Dataset Information

Comparative effectiveness and prognostic factors for outcome of surgical and non-surgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis in an elderly population: protocol for an observational study.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:Lumbar spinal stenosis is a common cause of low back and leg pain in the elderly and affects both physical activity and quality of life. First-line treatments are non-surgical options but if unsuccessful, surgery is advocated. The literature is not clear as to the outcome of surgery compared with non-surgical treatment, and the optimal time for surgery is not explicit. This observational study is designed to investigate the course of treatment, compare effectiveness of surgical and non-surgical management in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis and identify prognostic factors for outcome in the context of current clinical practice. MATERIALS AND ANALYSIS:Prospectively registered data on treatment, outcome and patient characteristics are collected from nationwide registers on health and social issues, a clinical registry of people with chronic back pain and hospital medical records. Primary outcome is change in physical function measured by the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire. Secondary outcomes are changes in symptom severity, pain-related function, health-related quality of life and general self-efficacy. Outcomes are assessed at baseline and 6 and 12 months. Outcomes at 12 months will be compared for patients who undergo surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis and patients managed non-surgically, using different analytical approaches. Prespecified prognostic factors of interest at baseline include treatment allocation, back and leg pain intensity, comorbidity, duration of symptoms, pretreatment function, self-rated health, income, general self-efficacy and MRI-graded severity of central stenosis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The study has been evaluated by the Regional Committees on Health Research for Southern Denmark (S-20172000-200) and notified to the Danish Data Protection Agency (18/22336). All participants provide consent. Findings will be disseminated in peer-reviewed publications and presented at national and international conferences according to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology and Prognosis Research Strategy statements. Potential sources of bias will be addressed using Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies of Interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT03548441; Pre-results.

SUBMITTER: Brogger HA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6303618 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparative effectiveness and prognostic factors for outcome of surgical and non-surgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis in an elderly population: protocol for an observational study.

Brøgger Helle Algren HA Maribo Thomas T Christensen Robin R Schiøttz-Christensen Berit B

BMJ open 20181219 12

<h4>Introduction</h4>Lumbar spinal stenosis is a common cause of low back and leg pain in the elderly and affects both physical activity and quality of life. First-line treatments are non-surgical options but if unsuccessful, surgery is advocated. The literature is not clear as to the outcome of surgery compared with non-surgical treatment, and the optimal time for surgery is not explicit. This observational study is designed to investigate the course of treatment, compare effectiveness of surgi ...[more]

PMID: 30573489

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionSymptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis is the most common indication for spinal surgery. However, more than one-third of the patients undergoing surgery for lumbar stenosis report dissatisfaction with the results. On the other hand, conservative treatment has shown positive results in some cases. This trial will compare the outcomes of surgical versus non-surgical treatment for lumbar stenosis. The study includes a multidimensional follow-up, aiming to study the association between outcome and other studied parameters, mainly electromyography and nerve conduction. Moreover, it may contribute to a better understanding of the pathophysiology of lumbar stenosis and to the development of future pharmacological treatments.Methods and analysisUppSten is a single-centre randomised controlled trial in which 150 patients with symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis will be randomised into one of two treatment arms. The patients in the surgical arm will undergo laminectomy; the patients in the non-surgical arm will be given a structured physical training programme. The primary outcome of the study will be the Oswestry Disability Index. Secondary outcomes will include motor amplitude and degree of denervation activity obtained by means of nerve conduction studies and electromyography. Patient-reported outcome measures will be also used as secondary outcomes. Blood sample analysis and the investigation of potential inflammation markers are the additional secondary outcome parameters. Laboratory evaluation will include blood sample collection before the treatment initiation and after 6 months. Flavum ligament biopsies will be performed in the surgical group. Finally, tertiary outcomes will include neurophysiological measures, the objective walking ability and radiological evaluation.Ethics and disseminationThe study is approved by the Local Ethics Committee (Dnr 2017-506), the Hospital's Clinical Trials Committee (2018-0001) and the National Biobank Council and Uppsala Biobank (BbA-827-2018-025). The results will be presented in peer-reviewed journals and at international conferences.Trial registration numberNCT03495661.

Project description:ImportanceLumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is the most common reason for spine surgery in older US adults. There is an evidence gap about nonsurgical LSS treatment options.ObjectiveTo explore the comparative clinical effectiveness of 3 nonsurgical interventions for patients with LSS.Design, setting, and participantsThree-arm randomized clinical trial of 3 years' duration (November 2013 to June 2016). Analysis began in August 2016. All interventions were delivered during 6 weeks with follow-up at 2 months and 6 months at an outpatient research clinic. Patients older than 60 years with LSS were recruited from the general public. Eligibility required anatomical evidence of central canal and/or lateral recess stenosis (magnetic resonance imaging/computed tomography) and clinical symptoms associated with LSS (neurogenic claudication; less symptoms with flexion). Analysis was intention to treat.InterventionsMedical care, group exercise, and manual therapy/individualized exercise. Medical care consisted of medications and/or epidural injections provided by a physiatrist. Group exercise classes were supervised by fitness instructors in senior community centers. Manual therapy/individualized exercise consisted of spinal mobilization, stretches, and strength training provided by chiropractors and physical therapists.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcomes were between-group differences at 2 months in self-reported symptoms and physical function measured by the Swiss Spinal Stenosis questionnaire (score range, 12-55) and a measure of walking capacity using the self-paced walking test (meters walked for 0 to 30 minutes).ResultsA total of 259 participants (mean [SD] age, 72.4 [7.8] years; 137 women [52.9%]) were allocated to medical care (88 [34.0%]), group exercise (84 [32.4%]), or manual therapy/individualized exercise (87 [33.6%]). Adjusted between-group analyses at 2 months showed manual therapy/individualized exercise had greater improvement of symptoms and physical function compared with medical care (-2.0; 95% CI, -3.6 to -0.4) or group exercise (-2.4; 95% CI, -4.1 to -0.8). Manual therapy/individualized exercise had a greater proportion of responders (≥30% improvement) in symptoms and physical function (20%) and walking capacity (65.3%) at 2 months compared with medical care (7.6% and 48.7%, respectively) or group exercise (3.0% and 46.2%, respectively). At 6 months, there were no between-group differences in mean outcome scores or responder rates.Conclusions and relevanceA combination of manual therapy/individualized exercise provides greater short-term improvement in symptoms and physical function and walking capacity than medical care or group exercises, although all 3 interventions were associated with improvements in long-term walking capacity.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01943435.

Project description:BackgroundThe management of spinal stenosis by surgery has increased rapidly in the past two decades, however, there is still controversy regarding the efficacy of surgery for this condition. Our aim was to investigate the efficacy and comparative effectiveness of surgery in the management of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.MethodsElectronic searches were performed on MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, CINAHL, Web of Science, LILACS and Cochrane Library from inception to November 2014. Hand searches were conducted on included articles and relevant reviews. We included randomised controlled trials evaluating surgery compared to no treatment, placebo/sham, or to another surgical technique in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Primary outcome measures were pain, disability, recovery and quality of life. The PEDro scale was used for risk of bias assessment. Data were pooled with a random-effects model, and the GRADE approach was used to summarise conclusions.ResultsNineteen published reports (17 trials) were included. No trials were identified comparing surgery to no treatment or placebo/sham. Pooling revealed that decompression plus fusion is not superior to decompression alone for pain (mean difference -3.7, 95% confidence interval -15.6 to 8.1), disability (mean difference 9.8, 95% confidence interval -9.4 to 28.9), or walking ability (risk ratio 0.9, 95% confidence interval 0.4 to 1.9). Interspinous process spacer devices are slightly more effective than decompression plus fusion for disability (mean difference 5.7, 95% confidence interval 1.3 to 10.0), but they resulted in significantly higher reoperation rates when compared to decompression alone (28% v 7%, P < 0.001). There are no differences in the effectiveness between other surgical techniques for our main outcomes.ConclusionsThe relative efficacy of various surgical options for treatment of spinal stenosis remains uncertain. Decompression plus fusion is not more effective than decompression alone. Interspinous process spacer devices result in higher reoperation rates than bony decompression.

Project description:Objective: To systematically evaluate the clinical effectiveness of conservative treatments including pharmacological treatments and nonpharmacological treatments on patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Methods: We searched six electronic databases systematically for randomized clinical trials published between January 2000 and July 2021, including the China National Knowledge Infrastructure, WanFang Data, PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane library. The studies focused on the therapeutic effects of pharmacological treatments including calcitonin, antiepileptics, neurotrophic drugs, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, Chinese Traditional Medicine, limaprost, and nonpharmacological treatments like physiotherapy for treating lumbar spinal stenosis were included. The outcome was measured using the visual analog scale, Oswestry Dysfunction Index, Japanese Orthopaedic Association Score, and EuroQol Five Dimensions Questionnaire. The quality of eligible studies was assessed by using the Cochrane recommended bias risk assessment tool. Stata was used to conduct the network meta-analysis. Results: A total of 12 randomized control trials with 1,194 patients were included. The network meta-analysis showed that for the visual analog scale, a better therapeutic effect was noted while using Chinese Traditional Medicine and physiotherapy, followed by analgesics drugs and limaprost. Limaprost and calcitonin were better in decreasing the Oswestry Dysfunction Index. In terms of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association Score, the use of traditional Chinese Medicine and limaprost were associated with a better improvement than other treatments. Meanwhile, limaprost combined with analgesics drugs was found to be effective to improve the EuroQol Five Dimensions Questionnaire. Conclusion: Among the commonly used conservative treatments for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis, limaprost may have better efficacy in improving the Japanese Orthopaedic Association Score and decreasing the Oswestry Dysfunction Index, with a beneficial effect on decreasing the visual analog scale and improving the EuroQol Five Dimensions Questionnaire. Systematic Review Registration: website, identifier registration number.

Project description:Purpose:To develop a self-administered diagnostic screening questionnaire for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) consisting of items with high content validity and to investigate the diagnostic value of the questionnaire and the items. Patients and Methods:A self-reported diagnostic LSS screening questionnaire was developed based on items from the existing literature describing key symptoms of LSS. The screening questionnaire (index test) was to be tested in a cohort of patients with persistent lumbar and/or leg pain recruited from a Danish publicly funded outpatient secondary care spine clinic with clinicians performing the reference test. However, to avoid unnecessary collection of data if the screening questionnaire proved to be of limited value, a case-control design was incorporated into the cohort design including an interim analysis. Additional cases for the case-control study were recruited at two Danish publicly funded spine surgery departments. Prevalence, sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratio (OR) were calculated for each individual item, and AUC (area under the curve) was calculated to examine the performance of the full questionnaire. Results:A 13-item Danish questionnaire was developed and tested in 153 cases and 230 controls. The interim analysis was not in favour of continuing the cohort study, and therefore, only results from the case-control study are reported. There was a positive association for all items except the presence of back pain. However, the association was only moderate with ORs up to 3.3. When testing the performance of the whole questionnaire, an AUC of 0.72 was reached with a specificity of 20% for a fixed sensitivity of 95%. Conclusion:The items were associated with LSS and therefore have some potential to identify LSS patients. However, the association was not strong enough to provide sufficient accuracy for a diagnostic tool. Additional dimensions of symptoms of LSS need identification to obtain a reliable questionnaire for screening purposes.

Dataset Information

Comparative effectiveness and prognostic factors for outcome of surgical and non-surgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis in an elderly population: protocol for an observational study.

Publications

Comparative effectiveness and prognostic factors for outcome of surgical and non-surgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis in an elderly population: protocol for an observational study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets