Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research article

The factors of deterioration in long-term clinical course of lumbar spinal canal stenosis after successful conservative treatment

Authors: Masanori Tsubosaka, Shuichi Kaneyama, Tomonori Yano, Koichi Kasahara, Aritetsu Kanemura, Masato Takabatake, Hiroaki Hirata, Masatoshi Sumi

Published in: Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The treatment of lumbar spinal canal stenosis (LSS) depends on symptom severity. In the absence of severe symptoms such as severe motor disturbances or bowel and/or urinary dysfunction, conservative treatment is generally the first choice for the treatment of LSS. However, we experienced cases of worsening symptoms even after successful conservative treatment. The purpose of this study is to investigate the long-term clinical course of LSS following successful conservative treatment and analyze the prognostic factors associated with symptom deterioration.

Methods

The study included 60 LSS patients (34 females and 26 males) whose symptoms were relieved by conservative treatment between April 2007 and March 2010 and who were followed up for 5 years or longer. The mean age at admission was 64.8 ± 8.5 years (range, 40–85 years old), and the mean follow-up period was 7.3 years (range, 5.8–9.5 years). We defined “deterioration” of symptoms as the shortening of intermittent claudication more than 50 m compared with those at discharge or the occurrence or progression of lower limb paralysis, and “poor outcome” as the deterioration within 5 years after discharge. The long-term outcome of conservative treatment for LSS was analyzed by Kaplan-Meier analysis. Furthermore, logistic regression analysis was performed to reveal the risk factors of poor outcome for clinical classification, severe intermittent claudication (≤ 100 m), lower limb muscle weakness, vertebral body slip (≥ 3 mm), scoliosis (Cobb angle ≥ 10°), block on myelography, and redundant nerve roots of the cauda equina.

Results

Thirty-four (56.7%) patients preserved their condition at discharge during the follow-up, whereas 26 patients (43.3%) showed deterioration. Sixteen patients had a decreased intermittent claudication distance, and 10 patients had newly developed or progressive paralysis. The probability of preservation was maintained at 68.3% at 5 years after discharge. Logistic regression analysis demonstrated that only severe intermittent claudication (≤ 100 m) was a significant risk factor of a poor outcome (p = 0.005, odds ratio = 6.665).

Conclusions

The patients with severe intermittent claudication should be carefully followed up because those are the significant deterioration candidates despite the success in conservative treatment.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Arnoldi CC, Brodsky AE, Cauchoix J, Crock HV, Dommisse GF, Edgar MA, Gargano FP, Jacobson RE, Kirkaldy-Willis WH, Kurihara A, Langenskiold A, Macnab I, McIvor GW, Newman PH, Paine KW, Russin LA, Sheldon J, Tile M, Urist MR, Wilson WE, Wiltse LL. Lumbar spinal stenosis and nerve root entrapment syndromes. Definition and classification. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1976;(115):4–5. Arnoldi CC, Brodsky AE, Cauchoix J, Crock HV, Dommisse GF, Edgar MA, Gargano FP, Jacobson RE, Kirkaldy-Willis WH, Kurihara A, Langenskiold A, Macnab I, McIvor GW, Newman PH, Paine KW, Russin LA, Sheldon J, Tile M, Urist MR, Wilson WE, Wiltse LL. Lumbar spinal stenosis and nerve root entrapment syndromes. Definition and classification. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1976;(115):4–5.
2.
go back to reference Getty CJ. Lumbar spinal stenosis: the clinical spectrum and the results of operation. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1980;62-b(4):481–5.CrossRef Getty CJ. Lumbar spinal stenosis: the clinical spectrum and the results of operation. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1980;62-b(4):481–5.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Grabias S. Current concepts review. The treatment of spinal stenosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1980;62(2):308–13.CrossRef Grabias S. Current concepts review. The treatment of spinal stenosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1980;62(2):308–13.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Hutter CG. Spinal stenosis and posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1985;(193):103–14. Hutter CG. Spinal stenosis and posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1985;(193):103–14.
5.
go back to reference Katz JN, Lipson SJ, Larson MG, McInnes JM, Fossel AH, Liang MH. The outcome of decompressive laminectomy for degenerative lumbar stenosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1991;73(6):809–16.CrossRef Katz JN, Lipson SJ, Larson MG, McInnes JM, Fossel AH, Liang MH. The outcome of decompressive laminectomy for degenerative lumbar stenosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1991;73(6):809–16.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Wiltse LL, Kirkaldy-Willis WH, McIvor GW. The treatment of spinal stenosis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1976;(115):83–91. Wiltse LL, Kirkaldy-Willis WH, McIvor GW. The treatment of spinal stenosis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1976;(115):83–91.
7.
go back to reference Johnsson KE, Rosen I, Uden A. The natural course of lumbar spinal stenosis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1992;279:82–6. Johnsson KE, Rosen I, Uden A. The natural course of lumbar spinal stenosis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1992;279:82–6.
8.
go back to reference Miyamoto H, Sumi M, Uno K, Tadokoro K, Mizuno K. Clinical outcome of nonoperative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis, and predictive factors relating to prognosis, in a 5-year minimum follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2008;21(8):563–8.CrossRef Miyamoto H, Sumi M, Uno K, Tadokoro K, Mizuno K. Clinical outcome of nonoperative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis, and predictive factors relating to prognosis, in a 5-year minimum follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2008;21(8):563–8.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Simotas AC, Dorey FJ, Hansraj KK, Cammisa F Jr. Nonoperative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis. Clinical and outcome results and a 3-year survivorship analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25(2):197–203 discussions −4.CrossRef Simotas AC, Dorey FJ, Hansraj KK, Cammisa F Jr. Nonoperative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis. Clinical and outcome results and a 3-year survivorship analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25(2):197–203 discussions −4.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Swezey RL. Outcomes for lumbar stenosis. J Clin Rheumatol. 1996;2(3):129–34.CrossRef Swezey RL. Outcomes for lumbar stenosis. J Clin Rheumatol. 1996;2(3):129–34.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Kirkaldy-Willis WH, Paine KW, Cauchoix J, McIvor G. Lumbar spinal stenosis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1974;99:30–50.CrossRef Kirkaldy-Willis WH, Paine KW, Cauchoix J, McIvor G. Lumbar spinal stenosis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1974;99:30–50.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Kopp JR, Alexander AH, Turocy RH, Levrini MG, Lichtman DM. The use of lumbar extension in the evaluation and treatment of patients with acute herniated nucleus pulposus. A preliminary report. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1986;(202):211–8. Kopp JR, Alexander AH, Turocy RH, Levrini MG, Lichtman DM. The use of lumbar extension in the evaluation and treatment of patients with acute herniated nucleus pulposus. A preliminary report. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1986;(202):211–8.
13.
go back to reference Porter RW, Hibbert C, Wellman P. Backache and the lumbar spinal canal. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1980;5(2):99–105.CrossRef Porter RW, Hibbert C, Wellman P. Backache and the lumbar spinal canal. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1980;5(2):99–105.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Amundsen T, Weber H, Nordal HJ, Magnaes B, Abdelnoor M, Lilleas F. Lumbar spinal stenosis: conservative or surgical management?: a prospective 10-year study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25(11):1424–35 discussion 35-6.CrossRef Amundsen T, Weber H, Nordal HJ, Magnaes B, Abdelnoor M, Lilleas F. Lumbar spinal stenosis: conservative or surgical management?: a prospective 10-year study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25(11):1424–35 discussion 35-6.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Herno A, Airaksinen O, Saari T, Sihvonen T. Surgical results of lumbar spinal stenosis. A comparison of patients with or without previous back surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1995;20(8):964–9.CrossRef Herno A, Airaksinen O, Saari T, Sihvonen T. Surgical results of lumbar spinal stenosis. A comparison of patients with or without previous back surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1995;20(8):964–9.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Atlas SJ, Keller RB, Wu YA, Deyo RA, Singer DE. Long-term outcomes of surgical and nonsurgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis: 8 to 10 year results from the Maine Lumbar Spine Study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005;30(8):936–43.CrossRef Atlas SJ, Keller RB, Wu YA, Deyo RA, Singer DE. Long-term outcomes of surgical and nonsurgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis: 8 to 10 year results from the Maine Lumbar Spine Study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005;30(8):936–43.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Malmivaara A, Slatis P, Heliovaara M, Sainio P, Kinnunen H, Kankare J, Dalin-Hirvonen N, Seitsalo S, Herno A, Kortekangas P, Niinimaki T, Ronty H, Tallroth K, Turunen V, Knekt P, Harkanen T, Hurri H. Surgical or nonoperative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis? A randomized controlled trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32(1):1–8.CrossRef Malmivaara A, Slatis P, Heliovaara M, Sainio P, Kinnunen H, Kankare J, Dalin-Hirvonen N, Seitsalo S, Herno A, Kortekangas P, Niinimaki T, Ronty H, Tallroth K, Turunen V, Knekt P, Harkanen T, Hurri H. Surgical or nonoperative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis? A randomized controlled trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32(1):1–8.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
The factors of deterioration in long-term clinical course of lumbar spinal canal stenosis after successful conservative treatment
Authors
Masanori Tsubosaka
Shuichi Kaneyama
Tomonori Yano
Koichi Kasahara
Aritetsu Kanemura
Masato Takabatake
Hiroaki Hirata
Masatoshi Sumi
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1749-799X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-018-0947-2

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research 1/2018 Go to the issue