Laohacharoensombat; Wiwat Wajanavisit; Pongsthorn Chanplakorn; Patarawan Woratanarat; Porntip Chatchaipun
Journal:  J Med Assoc Thai       Date:  2011-12

5.  Trends, major medical complications, and charges associated with surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis in older adults.

Authors:  Richard A Deyo; Sohail K Mirza; Brook I Martin; William Kreuter; David C Goodman; Jeffrey G Jarvik
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2010-04-07       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 6.  Surgical options for lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Gustavo C Machado; Paulo H Ferreira; Rafael Ij Yoo; Ian A Harris; Marina B Pinheiro; Bart W Koes; Maurits W van Tulder; Magdalena Rzewuska; Christopher G Maher; Manuela L Ferreira
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2016-11-01

7.  An assessment of surgery for spinal stenosis: time trends, geographic variations, complications, and reoperations.

Authors:  M A Ciol; R A Deyo; E Howell; S Kreif
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  1996-03       Impact factor: 5.562

8.  Laminectomy plus Fusion versus Laminectomy Alone for Lumbar Spondylolisthesis.

Authors:  Zoher Ghogawala; James Dziura; William E Butler; Feng Dai; Norma Terrin; Subu N Magge; Jean-Valery C E Coumans; J Fred Harrington; Sepideh Amin-Hanjani; J Sanford Schwartz; Volker K H Sonntag; Fred G Barker; Edward C Benzel
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2016-04-14       Impact factor: 91.245

9.  Commentary on: A randomized controlled trial of fusion surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis (Forsth P, Ólafsson G, Carlsson T, Frost A, Borgström F, Fritzell P, et al. N Eng J Med 2016;374:1414-23).

Authors:  Nancy E Epstein
Journal:  Surg Neurol Int       Date:  2016-09-22

10.  Older literature review of increased risk of adjacent segment degeneration with instrumented lumbar fusions.

Authors:  Nancy E Epstein
Journal:  Surg Neurol Int       Date:  2016-01-25
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.