Tag: Degenerative Lumbar spinal Stenosis

Posted on

Oblique lumbar interbody fusion combined with stress end plate augmentation and anterolateral screw fixation for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis with osteoporosis

The Spine Journal 23 (2023) 523−532

Oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) has been proven to be effective in treating degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS). Whether OLIF is suitable for treating patients with DLSS with osteoporosis (OP) is still controversial. Bone cement augmentation is widely used to enhance the internal fixation strength of osteoporotic spines. However, the effectiveness of OLIF combined with bone cement stress end plate augmentation (SEA) and anterolateral screw fixation (AF) for DLSS with OP have not confirmed yet.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the clinical, radiological, and functional outcomes of OLIF-AF versus OLIF-AF-SEA in the treatment of DLSS with OP.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective case-control study.

PATIENT SAMPLE: A total of 60 patients with OP managed for DLSS at L4−L5.

OUTCOME MEASURES: Visual analog scale (VAS) score of the lower back and leg, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), disk height (DH), lumbar lordosis (LL), segmental lordosis (SL), cage subsidence and fusion rate.

METHODS: The study was performed as a retrospective matched-pair case‒controlled study. Patients with OP managed for DLSS at L4−L5 between October 2017 and June 2020 and completed at least 2 years of follow-up were included, which were 30 patients treated by OLIF-AF and 30 patients undergoing OLIF-AF-SEA. The demographics and radiographic data, fusion status and functional outcomes were therefore compared to evaluate the efficacy of the two approaches.

RESULTS: Pain and disability improved similarly in both groups at the 24-month follow-up. However, the SEA group had lower pain and functional disability at 3 months postoperatively (p<.05). The mean postoperative disc height decrease (4DH) was significantly lower in the SEA group than in the control group (1.17§0.81 mm vs 2.89§2.03 mm; p<.001). There was no significant difference in lumbar lordosis (LL) or segmental lordosis (SL) between the groups preoperatively and 1 day postoperatively. However, a statistically significant difference was observed in SL and LL between the groups at 24 months postoperatively (p<.05). CS was observed in 4 cases (13.33%) in the SEA group and 17 cases (56.67%) in the control group (p<.001). A nonsignificant difference was observed in the fusion rate between the SEA and control groups (p=.347) at 24 months postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed that OLIF-AF-SEA was safe and effective in the treatment of DLSS with OP. Compared with OLIF-AF, OLIF-AF-SEA results in a minor postoperative disc height decrease, a lower rate of CS, better sagittal balance, and no adverse effect on interbody fusion.

Posted on

Change in sagittal alignment after decompression alone in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis without significant deformity

J Neurosurg Spine 37:57–63, 2022

The authors’ objective was to investigate whether sagittal balance improves in patients with spinal stenosis after decompression alone.

METHODS This prospective longitudinal cohort study compared preoperative and 6-month postoperative 36-inch full-length radiographs in patients aged older than 60 years. Patients underwent decompression alone for central lumbar spinal stenosis with either a minimally invasive bilateral laminotomy for central decompression, unilateral laminectomy as an over-the-top procedure for bilateral decompression, or traditional wide laminectomy with removal of the spinous processes on both sides. The following radiographic parameters were measured: sagittal vertical axis (SVA), lumbar lordosis (LL), pelvic tilt (PT), pelvic incidence (PI), PI-LL mismatch, coronal Cobb angle, and sacral slope (SS). Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) were collected, including scores on the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analog scale (VAS) for leg and back pain, and EQ-5D.

RESULTS Forty-five patients (24 males) with a mean ± SD age of 71.8 ± 5.6 years were included. Sagittal balance showed statistically significant improvement, with the mean SVA decreasing from 52.3 mm preoperatively to 33.9 mm postoperatively (p = 0.0001). The authors found an increase in LL, from mean −41.5° preoperatively to −43.9° postoperatively, but this was not statistically significant (p = 0.055). A statistically significant decrease in PI-LL mismatch from mean 8.4° preoperatively to 5.8° postoperatively was found (p = 0.002). All PROM scores showed significant improvement after spinal decompression surgery. The correlations between SVA and all PROMs were statistically significant at both preoperative and postoperative time points, although most correlations were weak except for those between preoperative SVA and ODI (r = 0.55) and between SVA and VAS for leg pain (r = 0.58).

CONCLUSIONS Sagittal balance and PROMs show improvement at short-term follow-up evaluations in patients who have undergone decompression alone for lumbar spinal stenosis.

Posted on

Change in sagittal alignment after decompression alone in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis without significant deformity: a prospective cohort study

J Neurosurg Spine 37:57–63, 2022

OBJECTIVE The authors’ objective was to investigate whether sagittal balance improves in patients with spinal stenosis after decompression alone.

METHODS This prospective longitudinal cohort study compared preoperative and 6-month postoperative 36-inch full-length radiographs in patients aged older than 60 years. Patients underwent decompression alone for central lumbar spinal stenosis with either a minimally invasive bilateral laminotomy for central decompression, unilateral laminectomy as an over-the-top procedure for bilateral decompression, or traditional wide laminectomy with removal of the spinous processes on both sides. The following radiographic parameters were measured: sagittal vertical axis (SVA), lumbar lordosis (LL), pelvic tilt (PT), pelvic incidence (PI), PI-LL mismatch, coronal Cobb angle, and sacral slope (SS). Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) were collected, including scores on the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analog scale (VAS) for leg and back pain, and EQ-5D.

RESULTS Forty-five patients (24 males) with a mean ± SD age of 71.8 ± 5.6 years were included. Sagittal balance showed statistically significant improvement, with the mean SVA decreasing from 52.3 mm preoperatively to 33.9 mm postoperatively (p = 0.0001). The authors found an increase in LL, from mean −41.5° preoperatively to −43.9° postoperatively, but this was not statistically significant (p = 0.055). A statistically significant decrease in PI-LL mismatch from mean 8.4° preoperatively to 5.8° postoperatively was found (p = 0.002). All PROM scores showed significant improvement after spinal decompression surgery. The correlations between SVA and all PROMs were statistically significant at both preoperative and postoperative time points, although most correlations were weak except for those between preoperative SVA and ODI (r = 0.55) and between SVA and VAS for leg pain (r = 0.58).

CONCLUSIONS Sagittal balance and PROMs show improvement at short-term follow-up evaluations in patients who have undergone decompression alone for lumbar spinal stenosis.

Posted on

Outcome of unilateral versus standard open midline approach for bilateral decompression in lumbar spinal stenosis: is “over the top” really better?

J Neurosurg Spine 31:236–245, 2019

In this retrospective analysis of a prospective multicenter cohort study, the authors assessed which surgical approach, 1) the unilateral laminotomy with bilateral spinal canal decompression (ULBD; also called “over the top”) or 2) the standard open bilateral decompression (SOBD), achieves better clinical outcomes in the long-term follow-up. The optimal surgical approach (ULBD vs SOBD) to treat lumbar spinal stenosis remains controversial.

METHODS The main outcomes of this study were changes in a spinal stenosis measure (SSM) symptoms score, SSM function score, and quality of life (sum score of the 3-level version of the EQ-5D tool [EQ-5D-3L]) over time. These outcome parameters were measured at baseline and at 12-, 24-, and 36-month follow-ups. To obtain an unbiased result on the effect of ULBD compared to SOBD the authors used matching techniques relying on propensity scores. The latter were calculated based on a logistic regression model including relevant confounders. Additional outcomes of interest were raw changes in main outcomes and in the Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire from baseline to 12, 24, and 36 months.

RESULTS For this study, 277 patients met the inclusion criteria. One hundred forty-nine patients were treated by ULBD, and 128 were treated by SOBD. After propensity score matching, 128 patients were left in each group. In the matched cohort, the mean (95% CI) estimated differences between ULBD and SOBD for change in SSM symptoms score from baseline to 12 months were -0.04 (-0.25 to 0.17), to 24 months -0.07 (-0.29 to 0.15), and to 36 months -0.04 (-0.28 to 0.21). For change in SSM function score, the estimated differences from baseline to 12 months were 0.06 (-0.08 to 0.21), to 24 months 0.08 (-0.07 to 0.22), and to 36 months 0.01 (-0.16 to 0.17). Differences in changes between groups in EQ-5D-3L sum scores were estimated to be -0.32 (-4.04 to 3.40), -0.89 (-4.76 to 2.98), and -2.71 (-7.16 to 1.74) from baseline to 12, 24, and 36 months, respectively. None of the group differences between ULBD and SOBD were statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS Both surgical techniques, ULBD and SOBD, may provide effective treatment options for DLSS patients. The authors further determined that the patient outcome results for the technically more challenging ULBD seem not to be superior to those for the SOBD even after 3 years of follow-up.

 

Posted on

Effectiveness of interspinous implant surgery in patients with intermittent neurogenic claudication: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Eur Spine J (2011) 20:1596–1606.DOI 10.1007/s00586-011-1873-8
Despite an increasing implantation rate of interspinous process distraction (IPD) devices in the treatment of intermittent neurogenic claudication (INC), definitive evidence on the clinical effectiveness of implants is lacking. The main objective of this review was to perform a meta-analysis of all systematic reviews, randomized clinical trials and prospective cohort series to quantify the effectiveness of IPDs and to evaluate the potential sideeffects.
Methods  Data from all studies prospectively describing clinical results based on validated outcome scales and reporting complications of treatment of patients with INC with IPD placement. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane (CENTRAL), CINAHL, Academic Search Premier, Science Direct up to July 2010. Studies describing patients with INC caused by lumbar stenosis, reporting complication rate and reporting based on validated outcome scores, were eligible. Studies with only instrumented IPD results were excluded.
Results  Eleven studies eligible studies were identified. Two independently RCTs and eight prospective cohorts were available. In total 563 patients were treated with IPDs. All studies showed improvement in validated outcome scores after 6 weeks and 1 year. Pooled data based on the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire of the RCTs were more in favor of IPD treatment compared with conservative treatment (pooled estimate 23.2, SD 18.5–27.8). Statistical heterogeneity after pooled data was low (I-squared 0.0, p =  0.930). Overall complication rate was 7%.
Conclusion  As the evidence is relatively low and the costs are high, more thorough (cost-) effectiveness studies should be performed before worldwide implementation is introduced.

Proudly powered by WordPress