Acta Neurochirurgica

, Volume 137, Issue 1–2, pp 25–28 | Cite as

Factors influencing the outcome of operative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis

  • M. U. K. Lehto
  • P. Honkanen
Clinical Articles


96 patients with lumbar spinal stenosis were operated on after two to sixteen years of disabling symptoms. There were 50 women and 46 men with a mean age of 59 years. 33 of the patients had been previously operated on for spinal complaints. A laminectomy was performed in 61 patients; at one level in 31 patients, at two levels in 23 patients, and at three levels in seven patients. A hemilaminectomy was performed in 35 patients; at one level in 28 patients, at two levels in five patients, and at three levels in two patients. There were neither internal fixation devices used, nor spondylodesis performed in these operations. Special attention was focused on the effect of age, sex, body mass index and smoking, as well as previous surgery and extent of surgical intervention on the outcome of operative treatment. The follow-up time was 3–11 years (5.5 mean).

Laminectomy at one level resulted in significantly most acceptable results of operative treatment methods. Younger patients and women were more prone to inferior results of operative treatment. Also the extent of surgical intervention, overweight and smoking seemed to have a tendency to worsen the result of operative treatment.


Lumbar spinal stenosis operative treatment outcome 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Echeverria T, Lockwood RC (1979) Lumbar spinal stenosis: experience at a community hospital. N Y State J Med 79: 872–873Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Getty CJM (1980) Lumbar spinal stenosis. The clinical spectrum and the results of operation. J Bone Joint Surg 62 B: 481–485Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Grabias S (1980) The treatment of spinal stenosis. J Bone Joint Surg 62 A: 308–313Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Herron L, Mangelsdorf C (1991) Lumbar spinal stenosis: results of surgical treatment. J Spinal Disord 4: 26–33Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Johnson K-E, Willner S, Johnson K (1986) Postoperative instability after decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 11: 107–110Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Johnson K, Rosen I, Uden A (1990) The natural course of lumbar spinal stenosis. Acta Orthop Scand 61 [Suppl] 237: 24Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kirkaldy-Willis WH, Wedge HJ, Young-Hing K, Reilly J (1978) Pathology and pathogenesis of lumbar spondylosis and stenosis. Spine 3: 319–328Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mauersberger W, Nietgen T (1989) Surgical treatment of lumbar stenosis: long-term results. Neurosurg Rev 12: 291–295Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Paine KWE (1976) Clinical features of lumbar spinal stenosis. Clin Orthop 115: 77–82Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Turner JA, Ersek M, Herron L, Deyo R (1992) Surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. Attempted meta-analysis of the literature. Spine 17: 1–8Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Verbiest H (1954) A radicular syndrome from developmental narrowing of the lumbar vertebral canal. J Bone Joint Surg 36 B: 230–237Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wiltse LL (1977) Surgery for intervertebral disc disease of the lumbar spine. Clin Orthop 129: 22–45Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zdeblick TA (1993) A prospective, randomized study of lumbar fusion. Preliminary results. Spine 18: 983–991Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. U. K. Lehto
    • 1
    • 2
  • P. Honkanen
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of SurgeryTampere University HospitalTampereFinland
  2. 2.Department of Clinical SciencesTampere UniversityTampereFinland

Personalised recommendations