alexa Outcome of decompression with and without fusion in spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis in relation to preoperative pain pattern: a register study of 1,624 patients.
Neurology

Neurology

Journal of Spine

Author(s): Sigmundsson FG, Jnsson B, Strmqvist B

Abstract Share this page

Abstract BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Patients with spinal stenosis with concomitant degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) and predominant back pain (PBP) have been shown to have inferior outcome after surgery. Studies comparing outcome according to preoperative pain predominance and treatment received are lacking. PURPOSE: The purpose was to study if adding spinal fusion to the decompression in DS affects outcome in patients with PBP (back pain [BP] Visual Analog Scale [VAS] more than or equal to leg pain [LP] VAS) compared with predominant leg pain (PLP) (BP VAS less than LP VAS). PATIENT SAMPLE: The Swedish Spine Register was used and included 1,624 patients operated for DS at the L4-L5 level. OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-reported measures were used, including a VAS for BP and LP, the EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D), and the physical and mental component summaries of the Short-Form 36 to estimate health-related quality of life and the Oswestry disability index (ODI) to estimate function. METHODS: Inclusion criterion was single-level DS operated on with either decompression only (D) or decompression and instrumented posterolateral fusion (DF). Based on preoperative LP and BP scores, the patients were assigned to one of the two groups: LP predominance or BP predominance. The patients completed the outcome protocol at 1- and 2-year follow-ups. Statistical analysis was performed using linear regression adjusting for multiple potential confounders. RESULTS: In the adjusted outcome at the 1-year follow-up, patients with PLP reported a 7.9-mm more improvement on the VAS for BP with fusion, compared with D (95\% confidence interval [CI], 0.7-15.2), p=.03. Despite more change in the fused group, the reported BP levels remained similar in the D versus decompressed and fused at the 1-year follow-up (28 vs. 24, p=.77). The patients with PBP benefited from adding fusion in terms of BP 7.1 (95\% CI, 0.3-13.9, p=.04), LP 8.8 (2-15.7, p=.01), the ODI 5.7 (1.6-9.9, p=.006), and the EQ-5D 0.09 (1.7-0.02, p=.02) at the 1-year follow-up as the DF group reported greater change in the outcome compared with the D group. At the 2-year follow-up, no significant differences were found between D and decompressed and fused in either the LP or the PBP groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with PBP operated with DF report better outcomes in terms of pain, function, and health-related quality of life than patients with D. Although these differences are significant on a group level, they may fail to reach minimal clinical significant difference. Patients with PLP report significantly more improvement in terms of BP with DF compared with D, but because of baseline differences in preoperative BP, these improvements may not be explained by the added fusion per se. At the 2-year follow-up, no significant differences were observed between the D and DF patients in either the PBP or PLP groups, but greater loss to follow-up in the DF groups could potentially bias these findings. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. This article was published in Spine J and referenced in Journal of Spine

Relevant Expert PPTs

Recommended Conferences

  • 18th Global Neurologists Annual Meeting on Neurology and Neurosurgery
    Nov 13-15, 2017, Athens, Greece
  • 2nd International Conference on Pediatric Neurology  
    August 31-September 01, 2017 Prague, Czech Republic
  • 12th Global Neurologists Annual Meeting on Neurology and Neurosurgery
    November 16-18, 2017 Lisbon, Portugal

Relevant Topics

Peer Reviewed Journals
 
Make the best use of Scientific Research and information from our 700 + peer reviewed, Open Access Journals
International Conferences 2017-18
 
Meet Inspiring Speakers and Experts at our 3000+ Global Annual Meetings

Contact Us

Agri, Food, Aqua and Veterinary Science Journals

Dr. Krish

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9040

Clinical and Biochemistry Journals

Datta A

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9037

Business & Management Journals

Ronald

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

Chemical Engineering and Chemistry Journals

Gabriel Shaw

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9040

Earth & Environmental Sciences

Katie Wilson

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

Engineering Journals

James Franklin

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

General Science and Health care Journals

Andrea Jason

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9043

Genetics and Molecular Biology Journals

Anna Melissa

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9006

Immunology & Microbiology Journals

David Gorantl

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9014

Informatics Journals

Stephanie Skinner

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9039

Material Sciences Journals

Rachle Green

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9039

Mathematics and Physics Journals

Jim Willison

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9042

Medical Journals

Nimmi Anna

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9038

Neuroscience & Psychology Journals

Nathan T

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9041

Pharmaceutical Sciences Journals

John Behannon

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9007

Social & Political Science Journals

Steve Harry

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9042

 
© 2008-2017 OMICS International - Open Access Publisher. Best viewed in Mozilla Firefox | Google Chrome | Above IE 7.0 version
adwords