Literature DB >> 34351524

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

Suzanne McIlroy1,2, Feroz Jadhakhan3, David Bell4, Alison Rushton3,5.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Following surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) up to 40% of people report persistent walking disability. This study aimed to identify pre-operative factors that are predictive of walking ability post-surgery for LSS.
METHODS: An observational cohort study was conducted using data from the British Spine Registry (2017-2018) of adults (≥ 50 years) with LSS, who underwent ≤ 2 level posterior lumbar decompression. Patients receiving fixation or who had previous lumbar surgery were excluded. Walking ability was assessed by a single item on the Oswestry Disability Index and dichotomised into poor/good outcome. Multivariable regression models were performed.
RESULTS: 14,485 patients were identified. Pre-operatively 30% patients reported poor walking ability, this decreased to 8% at 12 months follow-up. Predictors associated with poor walking ability at 12 months were: increasing age (≥ 75 years OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.07, 2.18), BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2 (OR 1.52, 95% CI 1.00, 2.30), severity of leg pain (OR 1.10, CI 95% 1.01, 1.21), disability (OR 1.01, 95% CI 1.01, 1.02) and quality of life (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.56, 0.89). Pre-operative maximum walking distance (OR 1.10, 95% CI 1.05, 1.25) and higher education (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80, 0.96) were associated with reduced risk of poor walking ability at 12 months; p < 0.05. Depression, fear of movement and symptom duration were not associated with risk of poor outcome.
CONCLUSION: Older age, obesity, greater pre-operative pain and disability and lower quality of life are associated with risk of poor walking ability post-operatively. Greater pre-operative walking and higher education are associated with reduced risk of poor walking ability post-operatively. Patients should be counselled on their risk of poor outcome and considered for rehabilitation so that walking and surgical outcomes may be optimised.
© 2021. The Author(s).

Entities:  

Keywords:  Decompression; Lumbar spinal stenosis; Outcome; Prognosis; Walking

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34351524      PMCID: PMC8550110          DOI: 10.1007/s00586-021-06938-6

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


  34 in total

Review 1.  The Oswestry Disability Index.

Authors:  J C Fairbank; P B Pynsent
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2000-11-15       Impact factor: 3.468

2.  Depression is associated with a poorer outcome of lumbar spinal stenosis surgery: a two-year prospective follow-up study.

Authors:  Sanna Sinikallio; Timo Aalto; Olavi Airaksinen; Soili M Lehto; Heikki Kröger; Heimo Viinamäki
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2011-04-15       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 3.  Preoperative predictors for postoperative clinical outcome in lumbar spinal stenosis: systematic review.

Authors:  Timo J Aalto; Antti Malmivaara; Francisco Kovacs; Arto Herno; Markku Alen; Liisa Salmi; Heikki Kröger; Juan Andrade; Rosa Jiménez; Antti Tapaninaho; Veli Turunen; Sakari Savolainen; Olavi Airaksinen
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2006-08-15       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  Multiple imputation by chained equations: what is it and how does it work?

Authors:  Melissa J Azur; Elizabeth A Stuart; Constantine Frangakis; Philip J Leaf
Journal:  Int J Methods Psychiatr Res       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 4.035

5.  The influence of preoperative mental health on clinical outcomes after laminectomy in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Yoshiomi Kobayashi; Yoji Ogura; Takahiro Kitagawa; Takahiro Tadokoro; Yoshiro Yonezawa; Yohei Takahashi; Akimasa Yasuda; Yoshio Shinozaki; Jun Ogawa
Journal:  Clin Neurol Neurosurg       Date:  2019-08-13       Impact factor: 1.876

6.  Walking ability during daily life in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee or the hip and lumbar spinal stenosis: a cross sectional study.

Authors:  Corinna C Winter; Mirko Brandes; Carsten Müller; Tim Schubert; Michael Ringling; Axel Hillmann; Dieter Rosenbaum; Tobias L Schulte
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2010-10-12       Impact factor: 2.362

7.  Multiple imputation for missing data in epidemiological and clinical research: potential and pitfalls.

Authors:  Jonathan A C Sterne; Ian R White; John B Carlin; Michael Spratt; Patrick Royston; Michael G Kenward; Angela M Wood; James R Carpenter
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2009-06-29

8.  Predictive validity of initial fear avoidance beliefs in patients with low back pain receiving physical therapy: is the FABQ a useful screening tool for identifying patients at risk for a poor recovery?

Authors:  Joshua A Cleland; Julie M Fritz; Gerard P Brennan
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2007-10-10       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  Prognostic function to estimate the probability of meaningful clinical improvement after surgery - Results of a prospective multicenter observational cohort study on patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Ulrike Held; Jakob M Burgstaller; Maria M Wertli; Giuseppe Pichierri; Sebastian Winklhofer; Florian Brunner; François Porchet; Mazda Farshad; Johann Steurer
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-11-08       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  ISSLS Prize Winner: Consensus on the Clinical Diagnosis of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Results of an International Delphi Study.

Authors:  Christy Tomkins-Lane; Markus Melloh; Jon Lurie; Matt Smuck; Michele C Battié; Brian Freeman; Dino Samartzis; Richard Hu; Thomas Barz; Kent Stuber; Michael Schneider; Andrew Haig; Constantin Schizas; Jason Pui Yin Cheung; Anne F Mannion; Lukas Staub; Christine Comer; Luciana Macedo; Sang-Ho Ahn; Kazuhisa Takahashi; Danielle Sandella
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2016-08-01       Impact factor: 3.241

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.