Dataset Information

Simultaneous or Staged Decompressions for Patients with Tandem Spinal Stenosis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To compare the clinical effects of cervical decompression first, lumbar decompression first, or simultaneous decompression of both lesions in the treatment of tandem spinal stenosis (TSS).

Methods

This is a retrospective analysis. From January 2013 to December 2018, 51 TSS patients underwent our surgery and postoperative investigation. Among the 51 subjects, 27 females and 24 males, aged 49-77 years with an average age of 66.3 ± 6.8, were selected. According to the different operation sequences, all patients were divided into three groups. In simultaneous operation group, five patients underwent cervical and lumbar vertebrae surgery at the same time. In first cervical surgery group, 28 patients underwent cervical vertebra surgery first, followed by lumbar spine surgery after a period of recovery. And in first lumbar surgery group, 18 patients underwent lumbar vertebrae surgery first. The choice for neck surgery is posterior cervical single-door vertebroplasty, the surgery of lumber is plate excision and decompression needle-rod system internal fixation. The outcome measures are visual analogue scale (VAS), Japanese Orthopaedic Association cervical (JOA-C) and lumbar (JOA-L) scores, which were assessed at 3 months and 1 year after the operation by telephone interview. In addition, operative time, estimated blood loss, and hospital stay were also recorded.

Results

All the patients in the study had surgery performed successfully by the same group of orthopaedic surgeons. The preoperative VAS scores of simultaneous operation group, first cervical surgery group, and first lumbar surgery group were 8.00 ± 1.00, 8.36 ± 0.68, and 8.17 ± 0.71 (P > 0.05). The preoperative JOA-C scores were 7.00 ± 2.35, 6.54 ± 1.53, and 7.83 ± 1.04 (P < 0.05). And the preoperative JOA-L scores were 7.20 ± 2.17, 4.64 ± 2.36, and 5.78 ± 1.22 respectively (P < 0.05). During the final 1-year follow-up, the JOA-C improvement rates of simultaneous operation group, first cervical surgery group, and first lumbar surgery group were 85.68% ± 5.44%, 84.27% ± 5.02%, and 83.34% ± 10.25%, respectively (P > 0.05), and the JOA-L improvement rates were 80.04% ± 3.35%, 81.65% ± 3.74%, and 80.21% ± 4.76% (P > 0.05). The difference among them was not statistically significant. In addition, operation time (OP), blood loss (BL), and hospital stay (HS) in the simultaneous operation group were 245.00 ± 5.00 min, 480.00 ± 27.39 mL, and 16.60 ± 0.55 days, respectively. While those parameters in the first cervical surgery group were 342.50 ± 18.18 min, 528.21 ± 43.97 mL, and 22.75 ± 2.15 days, and in the first lumbar surgery group they were 346.11 ± 24.77 min, 519.44 ± 43.99 mL, and 22.89 ± 1.64 days. The average blood loss in simultaneous operation group was less (P > 0.05); meanwhile, the operation time and hospital stay time were significantly shorter in the simultaneous operation group than in the first cervical surgery group and first lumbar surgery group (P < 0.05). Only one case of fat liquefaction occurred in first cervical surgery group, which healed spontaneously after a regular change of dressing for 1 month.

Conclusions

Under the condition of ensuring the surgical effect, the choice of staged surgery or concurrent surgery according to the patients' own symptoms of cervical and lumbar symptoms could both obtain satisfactory results, and the damage of simultaneous surgery was less than that of staged surgery.

SUBMITTER: Sun WZ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8274161 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.

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.