Surgical versus Nonsurgical Therapy for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Department of Orthopedics, Dartmouth Medical School, Hanover, NH 03756, USA.
New England Journal of Medicine (Impact Factor: 55.87). 03/2008; 358(8):794-810. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa0707136
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Surgery for spinal stenosis is widely performed, but its effectiveness as compared with nonsurgical treatment has not been shown in controlled trials.
Surgical candidates with a history of at least 12 weeks of symptoms and spinal stenosis without spondylolisthesis (as confirmed on imaging) were enrolled in either a randomized cohort or an observational cohort at 13 U.S. spine clinics. Treatment was decompressive surgery or usual nonsurgical care. The primary outcomes were measures of bodily pain and physical function on the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short-Form General Health Survey (SF-36) and the modified Oswestry Disability Index at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 and 2 years.
A total of 289 patients were enrolled in the randomized cohort, and 365 patients were enrolled in the observational cohort. At 2 years, 67% of patients who were randomly assigned to surgery had undergone surgery, whereas 43% of those who were randomly assigned to receive nonsurgical care had also undergone surgery. Despite the high level of nonadherence, the intention-to-treat analysis of the randomized cohort showed a significant treatment effect favoring surgery on the SF-36 scale for bodily pain, with a mean difference in change from baseline of 7.8 (95% confidence interval, 1.5 to 14.1); however, there was no significant difference in scores on physical function or on the Oswestry Disability Index. The as-treated analysis, which combined both cohorts and was adjusted for potential confounders, showed a significant advantage for surgery by 3 months for all primary outcomes; these changes remained significant at 2 years.
In the combined as-treated analysis, patients who underwent surgery showed significantly more improvement in all primary outcomes than did patients who were treated nonsurgically. ( number, NCT00000411 [].).

Download full-text


Available from: Scott Boden, Sep 27, 2015
26 Reads
  • Source
    • "Therefore, the clinicians should not wait too long to observe all the three features of the syndrome. In other patients with signs and symptoms of LSS, a three-month trial of aggressive conservative treatment is usually recommended, but after this time period, surgery has been found to be associated with significant improvement in all primary outcomes [14]. In ordinary LSS, radicular complaints (other than CES) are usually relative surgical indications, even though most of the authors recommend early neural decompression when the radicular pain is present even at rest [15,16]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is mostly caused by osteoarthritis (spondylosis). Clinically, the symptoms of patients with LSS can be categorized into two groups; regional (low back pain, stiffness, and so on) or radicular (spinal stenosis mainly presenting as neurogenic claudication). Both of these symptoms usually improve with appropriate conservative treatment, but in refractory cases, surgical intervention is occasionally indicated. In the patients who primarily complain of radiculopathy with an underlying biomechanically stable spine, a decompression surgery alone using a less invasive technique may be sufficient. Preoperatively, with the presence of indicators such as failed back surgery syndrome (revision surgery), degenerative instability, considerable essential deformity, symptomatic spondylolysis, refractory degenerative disc disease, and adjacent segment disease, lumbar fusion is probably recommended. Intraoperatively, in cases with extensive decompression associated with a wide disc space or insufficient bone stock, fusion is preferred. Instrumentation improves the fusion rate, but it is not necessarily associated with improved recovery rate and better functional outcome.
    Asian spine journal 08/2014; 8(4):521-30. DOI:10.4184/asj.2014.8.4.521
  • Source
    • "This leads to neurogenic, claudiogenic pain and sometimes low back pain (LBP). The benefits of surgery for this condition is well documented, both in non-randomized and randomized studies [2,3,4,5]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Retrospective study. The main purpose of this study was to investigate the union-rate of the spinous process after performing a spinous process osteotomy and whether union affects the clinical results after surgery. In the present study, spinous process osteotomy was used to facilitate access to the spinal canal when performing a decompressive procedure for lumbar spinal stenosis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the union rate of the spinous process and its effect on the clinical results of the procedure. All patients were included in the study that underwent a decompressive procedure through spinous process osteotomy be between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2007. Operation protocols were reviewed. A computed tomography (CT) scan was performed to evaluate the union of the osteotomies of the spinous process. According to the CT-scans, patients were divided into three groups: "complete-union," "partial-union," and "non-union." Patients reported their clinical results through a self-administered questionnaire. The mean period of follow up was 21.6 months (range, 16-28 months). A total of 44% of the performed osteotomies were considered as united. Ten patients (18%) were classified as "complete-union," 30 patients (55%) as "partial-union," and 15 patients (27%) as "non-union." The "complete-union" group showed better clinical results and scored significantly better in the Oswestry Disability Index and EQ-5D. However, no statistical difference was found in the pain-scores. There were no differences between the "partial-union" group and the "no-union" group. We found a radiologic union for 60 out of 135 (44%) spinous process osteotomies.
    Asian spine journal 04/2014; 8(2):138-44. DOI:10.4184/asj.2014.8.2.138
  • Source
    • "Spinal decompression relieves the local stenotic pathology and has been shown to improve the symptoms of back and leg pain after surgery [6,7]. There are several studies showing superior results after surgery compared to conservative treatment [7,8,9,10,11] for symptomatic LSS. In the absence of progressive neurological deficit or cauda equina syndrome, surgical options are considered electively when conservative measures fail to relieve the patient's symptoms [12]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Prospective cohort study. To assess whether additional implantation of Coflex following spinal decompression provided better clinical outcomes compared to decompression alone for symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) and to determine whether improvement in clinical outcomes correlated with changes in the radiological indices studied. Literature on benefits of additional Coflex implantation compared to decompression alone for symptomatic LSS is limited. Patients with symptomatic LSS who met the study criteria were offered spinal decompression with Coflex implantation. Those patients who accepted Coflex implantation were placed in the Coflex group (n=22); while those opting for decompression alone, were placed in the comparison group (n=24). Clinical outcomes were assessed preoperatively, six-months, one-year and two-years postoperatively, using the Oswestry disability index, 100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS)-back pain and VAS-leg pain, and short form-36 (SF-36). Radiological indices (disc height, foraminal height and sagittal angle) were assessed preoperatively, six months, one year, and two years postoperatively. Both groups showed statistically significant (p<0.001) improvement in all the clinical outcome indicators at all points in time as compared to the preoperative status. However, improvement in the Coflex group was significantly greater (p<0.001) than the comparison group. Changes in the radiological indices did not correlate significantly with the improvement in clinical outcome indicators. Additional Coflex implantation after spinal decompression in symptomatic LSS offers better clinical outcomes than decompression alone in the short-term. Changes in radiological indices do not correlate with the improvements in clinical outcomes after surgery for symptomatic LSS.
    Asian spine journal 04/2014; 8(2):161-9. DOI:10.4184/asj.2014.8.2.161
Show more