Literature DB >> 9160471

Lumbar laminectomy alone or with instrumented or noninstrumented arthrodesis in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Patient selection, costs, and surgical outcomes.

J N Katz1, S J Lipson, R A Lew, L J Grobler, J N Weinstein, G W Brick, A H Fossel, M H Liang.   

Abstract

DESIGN: A prospective, multicenter observational study.
OBJECTIVES: 1) Identify correlates of the decision to perform arthrodesis in patients undergoing laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis. 2) Compare symptoms, walking capacity, and satisfaction 6 and 24 months after laminectomy alone and laminectomy with noninstrumented and with instrumented arthrodesis. BACKGROUND DATA: Few prospective studies have compared outcomes of laminectomy alone or laminectomy with noninstrumented or with instrumented arthrodesis in patients with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. There is uncertainty regarding the optimal use of arthrodesis and instrumentation.
METHODS: Two hundred seventy--two patients undergoing--surgery for degenerative lumbar stenosis by eight surgeons at four centers were included in the study cohort. Of these, 37 had noninstrumented and 41 had instrumented arthrodesis. Logistic regression identified factors associated with arthrodesis. The principal outcomes-health status, walking capacity, back and leg pain, and satisfaction with surgery-were assessed 6 and 24 months postoperatively with univariate and multivariate techniques. Outcomes also were assessed in a restricted cohort of patients with at least 5 mm spondylolisthesis and/or 15 degrees scoliosis. Hospital costs were obtained from a computerized hospital cost accounting system.
RESULTS: The major predictor of the decision to perform arthrodesis was the individual surgeon (P = 0.0001). Noninstrumented arthrodesis was associated with superior relief of low back pain at 6 months (P = 0.004) and 24 months (P = 0.01). This difference persisted in multivariate analyses, with borderline statistical significance. There were no significant differences in the other outcomes across treatment groups. Mean hospital costs of laminectomy alone and noninstrumented and instrumented arthrodesis were $12,615, $18,495, and $25,914, respectively (P = 0.0001).
CONCLUSION: Findings were limited by the small number of participating surgeons, modest sample size that produced P values of borderline significance, and nonrandomized design. With these caveats in mind, the authors conclude: (1) The individual surgeon was a more important correlate of the decision to perform arthrodesis than clinical variables such as spondylolisthesis. (2) Noninstrumented arthrodesis resulted in superior relief of back pain after 6 and 24 months. (3) Instrumented arthrodesis was the most costly option. These results highlight the need for randomized controlled trials and cost effectiveness analyses of lumbar arthrodesis and instrumentation in patients with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9160471     DOI: 10.1097/00007632-199705150-00012

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)        ISSN: 0362-2436            Impact factor:   3.468


  51 in total

Review 1.  Effect of fusion following decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: a meta-analysis and systematic review.

Authors:  Lin Liang; Wei-Min Jiang; Xue-Feng Li; Heng Wang
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Med       Date:  2015-09-15

2.  Comparison of unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation in degenerative lumbar diseases: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Ying-Chao Han; Zhu-Qing Liu; Shan-Jin Wang; Li-Jun Li; Jun Tan
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-02-19       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 3.  Health economic evaluation in lumbar spinal fusion: a systematic literature review anno 2005.

Authors:  Rikke Soegaard; Finn B Christensen
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2005-12-21       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Use of bone morphogenetic proteins in spinal fusion surgery for older adults with lumbar stenosis: trends, complications, repeat surgery, and charges.

Authors:  Richard A Deyo; Alex Ching; Laura Matsen; Brook I Martin; William Kreuter; Jeffrey G Jarvik; Heather Angier; Sohail K Mirza
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2012-02-01       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  Waste in the U.S. Health care system: a conceptual framework.

Authors:  Tanya G K Bentley; Rachel M Effros; Kartika Palar; Emmett B Keeler
Journal:  Milbank Q       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 4.911

6.  Decompression with or without concomitant fusion in lumbar stenosis due to degenerative spondylolisthesis: a systematic review.

Authors:  M L Dijkerman; G M Overdevest; W A Moojen; C L A Vleggeert-Lankamp
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2018-02-05       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  Patient-based outcomes for the operative treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Samo K Fokter; Scott A Yerby
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2005-12-21       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  Interspinous spacers compared with decompression or fusion for lumbar stenosis: complications and repeat operations in the Medicare population.

Authors:  Richard A Deyo; Brook I Martin; Alex Ching; Anna N A Tosteson; Jeffrey G Jarvik; William Kreuter; Sohail K Mirza
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2013-05-01       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  Surgical treatment of spinal stenosis with and without degenerative spondylolisthesis: cost-effectiveness after 2 years.

Authors:  Anna N A Tosteson; Jon D Lurie; Tor D Tosteson; Jonathan S Skinner; Harry Herkowitz; Todd Albert; Scott D Boden; Keith Bridwell; Michael Longley; Gunnar B Andersson; Emily A Blood; Margaret R Grove; James N Weinstein
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2008-12-16       Impact factor: 25.391

10.  Long-term health care utilisation and costs after spinal fusion in elderly patients.

Authors:  Thomas Andersen; Cody Bünger; Rikke Søgaard
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-08-21       Impact factor: 3.134

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.