Symptoms Of Neurogenic Claudication Research Articles

Exercise treatments for lumbar spinal stenosis: A systematic review and intervention component analysis of randomised controlled trials

Objective To analyse the components used in exercise interventions for people with symptoms of neurogenic claudication due to lumbar spinal stenosis and identify components associated with successful interventions. Data sources Eligible papers published up to April 2023 from MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and trial registry websites. Review methods Literature searches were performed by an Information Specialist. We searched for randomised trials evaluating exercise interventions for people with neurogenic claudication symptoms (the primary symptom of lumbar spinal stenosis). Two authors independently performed study selection, data extraction, and quality assessments using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool Version 2 and the TIDieR checklist for intervention reporting. Details of intervention components were extracted, tabulated, and synthesised using an intervention component analysis approach. Results We found thirteen trials reporting 23 exercise interventions delivered to 1440 participants. These featured 60 different components. Most exercise interventions included supervision and flexion-based exercises. Balance exercises were rarely included. Exercise components featured more frequently in successful interventions included stretches, strength or trunk muscle exercises, fitness exercises, especially cycling, and psychologically informed approaches. Interpretation is limited by low study numbers and heterogeneity. No conclusions could be drawn about exercise supervision or dose. Discussion Exercise interventions for people with neurogenic claudication typically feature multiple components. Common features such as supervision, lumbar flexion, and aerobic fitness exercises and also less common features such as stretches, strengthening exercises, and psychologically informed approaches warrant consideration for inclusion when designing and optimising exercise interventions for people with lumbar spinal stenosis.

Does low-back pain improve after decompressive spinal surgery? A prospective observational study from the British Spine Registry.

Lumbar spine decompression surgery, in the form of laminectomy or discectomy, is known to be effective in improving symptoms of radiculopathy and neurogenic claudication. However, it is less clear how it impacts coexisting low-back pain (LBP). The aim of this study was to quantify the change in LBP after lumbar decompression. This study analyzed data from the British Spine Registry on patients who underwent lumbar decompression surgery. LBP severity was assessed using the visual analog scale (VAS), and the primary outcome was the change in VAS score at 1 year, with secondary outcomes measuring the change in score at 6 weeks, 6 months, and 2 years. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was defined as a 30% reduction in pain. Of the 25,349 patients included in the study, 92.2% reported significant back pain at baseline. Of the entire cohort, 12,951 (55.4%) patients had follow-up data for 6 weeks, 9066 (38.8%) for 6 months, 7926 (33.9%) for 1 year, and 5517 (23.6%) for 2 years; 17,304 (68.3%) patients had follow-up data for at least one time point. Sixty-two percent of patients attained the MCID (VAS score ≥ 30%) in back pain reduction, with 51% reporting a substantial improvement (VAS score ≥ 50%). This improvement was observed by 6 weeks postoperation and was mostly maintained at 2 years. Patients with back pain predominance were more likely to attain the MCID compared with those with leg pain predominance (63.6% vs 60.1%; OR 1.16, 95% CI 1.02-1.34; p = 0.0291). Severity of baseline back pain did not reduce the proportion attaining the MCID. Regardless of pain presentation, LBP improves in approximately 62% of patients who undergo lumbar decompressive surgery, with 51% experiencing substantial improvement. Patients undergoing lumbar decompression can be advised on the chance of a meaningful improvement in back pain postsurgery.

The Impact of Preoperative Sagittal Imbalance on Long-term Postoperative Outcomes Following Minimally Invasive Laminectomy

Background: Postoperative sagittal alignment has been shown to be associated with patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) following open lumbar decompression procedures, although it is unknown whether preoperative sagittal imbalance affects clinical outcomes of minimally invasive surgical (MIS) decompression only surgery. Purpose: We sought to evaluate the impact of preoperative pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis (PI-LL) imbalance on PROMs after MIS laminectomy for the treatment of neurogenic claudication symptoms. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adult patients undergoing MIS laminectomy for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis between April 2017 and April 2021 at a single institution. Of the 52 patients included (mean follow-up, 17 months) radiographs were taken prior to surgery and assessed for sagittal alignment parameters. Patients were grouped based on the preoperative PI-LL (balanced vs unbalanced). Changes in PROMs were compared between unbalanced PI-LL and balanced PI-LL groups. Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) was also assessed. Results: Of the 52 patients, 17 (32.7%) had unbalanced age-adjusted preoperative PI-LL. There was no significant difference found in PROMs between unbalanced and balanced PI-LL groups preoperatively or at final follow-up. Compared with those with unbalanced PI-LL, patients with balanced PI-LL were shown to have no added benefit in achieving MCID for ODI at long-term follow-up and no added benefit in the time to achieving MCID. Conclusion: These retrospective findings suggest that patients with unbalanced preoperative PI-LL may experience significant benefit in long-term clinical outcomes following MIS laminectomy, similarly to those with balanced PI-LL at baseline. The findings also suggest that the presence of sagittal imbalance preoperatively may not appreciably influence the long-term clinical outcomes following MIS laminectomy. Prospective study involving a larger population is warranted.

Correlation of clinical signs and magnetic resonance imaging findings in patients with lumbar spondylosis.

The purpose of the study was to contribute further to this debated topic by investigating the correlation of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings with the clinical picture in lumbar spondylosis patients. This multicenter retrospective study (as part of the epidemiological project of the TLAR-OASG [Turkish League Against Rheumatism-Osteoarthritis Study Group]) included 514 patients (101 males, 413 females; mean age: 63.6±10.8 years; range, 40 to 85 years) who were diagnosed as lumbar spondylosis by clinical examination and direct X-ray between December 2016 and June 2018. Demographic characteristics of patients, Visual Analog Scale for pain, presence of radiating pain, Roland-Morris disability questionnaire, straight leg raise test, deep tendon reflexes, neurogenic intermittent claudication symptoms, any decrease of muscle strength, and abnormality of sensation were recorded. Lumbar MRI findings of the patients were recorded as positive or negative in terms of disc herniation, intervertebral disc degeneration, root compression, osteophytes, spinal stenosis. Statistical analysis was done to assess the correlation between the clinical symptoms, physical examination, and MRI findings. Correlation analysis of the MRI results and the clinical findings showed a significant correlation between straight leg raise test and root compression (p<0.001, r=0.328) and a significant correlation between neurogenic intermittent claudication and spinal stenosis (p<0.001, r=0.376). Roland-Morris disability questionnaire had a significant correlation with all MRI findings (p<0.05, r<0.200). The results of this study corroborate the notion that diligent patient history and physical examination are more valuable than MRI findings, even though a higher incidence of abnormal MRI findings have been obtained in patients with disability and dermatomal radiating pain.

Patient's expectations of surgery for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis: analysis by type of surgery and patient factors from the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network (CSORN)

BACKGROUND CONTEXTPreoperative expectations influence postoperative outcomes. Patients with lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis have especially high expectations of pain relief and overall functional well-being compared to patients with lumbar stenosis. PURPOSEThe primary objective was to analyze preoperative expectations of lumbar DS patients with respect to the type of surgery proposed (decompression vs decompression and fusion). Secondarily, we aimed to assess the associations between preoperative expectations and patient and clinical factors as well as postoperative expectations fulfillment. STUDY DESIGN/SETTINGPatients were prospectively enrolled in a multicenter, prospective cohort study evaluating the assessment and management of degenerative spondylolisthesis utilizing the infrastructure of the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network (CSORN) surgical registry. PATIENT SAMPLEPatients with a diagnosis of degenerative spondylolisthesis with symptoms of neurogenic claudication or radiculopathy with or without back pain, unresponsive to nonoperative management over at least 3 months were included. Patients who underwent decompression, decompression and posterolateral fusion or decompression and interbody fusion at Canadian spine centers between January 2015 and September 2021 were included. OUTCOME MEASURESThe North American Spine Society Lumbar Spine Questionnaire was utilized for expectations measurement. The expectation questionnaire was completed following consent and before surgery and at 1 year. METHODSExpectations for pain relief and improvements in overall functional well-being were rated on a scale of 0 to 100. Preoperative expectation in terms of pain relief and functional well-being score were calculated. Multivariate linear regression was used to evaluate the association between expected preoperative patient factors and pain relief and functional well-being. The factors associated with the most important expectation were evaluated using multivariable multinomial logistic regression. RESULTSThree hundred fifty-two patients were included with 100 patients undergoing decompression and 252 patients also undergoing fusion. The seven items of preoperative expectations did not differ between the procedure groups nor did expected change. The mean pain relief and overall functional well-being expectation scores did not significantly differ between procedures.Higher expectations were associated with having more comorbidities [β=-2.0 (SE 0.8), p=.020], being physically active [β=8.4 (SE 3.2), p=.010] and having more leg pain [β=1.6 (SE 0.7), p=.015]. Better perceived physical health measured by SF12 PCS was associated with lower expectation of pain relief [β= -0.4 (SE 0.2), p=.039] and functional well-being [β=-0.84 (SE 0.2), p=.001]. Better perceived mental health measured by SF12 MCS was associated with lower expectation of functional well-being [β=-0.8 (SE 0.2), p=.001].Postoperative expectations fulfillment did not differ between procedures. CONCLUSIONPreoperative expectations in terms of pain relief and functional well-being were similar between the two most common procedures performed, decompression ± fusion. Secondarily, higher preoperative expectations were associated with greater pain, disability and being physically active. Expectations fulfillment did not differ between procedures.

Spinal canal stenosis in children with achondroplasia: the role of augmentation laminoplasty-a 15-year single institution experience.

Achondroplasia typically results in compressive spinal canal stenosis in one-third of children, but rare under the age of 15years. Laminectomy is the mainstay of treatment but this leads to instability and progressive deformity requiring complex fixation. In order to reduce that risk, we developed a novel modified augmented laminoplasty that increases spinal canal diameter while preserving the posterior column stability. All laminoplasty cases for spinal compressive achondroplasia from 2006 to 2020 were included. Ten augmentation laminoplasty procedures were performed in 7 children with regular clinical and radiological post-operative follow-up. Kyphotic deformity and clinical outcomes (neurological and urological) were evaluated. At presentation, clinical features included radiculopathy, neurogenic claudication or acute cauda equina compression with sphincter dysfunction. The average age at initial surgery was 11.2 (range 5-16) with a mean follow-up of 5 (range 2-8) years. All patients demonstrated improvement in neurogenic claudication symptoms after surgery; however, bladder dysfunction persisted in some children. In one child, cervical and lumbar augmentation laminoplasties were performed for concomitant disease. Augmentation laminoplasty effectively prevented deformity progression over time in all cases except one where a further revision laminoplasty with extension was required for screw loosening. Despite this, progressive symptomatic kyphotic deformity led to a 360° fixation. Minor complications included one dural breach (repaired intraoperatively) and one superficial wound infection. Augmentation laminoplasty is a viable surgical option following laminectomy in achondroplasia patients as an alternative to surgical fixation. Fixation can be reserved for cases where there is progressive deformity and kyphosis.

Walking Biomechanics and Spine Loading in Patients With Symptomatic Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.

Symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis is a leading cause of pain and mobility limitation in older adults. It is clinically believed that patients with lumbar spinal stenosis adopt a flexed trunk posture or bend forward and alter their gait pattern to improve tolerance for walking. However, a biomechanical assessment of spine posture and motion during walking is broadly lacking in these patients. The purpose of this study was to evaluate lumbar spine and pelvic sagittal angles and lumbar spine compressive loads in standing and walking and to determine the effect of pain and neurogenic claudication symptoms in patients with symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis. Seven participants with symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis, aged 44–82, underwent a 3D opto-electronic motion analysis during standing and walking trials in asymptomatic and symptomatic states. Passive reflective marker clusters (four markers each) were attached to participants at T1, L1, and S2 levels of the spine, with additional reflective markers at other spinal levels, as well as the head, pelvis, and extremities. Whole-body motion data was collected during standing and walking trials in asymptomatic and symptomatic states. The results showed that the spine was slightly flexed during walking, but this was not affected by symptoms. Pelvic tilt was not different when symptoms were present, but suggests a possible effect of more forward tilt in both standing (p = 0.052) and walking (p = 0.075). Lumbar spine loading during symptomatic walking was increased by an average of 7% over asymptomatic walking (p = 0.001). Our results did not show increased spine flexion (adopting a trunk-flexed posture) and only indicate a trend for a small forward shift of the pelvis during both symptomatic walking and standing. This suggests that provocation of symptoms in these patients does not markedly affect their normal gait kinematics. The finding of increased spine loading with provocation of symptoms supports our hypothesis that spine loading plays a role in limiting walking function in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis, but additional work is needed to understand the biomechanical cause of this increase.

Lumbar Epidural Lipomatosis is Increased in Patients With Morbid Obesity and Subsequently Decreases After Bariatric Surgery

Spinal epidural lipomatosis (SEL) is characterized by symptomatic neurogenic compression from adipose tissue in the spinal canal. The question arises whether patients with morbid obesity have higher volumes of epidural adipose tissue (EAT) in their lumbar spinal canal compared with patients with a normal weight, and to what extent this decreases after bariatric surgery. In this explorative study the lumbar EAT volume was assessed in 25 patients with morbid obesity (body mass index [BMI] >40) using available lumbar magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) prior to their bariatric surgery. An age- and sex-matched control group (n= 25) of patients with a normal weight (BMI 20-25) was used for comparison. Participants from the obesity group underwent a postoperative control MRI. The mean volume of EAT per MRI slice of the group of patients with obesity was significantly higher than for the group of patients with normal weight (mean: 83.3 ± 30.7 mm3 vs. mean 56.5 ± 25 mm3; P < 0.001). Fifteen participants with obesity (15 of 25) agreed to undergo a follow-up MRI. There was a significant decrease in EAT volume per MRI slice for these 15 participants (mean 82 ± 25.5 mm3 vs. 46 ± 20.0 mm3; P < 0.001) over time up to 3.6 (range: 1.2-6.0) years after bariatric surgery. Patients with obesity have significantly larger volumes of EAT in comparison with patients with normal weight. After bariatric surgery, a significant weight loss coincided with a significant volumetric reduction of this adipose tissue in the spinal canal. Future prospective studies in patients with symptomatic SEL may elucidate whether decreases in EAT volume influence concurrent neurogenic claudication symptoms.

Supervised physical therapy versus unsupervised exercise for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: 1-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial

Objective: To compare the 1-year outcomes of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis treated with supervised physical therapy or unsupervised exercise. Design: A single-center randomized controlled trial with concealed allocation, blinded assessor and intention-to-treat analysis. Setting: Spine care center. Subjects: A total of 86 patients presenting with symptoms of neurogenic claudication caused by lumbar spinal stenosis. Interventions: The physical therapy group received supervised physical therapy sessions twice a week for 6 weeks and home exercise program. The home exercise group received 6-week home exercise program only. Main measures: The primary outcome was symptom severity on the Zurich claudication questionnaire at 1 year. Secondary outcomes included physical function, pain, health-related quality of life and the surgery rate after 1 year. Results: At 1 year, more patients in the physical therapy group than in the home exercise group achieved minimum clinically important differences in Zurich claudication questionnaire symptom severity (60.5% vs 32.6%; adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 4.3, [95% CI [1.5–12.3], P = 0.01); Zurich claudication questionnaire physical function (55.8% vs 32.6%; AOR 3.0 [1.1–8.1], P = 0.03); SF-36 bodily pain (48.8% vs 25.6%; AOR 2.8 [1.1–7.3], P = 0.03), and SF-36 general health (20.9% vs 7.0%; AOR 6.1 [1.1–33.0], P = 0.04). The surgery rate at 1 year was lower in the physical therapy than in the home exercise group (7.0% vs 23.3%; AOR 0.2 [0.04–0.9] P = 0.04). Conclusions: Supervised physical therapy produced greater improvements in symptom severity and physical function than unsupervised exercise and was associated with lower likelihood of receiving surgery within 1 year.

Clinical outcomes of MED and iLESSYS® Delta for the treatment of lumbar central spinal stenosis and lateral recess stenosis: A comparison study.

Microendoscopic discectomy (MED) is an established procedure used to treat lumbar central spinal stenosis (LCSS) and lateral recess stenosis (LRS). The Interlaminar Endoscopic Surgical System iLESSYS® Delta approach has been developed from the traditional interlaminar endoscopic technique for the treatment of LCSS and LRS. In the present study, MED was used as a reference to evaluate this newly developed approach. A total of 82 and 52 patients with radicular leg pain and/or neurogenic claudication symptoms were treated by spinal canal decompression using the MED or iLESSYS® Delta approach, respectively. The clinical outcomes of the patients were analyzed using the Modified MacNab's criteria, visual analogue scale (VAS) leg pain score, VAS back pain score and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score. Finally, the effectiveness of the decompression was evaluated on a cross-sectional area of the dural sac (CSAD) at the disc level. The incision length in the iLESSYS® Delta group was significantly decreased compared with the MED group (P<0.05); however, the duration of the operation in the iLESSYS® Delta group was significantly longer compared with the MED group (P<0.05). The VAS score of the back and ODI score in the iLESSYS® Delta group were significantly decreased compared with the MED group at the 1-week follow-up (P<0.0125). The postoperative CSAD was also significantly increased in both groups compared with before the operation (P<0.05); however, there were no significant differences in the postoperative CSAD between the two groups. The good-to-excellent rates of the MED and iLESSYS® Delta approach were 89.0 and 90.4%, respectively, whereas the complication rates of the MED and iLESSYS® Delta system were 3.66 and 3.85% in the two groups, respectively. In conclusion, the iLESSYS® Delta approach was identified to be comparable with the MED approach for treating LCSS and LRS, demonstrating both precise and limited decompression. In addition, the iLESSYS® Delta approach may reduce the short-term back pain and promote faster recovery compared with the MED.

Rate of failure of indirect decompression in lateral single-position surgery: clinical results.

Lateral single-position surgery (LSPS) of the lumbar spine generally involves anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) performed in the lateral position (LALIF) at L5-S1 with or without lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) at L4-5 and above, followed by bilateral pedicle screw fixation (PSF) without repositioning the patient. One obstacle to more widespread adoption of LSPS is the perceived need for direct decompression of the neural elements, which typically requires flipping the patient to the prone position. The purpose of this study was to examine the rate of failure of indirect decompression in a cohort of patients undergoing LSPS from L4 to S1. A multicenter, post hoc analysis was undertaken from prospectively collected data of patients at 3 institutions who underwent LALIF at L5-S1 with or without LLIF at L4-5 with bilateral PSF in the lateral decubitus position between March 2018 and March 2020. Inclusion criteria were symptoms of radiculopathy or neurogenic claudication, central or foraminal stenosis (regardless of degree or etiology), and indication for interbody fusion at L5-S1 or L4-S1. Patients with back pain only; those who were younger than 18 years; those with tumor, trauma, or suspicion of infection; those needing revision surgery; and patients who required greater than 2 levels of fusion were excluded. Baseline patient demographic information and surgical data were collected and analyzed. The number of patients in whom indirect decompression failed was recorded and each individual case of failure was analyzed. A total of 178 consecutive patients underwent LSPS during the time period (105 patients underwent LALIF at L5-S1 and 73 patients underwent LALIF at L5-S1 with LLIF at L4-5). The mean follow-up duration was 10.9 ± 6.5 months. Bilateral PSF was placed with the patient in the lateral decubitus position in 149 patients, and there were 29 stand-alone cases. The mean case time was 101.9 ± 41.5 minutes: 79.3 minutes for single-level cases and 134.5 minutes for 2-level cases. Three patients (1.7%) required reoperation for failure of indirect decompression. The rate of failure of indirect decompression in LSPS from L4 to S1 is exceedingly low. This low risk of failure should be weighed against the risks associated with direct decompression as well as the risks of the extra operative time needed to perform this decompression.

Nerve Root Sedimentation Sign: Can It Predict the Success for Surgical Intervention in Patients With Symptomatic Lumbar Spinal Stenosis?

Introduction: The use of interspinous process devices are less invasive surgical methods designed to manage mild to moderate lumbar spinal stenosis symptoms. Symptomatic relief may not be seen in all patients undergoing this procedure. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) parameters have been used to predict the success of clinical outcomes in patients with symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis for decompressive surgeries. The purpose of this study was to determine the feasibility of using nerve root sedimentation sign to predict mid- to long-term clinical outcomes of patients treated with interspinous spacers for lumbar spinal stenosis.Methods: This was a retrospective study using prospective multicenter Food and Drug Administration Investigational Device Exemption (FDA IDE) trial (Superion™ and X-STOP®) data. Inclusion criteria were patients treated with interspinous spacers, aged 45 or older with lumbar spinal stenosis at one or more contiguous levels from L1 to L5 and symptoms of neurogenic claudication. Preoperative axial T2 weighted MRI images were used to determine nerve root sedimentation sign. Preoperative, six-week, one- and two-year postoperative clinical outcomes were measured using Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores. Clinical outcomes were compared between positive and negative nerve root sedimentation sign groups; p ≤0.05 was considered significant.Results: This study included n=374 patients; 40 excluded; 334 included (113=positive nerve root sedimentation sign (NRSS) (34%) and 221=negative NRSS (66%)). At six weeks, significant postoperative ODI correction was noted in both groups (p<0.001). No significant differences in ODI scores were identified between groups. A subgroup analysis with MRI image quality grade 3 and certainty determination grade 5, six-week postoperative ODI correction was significant in both groups. Six-week, one- and two-year postoperative ODI scores were greater by 6 points in the positive nerve root sedimentation sign group compared to the negative nerve root sedimentation sign group.Conclusions: Although satisfactory postoperative improvement occurred in both groups, there were statistically significant differences noted in certain sub-categories. The subgroup analysis indicated MRI image quality and nerve root sedimentation sign certainty of determination may be factors that may aid with planning the surgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis.

Ligamentum Flavum Cyst With Acute Onset Motor Deficit: A Literature Review and Case Series.

Ligamentum flavum cysts have been rarely described in the literature and are one of the rare causes of neural compression and canal stenosis. Very few cases of their association with neurologic deficits are reported to date, and association with acute onset weakness is even rarer. We report our experience with 3 cases of ligamentum flavum cyst that presented with acute onset weakness and also present a comprehensive literature review on lumbar ligamentum flavum cysts reported to date. All 3 patients had symptoms of severe neurogenic claudication and presented to us with acute onset of motor weakness in lower limbs. Ligamentum flavum cyst was located in the midline in 2 cases and laterally in 1 case. We performed excision of the cyst and decompression with fusion in 2 cases and decompression alone in 1 case. All 3 cases had significant improvement in their neurologic status postoperatively. Histopathological examination confirmed ligamentum flavum cyst in all 3 cases. We performed a PUBMED and EMBASE database search using the MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) terms "ligamentum flavum" and "cysts" for articles published to April 2019. We could identify 7 studies describing 20 cases of lumbar ligamentum flavum cysts with motor weakness in the literature. Only 1 case had been described with an acute onset of weakness. Ligamentum flavum cysts should remain in the differential diagnosis of a patient who has symptoms of lumbar canal stenosis and presents with acute onset of neurological deficits. Such patients have a good improvement with surgery.

Evaluating the outcome of classic laminectomy surgery alone versus laminectomy with fixation surgery in patients with lumbar canal stenosis regarding improvement of pain and function

BackgroundManagement of lumbar canal stenosis should be started with conservative treatment and preferably with a multimodal approach, but in cases of severe pain with extensive neurogenic claudication symptoms, surgical intervention is indicated. This retrospective study targets to evaluate the outcome of classic laminectomy surgery alone versus laminectomy with fixation surgery in patients with lumbar canal stenosis regarding improvement of pain and function.MethodsData of 184 patients of the study groups were divided into group A (data from patients who underwent laminectomy and foraminotomy only) and group B (data from patients who underwent laminectomy and foraminotomy with spinal fixation). Preoperative, operative, postoperative (PO), and follow-up data were extracted and analyzed from files of patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria.ResultsPrimary outcome was at least 50% improvement of pain severity regarding numeric rating scale (NRS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI) score at 6-months PO compared to preoperative scores. Operative time was significantly longer in group B than group A. Immediate PO data regarding PO analgesic requirement, amount of wound drainage, and PO hospital stay showed non-significant difference between both groups. There was a statically significant improvement of EHL muscle strength regarding Odom’s scoring in group B in which the success rate for pain improvement was 81.8% and for disability was 66.8%. There were insignificant differences in patient’s satisfaction to surgery with variable ages, a significant outcome in females and in patients with fewer levels of affection of both groups.ConclusionThe present study reported the efficacy and safety of the laminectomy, foraminotomy, discectomy, and medial facetectomy with spinal fixation using trans-pedicular screws for management of patients with spinal canal stenosis.

The necessity and risk factors of subsequent fusion after decompression alone for lumbar spinal stenosis with lumbar spondylolisthesis: 5 years follow-up in two different large populations

BACKGROUND/CONTEXTAlthough decompression without fusion is a reasonable surgical treatment option for some patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) secondary to spondylolisthesis, some of these patients will require secondary surgery for subsequent fusion. Long-term outcome and need for subsequent fusion in patients treated with decompression alone in the setting of lumbar spondylolisthesis remains controversial. PURPOSEThe aim of this study was to examine the rate, timing, and risk factors of subsequent fusion for patients after decompression alone for LSS with spondylolisthesis. STUDY DESIGN/SETTINGA retrospective cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLEPatients who had LSS with spondylolisthesis and underwent decompression alone at 1 or 2 levels as a primary lumbar surgery with more than 5 year follow-up. OUTCOME MEASURESThe rate, timing, and risk factors for subsequent fusion. METHODSSubjects were extracted from both public and private insurance resources in a nationwide insurer database. Risk factors for subsequent fusion were evaluated by multivariate cox proportion-hazard regression controlling for age, gender, comorbidities and the presence or absence of claudication. RESULTSFive thousand eight hundred and seventy-five patients in the public insurance population (PI population) and 1,456 patients in the private insurance population (PrI population) were included in this study. The rates of patients who needed subsequent fusion were 1.9% at 1 year, 3.5% at 2 years, and 6.7% at 5 years in the PI population, whereas they were 4.3% at 1 year, 8.9% at 2 years, 14.6% at 5 years in the PrI population. The time to subsequent fusion was 730 (365–1234) days in the PI population and 588 (300–998) days in the PrI population. Age less than 70 years, presence of neurogenic claudication and rheumatoid arthritis (RA)/collagen vascular diseases (CVD) were independent risk factors for subsequent fusion in both populations. CONCLUSIONSDecompression surgery alone can demonstrate good outcomes in some patients with LSS with spondylolisthesis. It is important for surgeons to recognize, however, that patient age less than 70 years, symptomatic neurogenic claudication, and presence of RA and/or CVD are significant independent factors associated with greater likelihood of needing secondary fusion surgery.

Postoperative Single-shot Epidural Fentanyl and Bupivacaine for Postoperative Analgesia After Lumbar Decompression: A Prospective, Double-blind Randomized Study.

Randomized clinical trial. To evaluate the efficacy of the postoperative single-shot bolus of epidural Fentanyl and Bupivicaine in providing pain relief postlumbar decompression surgery. Despite lumbar decompression's success in alleviating symptoms of sciatica, radiculopathy, and neurogenic claudication, transient back and buttock pain has been a common complaint postoperatively. Providing good postoperative pain alleviation predicts patient's quality of recovery. We performed a randomized, double-blinded, clinical trial. Forty-five patients scheduled for lumbar decompression for a year's period who were randomly assigned to receive a postoperative bolus of 10-mL solution of 50 mcg of Fentanyl, 0.125% Bupivacaine, and 0.9% saline solution via an intraoperatively placed epidural catheter immediately after wound closure, before dressing application. Facial pain scale scores (from 0 to 10) were measured at three time points after surgery (fully awake at recovery room, transfer to ward, first postoperative day). Postoperative need for oral analgesics, time to independent ambulation, associated adverse events, and time to hospital discharge were also evaluated. Pain scores were noted to be significantly lower at all time points in the epidural group (P < 0.001). In turn, they also received less on-demand oral pain medications than those in the control group (P = 0.000). The mean time to ambulation was 0.09 days in the epidural group and 0.91 days in the decompression-alone group (P = 0.000). Criteria for hospital discharge were usually met on Day 0 in the epidural and Day 1 in the control group (P = 0.000). Within the study period, only one infection was noted in the epidural group which necessitated additional lumbar spine surgery (4.3%). No adverse events or complications related to Fentanyl use were observed. A postoperative bolus of Fentanyl and Bupivacaine is effective in reducing early postoperative pain without the related complications of opiod administration. 2.

Natural Course and Diagnosis of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: WFNS Spine Committee Recommendations

Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is defined as a degenerative disorder showing a narrowing of the spinal canal. The diagnosis is straightforward in cases with typical neurogenic claudication symptoms and unequivocal imaging findings. However, not all patients present with typical symptoms, and there is obviously no correlation between the severity of stenosis and clinical complaint. The radiologic diagnosis of LSS is widely discussed in the literature. The best diagnostic test for the diagnosis of LSS is magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). However, canal diameter measurements have not gained much consensus from radiologists, whereas qualitative measures, such as cerebrospinal fluid space obliteration, have achieved greater consensus. Instability can best be defined by standing lateral radiograms and flexion-extension radiograms. For cases showing typical neurogenic claudication symptoms and unequivocal imaging findings, the diagnosis is straightforward. However, not all patients present with typical symptoms, and there is obviously no correlation between the severity of stenosis (computed tomography and MRI) and clinical complaint. In fact, recent MRI studies have shown that mild-to-moderate stenosis can also be found in asymptomatic individuals. Routine electrophysiological tests such as lower extremity electromyography, nerve conduction studies, F-wave, and H-reflex are not helpful in the diagnosis and outcome prediction of LSS. The electrophysiological recordings are complementary to the neurologic examination and can provide confirmatory information in less obvious clinical complaints. However, in the absence of reliable evidence, imaging studies should be considered as a first-line diagnostic test in the diagnosis of degenerative LSS.

A Review of Emerging Evidence for Utilization of a Percutaneous Interspinous Process Decompression Device to Treat Symptomatic Lumbar Adjacent-Segment Degeneration.

ObjectivePostlaminectomy syndrome diagnoses secondary to adjacent segment degeneration are a substantial and rising cause of morbidity in the United States. Emerging spinal cord neuromodulation technologies have produced successful outcomes for postlaminectomy neuropathic pain but are less effective in treating neurogenic claudication secondary to recurrent lumbar stenosis. Percutaneous interspinous process decompression systems can be used as a salvage treatment modality for persistent structural neurogenic claudication in postlaminectomy syndrome or after spinal cord stimulator implantation.MethodsThis paper is a review of emerging evidence for efficacious utilization of percutaneous interspinous process decompression.ResultsA recent pragmatic trial of subjects who underwent percutaneous interspinous process decompression for lumbar stenosis with intermittent neurogenic claudication reported that 63% (26/41) maintained minimal clinically important improvement in visual analog scale (VAS) leg pain, 61% (25/41) in VAS back pain, 78% (32/41) in function objective values, and 88% (36/41) reported satisfaction with treatment at 12 months postop. All subjects in a small case series of seven individuals with postlaminectomy adjacent-segment disease reported postoperative satisfaction scores of 3 or 4 on a 0–4 scale and were also able to decrease or wean completely off controlled pain medications. In another study, there was a significant decrease in average leg pain (60% improvement, P < 0.0001, N = 25) and axial low back pain (58% improvement, P < 0.0001, N = 25) in patients who underwent one- or two-level percutaneous interspinous process decompression as a rescue treatment for reemerging neurogenic claudication after spinal cord stimulator implantation.ConclusionsThe spine often is a focus of progressive disease. Furthermore, mechanical changes associated with spinal instrumentation can lead to additional disease at adjacent levels. Many individuals will present with symptomatic neurogenic claudication recalcitrant to multimodal management strategies, including even the most sophisticated neuromodulation technologies. Implementation of salvage percutaneous interspinus process decompression implantation in cases of adjacent segment degeneration or incomplete spinal cord stimulation can decompress structural causes of neurogenic claudication while sparing the patient from more invasive surgical reoperation techniques.

Unilateral approach for over the top bilateral lumbar decompression

The main goal is bilateral microsurgical decompression of the cauda equina using a unilateral over the top approach. The challenge is to achieve decompression with minimal iatrogenic trauma to anatomical structures in the approach region and in the target area. Degenerative spinal disorders including lumbar central stenosis, lumbar lateral recess spinal stenosis, and foraminal narrowing. This technique is performed in patients presenting primarily with neurogenic claudication, leg or buttock symptoms, heaviness in the legs with or without radicular symptoms, with or without neurological deficits, and comparable MRI findings. There are no limitations regarding number of affected segments or the extent of narrowing. All available conservative treatment modalities not exhausted. Lack of serious neurological deficit. Minimally invasive, muscle-sparing and facet-joint-sparing bilateral enlargement of the lumbar spinal canal through a unilateral microsurgical cross-over approach. Patients are mobilized early 4-6 h postoperatively. Light sports activities (e.g., ergometer cycling, swimming) are allowed after 2weeks. The same is true for the return to normal daily or work activities except for heavy physical work (usually 4weeks out of work). Soft lumbar brace for 4weeks (optional). The clinical outcomes are good to excellent. Meta-analyses and large case series report success rates for microsurgical decompression procedures of 73.5-95%. The reoperation rates are low (0.5-10%).

Does increasing age impact clinical and radiographic outcomes following lumbar spinal fusion?

Background ContextDespite the growing senior population within the United States, there is a lack of consensus regarding the safety and efficacy of performing lumbar spinal fusion for this population. PurposeTo evaluate the clinical and radiographic outcomes in different age cohorts following lumbar spinal fusion. Study DesignRetrospective cohort analysis. Patient SampleAnalysis of 1,184 patients who underwent posterolateral lumbar fusion from 2011 to 2018. Surgery was indicated after failure of conservative treatment to address radiculopathy and/or neurogenic claudication. Patients were excluded if they were under 18 years of age at the time of surgery, had a lumbar fracture, tumor, or infection, or had fusions involving the thoracic spine, high-grade spondylolisthesis, or concomitant deformity. Of the 1,184 patients, 850 patients were included. Patients were divided into three roughly equal groups for analysis: young (18–54 years), middle-aged (55–69 years), and senior (≥70 years). Outcome MeasuresVisual Analog Scale Back/Leg pain, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were collected, and achievement of minimal clinically important difference was evaluated. Lumbar lordosis (LL), pelvic tilt (PT), pelvic incidence (PI), and PI-LL difference were measured on radiographs. Rates of postoperative complications were analyzed. MethodsSeveral radiographic parameters were measured using plain radiographs obtained at preoperative, immediately postoperative (standing radiographs performed on postoperative day 1), and most recent follow-up visits. Preoperative and final patient-reported outcomes, along with demographic information, were obtained all patients. Binary outcome variables were compared between groups with multivariate logistic regression, and continuous outcome variables were compared using multivariate linear regression, with age 18 to 54 years used as the reference. Multivariate regressions were used to compare outcomes between cohorts while controlling baseline characteristics. ResultsA total of 850 patients were included; 330 young (38.80%), 317 middle-aged (37.30%), and 203 senior (23.90%). Seniors had higher postoperative length of stay compared to younger patients (p<.001). Younger patients had worse final ODI scores compared to middle-aged patients (p=.002). Seniors had higher rates of proximal ASD (p=.002) compared to young patients. There was no difference in achievement of minimal clinically important differences (MCID) between all three groups. ConclusionsSenior patients have significant improvement in patient-reported clinical outcomes, despite having greater comorbidities, and longer length of stay. However, given a general lack of achievement of MCID across all cohorts, these findings suggest the need for a critical re-evaluation of the role of lumbar spinal fusion in the management of patients with refractory radiculopathic and/or neurogenic claudication symptoms.