Patient are satisfied one year after decompression surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis.

INTRODUCTION Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a clinical syndrome of buttock or lower extremity pain, which may occur with or without back pain. The syndrome is associated with diminished space available for the neural and vascular elements in the lumbar spine. LSS is typically seen in elderly patients, its prevalence is estimated to be 47% in people over the age 60 years. LSS is the most common reason for spine surgery in Denmark and the number of surgical procedures is likely to increase due to demographic changes. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the patient-reported outcomes and perioperative complications of spinal decompression surgery in LSS patients. METHODS This study is a retrospective study based on prospectively collected data from 3,420 consecutive patients with clinical and magnetic resonance imaging confirmed LSS. Patients were treated with posterior decompression surgery without fusion. Data were obtained from the DaneSpine register and collected pre- and post-operatively after a minimum interval of one year. The outcome measures were Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), European Quality of Life 5D (EQ-5D), visual analogue score (VAS), 36-Short Form Mental Component Summary (MCS), 36-Short Form Physical Component Summary (PCS) and self-reported walking distance. RESULTS Of 3,420 cases enrolled, 2,591 (75%) had complete data after a minimum interval of one year. The mean ODI scores were 39.8 and improved to 24. The mean EQ-5D score was 0.40 and improved to 0.66. The mean VAS-leg improved from 54 to 36. The mean VAS-back improved from 46 to 34. The mean MCS improved from 28 to 36, and, finally, the mean PCS improved from 40 to 45. All p-values were 0.0000. CONCLUSION Surgery improved all the patient-reported outcome measures and 82% of patients were satisfied. FUNDING none. TRIAL REGISTRATION This study was registered with the Danish Data Protection Agency.

[1]  T. Goldschlager,et al.  Surgical versus Nonsurgical Therapy for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis * , 2018, 50 Landmark Papers.

[2]  T. Solberg,et al.  Does surgical technique influence clinical outcome after lumbar spinal stenosis decompression? A comparative effectiveness study from the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery , 2017, European Spine Journal.

[3]  E. Carragee,et al.  Surgical versus non-surgical treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis. , 2016, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[4]  J. Lurie,et al.  Management of lumbar spinal stenosis , 2016, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[5]  R. Gunzburg,et al.  Effectiveness of posterior decompression techniques compared with conventional laminectomy for lumbar stenosis , 2015, European Spine Journal.

[6]  J. Weinstein,et al.  Long-term Outcomes of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Eight-Year Results of the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) , 2015, Spine.

[7]  P. Willems.  Surgery versus nonsurgical treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. A randomized trial , 2015 .

[8]  C. Röder,et al.  Patient outcomes after laminotomy, hemilaminectomy, laminectomy and laminectomy with instrumented fusion for spinal canal stenosis: a propensity score-based study from the Spine Tango registry , 2015, European Spine Journal.

[9]  R. Mobbs,et al.  Outcomes after decompressive laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis: comparison between minimally invasive unilateral laminectomy for bilateral decompression and open laminectomy: clinical article. , 2014, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[10]  A. Furlan,et al.  Nonoperative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication. , 2013, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[11]  D. Kreiner,et al.  An evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (update). , 2013, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[12]  M. Grotle,et al.  Comparison of the SF6D, the EQ5D, and the oswestry disability index in patients with chronic low back pain and degenerative disc disease , 2013, BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders.

[13]  K. Tallroth,et al.  Long-term results of surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis: a randomised controlled trial , 2011, European Spine Journal.

[14]  Anna Tosteson,et al.  Surgical Versus Nonoperative Treatment for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Four-Year Results of the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial , 2010, Spine.

[15]  A. Guermazi,et al.  Spinal stenosis prevalence and association with symptoms: the Framingham Study. , 2009, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[16]  S. Berven,et al.  Minimum clinically important difference in lumbar spine surgery patients: a choice of methods using the Oswestry Disability Index, Medical Outcomes Study questionnaire Short Form 36, and pain scales. , 2008, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[17]  J. Hartvigsen,et al.  Danish version of the Oswestry Disability Index for patients with low back pain. Part 1: Cross-cultural adaptation, reliability and validity in two different populations , 2006, European Spine Journal.

[18]  James D. Schwender,et al.  MOS short form 36 and Oswestry Disability Index outcomes in lumbar fusion: a multicenter experience. , 2006, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[19]  J. Hartvigsen,et al.  Danish version of the Oswestry disability index for patients with low back pain. Part 2: Sensitivity, specificity and clinically significant improvement in two low back pain populations , 2006, European Spine Journal.

[20]  M. Abdelnoor,et al.  Lumbar spinal stenosis: conservative or surgical management?: A prospective 10-year study. , 2000, Spine.