Dataset Information

Improvements in Back and Leg Pain After Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Few studies have quantified clinical improvement following minimally invasive lumbar decompression based on predominant back pain or leg pain.

Purpose

To quantify improvement in patient-reported outcomes following minimally invasive lumbar decompression and determine the degree of improvement in back pain, leg pain, and disability in patients who present with predominant back pain or predominant leg pain.

Methods

Patients who underwent primary, one-level minimally invasive lumbar decompression for degenerative pathology were retrospectively reviewed. Comparisons of visual analog scale (VAS) back and leg pain scores, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores, and Short Form-12 (SF-12) mental and physical component scores from pre-operative to 6-week, 12-week, 6-month, and 1-year follow-up. Subgroup analyses were performed for patients with predominant back pain or predominant leg pain.

Results

A total of 102 patients were identified. Scores on VAS back and leg pain, ODI, and SF-12 physical component improved from pre-operative to all post-operative time points. After 1 year, patients reported a 2.8-point (47%) reduction in back pain and a 4-point (61.1%) reduction in leg pain scores; 52 patients with predominant back pain and 50 patients with predominant leg pain reported reductions in pain throughout the year following surgery. In both the back and leg pain cohorts, patients experienced reductions in ODI during the first 6 months and throughout 1-year follow-up, respectively. The majority of patients achieved minimum clinically important difference, regardless of predominant symptom.

Conclusions

Patients reported improvements in back and leg pain following minimally invasive lumbar decompression regardless of predominant presenting symptom; however, patients with predominant leg pain may experience greater improvement than those with predominant back pain.

SUBMITTER: Massel DH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6973967 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Improvements in Back and Leg Pain After Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression.

Massel Dustin H DH Mayo Benjamin C BC Patel Dil V DV Bohl Daniel D DD Louie Philip K PK Lopez Gregory D GD Singh Kern K

HSS journal : the musculoskeletal journal of Hospital for Special Surgery 20190222 1

<h4>Background</h4>Few studies have quantified clinical improvement following minimally invasive lumbar decompression based on predominant back pain or leg pain.<h4>Purpose</h4>To quantify improvement in patient-reported outcomes following minimally invasive lumbar decompression and determine the degree of improvement in back pain, leg pain, and disability in patients who present with predominant back pain or predominant leg pain.<h4>Methods</h4>Patients who underwent primary, one-level minimall ...[more]

PMID: 32015742

Similar Datasets

Project description:Study designCase-control study.PurposeIn this study, we aimed to investigate clinical outcomes and morphological features in elderly patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) who were treated by minimally invasive surgery (MIS) unilateral laminectomy for bilateral decompression (ULBD) using a tubular retractor.Overview of literatureNumerous methods using imaging have been attempted to describe the severity of spinal stenosis. But the relationship between clinical symptoms and radiological features remains debatable.ObjectiveIn this study, we aimed to investigate clinical outcomes and morphological features in elderly patients with LSS who were treated by MIS-ULBD.MethodsWe methodically assessed 85 consecutive patients aged >65 years who were treated for LSS. The patients were retrospectively analyzed in two age groups: 66-75 years (group 1) and >75 years (group 2). Clinical outcomes were assessed using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and the modified MacNab criteria. Outcome parameters were compared between the groups at the 1-year follow-up. Core radiologic parameters for central and lateral stenosis were analyzed and clinical findings of the groups were compared.ResultsAt the 1-year follow-up, patients in both groups 1 and 2 demonstrated significant improvement in their VAS and ODI scores. All clinical outcomes, except postoperative ODI, were not significantly difference between the groups. In addition, no significant difference was noted in the preoperative radiological parameters between the groups. There was no statistically significant correlation between radiological parameters and clinical symptoms or their outcomes. Moreover, no differences were noted in perioperative adverse events and in the need for repeat surgery at follow-ups between the groups.ConclusionsMIS-ULBD by tubular approach is a safe and effective treatment option for elderly patients with LSS. Clinical outcomes in patients with LSS and aged >75 years were comparable with those in patients with LSS and aged 66-75 years. Moreover, we did not find any correlation between radiological parameters and clinical outcomes in either of the two patient groups.

Project description:ObjectiveTo test the equivalence for clinical effectiveness between microdecompression and laminectomy in patients with central lumbar spinal stenosis.DesignMulticentre observational study.SettingProspective data from the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery.Participants885 patients with central stenosis of the lumbar spine who underwent surgery at 34 Norwegian orthopaedic or neurosurgical departments. Patients were treated from October 2006 to December 2011.InterventionsLaminectomy and microdecompression.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was change in Oswestry disability index score one year after surgery. Secondary endpoints were quality of life (EuroQol EQ-5D), perioperative complications, and duration of surgical procedures and hospital stays. A blinded biostatistician performed predefined statistical analyses in unmatched and propensity matched cohorts.ResultsThe study was powered to detect a difference between the groups of eight points on the Oswestry disability index at one year. 721 patients (81%) completed the one year follow-up. Equivalence between microdecompression and laminectomy was shown for the Oswestry disability index (difference 1.3 points, 95% confidence interval -1.36 to 3.92, P<0.001 for equivalence). Equivalence was confirmed in the propensity matched cohort and full information regression analyses. No difference was found between groups in quality of life (EQ-5D) one year after surgery. The number of patients with complications was higher in the laminectomy group (15.0% v 9.8%, P=0.018), but after propensity matching for complications the groups did not differ (P=0.23). The duration of surgery for single level decompression was shorter in the microdecompression group (difference 11.2 minutes, 95% confidence interval 4.9 to 17.5, P<0.001), but after propensity matching the groups did not differ (P=0.15). Patients in the microdecompression group had shorter hospital stays, both for single level decompression (difference 1.5 days, 95% confidence interval 1.7 to 2.6, P<0.001) and two level decompression (0.8 days, 1.0 to 2.2, P=0.003).ConclusionAt one year the effectiveness of microdecompression is equivalent to laminectomy in the surgical treatment of central stenosis of the lumbar spine. Favourable outcomes were observed at one year in both treatment groups.Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02006901.

Project description:Background and objectivesThis study evaluated the long-term durability of the minimally invasive lumbar decompression (MILD) procedure in terms of functional improvement and pain reduction for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis and neurogenic claudication due to hypertrophic ligamentum flavum. This is a report of 2-year follow-up for MILD study patients.MethodsThis prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled clinical study compared outcomes for 143 patients treated with MILD versus 131 treated with epidural steroid injections. Follow-up occurred at 6 months and at 1 year for the randomized phase and at 2 years for MILD subjects only. Oswestry Disability Index, Numeric Pain Rating Scale, and Zurich Claudication Questionnaire were used to evaluate function and pain. Safety was evaluated by assessing incidence of device-/procedure-related adverse events.ResultsAll outcome measures demonstrated clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement from baseline through 6-month, 1-year, and 2-year follow-ups. At 2 years, Oswestry Disability Index improved by 22.7 points, Numeric Pain Rating Scale improved by 3.6 points, and Zurich Claudication Questionnaire symptom severity and physical function domains improved by 1.0 and 0.8 points, respectively. There were no serious device-/procedure-related adverse events, and 1.3% experienced a device-/procedure-related adverse event.ConclusionsMILD showed excellent long-term durability, and there was no evidence of spinal instability through 2-year follow-up. Reoperation and spinal fracture rates are lower, and safety is higher for MILD versus other lumbar spine interventions, including interspinous spacers, surgical decompression, and spinal fusion. Given the minimally invasive nature of this procedure, its robust success rate, and durability of outcomes, MILD is an excellent choice for first-line therapy for select patients with central spinal stenosis suffering from neurogenic claudication symptoms with hypertrophic ligamentum flavum.Clinical trial registrationThis study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT02093520.

Dataset Information

Improvements in Back and Leg Pain After Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression.

Background

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Improvements in Back and Leg Pain After Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets