Abstract
We randomised a total of 94 patients with long-standing moderate lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) into a surgical group and a non-operative group, with 50 and 44 patients, respectively. The operative treatment comprised undercutting laminectomy of stenotic segments, augmented with transpedicular-instrumented fusion in suspected lumbar instability. The primary outcome was the Oswestry disability index (ODI), and the other main outcomes included assessments of leg and back pain and self-reported walking ability, all based on questionnaire data from 85 patients at the 6-year follow-up. At the 6-year follow-up, the mean difference in ODI in favour of surgery was 9.5 (95% confidence interval 0.9–18.1, P-value for global difference 0.006), whereas the intensity of leg or back pain did not differ between the two treatment groups any longer. Walking ability did not differ between the treatment groups at any time. Decompressive surgery of LSS provided modest but consistent improvement in functional ability, surpassing that obtained after non-operative measures.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Airaksinen O, Herno A, Turunen V, Saari T, Suomalainen O (1997) Surgical outcome of 438 patients treated surgically for lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 22:2278–2282
Amundsen T, Weber H, Nordal HJ, Magnaes B, Abdelnoor M, Lilleås F (2000) Lumbar spinal stenosis: conservative or surgical management? Spine 25:1424–1436
Atlas SJ, Keller RB, Robson D, Deyo RA, Singer DE (2000) Surgical and nonsurgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis: four-year outcomes from the Maine lumbar spine study. Spine 25:556–562
Atlas SJ, Keller RB, Wu YA, Deyo RA, Singer DE (2005) Long-term outcomes of surgical and nonsurgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis: 8 to 10 year results from the Maine Lumbar Spine Study. Spine 30:936–943
Carrino JA, Lurie JD, Tosteson ANA et al (2009) Lumbar spine: reliability of MR imaging findings. Radiology 249(3):161–170
Chou R, Baisden J, Carragee EJ, Resnick DK, Schaffer WO, Loeser JD (2009) Surgery for low back pain. A review of the evidence for an American pain society clinical practice guideline. Spine 10:1094–1109
Ciol MA, Deyo RA, Howell E et al (1996) An assessment of surgery for spinal stenosis: time trends, geographic variations, complications, and reoperations. J Am Geriatr Soc 44:285–290
Cornefjord M, Byrod G, Brisby H, Rydevik B (2000) A long-term (4- to 12-year) follow-up study of surgical treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. Eur Spine J 9:563–570
Deyo R, Gray D, Kreuter W et al (2005) United States trends in lumbar fusion surgery for degenerative conditions. Spine 30:1441–1445
Drew B, Bhandari M, Kulkarni AV, Louw D, Reddy K, Dunlop B (2000) Reliability in grading the severity of lumbar spinal stenosis 13:253–258
Fairbank J, Couper J, Davies J, O’Brien JP (1980) The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy 8:271–273
Hansraj KK, O’Leary PF, Cammisa FP Jr, Hall JC, Fras CI, Cohen MS, Dorey FJ (2001) Decompressive surgery for typical lumbar spinal stenosis. Clin Orthop 384:10–17
Jansson K-Å, Németh G, Granath F, Jönsson B, Blomqvist P (2009) Health-related quality of life (EG-5D) before and one year after surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. J Bone Jt Surg (Br) 91-B:211–216
Johnsson KE, Rosen I, Uden A (1992) The natural course of lumbar spinal stenosis. Clin Orthop 279:82–86
Jönsson B, Annertz M, Sjöberg C, Strömqvist B (1997) A prospective and consecutive study of surgically treated lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 22:2938–2944
Katz JN, Lipson SJ, Chang LC, Levine SA, Fossel AH, Liang MH (1996) Seven- to 10-year outcome of decompressive surgery for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 21:92–98
Lohman CM, Tallroth K, Kettunen J, Lindgren KA (2006) Comparison of radiologic signs and clinical symptoms of spinal stenosis. Spine 31:1834–1840
Malmivaara A, Slätis P, Heliövaara M, Sainio P, Kinnunen H, Kankare J, Dalin-Hirvonen N, Seitsalo S, Herno A, Kortekangas P, Niinimaki T, Rönty H, Tallroth K, Turunen V, Knekt P, Härkänen T, Hurri H, Finnish Lumbar Spinal Research Group (2007) Surgical or nonoperative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis? A randomized controlled trial. Spine 32:1–8
Ogikubo O, Forsberg L, Hansson T (2007) The relationship between the cross-sectional area of the cauda equina and the preoperative symptoms in central lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 32:1423–1428
Schönström N, Hansson T (1988) Pressure changes following constriction of the cauda equina Spine 13:385–388
Verbiest H (1954) A radicular syndrome from developmental narrowing of the lumbar vertebral canal. J Bone Joint Surg Br 36-B:230–237
Weinstein JN, Lurie JD, Tosteson TD, Hanscom B, Tosteson AN, Blood EA, Birkmeyer NJ, Hilibrand AS, Herkowitz H, Cammisa FP, Albert TJ, Emery SE, Lenke LG, Abdu WA, Longley M, Errico TJ, Hu SS (2007) Surgical versus nonsurgical treatment for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. N Engl J Med 356:2257–2270
Weinstein JN, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD, Tosteson AN, Blood E, Hanscom B, Cammisa F, Albert T, Boden SD, Hilibrand A, Goldberg H, Berven S, An H, SPORT Investigators (2008) Surgical versus nonsurgical therapy for lumbar spinal stenosis. N Engl J Med 358:794–810
Weinstein JN, Lurie JD, Tosteson TD, Zhao W, Blood EA, Tosteson AN, Birkmeyer N, Herkowitz H, Longley M, Lenke L, Emery S, Hu SS (2009) Surgical compared with nonoperative treatment for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. Four-year results in the spine patient outcomes research trial (SPORT) randomized and observational cohorts. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 91:1295–1304
Acknowledgments
Supported by the Finnish Office for Health Care Technology Assessment and the participating hospitals.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
An erratum to this article can be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00586-011-1948-6
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Slätis, P., Malmivaara, A., Heliövaara, M. et al. Long-term results of surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis: a randomised controlled trial. Eur Spine J 20, 1174–1181 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-010-1652-y
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-010-1652-y