Literature DB >> 35930062

The association between preoperative MRI findings and clinical improvement in patients included in the NORDSTEN spinal stenosis trial.

Jørn Aaen1,2, Hasan Banitalebi3,4, Ivar Magne Austevoll5,6, Christian Hellum7, Kjersti Storheim8, Tor Åge Myklebust9, Masoud Anvar10, Clemens Weber11,12, Tore Solberg13,14, Oliver Grundnes15, Helena Brisby16,17, Kari Indrekvam5,6, Erland Hermansen18,5,6.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To investigate potential associations between preoperative MRI findings and patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) after surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).
METHODS: The NORDSTEN trial included 437 patients. We investigated the association between preoperative MRI findings such as morphological grade of stenosis (Schizas grade), quantitative grade of stenosis (dural sac cross-sectional area), disc degeneration (Pfirrmann score), facet joint tropism and fatty infiltration of the multifidus muscle, and improvement in patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) 2 years after surgery. We dichotomized each radiological parameter into a moderate or severe category. PROMs i.e., Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ) and Numeric rating scale (NRS) for back and leg pain were collected before surgery and at 2 year follow-up. In the primary analysis, we investigated the association between MRI findings and ODI score (dichotomized to ≥ 30% improvement or not). In the secondary analysis, we investigated the association between MRI findings and the mean improvement on the ODI-, ZCQ- and NRS scores. We used multivariable regression models adjusted for patients' gender, age, smoking status and BMI.
RESULTS: The primary analysis showed that severe disc degeneration (Pfirrmann score 4-5) was significantly associated with less chance of achieving a 30% improvement on the ODI score (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.34, 0.88). In the secondary analysis, we detected no clinical relevant associations.
CONCLUSION: Severe disc degeneration preoperatively suggest lesser chance of achieving 30% improvement in ODI score after surgery for LSS. Other preoperative MRI findings were not associated with patient reported outcome.
© 2022. The Author(s).

Entities:  

Keywords:  Lumbar spinal stenosis; MRI; PROMS; Pfirrmann; Schizas

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35930062     DOI: 10.1007/s00586-022-07317-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Spine J        ISSN: 0940-6719            Impact factor:   2.721


  28 in total

1.  Surgical outcome of 438 patients treated surgically for lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  O Airaksinen; A Herno; V Turunen; T Saari; O Suomlainen
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1997-10-01       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 2.  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

3.  United States' trends and regional variations in lumbar spine surgery: 1992-2003.

Authors:  James N Weinstein; Jon D Lurie; Patrick R Olson; Kristen K Bronner; Elliott S Fisher
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2006-11-01       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  Surgical versus nonsurgical therapy for lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  James N Weinstein; Tor D Tosteson; Jon D Lurie; Anna N A Tosteson; Emily Blood; Brett Hanscom; Harry Herkowitz; Frank Cammisa; Todd Albert; Scott D Boden; Alan Hilibrand; Harley Goldberg; Sigurd Berven; Howard An
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2008-02-21       Impact factor: 91.245

5.  Smokers show less improvement than nonsmokers two years after surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis: a study of 4555 patients from the Swedish spine register.

Authors:  Bengt Sandén; Peter Försth; Karl Michaëlsson
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  Qualitative grading of severity of lumbar spinal stenosis based on the morphology of the dural sac on magnetic resonance images.

Authors:  Constantin Schizas; Nicolas Theumann; Alexandre Burn; Rosamond Tansey; Douglas Wardlaw; Francis W Smith; Gerit Kulik
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2010-10-01       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  Predictive factors influencing clinical outcome with operative management of lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Aravind Athiviraham; Zubair A Wali; David Yen
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2011-04-09       Impact factor: 4.166

8.  Predictors of residual symptoms in lower extremities after decompression surgery on lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Nobuhiro Hara; Hiroyuki Oka; Takashi Yamazaki; Katsushi Takeshita; Motoaki Murakami; Kazuto Hoshi; Sei Terayama; Atsushi Seichi; Kozo Nakamura; Hiroshi Kawaguchi; Ko Matsudaira
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2010-03-23       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  Clinical correlates of patient satisfaction after laminectomy for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  J N Katz; S J Lipson; G W Brick; L J Grobler; J N Weinstein; A H Fossel; R A Lew; M H Liang
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1995-05-15       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  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
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.