A predictive model for outcome after conservative decompression surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis

This study was designed to develop predictive models for surgical outcome based on information available prior to lumbar stenosis surgery. Forty patients underwent decompressive laminarthrectomy. Preop and 1-year postop evaluation included Waddell’s nonorganic signs, CT scan, Waddell disability index, Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire, low back outcome score (LBOS), visual analog scale (VAS) for pain intensity, and trunk strength testing. Statistical comparisons of data used adjusted error rates within families of predictors. Mathematical models were developed to predict outcome success using stepwise logistic regression and decision-tree methodologies (chi-squared automatic interaction detection, or CHAID). Successful outcome was defined as improvement in at least three of four criteria: VAS, LBOS, and reductions in claudication and leg pain. Exact logistic regression analysis resulted in a three-predictor model. This model was more accurate in predicting unsuccessful outcome (negative predictive value 75.0%) than in successful outcome (positive predictive value 69.6%). A CHAID model correctly classified 90.1% of successful outcomes (positive predictive value 85.7%, negative predictive value 100%). The use of conservative surgical decompression for lumbar stenosis can be recommended, as it demonstrated a success rate similar to that of more invasive techniques. Given its physiologic and biomechanical advantages, it can be recommended as the surgical method of choice in this indication. Underlying subclinical vascular factors may be involved in the complaints of spinal stenosis patients. Those factors should be investigated more thoroughly, as they may account for some of the failures of surgical relief. The CHAID decision tree appears to be a novel and useful tool for predicting the results of spinal stenosis surgery

[1]  H. Verbiest A radicular syndrome from developmental narrowing of the lumbar vertebral canal. , 1954, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[2]  J A McCulloch,et al.  Nonorganic Physical Signs in Low-Back Pain , 1980, Spine.

[3]  J C Fairbank,et al.  The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. , 1980, Physiotherapy.

[4]  G. V. Kass An Exploratory Technique for Investigating Large Quantities of Categorical Data , 1980 .

[5]  P. Lin Internal decompression for multiple levels of lumbar spinal stenosis: a technical note. , 1982, Neurosurgery.

[6]  C. Main The Modified Somatic Perception Questionnaire (MSPQ). , 1983, Journal of psychosomatic research.

[7]  G. Waddell,et al.  Assessment of Severity in Low‐Back Disorders , 1984, Spine.

[8]  T. Ducker,et al.  Multilevel lumbar laminotomies: an alternative to laminectomy in the treatment of lumbar stenosis. , 1990, Neurosurgery.

[9]  M. Liang,et al.  The outcome of decompressive laminectomy for degenerative lumbar stenosis. , 1991, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[10]  Greenough Cg,et al.  Assessment of outcome in patients with low-back pain. , 1992 .

[11]  R. Fraser,et al.  Assessment of Outcome in Patients with Low‐Back Pain , 1992, Spine.

[12]  M. Szpalski,et al.  Reproducibility of trunk isoinertial dynamic performance in patients with low back pain. , 1992, Journal of spinal disorders.

[13]  R. Deyo,et al.  Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Attempted Meta‐Analysis of the Literature , 1992, Spine.

[14]  M. Szpalski,et al.  Objective functional assessment of the efficacy of tenoxicam in the treatment of acute low back pain. A double-blind placebo-controlled study. , 1994, British journal of rheumatology.

[15]  F. Postacchini Management of lumbar spinal stenosis. , 1996, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[16]  R A Deyo,et al.  An Assessment of Surgery for Spinal Stenosis: Time Trends, Geographic Variations, Complications, and Reoperations , 1996, Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.

[17]  D. Kiel,et al.  Disc Degeneration/Back Pain and Calcification of the Abdominal Aorta: A 25‐Year Follow‐Up Study in Framingham , 1997, Spine.

[18]  D. Kiel,et al.  New indices to classify location, severity and progression of calcific lesions in the abdominal aorta: a 25-year follow-up study. , 1997, Atherosclerosis.

[19]  O. Airaksinen,et al.  Surgical Outcome of 438 Patients Treated Surgically for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis , 1997, Spine.

[20]  R. Bray,et al.  Microscopic laminotomies for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. , 1998, Journal of spinal disorders.

[21]  E. Hadar,et al.  Long-term follow-up review of patients who underwent laminectomy for lumbar stenosis: a prospective study , 1998 .

[22]  N. Epstein Decompression in the surgical management of degenerative spondylolisthesis: advantages of a conservative approach in 290 patients. , 1998, Journal of spinal disorders.

[23]  B. Weiner,et al.  Spinous process osteotomies to facilitate lumbar decompressive surgery. , 1999, Spine.

[24]  E. Berg,et al.  Patient outcomes after minimally destabilizing lumbar stenosis decompression: the "Port-Hole" technique. , 2000, Spine.

[25]  R. Benz,et al.  Current techniques of decompression of the lumbar spine. , 2001, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[26]  T. Keller,et al.  Clinical and psychofunctional measures of conservative decompression surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis: a prospective cohort study , 2003, European Spine Journal.

[27]  T. Keller,et al.  Assessment of trunk function in single and multi-level spinal stenosis: a prospective clinical trial. , 2003, Clinical biomechanics.

[28]  T. Keller,et al.  A Prospective Study on CT Scan Outcomes After Conservative Decompression Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis , 2003, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

[29]  R. Fraser,et al.  Laminectomy combined with posterolateral stabilisation: a muscle-sparing approach to the lumbosacral spine , 1993, European Spine Journal.

[30]  L. Papavero,et al.  Precise and limited decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis , 2005, Acta Neurochirurgica.