The effectiveness of decompression alone compared with additional fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis: a pragmatic comparative non-inferiority observational study from the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery
- 1.3k Downloads
To evaluate the effect of adding fusion to decompression in patients operated for lumbar spinal stenosis with a concomitant lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis.
After propensity score matching, 260 patients operated with decompression and fusion and 260 patients operated with decompression alone were compared. Primary outcome measures were leg and back pain [Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), 0–10] and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI, 0–100) at 12 months.
At 12-month follow-up, the fusion group rated their pain significantly lower than the decompression alone group [leg pain 3.0 and 3.6, respectively, mean difference −0.6, 95 % confidence interval (CI) −1.2 to −0.05, p = 0.03 and back pain 3.3 and 3.9, respectively, mean difference −0.6, 95 % CI −1.1 to −0.1, p = 0.02]. ODI was not significantly different between the groups (21.0 versus 23.3, mean difference −2.3, 95 % CI −5.8 to 1.1, p = 0.18). Seventy-four percent of the fusion group and 63 % of the decompression alone group achieved a clinically important improvement in back pain (difference in proportion of responders = 11 %, 95 % CI 2–20 %, p = 0.01), corresponding to a number needed to treat of 9 patients (95 % CI 5–50). There was no significant difference in responder rate for leg pain (74 and 67 %, respectively, difference 7 %, 95 % CI −1 to 16 %, p = 0.09) or for ODI (67 and 59 %, respectively, difference 8 %, 95 % CI 0–18 %, p = 0.06). The duration of surgery and hospital stay was longer for the fusion group (mean difference 68 min, 95 % CI 58–78, p < 0.01 and mean difference 4.2 days, 95 % CI 3.5–4.8, p < 0.01).
In the present non-inferiority study, we cannot conclude that decompression alone is as good as decompression with additional fusion. However, the small differences in the groups’ effect sizes suggest that a considerable number of patients can be treated with decompression alone. A challenge in future studies will be to find the best treatment option for each patient.
KeywordsLumbar spinal stenosis Degenerative spondylolisthesis Treatment Fusion
Compliance with ethical standards
Helse Bergen HF, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 1.Watters WC 3rd, Bono CM, Gilbert TJ, Kreiner DS, Mazanec DJ, Shaffer WO, Baisden J, Easa JE, Fernand R, Ghiselli G, Heggeness MH, Mendel RC, O’Neill C, Reitman CA, Resnick DK, Summers JT, Timmons RB, Toton JF, North American Spine S (2009) An evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Spine J 9:609–614CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 2.Cauchoix J, Benoist M, Chassaing V (1976) Degenerative spondylolisthesis. Clin Orthop 115:122–129Google Scholar
- 4.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. NEJM 356:2257–2270CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 5.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 Jt Surg (Am) 91:1295–1304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Resnick DK, Watters WC 3rd, Sharan A, Mummaneni PV, Dailey AT, Wang JC, Choudhri TF, Eck J, Ghogawala Z, Groff MW, Dhall SS, Kaiser MG (2014) Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 9: lumbar fusion for stenosis with spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg Spine 21:54–61CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 18.Copay AG, Glassman SD, Subach BR, Berven S, Schuler TC, Carreon LY (2008) Minimum clinically important difference in lumbar spine surgery patients: a choice of methods using the Oswestry Disability Index, Medical Outcomes Study questionnaire Short Form 36, and pain scales. Spine J 8:968–974CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 19.Kamper SJ, Ostelo RW, Knol DL, Maher CG, de Vet HC, Hancock MJ (2010) Global Perceived Effect scales provided reliable assessments of health transition in people with musculoskeletal disorders, but ratings are strongly influenced by current status. J Clin Epidemiol 63:760–766CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 22.Bollen KA, Curran PJ (2006) Latent curve models: a structural equation perspective. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
- 23.Muthén LK, Muthén BO (2014) Mplus 7.3. In: Muthén, Muthén, 3463 Stoner Avenue, CA 90066, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
- 27.Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA, Eccles M, Falck-Ytter Y, Flottorp S, Guyatt GH, Harbour RT, Haugh MC, Henry D, Hill S, Jaeschke R, Leng G, Liberati A, Magrini N, Mason J, Middleton P, Mrukowicz J, O’Connell D, Oxman AD, Phillips B, Schunemann HJ, Edejer T, Varonen H, Vist GE, Williams JW Jr, Zaza S (2004) Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 328:1490CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 33.Mannion AF, Leivseth G, Brox JI, Fritzell P, Hagg O, Fairbank JC (2014) ISSLS Prize winner: long-term follow-up suggests spinal fusion is associated with increased adjacent segment disc degeneration but without influence on clinical outcome: results of a combined follow-up from 4 randomized controlled trials. Spine 39:1373–1383CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 34.Abdu WA, Lurie JD, Spratt KF, Tosteson AN, Zhao W, Tosteson TD, Herkowitz H, Longely M, Boden SD, Emery S, Weinstein JN (2009) Degenerative spondylolisthesis: does fusion method influence outcome? Four-year results of the spine patient outcomes research trial. Spine 34:2351–2360CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 35.Fox MW, Onofrio BM, Onofrio BM, Hanssen AD (1996) Clinical outcomes and radiological instability following decompressive lumbar laminectomy for degenerative spinal stenosis: a comparison of patients undergoing concomitant arthrodesis versus decompression alone. J Neurosurg 85:793–802CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar