scholarly journals Outcomes of Revision Surgery Following Instrumented Posterolateral Fusion in Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Comparative Analysis between Pseudarthrosis and Adjacent Segment Disease

2017 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 463-471 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seung-Pyo Suh ◽  
Young-Hoon Jo ◽  
Hae Won Jeong ◽  
Won Rak Choi ◽  
Chang-Nam Kang
Keyword(s):  
Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Lumbar Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Revision Surgery ◽  
Adjacent Segment Disease ◽  
Posterolateral Fusion ◽  
Adjacent Segment ◽  
Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Group A ◽  
Lumbar Spinal

<sec><title>Study Design</title><p>Retrospective study.</p></sec><sec><title>Purpose</title><p>We examined the clinical and radiological outcomes of patients who received revision surgery for pseudarthrosis or adjacent segment disease (ASD) following decompression and instrumented posterolateral fusion (PLF).</p></sec><sec><title>Overview of Literature</title><p>At present, information regarding the outcomes of revision surgery for complications such as pseudarthrosis and ASD following instrumented PLF is limited.</p></sec><sec><title>Methods</title><p>This study examined 60 patients who received PLF for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis and subsequently developed pseudarthrosis or ASD leading to revision surgery. Subjects were divided into a group of 21 patients who received revision surgery for pseudarthrosis (Group P) and a group of 39 patients who received revision surgery for ASD (Group A). Clinical outcomes were evaluated using the visual analogue scales for back pain (VAS-BP) and leg pain (VAS-LP), the Korean Oswestry disability index (K-ODI), and each patient's subjective satisfaction. Radiological outcomes were evaluated from the extent of bone union, and complications in the two groups were compared.</p></sec><sec><title>Results</title><p>VAS-LP at final follow-up was not statistically different between the two groups (<italic>p</italic> =0.353), although VAS-BP and K-ODI at final follow-up were significantly worse in Group P than in Group A (all <italic>p</italic> &lt;0.05), and only 52% of the patients in Group P felt that their overall well-being had improved following revision surgery. Fusion rates after the first revision surgery were 71% (15/21) in Group P and 95% (37/39) in Group A (<italic>p</italic> =0.018). The rate of reoperation was significantly higher in Group P (29%) than in Group A (5%) (<italic>p</italic> =0.021) due to complications.</p></sec><sec><title>Conclusions</title><p>Clinical and radiological outcomes were worse in patients who had received revision surgery for pseudarthrosis than in those who had revision surgery for ASD. Elderly patients should be carefully advised of the risks and benefits before planning revision surgery for pseudarthrosis.</p></sec>

scholarly journals Clinical efficacy and radiographic K-Rod stabilization for the treatment of multilevel degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chaohua Fu ◽  
Tianju Chen ◽  
Yuhao Yang ◽  
Hua Yang ◽  
Maohui Diao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Lumbar Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Lumbar Lordosis ◽  
Adjacent Segment Degeneration ◽  
Adjacent Segment ◽  
Rigid System ◽  
Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Lumbar Spinal ◽  
Rigid Group

Abstract Background: This study compares the use of radiographic K-Rod dynamic stabilization to the rigid system for the treatment of multisegmental degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (MDLSS).Methods: A total of 40 patients with MDLSS who underwent surgical treatment using the K-Rod (n=25) and rigid systems (n=15) from March 2013 to March 2017 were assessed. The mean follow-up period was 29.1 months. JOA, ODI, VAS and modified Macnab were assessed. Radiographic evaluations included lumbar lordosis angle, ISR value, operative and proximal adjacent ROM. Changes in intervertebral disc signal were classified according to Pfirrmann grade and UCLA system. Results: JOA, ODI and VAS changed significantly after the operation to comparable levels between the groups. However, the lumbar lordosis significantly decreased at final follow-up between both groups. The ROM of the proximal adjacent segment increased at final follow-up, but the number of fixed segment ROMs in the K-Rod group were significantly lower at the final follow-up than observed prior to the operation. In both groups, the ISR of the proximal adjacent segment decreased, most notably in the rigid group. The ISR of the non-fusion fixed segments in the K-Rod group increased post-operation and during final follow-up. The levels of adjacent segment degeneration were higher in the rigid group vs. the K-Rod group according to modified Pfirrmann grading and the UCLA system. Conclusions: Compared with the rigid system for treatment of MDLSS, dynamic K-Rod stabilization achieves improved radiographic outcomes and improves the mobility of the stabilized segments, minimizing the influence on the proximal adjacent segment.

scholarly journals Clinical efficacy and radiographic K-Rod stabilization for the treatment of multilevel degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chaohua Fu ◽  
Tianju Chen ◽  
Yuhao Yang ◽  
Hua Yang ◽  
Maohui Diao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Lumbar Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Lumbar Lordosis ◽  
Adjacent Segment Degeneration ◽  
Adjacent Segment ◽  
Rigid System ◽  
Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Lumbar Spinal ◽  
Rigid Group

Abstract Background: This study compares the use of radiographic K-Rod dynamic stabilization to the rigid system for the treatment of multisegmental degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (MDLSS). Methods: A total of 40 patients with MDLSS who underwent surgical treatment using the K-Rod (n=25) and rigid systems (n=15) from March 2013 to March 2017 were assessed. The mean follow-up period was 29.1 months. JOA, ODI, VAS and modified Macnab were assessed. Radiographic evaluations included lumbar lordosis angle, ISR value, operative and proximal adjacent ROM. Changes in intervertebral disc signal were classified according to Pfirrmann grade and UCLA system. Results: JOA, ODI and VAS changed significantly after the operation to comparable levels between the groups. However, the lumbar lordosis significantly decreased at final follow-up between both groups. The ROM of the proximal adjacent segment increased at final follow-up, but the number of fixed segment ROMs in the K-Rod group were significantly lower at the final follow-up than observed prior to the operation. In both groups, the ISR of the proximal adjacent segment decreased, most notably in the rigid group. The ISR of the non-fusion fixed segments in the K-Rod group increased post-operation and during final follow-up. The levels of adjacent segment degeneration were higher in the rigid group vs. the K-Rod group according to modified Pfirrmann grading and the UCLA system. Conclusions: Compared with the rigid system for treatment of MDLSS, dynamic K-Rod stabilization achieves improved radiographic outcomes and improves the mobility of the stabilized segments, minimizing the influence on the proximal adjacent segment.

scholarly journals Coflex Interspinous Process Dynamic Stabilization for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Long-term Follow-up

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mingrui Du ◽  
Fei-Long Wei ◽  
Kai-Long Zhu ◽  
Cheng-Pei Zhou ◽  
Ji-Xian Qian
Keyword(s):  
Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Lumbar Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Dynamic Stabilization ◽  
Adjacent Segment ◽  
Imaging Data ◽  
Process Dynamic ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Lumbar Spinal

Abstract [Objective]To evaluate the long-term efficacy of Coflex interspinous process dynamic stabilization device in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis.[Methods]The clinical and imaging data of 73 patients undergoing Coflex interspinous process dynamic stabilization surgery from July 2008 to June 2012 were retrospectively analyzed. Clinical data include: visual analogue scale of pain (VAS), Owestry disability index(ODI) and Japanese Orthopedic Association Scores(JOA) of preoperation, 6 months after surgery, and last follow-up; complications; reoperation rates and incidence of adjacent segment degeneration(ASD). Imaging data including: lumbar range of motion(ROM), intervertebral space height(ISH) and intervertebral foramen height (IFH) of operative and adjacent segment at preoperative, 6 months after operation and the last follow-up.[Results]56 patients were followed up. The follow-up time was 107.6 ± 13.3 months, the operation time was 10.0 ± 3.1 minutes, the intraoperative blood loss was 153.9 ± 80.6 ml, and the hospitalization time was 10.2 ± 3.2 days. The VAS, ODI and JOA scores improved significantly after surgery. At 6 months after surgery and the last follow-up, ROM was significantly lower than that before surgery with statistical significance (P < 0.001). ROM was slightly increased at the last follow-up compared with that 6 months after operation, but the difference was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). The ROM of adjacent segments increased at 6 months and at the last follow-up compared with that before surgery, but the difference was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). At 6 months after surgery, ISH and IFH of implanted segment was significantly higher than that before surgery, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). At the last follow-up, there was a decrease in ISH and IFH, with no statistical difference compared with that before the operation. During the follow-up period, a total of 11 patients (19.6%) experienced complications and 6 patients (10.7%) underwent secondary surgery.[Conclusion]Coflex interspinous process dynamic stabilization is effective in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis in the long term. The surgical segment retains a small range of motion. The incidence of complications and reoperation is low. However, the ISH and IFH of implanted segment can only be maintained for a short period of time.

Endoscopic posterior decompression under local anesthesia for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis

2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (6) ◽  
pp. 661-666 ◽  
Author(s):  
Myung Soo Youn ◽  
Jong Ki Shin ◽  
Tae Sik Goh ◽  
Seung Min Son ◽  
Jung Sub Lee
Keyword(s):  
Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Local Anesthesia ◽  
Lumbar Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Short Form ◽  
Posterior Decompression ◽  
Mean Values ◽  
Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Sf 36 ◽  
Lumbar Spinal

OBJECTIVEVarious minimally invasive techniques have been described for the decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). However, few reports have described the results of endoscopic posterior decompression (EPD) with laminectomy performed under local anesthesia. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical and radiological outcomes of EPD performed under local anesthesia in patients with LSS and to compare the procedural outcomes in patients with and without preoperative spondylolisthesis.METHODSFifty patients (28 female and 22 male) who underwent EPD under local anesthesia were included in this study. Patients were assessed before surgery and were followed up with regular outpatient visits (at 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively). Clinical outcomes were evaluated using the visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and the 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36) outcome questionnaire. Radiological outcomes were assessed by measuring lumbar lordosis, disc-wedging angle, percentage of vertebral slippage, and disc height index on plain standing radiographs.RESULTSThe VAS, ODI, and SF-36 scores were significantly improved at 1 month after surgery compared to the baseline mean values, and the improved scores were maintained over the 2-year follow-up period. Radiological progression was found in 2 patients during the follow-up period. Patients with and without preoperative spondylolisthesis had no significant differences in their clinical and radiological outcomes.CONCLUSIONSEPD performed under local anesthesia is effective for LSS treatment. Similar favorable outcomes can be obtained in patients with and without preoperative spondylolisthesis using this approach.

Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: analysis of results in a series of 374 patients treated with unilateral laminotomy for bilateral microdecompression

2007 ◽  
Vol 7 (6) ◽  
pp. 579-586 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francesco Costa ◽  
Marco Sassi ◽  
Andrea Cardia ◽  
Alessandro Ortolina ◽  
Antonio De Santis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Surgical Technique ◽  
Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Lumbar Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Consecutive Series ◽  
Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Neurological Improvement ◽  
Minimally Invasive Surgical ◽  
Lumbar Spinal

Object Surgical decompression is the recommended treatment in patients with moderate to severe degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS) in whom symptoms do not respond to conservative therapy. Multilevel disease, poor patient health, and advanced age are generally considered predictors of a poor outcome after surgery, essentially because of a surgical technique that has always been considered invasive and prone to causing postoperative instability. The authors present a minimally invasive surgical technique performed using a unilateral approach for lumbar decompression. Methods A retrospective study was conducted of data obtained in a consecutive series of 473 patients treated with unilateral microdecompression for DLSS over a 5-year period (2000–2004). Clinical outcome was measured using the Prolo Economic and Functional Scale and the visual analog scale (VAS). Radiological follow-up included dynamic x-ray films of the lumbar spine and, in some cases, computed tomography scans. Results Follow-up was completed in 374 (79.1%) of 473 patients—183 men and 191 women. A total of 520 levels were decompressed: 285 patients (76.2%) presented with single-level stenosis, 86 (22.9%) with two-level stenosis, and three (0.9%) with three-level stenosis. Three hundred twenty-nine patients (87.9%) experienced a clinical benefit, which was defined as neurological improvement in VAS and Prolo Scale scores. Only three patients (0.8%) reported suffering segmental instability at a treated level, but none required surgical stabilization, and all were successfully treated conservatively. Conclusions Evaluation of the results indicates that unilateral microdecompression of the lumbar spine offers a significant improvement for patients with DLSS, with a lower rate of complications.

scholarly journals Fusion or Not for Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (21;1) ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Jie Hao
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Spinal Fusion ◽  
Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Lumbar Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Fusion Surgery ◽  
Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Lumbar Spinal

Background: Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS) is the main cause for chronic low back pain in the elderly. When refractory to conservative treatment, symptomatic patients commonly undergo surgery. However, whether or not fusion is a relatively better surgical option still remains unclear. Objective: The purpose of the present study was to systematically review the clinical outcomes of spinal decompression with or without spinal fusion for DLSS. Study Design: A systematic review of the therapeutic effect for DLSS with or without fusion. Methods: A literature search of 5 electronic databases was performed including PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and CENTRAL from inception to August 2016. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the comparison between decompression and fusion surgery for DLSS were included. Results: A total of 5 RCTs involving 438 patients met the inclusion criteria. Low-quality evidence of the meta-analysis was performed for the heterogeneity of the included studies. Pooled analysis showed no significant differences between decompression alone and fusion groups for the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores at the baseline (P = 0.50) and 2 years follow-up (P = 0.71), and the satisfaction rate of operations was also similar for the groups (P = 0.53). However, operation time (P = 0.002), blood loss (P < 0.00001), and length of hospital stay (P = 0.007) were remarkably higher in the fusion group. Furthermore, there was no difference in the reoperation rate between these 2 groups at the latest follow-up (P = 0.49). Limitation: The methodological criteria and sample sizes were highly variable. The studies were heterogeneous. Conclusion: The present meta-analysis is the first to compare the efficacy of decompression alone and spinal fusion for the treatment of DLSS, including 5 RCTs. Our results demonstrate that additional fusion surgery seems unlikely to result in better outcomes for patients with DLSS, but it may increase additional risks and costs. High-quality homogeneous research is required to provide further evidence about surgical procedures for patients with DLSS. Key words: Decompression, fusion, lumbar spinal stenosis, meta-analysis

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document