Dataset Information

Diagnostic Screening for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Jensen RK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7450213 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Diagnostic Screening for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.

Jensen Rikke Krüger RK Lauridsen Henrik Hein HH Andresen Andreas Duch Kiilerich ADK Mieritz Rune Mygind RM Schiøttz-Christensen Berit B Vach Werner W

Clinical epidemiology 20200819

<h4>Purpose</h4>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.<h4>Patients and methods</h4>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 pe ...[more]

PMID: 32904080

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND: There is no validated gold-standard diagnostic support tool for LSS, and therefore an accurate diagnosis depends on clinical assessment. Assessment of the diagnostic value of the history of the patient requires an evaluation of the differences and overlap of symptoms of the radicular and cauda equina types; however, no tool is available for evaluation of the LSS category. We attempted to develop a self-administered, self-reported history questionnaire as a diagnostic support tool for LSS using a clinical epidemiological approach. The aim of the present study was to use this tool to assess the diagnostic value of the history of the patient for categorization of LSS. METHODS: The initial derivation study included 137 patients with LSS and 97 with lumbar disc herniation who successfully recovered following surgical treatment. The LSS patients were categorized into radicular and cauda equina types based on history, physical examinations, and MRI. Predictive factors for overlapping symptoms between the two types and for cauda equina symptoms in LSS were derived by univariate analysis. A self-administered, self-reported history questionnaire (SSHQ) was developed based on these findings. A prospective derivation study was then performed in a series of 115 patients with LSS who completed the SSHQ before surgery. All these patients recovered following surgical treatment. The sensitivity of the SSHQ was calculated and clinical prediction rules for LSS were developed. A validation study was subsequently performed on 250 outpatients who complained of lower back pain with or without leg symptoms. The sensitivity and specificity of the SSHQ were calculated, and the test-retest reliability over two weeks was investigated in 217 patients whose symptoms remained unchanged. RESULTS: The key predictive factors for overlapping symptoms between the two categories of LSS were age > 50, lower-extremity pain or numbness, increased pain when walking, increased pain when standing, and relief of symptoms on bending forward (odds ratio > or = 2, p < 0.05). The key predictive factors for cauda equina type symptoms were numbness around the buttocks, walking almost causes urination, a burning sensation around the buttocks, numbness in the soles of both feet, numbness in both legs, and numbness without pain (odds ratio > or = 2, p < 0.05). The sensitivity and specificity of the SSHQ were 84% and 78%, respectively, in the validation data set. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.797 in the derivation set and 0.782 in the validation data set. In the test-retest analysis, the intraclass correlation coefficient for the first and second tests was 85%. CONCLUSION: A new self-administered, self-reported history questionnaire was developed successfully as a diagnostic support tool for LSS.

Project description:ObjectiveTo comprehensively compare and assess the effects of different lumbar fusion techniques in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).MethodsPubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were systematically searched up to December 24, 2022 in this network meta-analysis. Outcomes were pain (pain, low back pain, and leg pain), Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), complications, reoperation, and fusion. Network plots illustrated the direct and indirect comparisons of different fusion techniques for the outcomes. League tables showed the comparisons of any two fusion techniques, based on both direct and indirect evidence. The efficacy of each fusion technique for LSS was ranked by rank probabilities.ResultsTotally 29 studies involving 2,379 patients were eligible. For pain, percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF) was most likely to be the best technique, followed by minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF), extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF), and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Percutaneous endoscopic posterior lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-PLIF) had the greatest likelihood to be the optimal technique for low back pain, followed sequentially by MIS-TLIF, minimally invasive posterior lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-PLIF), XLIF, Endo-TLIF, TLIF, oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF), posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), and posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF). MIS-PLIF was ranked the most effective technique concerning leg pain, followed by Endo-TLIF, MIS-TLIF, TLIF, Endo-PLIF, PLIF, OLIF, PLF, and XLIF. As regards JOA scores, Endo-TLIF had the maximum probability to be the best technique, followed by MIS-TLIF and TLIF. Endo-PLIF had the greatest likelihood to be the optimum technique for complications, followed by TLIF, MIS-TLIF, Endo-TLIF, OLIF, and XLIF.ConclusionMinimally invasive fusion techniques may be effective in the treatment of LSS, compared with traditional techniques. Minimally invasive techniques were likely non-inferior with regards to postoperative complications.

Project description:BackgroundLumbar spinal stenosis is one of the most common causes of low back pain among older adults and can cause significant disability. Despite its prevalence, treatment of spinal stenosis symptoms remains controversial. Epidural steroid injections are used with increasing frequency as a less invasive, potentially safer, and more cost-effective treatment than surgery. However, there is a lack of data to judge the effectiveness and safety of epidural steroid injections for spinal stenosis. We describe our prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial that tests the hypothesis that epidural injections with steroids plus local anesthetic are more effective than epidural injections of local anesthetic alone in improving pain and function among older adults with lumbar spinal stenosis.MethodsWe will recruit up to 400 patients with lumbar central canal spinal stenosis from at least 9 clinical sites over 2 years. Patients with spinal instability who require surgical fusion, a history of prior lumbar surgery, or prior epidural steroid injection within the past 6 months are excluded. Participants are randomly assigned to receive either ESI with local anesthetic or the control intervention (epidural injections with local anesthetic alone). Subjects receive up to 2 injections prior to the primary endpoint at 6 weeks, at which time they may choose to crossover to the other intervention.Participants complete validated, standardized measures of pain, functional disability, and health-related quality of life at baseline and at 3 weeks, 6 weeks, and 3, 6, and 12 months after randomization. The primary outcomes are Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and a numerical rating scale measure of pain intensity at 6 weeks. In order to better understand their safety, we also measure cortisol, HbA1c, fasting blood glucose, weight, and blood pressure at baseline, and at 3 and 6 weeks post-injection. We also obtain data on resource utilization and costs to assess cost-effectiveness of epidural steroid injection.DiscussionThis study is the first multi-center, double-blind RCT to evaluate the effectiveness of epidural steroid injections in improving pain and function among older adults with lumbar spinal stenosis. The study will also yield data on the safety and cost-effectiveness of this procedure for older adults.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT01238536.

Project description:BackgroundMagnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) is an important tool in preoperative evaluation of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). Reported reliability of various MRI findings in LSS varies from fair to excellent. There are inconsistencies in the evaluated parameters and the methodology of the studies. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reliability of the preoperative MRI findings in patients with LSS between musculoskeletal radiologists and orthopaedic spine surgeons, using established evaluation methods and imaging data from a prospective trial.MethodsConsecutive lumbar MRI examinations of candidates for surgical treatment of LSS from the Norwegian Spinal Stenosis and Degenerative Spondylolisthesis (NORDSTEN) study were independently evaluated by two musculoskeletal radiologists and two orthopaedic spine surgeons. The observers had a range of experience between six and 13 years and rated five categorical parameters (foraminal and central canal stenosis, facet joint osteoarthritis, redundant nerve roots and intraspinal synovial cysts) and one continuous parameter (dural sac cross-sectional area). All parameters were re-rated after 6 weeks by all the observers. Inter- and intraobserver agreement was assessed by Gwet's agreement coefficient (AC1) for categorical parameters and Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) for the dural sac cross-sectional area.ResultsMRI examinations of 102 patients (mean age 66 ± 8 years, 53 men) were evaluated. The overall interobserver agreement was substantial or almost perfect for all categorical parameters (AC1 range 0.67 to 0.98), except for facet joint osteoarthritis, where the agreement was moderate (AC1 0.39). For the dural sac cross-sectional area, the overall interobserver agreement was good or excellent (ICC range 0.86 to 0.96). The intraobserver agreement was substantial or almost perfect/ excellent for all parameters (AC1 range 0.63 to 1.0 and ICC range 0.93 to 1.0).ConclusionsThere is high inter- and intraobserver agreement between radiologists and spine surgeons for preoperative MRI findings of LSS. However, the interobserver agreement is not optimal for evaluation of facet joint osteoarthritis.Trial registrationwww.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02007083 , registered December 2013.

Dataset Information

Diagnostic Screening for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.

Publications

Diagnostic Screening for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets