Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

LIVE: Thursday 2nd May 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

Quality sleep is essential for health. But what happens to our brains when sleep patterns are disturbed? Join our experts to explore the interplay between sleep disruption and neurological diseases, and the questions that you need to be asking your patients to help you prevent the harmful effects of sleep deprivation.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Spine Journal
Published in: European Spine Journal 2/2017

01-02-2017 | Original Article

The outcome of decompression alone for lumbar spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis

Authors: Sarfraz Ahmad, Abdulkader Hamad, Amit Bhalla, Sarah Turner, Birender Balain, David Jaffray

Published in: European Spine Journal | Issue 2/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

Lumbar spinal stenosis in the presence of degenerative spondylolisthesis is generally treated by means of surgery. The role of lumbar decompression without fusion is not clear. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess whether patients who undergo decompression alone have a favourable outcome without the need for a subsequent fusion.

Methods

This is a prospective cohort study with single blinding of 83 consecutive patients with lumbar stenosis and degenerative spondylolisthesis treated by decompression, without fusion, using a spinous process osteotomy. Blinded observers collected pre- and post-operative Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), EuroQol Five Dimensions (EQ-5D), and visual analogue scale (VAS) for back and leg pain scores prospectively. Failures for this study were those patients who required a subsequent lumbar fusion procedure at the decompressed levels. Statistical analysis was performed using paired t test and Mann–Whitney test.

Results

There were 36 males and 47 females with a mean age of 66 years (range 35–82). The mean follow-up was 36 months (range 19–48 months). The mean pre-operative ODI, EQ-5D, and VAS scores were 52 [standard deviation (SD) 18], 0.25 (SD 0.30), and 61 (SD 22), respectively. All mean scores improved post-operatively to 38 (SD 23), 0.54 (SD 0.34) and 36 (SD 27), respectively. There was a statistically significant improvement in all scores (p ≤ 0.0001). Nine patients (11 %) required a subsequent fusion procedure and five patients (6 %) required revision decompression surgery alone.

Conclusion

Our study’s results show that a lumbar decompression procedure without arthrodesis in a consecutive cohort of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis had a significant post-operative improvement in ODI, EQ-5D, and VAS. The rate of post-operative instability and subsequent fusion is not high. Only one in 10 patients in this group ended up needing a subsequent fusion at a mean follow-up of 36 months, indicating that fusion is not always necessary in these patients.
Literature
1.
Weinstein JN, Lurie JD, Tosteson TD et al (2009) Surgical versus non-operative treatment for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis: four-year results of the spine patient outcomes research trial (SPORT) randomized and observational cohorts. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91:1295–1304CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
2.
Weinstein JN, Lurie JD, Tosteson TD, Hanscom B, Tosteson AN, Blood EA, Birkmeyer NJ, Hilibrand AS, Herkowitz H, Cammisa FP, Albert TJ, Emery SE, Lenke LG, Abdu WA, Longley M, Errico TJ, Hu SS (2007) Surgical versus nonsurgical treatment for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. N Engl J Med 356:2257–2270CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
3.
Herkowitz HN, Kurz LT (1991) Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis. A prospective study comparing decompression with decompression and intertransverse process arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 73:802–808CrossRefPubMed
4.
Mardjetko SM, Connolly PJ, Shott S (1994) Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: a metaanalysis of literature 1970–1993. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 19(Suppl):2256–2265CrossRef
5.
Malmivaara A, Slatis P, Heliovaara M, Sainio P, Kinnunen H, Kankare J, Dalin Hirvonen N, Seitsalo S, Herno A, Kortekangas P, Niinim¨aki T, R¨onty H, Tallroth K, Turunen V, Knekt P, H¨ark¨anen T, Hurri H, Finnish Lumbar Spinal Research Group (2007) Surgical or nonoperative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis? A randomized controlled trial. Spine 32:1–8 (PubMed: 17202885) CrossRefPubMed
6.
Sato et al (2015) Reoperation rate and risk factors of elective spinal surgery for degenerative spondylolisthesis: minimum 5-year follow-up. Spine J 15:1536–1544CrossRefPubMed
7.
Blumenthal et al (2013) Radiographic predictors of delayed instability following decompression without fusion for degenerative Grade I lumbar spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg Spine 18:340–346CrossRefPubMed
8.
9.
Försth P, Michaëlsson K, Sandén B (2013) Does fusion improve the outcome after decompressive surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis? A two-year follow-up study involving 5390 patients. Bone Joint J 95-B:960–965CrossRefPubMed
10.
Sigmundsson FG, Jönsson B, Strömqvist B (2015) 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. Spine J 15(4):638–646. doi:10.​1016/​j.​spinee.​2014.​11.​020 CrossRefPubMed
11.
Katz JN, Lipson SJ, Lew RA et al (1997) Lumbar laminectomy alone or with instrumented or noninstrumented arthrodesis in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: patient selection, costs, and surgical outcomes. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 22:1123–1131CrossRef
12.
Rompe JD, Eysel P, Zöllner J, Nafe B, Heine J (1999) Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: long-term results after undercutting decompression compared with decompressive laminectomy alone or with instrumented fusion. Neurosurg Rev 22:102–106CrossRefPubMed
13.
Herron LD, Trippi AC (1989) L4-5 degenerative spondylolisthesis. The results of treatment by decompressive laminectomy without fusion. Spine 14:534–538CrossRefPubMed
14.
Pearson AM, Lurie JD, Blood EA, Frymoyer JW, Braeutigam H, An H, Girardi FP, Weinstein JN (2008) Spine patient outcomes research trial: radiographic predictors of clinical outcomes after operative or nonoperative treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis. Spine 33:2759–2766CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
Fox MW, Onofrio BM, Hanssen AD (1996) Clinical outcomes and radiological instability following decompressive lumbar laminectomy for degenerative spinal stenosis: a comparison of patients undergoing concomitant arthrodesis versus decompression alone. J Neurosurg 85:793–802CrossRefPubMed
16.
Turner JA, Ersek M, Herron L, Deyo R (1992) Surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis: attempted meta-analysis of the literature. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 17:1–8CrossRef
17.
Pfirrmann CW, Metzdorf A, Zanetti M, Hodler J, Boos N (2001) Magnetic resonance grade of lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration. Spine 26:1873–1878CrossRefPubMed
18.
Davidson M, Keating JL (2002) A comparison of five low back disability questionnaires: reliability and responsiveness. Phys Ther 82(1):8–24PubMed
19.
20.
Johnsen LG, Hellum C, Nygaard ØP, Storheim K, Brox JI, Rossvoll I, Leivseth G, Grotle M (2013) Comparison of the SF6D, the EQ5D, and the oswestry disability index in patients with chronic low back pain and degenerative disc disease. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 14(148):1–9
21.
22.
Weinstein JN, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD et al (2010) Surgical versus nonoperative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis four-year results of the spine patient outcomes research trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35:1329–1338CrossRef
23.
24.
Bridwell KH, Sedgewick TA, O’Brien MF et al (1993) The role of fusion and instrumentation in the treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis. J Spinal Disord 6:461–472CrossRefPubMed
25.
Pearson A, Blood E, Lurie J et al (2010) Degenerative spond ylolisthesis versus spinal stenosis: does a slip matter? Comparison of baseline characteristics and outcomes (SPORT). Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35:298–305CrossRef
26.
Deyo RA, Mirza SK, Martin BI et al (2010) Trends, major medical complications, and charges associated with surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis in older adults. JAMA 303:1259–1265CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
27.
Park P, Garton HJ, Gala VC, Hoff JT, McGillicuddy JE (2004) Adjacent segment disease after lumbar or lumbosacral fusion: review of the literature. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 29:1938–1944CrossRef
28.
Chow DH, Luk KD, Evans JH et al (1996) Effects of short anterior lumbar interbody fusion on biomechanics of neighboring unfused segments. Spine 21:549–555CrossRefPubMed
29.
Nagata H, Schendel MJ, Transfeldt EE et al (1993) The effects of immobilization of long segments of the spine on the adjacent and distal facet force and lumbosacral motion. Spine 18:2471–2479CrossRefPubMed
30.
Lehmann TR, Spratt KF, Tozzi JE et al (1987) Long-term follow-up of lower lumbar fusion patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 12:97–104CrossRef
31.
Lee SE, Jahng TA, Kim HJ (2014) Decompression and nonfusion dynamic stabilization for spinal stenosis with degenerative lumbar scoliosis: Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 21(4):585–594 (Epub 2014 Aug 1) CrossRefPubMed
32.
Anekstein Y, Floman Y, Smorgick Y, Rand N, Millgram M, Mirovsky Y (2015) Seven years follow-up for total lumbar facet joint replacement (TOPS) in the management of lumbar spinal stenosis and degenerative spondylolisthesis. Eur Spine J 24(10):2306–2314 (Epub 2015 Mar 8) CrossRefPubMed
33.
Mannion AF, Pittet V, Steiger F, Vader JP, Becker HJ, Porchet F (2014) Development of appropriateness criteria for the surgical treatment of symptomatic lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis (LDS). Eur Spine J 23(9):1903–1917 (Epub 2014 Apr 24) CrossRefPubMed
34.
Smorgick et al (2013) Single-versus multilevel fusion for single-level degenerative spondylolisthesis and multilevel lumbar stenosis: four-year results of the spine patient outcomes research trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38:797–805CrossRef
35.
36.
Metadata
Title
The outcome of decompression alone for lumbar spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis
Authors
Sarfraz Ahmad
Abdulkader Hamad
Amit Bhalla
Sarah Turner
Birender Balain
David Jaffray
Publication date
01-02-2017
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Spine Journal / Issue 2/2017
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4637-7

Other articles of this Issue 2/2017

European Spine Journal 2/2017 Go to the issue

Original Article

Determinants of patient satisfaction after surgery for central spinal stenosis without concomitant spondylolisthesis: a register study of 5100 patients

Review Article

The clinical course of pain and disability following surgery for spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies

Letter to the Editor

Letter to the Editor concerning “Reliability and reproducibility analysis of the AOSpine thoracolumbar spine injury classification system by Chinese spinal surgeons” by J. Cheng et al. (Eur Spine J; 2016: doi:10.1007/s00586-016-4842-4)

Original Article

Unilateral tubular approach for bilateral laminotomy: effect on ipsilateral and contralateral buttock and leg pain

Original Article

Does surgical technique influence clinical outcome after lumbar spinal stenosis decompression? A comparative effectiveness study from the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery

Original Article

Degenerative lumbar spinal canal stenosis: intra- and inter-reader agreement for magnetic resonance imaging parameters