51
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Lumbar Stenosis: A Recent Update by Review of Literature

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Degeneration of the intervertebral disc results in initial relative instability, hypermobility, and hypertrophy of the facet joints, particularly at the superior articular process. This finally leads to a reduction of the spinal canal dimensions and compression of the neural elements, which can result in neurogenic intermittent claudication caused by venous congestion and arterial hypertension around nerve roots. Most patients with symptomatic lumbar stenosis had neurogenic intermittent claudication with the risk of a fall. However, although the physical findings and clinical symptoms in lumbar stenosis are not acute, the radiographic findings are comparatively severe. Magnetic resonance imaging is a noninvasive and good method for evaluation of lumbar stenosis. Though there are very few studies pertaining to the natural progression of lumbar spinal stenosis, symptoms of spinal stenosis usually respond favorably to non-operative management. In patients who fail to respond to non-operative management, surgical treatments such as decompression or decompression with spinal fusion are required. Restoration of a normal pelvic tilt after lumbar fusion correlates to a good clinical outcome.

          Related collections

          Most cited references54

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Long-term outcomes of surgical and nonsurgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis: 8 to 10 year results from the maine lumbar spine study.

          A prospective observational cohort study. To assess long-term outcomes of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis treated surgically or nonsurgically. The relative benefit of various treatments for lumbar spinal stenosis is uncertain. Surgical treatment has been associated with short-term improvement, but recurrence of symptoms has been documented. Few studies have compared long-term outcomes of surgical and nonsurgical treatments. Patients recruited from the practices of orthopaedic surgeons, neurosurgeons, and occupational medicine physicians throughout Maine had baseline interviews with follow-up questionnaires mailed at regular intervals over 10 years. Clinical data were obtained at baseline from a physician questionnaire. Most patients initially undergoing surgery had a laminectomy without fusion performed. Outcomes including patient-reported symptoms of leg and back pain, functional status, and satisfaction were assessed at 8- to 10-year follow-up. Primary analyses were based on initial treatment received with secondary analyses examining actual treatment received by 10 years. Of 148 eligible consenting patients initially enrolled, 105 were alive after 10 years (67.7% survival rate). Among surviving patients, long-term follow-up between 8 and 10 years was available for 97 of 123 (79%) patients (including 11 patients who died before the 10-year follow-up but completed a 8 or 9 year survey); 56 of 63 (89%) initially treated surgically and 41 of 60 (68%) initially treated nonsurgically. Patients undergoing surgery had worse baseline symptoms and functional status than those initially treated nonsurgically. Outcomes at 1 and 4 years favored initial surgical treatment. After 8 to 10 years, a similar percentage of surgical and nonsurgical patients reported that their low back pain was improved(53% vs. 50%, P = 0.8), their predominant symptom (either back or leg pain) was improved (54% vs. 42%, P = 0.3), and they were satisfied with their current status (55% vs. 49%, P = 0.5). These treatment group findings persisted after adjustment for other determinants of outcome in multivariate models. However, patients initially treated surgically reported less severe leg pain symptoms and greater improvement in back-specific functional status after 8 to 10 years than nonsurgically treated patients. By 10 years, 23% of surgical patients had undergone at least one additional lumbar spine operation, and 39% of nonsurgical patients had at least one lumbar spine operation. Patients undergoing subsequent surgical procedures had worse outcomes than those continuing with their initial treatment. Outcomes according to actual treatment received at 10 years did not differ because individuals undergoing additional surgical procedures had worse outcomes than those continuing with their initial treatment. Among patients with lumbar spinal stenosis completing 8- to 10-year follow-up, low back pain relief, predominant symptom improvement, and satisfaction with the current state were similar in patients initially treated surgically or nonsurgically. However, leg pain relief and greater back-related functional status continued to favor those initially receiving surgical treatment. These results support a shared decision-making approach among physicians and patients when considering treatment options for lumbar spinal stenosis.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Lumbar spinal stenosis: conservative or surgical management?: A prospective 10-year study.

            A cohort of 100 patients with symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis, characterized in a previous article, were given surgical or conservative treatment and followed for 10 years. To identify the short- and long-term results after surgical and conservative treatment, and to determine whether clinical or radiologic predictors for the treatment result can be defined. Surgical decompression has been considered the rational treatment. However, clinical experience indicates that many patients do well with conservative treatment. In this study, 19 patients with severe symptoms were selected for surgical treatment and 50 patients with moderate symptoms for conservative treatment, whereas 31 patients were randomized between the conservative (n = 18) and surgical (n = 13) treatment groups. Pain was decisive for the choice of treatment group. All patients were observed for 10 years by clinical evaluation and questionnaires. The results, evaluated by patient and physician, were rated as excellent, fair, unchanged, or worse. After a period of 3 months, relief of pain had occurred in most patients. Some had relief earlier, whereas for others it took 1 year. After a period of 4 years, excellent or fair results were found in half of the patients selected for conservative treatment, and in four fifths of the patients selected for surgery. Patients with an unsatisfactory result from conservative treatment were offered delayed surgery after 3 to 27 months (median, 3.5 months). The treatment result of delayed surgery was essentially similar to that of the initial group. The treatment result for the patients randomized for surgical treatment was considerably better than for the patients randomized for conservative treatment. Clinically significant deterioration of symptoms during the final 6 years of the follow-up period was not observed. Patients with multilevel afflictions, surgically treated or not, did not have a poorer outcome than those with single-level afflictions. Clinical or radiologic predictors for the final outcome were not found. There were no dropouts, except for 14 deaths. The outcome was most favorable for surgical treatment. However, an initial conservative approach seems advisable for many patients because those with an unsatisfactory result can be treated surgically later with a good outcome.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Comparison of one-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion performed with a minimally invasive approach or a traditional open approach.

              Prospective cohort study. To determine the statistical difference between the minimally invasive and traditional open approach for one-level instrumented posterior lumbar interbody fusion by comparing the perioperative data, clinical outcome, and radiographic result. Posterior lumbar fusion performed with mini-incision using tubular retractor has been advocated as a minimally invasive technique. Proponents have claimed that minimally invasive techniques reduce postoperative pain, blood loss, transfusion needs, and the length of hospital stay compared with the traditional open techniques. But there was no well-designed comparison study that supports these claims. We studied a consecutive series of 61 patients who underwent one-level PLIF procedure (32 cases performed with minimally invasive approach and 29 cases with traditional open approach) by one surgeon at one hospital, from October 2003 until October 2004. The following data were compared between the 2 groups with 1-year minimum follow-up: the clinical and radiographic results, surgical time, estimated blood loss, transfusion needs, postoperative back pain by visual analogue scale, time needed before ambulation, length of hospital stay, and complications. There was no significant difference between the 2 groups in the aspects of the clinical and radiographic results with 1-year minimum follow-up. The minimally invasive group was found to have a significantly less blood loss, less needs of transfusion, less postoperative back pain, shorter recovery time before ambulation, and shorter length of hospital stay. However, the minimally invasive group needed significantly longer surgical time and showed 2 cases of technical complications. The present study, which was based on the authors' initial experience with the minimally invasive approach, could confirm favorable results reported by previous uncontrolled cohort studies in the aspects of less blood loss, less transfusion need, less postoperative back pain, quicker recovery, and shorter hospital stay. It also showed the similar surgical efficacy of the minimally invasive approach with that of the traditional open technique. However, the minimally invasive technique needs longer surgical time and a prudent attention to lower the risk of technical complications. Further long-term, prospective studies involving a larger study group are needed to determine the benefits of this minimally invasive percutaneous procedure.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Asian Spine J
                Asian Spine J
                ASJ
                Asian Spine Journal
                Korean Society of Spine Surgery
                1976-1902
                1976-7846
                October 2015
                22 September 2015
                : 9
                : 5
                : 818-828
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hallym University Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University College of Medicine, Anyang, Korea.
                [2 ]Department of Neurosurgery, Hallym University Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University College of Medicine, Anyang, Korea.
                Author notes
                Corresponding author: Moon Soo Park. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hallym University Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University College of Medicine, 22 Gwanpyeongro 170beon-gil, Dongan-gu, Anyang 14068, Korea. Tel: +82-31-380-6000, Fax: +82-31-380-6008, amhangpark@ 123456gmail.com
                Article
                10.4184/asj.2015.9.5.818
                4591458
                26435805
                d5a66220-2abf-4cb6-b160-d96ad28a58de
                Copyright © 2015 by Korean Society of Spine Surgery

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 09 February 2015
                : 23 February 2015
                : 24 February 2015
                Categories
                Review Article

                Orthopedics
                lumbar spine,spinal stenosis
                Orthopedics
                lumbar spine, spinal stenosis

                Comments

                Comment on this article