Postoperative Dural Sac Cross-Sectional Area as an Association for Outcome After Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Clinical and Radiological Results From the NORDSTEN-Spinal Stenosis Trial.
Journal
Spine
ISSN: 1528-1159
Titre abrégé: Spine (Phila Pa 1976)
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7610646
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 May 2023
15 May 2023
Historique:
received:
19
09
2022
accepted:
01
12
2022
medline:
28
4
2023
pubmed:
23
2
2023
entrez:
22
2
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Prospective cohort study. The aim was to investigate the association between postoperative dural sac cross-sectional area (DSCA) after decompressive surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis and clinical outcome. Furthermore, to investigate if there is a minimum threshold for how extensive a posterior decompression needs to be to achieve a satisfactory clinical result. There is limited scientific evidence for how extensive lumbar decompression needs to be to obtain a good clinical outcome in patients with symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis. All patients were included in the Spinal Stenosis Trial of the NORwegian Degenerative spondylolisthesis and spinal STENosis (NORDSTEN)-study. The patients underwent decompression according to three different methods. DSCA measured on lumbar magnetic resonance imaging at baseline and at three months follow-up, and patient-reported outcome at baseline and at two-year follow-up were registered in a total of 393 patients. Mean age was 68 (SD: 8.3), proportion of males were 204/393 (52%), proportion of smokers were 80/393 (20%), and mean body mass index was 27.8 (SD: 4.2).The cohort was divided into quintiles based on the achieved DSCA postoperatively, the numeric, and relative increase of DSCA, and the association between the increase in DSCA and clinical outcome were evaluated. At baseline, the mean DSCA in the whole cohort was 51.1 mm 2 (SD: 21.1). Postoperatively the area increased to a mean area of 120.6 mm 2 (SD: 46.9). The change in Oswestry disability index in the quintile with the largest DSCA was -22.0 (95% CI: -25.6 to -18), and in the quintile with the lowest DSCA the Oswestry disability index change was -18.9 (95% CI: -22.4 to -15.3). There were only minor differences in clinical improvement for patients in the different DSCA quintiles. Less aggressive decompression performed similarly to wider decompression across multiple different patient-reported outcome measures at two years following surgery.
Sections du résumé
STUDY DESIGN
METHODS
Prospective cohort study.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
The aim was to investigate the association between postoperative dural sac cross-sectional area (DSCA) after decompressive surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis and clinical outcome. Furthermore, to investigate if there is a minimum threshold for how extensive a posterior decompression needs to be to achieve a satisfactory clinical result.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA
BACKGROUND
There is limited scientific evidence for how extensive lumbar decompression needs to be to obtain a good clinical outcome in patients with symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
METHODS
All patients were included in the Spinal Stenosis Trial of the NORwegian Degenerative spondylolisthesis and spinal STENosis (NORDSTEN)-study. The patients underwent decompression according to three different methods. DSCA measured on lumbar magnetic resonance imaging at baseline and at three months follow-up, and patient-reported outcome at baseline and at two-year follow-up were registered in a total of 393 patients. Mean age was 68 (SD: 8.3), proportion of males were 204/393 (52%), proportion of smokers were 80/393 (20%), and mean body mass index was 27.8 (SD: 4.2).The cohort was divided into quintiles based on the achieved DSCA postoperatively, the numeric, and relative increase of DSCA, and the association between the increase in DSCA and clinical outcome were evaluated.
RESULTS
RESULTS
At baseline, the mean DSCA in the whole cohort was 51.1 mm 2 (SD: 21.1). Postoperatively the area increased to a mean area of 120.6 mm 2 (SD: 46.9). The change in Oswestry disability index in the quintile with the largest DSCA was -22.0 (95% CI: -25.6 to -18), and in the quintile with the lowest DSCA the Oswestry disability index change was -18.9 (95% CI: -22.4 to -15.3). There were only minor differences in clinical improvement for patients in the different DSCA quintiles.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Less aggressive decompression performed similarly to wider decompression across multiple different patient-reported outcome measures at two years following surgery.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36809364
doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000004565
pii: 00007632-202305150-00004
pmc: PMC10118242
doi:
Types de publication
Clinical Trial
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
688-694Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors report no conflicts of interest.
Références
Watters WC III, Baisden J, Gilbert TJ, et al. Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: an evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine J. 2008;8:305–310.
Deyo RA, Mirza SK, Martin BI, et al. Trends, major medical complications, and charges associated with surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis in older adults. JAMA. 2010;303:1259–1265.
Grovle L, Fjeld O, Haugen AJ, et al. The rates of lumbar spinal stenosis surgery in norwegian public hospitals: a threefold increase from 1999 to 2013. Spine. 2019;44:E372–E378.
Amundsen T, Weber H, Nordal HJ, et al. Lumbar spinal stenosis: conservative or surgical management? A prospective 10-year study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25:1424–1435.
Malmivaara A, Slatis P, Heliovaara M, et al. Surgical or nonoperative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis? A randomized controlled trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32:1–8.
Weinstein JN, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD, et al. Surgical versus nonoperative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis four-year results of the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010;35:1329–1338.
Zaina F, Tomkins-Lane C, Carragee E, et al. Surgical versus non-surgical treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;2016:Cd010264.
Overdevest GM, Jacobs W, Vleggeert-Lankamp C, et al. Effectiveness of posterior decompression techniques compared with conventional laminectomy for lumbar stenosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;3:CD010036.
Ishimoto Y, Yoshimura N, Muraki S, et al. Associations between radiographic lumbar spinal stenosis and clinical symptoms in the general population: the Wakayama Spine Study. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2013;21:783–788.
Hermansen E, Moen G, Barstad J, et al. Laminarthrectomy as a surgical approach for decompressing the spinal canal: assessment of preoperative versus postoperative dural sac cross-sectional areal (DSCSA). Eur Spine J. 2013;22:1913–1919.
Chung SW, Kang MS, Shin YH, et al. Postoperative expansion of dural sac cross-sectional area after unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression: correlation with clinical symptoms. Korean J Spine. 2014;11:227–231.
Hong SW, Choi KY, Ahn Y, et al. A comparison of unilateral and bilateral laminotomies for decompression of L4-L5 spinal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011;36:E172–E178.
Hermansen E, Austevoll IM, Hellum C, et al. Comparable increases in dural sac area after three different posterior decompression techniques for lumbar spinal stenosis: radiological results from a randomized controlled trial in the NORDSTEN study. Eur Spine J. 2020;29:2254–2261.
Hermansen E, Austevoll IM, Romild UK, et al. Study-protocol for a randomized controlled trial comparing clinical and radiological results after three different posterior decompression techniques for lumbar spinal stenosis: the Spinal Stenosis Trial (SST) (part of the NORDSTEN Study). BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2017;18:121; 1–7.
Austevoll IM, Hermansen E, Fagerland M, et al. Decompression alone versus decompression with instrumental fusion the NORDSTEN degenerative spondylolisthesis trial (NORDSTEN-DS); study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2019;20:7.
Hermansen E, Austevoll IM, Hellum C, et al. Comparison of 3 different minimally invasive surgical techniques for lumbar spinal stenosis: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5:e224291.
Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB. The Oswestry disability index. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25:2940–2952.
Solberg TK, Olsen JA, Ingebrigtsen T, et al. Health-related quality of life assessment by the EuroQol-5D can provide cost-utility data in the field of low-back surgery. EurSpine J. 2005;14:1000–1007.
Parai C, Hagg O, Lind B, et al. The value of patient global assessment in lumbar spine surgery: an evaluation based on more than 90,000 patients. Eur Spine J. 2018;27:554–563.
Ferreira-Valente MA, Pais-Ribeiro JL, Jensen MP. Validity of four pain intensity rating scales. Pain. 2011;152:2399–2404.
Dworkin RH, Turk DC, Wyrwich KW, et al. Interpreting the clinical importance of treatment outcomes in chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. J Pain. 2008;9:105–121.
Dalgic A, Uckun O, Ergungor MF, et al. Comparison of unilateral hemilaminotomy and bilateral hemilaminotomy according to dural sac area in lumbar spinal stenosis. Minim Invasive Neurosurg. 2010;53:60–64.
Nandakumar A, Clark NA, Peehal JP, et al. The increase in dural sac area is maintained at 2 years after X-stop implantation for the treatment of spinal stenosis with no significant alteration in lumbar spine range of movement. Spine J. 2010;10:762–768.
Akazawa T, Kotani T, Sakuma T, et al. MRI evaluation of dural sac enlargement by interspinous process spacers in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: does it play a role in the long term? J Orthop Sci. 2019;24:979–984.
Steurer J, Roner S, Gnannt R, et al. Quantitative radiologic criteria for the diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic literature review. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2011;12:175.