European Spine Journal

, Volume 21, Issue 12, pp 2611–2619 | Cite as

Prediction of long-term clinical outcome in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis

  • B. Micankova Adamova
  • S. Vohanka
  • L. Dusek
  • J. Jarkovsky
  • J. Bednarik
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

The natural course of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) fluctuates and is not necessarily progressive. The aim of this study was to explore the predictors of clinical outcome in patients with LSS that might eventually help to optimise the therapeutic choices.

Methods

A group of 56 patients (27 men, 29 women, median age 55; range 31–72 years) with clinically symptomatic mild-to-moderate LSS were re-examined after a median period of 88 months and their clinical outcomes classified as satisfactory (34 patients, 60.7 % with stable or improved clinical status) or unsatisfactory (22 patients, 39.3 % for whom clinical status deteriorated). A wide range of demographical, clinical, imaging and electrophysiological entry parameters were evaluated as possible predictors of clinical outcome.

Results

Unlike the demographical, clinical and imaging variables, certain electrophysiological parameters were significantly associated with unsatisfactory outcomes. There was a significantly higher prevalence of pluriradicular involvement detected by EMG in patients with unsatisfactory outcome than those with satisfactory outcome (68.2 vs. 32.3 %; p = 0.035). Patients with unsatisfactory outcome had more frequent bilateral abnormalities of the soleus H-reflex (50.0 vs. 14.7 %; p = 0.015) and lower mean H-reflex amplitude. Multivariate logistic regression proposed two variables as mutually independent predictors of unsatisfactory outcome: EMG signs of pluriradicular involvement (OR = 3.72) and averaged soleus H-reflex amplitude ≤2.8 mV (OR = 2.87).

Conclusions

Satisfactory outcomes were disclosed in about 61 % of the patients with mild-to-moderate LSS in a 7-year follow-up. Electrophysiological abnormalities, namely the presence of pluriradicular involvement and abnormalities of the soleus H-reflex, were predictive of deterioration of clinical status in these patients.

Keywords

Lumbar spinal stenosis Electromyography Outcome Natural course Prognosis 

Abbreviations

LSS

Lumbar spinal stenosis

NC

Neurogenic claudication

ODI

Oswestry disability index

EMG

Electromyography

LL

Lower limb

NRS

Numerical rating scale

AP

Anteroposterior

CT

Computed tomography

MRI

Magnetic resonance imaging

ROC

Receiver operating characteristic

References

  1. 1.
    Arnoldi CC, Brodsky AE, Cachoix J et al (1976) Lumbar spinal stenosis and nerve root entrapment. Syndromes, definition, and classification. Clin Orthop 115:4–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2 .
    Siebert E, Prüss H, Klingebiel R, Failli V, Einhäupl KM, Schwab JM (2009) Lumbar spinal stenosis: syndrome, diagnostics and treatment. Nat Rev Neurol 5:392–403 (Review)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Turner JA, Ersek M, Herron L, Deyo R (1992) Surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. Attempted meta-analysis of the literature. Spine 17:1–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Benoist M (2002) The natural history of lumbar degenerative spinal stenosis. Joint Bone Spine 69:450–457PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ciol MA, Deyo RA, Howell E, Kreif S (1996) An assessment of surgery for spinal stenosis: time trends, geographic variations, complications, and reoperations. J Am Geriatr Soc 44:285–290PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Weinstein JN, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD, Tosteson AN, Blood E, Hanscom B, Herkowitz H, 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 358:794–810PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Malmivaara A, Slätis P, Heliövaara M, Sainio P, Kinnunen H, Kankare J, Dalin-Hirvonen N, Seitsalo S, Herno A, Kortekangas P, Niinimäki 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 32:1–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Slätis P, Malmivaara A, Heliövaara M, Sainio P, Herno A, Kankare J, Seitsalo S, Tallroth K, Turunen V, Knekt P, Hurri H (2011) Long-term results of surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis: a randomised controlled trial. Eur Spine J 20:1174–1181PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hurri H, Slätis P, Soini J, Tallroth K, Alaranta H, Laine T, Heliövaara M (1998) Lumbar spinal stenosis: assessment of long-term outcome 12 years after operative and conservative treatment. J Spinal Disord 11:110–115PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Simotas AC, Dorey FJ, Hansraj KK, Cammisa F Jr (2000) Nonoperative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis. Clinical and outcome results and a 3-year survivorship analysis. Spine 25:197–203PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Atlas SJ, Keller RB, Robson D, Deyo RA, Singer DE (2000) Surgical and non surgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis: four-year outcomes from the maine lumbar spine study. Spine 25:556–562PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Haig AJ, Tong HC, Yamakawa KS, Parres C, Quint DJ, Chiodo A, Miner JA, Phalke VC, Hoff JT, Geisser ME (2006) Predictors of pain and function in persons with spinal stenosis, low back pain, and no back pain. Spine 31:2950–2957PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Amundsen T, Weber H, Nordal HJ, Magnaes B, Abdelnoor M, Lilleas F (2000) Lumbar spinal stenosis: conservative or surgical management? A prospective 10-year study. Spine 25:1424–1435PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Adamova B, Vohanka S, Dusek L (2003) Differential diagnostics in patients with mild lumbar spinal stenosis: the contributions and limits of various tests. Eur Spine J 12:190–196PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Adamova B, Vohanka S, Dusek L (2005) Dynamic electrophysiological examination in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: is it useful in clinical practice? Eur Spine J 14:269–276PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mičánková Adamová B, Voháňka S (2009) The results and contribution of electrophysiological examination in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Scr Med (Brno) 82(1):38–45Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Egli D, Hausmann O, Schmid M et al (2007) Lumbar spinal stenosis: assessment of cauda equina involvement by electrophysiological recordings. J Neurol 254:741–750PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Haig AJ, Geisser ME, Tong HC, Yamakawa KS, Quint DJ, Hoff JT, Chiodo A, Miner JA, Phalke VV (2007) Electromyographic and magnetic resonance imaging to predict lumbar stenosis, low-back pain, and no back symptoms. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89:358–366PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wilbourn AJ, Aminoff MJ (1998) AAEM minimonograph 32: the electrodiagnostic examination in patients with radiculopathies. Muscle Nerve 21:1612–1631PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Adamova B, Bednarik J, Smardova L, Moravcova E, Chvatalova N, Prokes B, Kadanka Z (2000) The association between cervical and lumbar spinal canal stenosis (in Czech). Ces Slov Neurol Neurochir 5:261–267Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Johnsson KE, Rosen I, Uden A (1992) The natural course of lumbar spinal stenosis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 279:82–86PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB (2000) The Oswestry Disability Index. Spine 25:2940–2952 Discussion 2952PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    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 30:936–943PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dhand UK, Das SK, Chopra JS (1991) Patterns of H-reflex abnormality in patients with low back pain. Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol 31:209–213PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Aiello I, Rosati G, Serra G, Manca M (1981) The diagnostic value of H-index in S1 root compression. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 44:171–172PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Braddom RI, Johnson EW (1974) Standardization of H reflex and diagnostic use in S1 radiculopathy. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 55:161–166PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. Micankova Adamova
    • 1
    • 2
  • S. Vohanka
    • 1
    • 2
  • L. Dusek
    • 3
  • J. Jarkovsky
    • 3
  • J. Bednarik
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of NeurologyFaculty Hospital and Masaryk University BrnoBrnoCzech Republic
  2. 2.CEITEC, Central European Institute of TechnologyMasaryk UniversityBrnoCzech Republic
  3. 3.Institute of Biostatistics and AnalysesMasaryk UniversityBrnoCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations