European Spine Journal

, Volume 3, Issue 5, pp 261–264 | Cite as

Surgical treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: Patients' postoperative disability and working capacity

  • O. Airaksinen
  • A. Herno
  • T. Saari
Original Articles


A total of 439 patients operated on for lumbar spinal stenosis during the period 1974–1987 was re-examinated and evaluated for working and functional capacity approximately 4 years after the decompressive surgery. The assessment of subjective disability was based on the Oswestry low-back pain questionnaire. The proportion of excellent-to-good outcomes was 62% (women 57%, men 65%). The ability to work before or after the operation and a history of no prior back surgery were variables predictive of a good outcome. Before the operation 86 patients were working, 223 patients were on sick leave, and 130 patients were retired. After the operation 52 of the employed patients and 70 of the unemployed patients returned to work. None of the retired patients returned to work. In logistic regression analysis the ability to work preoperatively, age under 50 years at the time of operation and the absence of prior back surgery predicted a postoperative ability to work. Our results suggest that more attention should be focussed on the diagnosis of spinal stenosis and on the timing of the operative intervention.

Key words

Lumbar spinal stenosis Low back pain Oswestry questionnaire Decompressive surgery 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Alaranta H (1985) Factors defining impairment, disability and handicap in a population of patients examined one year following surgery for lumbar disc herniation. Thesis, University of Turku, FinlandGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fairbank JCT, Couper J, Davies JB, O'Brien JP (1980) The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy 66:271–273PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fast A, Robin GC, Floman Y (1985) Surgical treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis in the elderly. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 66:149–151PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Garfin SR, Glover M, Booth RE, Simeone FA, Rothman RH (1988) Laminectomy: a review of the Pennsylvania Hospital experience. J Spinal Disorders 1:116–133Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Getty CJM (1980) Lumbar spinal stenosis. Clinical spectrum and the results of operation. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 62:481–485Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Grabias S (1980) The treatment of spinal stenosis. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 62:308–313Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Greenough CG (1993) Results of treatment of lumbar spine disorders - effects of assessment techniques and confounding factors. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl 251:126–129PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Greenough CG, Fraser RD (1989) The effects of compensation on recovery from low back pain injury. Spine 14:947–955PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Herron LD, Mangelsdorf C (1991) Lumbar spinal stenosis. Results of surgical treatment. J Spinal Disorders 4:26–33Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Herno A, Airaksinen O, Saari T (1993) Long-term results of surgical treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 18:1471–1474PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Johnsson K-E, Wilner S, Petterson H (1981) Analysis of operated cases with lumbar spinal stenosis. Acta Orthop Scand 52:427–433PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Johnsson K-E, Redlund-Jonell I, Uden A, Wilner S (1989) Preoperative and postoperative instability in lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 14:591–593PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Katz NJ, Lipson JS, Larson GM, McInnes MJ, Fossel HA, Liang HM (1991) The outcome of decompressive laminectomy for degenerative lumbar stenosis. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 73:809–816Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kim SS, Michelson CB (1992) Revision surgery for failed back surgery syndrome. Spine 17:957–960PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lee KC, Hansen HT, Weiss AB (1978) Developmental lumbar spinal stenosis - pathology and surgical treatment. Spine 3:246–255PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lehman RT, LaRocca HS (1981) Repeat lumbar surgery — a review of patients with failure from previous lumbar surgery treated by spinal canal exploration and lumbar fusion. Spine 6:615–619PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mauersberger W, Nietgen T (1989) Surgical treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: long-term results. Neurosurg Rev 12:291–295CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nachemson AL (1991) Spinal disorders. Overall impact on society and the need for orthopedic resources. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl 241:17–22PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nachemson AL (1992) Newest knowledge of low back pain, a critical look. Clin Orthop 279:8–20PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nixon JE (1991) The multi-operated lumbar spine. In: Nixon JE (ed) Spinal stenosis. Arnold, London, pp 369–381Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    North RB, Campbell JN, James CS, Conover-Walker MK, Wang H, Piantadosi S, Rybock JD, Long DM (1991) Failed back surgery syndrome: 5-year follow-up 102 patients undergoing repeat operation. Neurosurgery 28:685–691CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Porter RW, Ward D (1992) Cauda equina dysfunction. The significance of two-level pathology. Spine 17:9–15PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Turner JA, Ersek M, Herron L, Deyo R (1992) Surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis, attempted meta-analysis of the literature. Spine 17:1–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Verbiest H (1977) Results of surgical treatment of idiopathic developmental stenosis of lumbar vertebral canal. A review of twenty-seven years' experience. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 59:181–189Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Waddel G, Reilly S, Torsney B, Allan DB, Morris EW, Di Paola MP, Bircher M, Finlayson D (1988) Assessment of the outcome of low back surgery. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 70:723–727Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • O. Airaksinen
    • 1
  • A. Herno
    • 1
  • T. Saari
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Physical Medicine and RehabilitationKuopio University HospitalKuopioFinland
  2. 2.Department of Clinical RadiologyKuopio University HospitalKuopioFinland

Personalised recommendations