No abstract

Health-related quality of life following decompression compared to decompression and fusion for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: a Canadian multicentre study Background: Decompression alone (D) is a well-accepted treatment for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) causing neurogenic claudication; however, D is controversial in patients with LSS who have degenerative spondylolisthesis (DLS). Our goal was to compare the outcome of anatomy-preserving D with decompression and fusion (DF) for patients with grade I DLS. We compared patients with DLS who had elective primary 1-2 level spinal D at 1 centre with a cohort who had 1-2 level spinal DF at 5 other centres. Methods:Patients followed for at least 2 years were included. Primary analysis included comparison of change in SF-36 physical component summary (PCS) scores and the proportion of patients achieving minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and substantial clinical benefit (SCB). Results:There was no significant difference in baseline SF-36 scores between the groups. The average change in PCS score was 10.4 versus 11.4 (p = 0.61) for the D and DF groups, respectively. Sixty-seven percent of the D group and 71% of the DF group attained MCID, while 64% of both D and DF groups attained SCB. There was no significant difference between D and DF for change in PCS score (p = 0.74) or likelihood of reaching MCID (p = 0.81) or SCB (p = 0.85) after adjusting for other variables. Conclusion:In select patients with DLS, the outcome of D is comparable to DF at a minimum of 2 years.Contexte : La décompression seule est un traitement bien accepté pour la sténose lombaire (SL) causant une claudication neurogène. Son utilisation ne fait cependant pas l'unanimité chez les patients atteints de SL qui souffrent d'un spondylolisthésis dégénératif (SLD). Notre objectif était de comparer l'issue d'une décompression avec préservation anatomique à celle d'une décompression-arthrodèse (DA) chez des patients atteints de SLD de grade 1. Nous avons comparé les patients atteints de SLD ayant subi une décompression élective primaire de niveau 1-2 dans un centre à une cohorte ayant subi une DA de niveau 1-2 effectuée dans 5 autres centres.Méthodes : Nous avons inclus les patients qui ont été suivis pendant au moins 2 ans. L'analyse primaire comportait une comparaison des changements aux scores sommaires pour la composante physique (CP) du questionnaire SF-36 et la proportion de patients ayant obtenu une différence minimale cliniquement importante (DMCI) et en ayant tiré un bienfait clinique substantiel (BCS). Résultats :Il n'y avait pas de différence significative entre les scores SF-36 des 2 groupes au départ. Le changement moyen du score pour la CP a été de 10,4 c. 11,4 (p = 0,61) dans les groupes soumis à la décompression et à la DA, respectivement. Soixante-sept pour cent des patients du groupe soumis à la décompression et 71 % du groupe soumis à la DA ont obtenu une DMCI, tandis que 64 % des 2 groupes ont obtenu un BCS. On n'a noté aucune différence significative entr...

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Patient expectations have been demonstrated to influence recovery following spine surgery. Addressing patient expectations specifically in regards to pain and postsurgical healing is an important factor in improving recovery patterns. Presurgical education can potentially help manage patient expectations. PURPOSE: The primary objective was to determine if participation in a single preoperative multidisciplinary educational session would result in reduced patient dissatisfaction with surgical expectations. A secondary objective was to determine if participation resulted in improvements in postsurgical pain, disability, and reductions in emergency room visits following surgery. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study utilizing data from the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network (CSORN) registry and hospital electronic medical records. PATIENT SAMPLE: Participants were patients receiving elective spinal fusion for 2−5 levels (N=206). Cohort 1 included patients who participated in preoperative multidisciplinary education (n=103). Cohort 2 included patients who opted out of the educational session (n=103). OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcomes measured included the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), NRS scales for back and leg pain (NRS-B/NRS-L), CSORN questions pertaining to patient satisfaction with surgery and whether or not the surgery met expectations. Electronic chart review quantified emergency room visits following surgery. METHODS: Spinal fusion patients are encouraged to attend a one time, two-hour education session 3−6 weeks prior to their surgery. The education session includes interactive discussions with nursing, physiotherapy, and occupational therapy staff concentrating on what patients should expect, how to best prepare for surgery and proper care postsurgery. A one-way ANOVA was conducted for continuous variables of interest (age, number of levels operated on, ASA score, and number of visits to the emergency room following surgery). Chi-squared analysis was conducted for categorical variables of interest (pathology, gender, patient satisfaction, and patient expectations). A two (Cohort; education: no education) £ 2 (Time; baseline: follow-up) repeated measure ANOVA was conducted for NRS-B, NRS-L, and ODI. Significance was set at p<.05.

No abstract

No abstract

We investigated for potential predictors of outcome following degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis surgery. In this longitudinal study of 529 patients, approximately one in three patients experienced a poor clinical outcome. Demographic, health, and clinical factors were more predictive of clinical outcome than surgery-related factors.

These results show that preoperative psychosocial variables are significantly associated with poorer postoperative health-related QoL outcomes following spinal surgeries, supporting a biopsychosocial pre-op care map.

ObjectiveIdentify patient subgroups defined by trajectories of pain and disability following surgery for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis, and investigate the construct validity of the subgroups by evaluating for meaningful differences in clinical outcomes.MethodsWe recruited patients with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis from 13 surgical spine centers who were deemed to be surgical candidates. Study outcomes (leg and back pain numeric rating scales, modified Oswestry disability index) were measured before surgery, and after 3, 12, and 24 months. Group-based trajectory models were developed to identify trajectory subgroups for leg pain, back pain, and pain-related disability. We examined for differences in the proportion of patients achieving minimum clinically important change in pain and disability (30%) and clinical success (50% reduction in disability or Oswestry score ≤22) 12 months from surgery.ResultsData from 548 patients (mean[SD] age = 66.7[9.1] years; 46% female) were included. The models estimated 3 unique trajectories for leg pain (excellent outcome = 14.4%, good outcome = 49.5%, poor outcome = 36.1%), back pain (excellent outcome = 13.1%, good outcome = 45.0%, poor outcome = 41.9%), and disability (excellent outcome = 30.8%, fair outcome = 40.1%, poor outcome = 29.1%). The construct validity of the trajectory subgroups was confirmed by between-trajectory group differences in the proportion of patients meeting thresholds for minimum clinically important change and clinical success after 12 postoperative months (p < .001).ConclusionSubgroups of patients with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis can be identified by their trajectories of pain and disability following surgery. Although most patients experienced important reductions in pain and disability, 29% to 42% of patients were classified as members of an outcome trajectory subgroup that experienced little to no benefit from surgery. These findings may inform appropriate expectation setting for patients and clinicians and highlight the need for better methods of treatment selection for patients with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.