Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

, Volume 472, Issue 6, pp 1824–1830

Elderly Patients Have Similar Outcomes Compared to Younger Patients After Minimally Invasive Surgery for Spinal Stenosis

Symposium: Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery



Older patients undergo surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis in great numbers, but as a result of substantial diagnostic and surgical heterogeneity, the impact of age on results after surgery is poorly defined.


We compared groups of patients younger and older than 70 years with relative clinical and surgical homogeneity to determine differences in (1) interval improvement in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) at 6 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months postoperatively and (2) perioperative adverse events.


We performed a subgroup analysis of an ongoing prospective observational study. Patients were divided based primarily on age (younger than 70 years [n = 68] and 70 years or older [n = 41]) and secondarily on procedure (minimally invasive decompression alone or decompression and instrumented fusion). With the exception of age and American Society of Anesthesiologists status, the two age groups were similar (p > 0.3) in baseline demographics and ODI. Mean pre- and postoperative ODI were compared between groups at 6 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months. Perioperative adverse events were also compared.


At all time intervals, both younger and older patients demonstrated (p = 0.05 to < 0.001) improvements in ODI. At the 1-year mark, no differences in ODI were demonstrated between the younger and older patients for decompression only (21 versus 26 [p = 0.29]) or decompression and fusion (19 versus 18 [p = 0.97]). Interval improvement in ODI was not different between younger and older patients at any time point for decompression only (6 weeks: −18 versus −20 [p = 0.66]; 6 months: −21 versus −17 [p = 0.41]; 12 months: −21 versus −15 [p = 0.29]) or decompression and fusion (6 weeks: −11 versus −12 [p = 0.58]; 6 months: −21 versus −22 [p = 0.69]; 12 months: −23 versus −27 [p = 0.97]). There were no differences in perioperative adverse events between groups (p = 0.67).


When clinical and surgical heterogeneity is minimized, improvements in terms of disability as measured by the ODI and the frequency of adverse events after surgery in elderly patients with lumbar spinal stenosis are comparable to those of younger patients. For patients with focal lumbar spinal stenosis, age alone should not dissuade us from considering surgical intervention if otherwise indicated.

Level of Evidence

Level III, therapeutic study. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.


  1. 1.
    Armin SS, Holly LT, Khoo LT. Minimally invasive decompression for lumbar stenosis and disc herniation. Neurosurg Focus. 2008;25:E11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Benz RJ, Ibrahim ZG, Afshar P, Garfin SR. Predicting complications in elderly patients undergoing lumbar decompression. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001;384:116–121.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Carreon LY, Puno RM, Dimar JR 2nd, Glassman SD, Johnson JR. Perioperative complications of posterior lumbar decompression and arthrodesis in older adults. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85:2089–2092.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Copay AG, Glassman SD, Subach BR, Berven S, Schuler TC, Carreon LY. 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. 2008;8:968–974.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Deyo RA, Cherkin DC, Loeser JD, Bigos SJ, Ciol MA. Morbidity and mortality in association with operations on the lumbar spine: the influence of age, diagnosis, and procedure. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1992;74:536–543.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Deyo RA, Ciol MA, Cherkin DC, Loeser JD, Bigos SJ. Lumbar spinal fusion: a cohort study of complications, reoperations, and resource use in the Medicare population. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1993;18:1463–1470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fujita T, Kostuik JP, Huckell CB, Sieber AN. Complications of spinal fusion in adult patients more than 60 years of age. Orthop Clin North Am. 1998;29:669–678.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Isaacs RE, Podichetty VK, Santiago P, Sandhu FA, Spears J, Kelly K, Rice L, Fessler RG. Minimally invasive microendoscopy-assisted transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with instrumentation. J Neurosurg Spine. 2005;3:98–105.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Karikari IO, Grossi PM, Nimjee SM, Hardin C, Hodges TR, Hughes BD, Brown CR, Isaacs RE. Minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion in patients older than 70 years of age: analysis of peri- and postoperative complications. Neurosurgery. 2011;68:897–902; discussion 902.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Karikari IO, Isaacs RE. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a review of techniques and outcomes. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010;35:S294–S301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kelleher MO, Timlin M, Persaud O, Rampersaud YR. Success and failure of minimally invasive decompression for focal lumbar spinal stenosis in patients with and without deformity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010;35:E981–E987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Khoo LT, Fessler RG. Microendoscopic decompressive laminotomy for the treatment of lumbar stenosis. Neurosurgery. 2002;51:S146–S154.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lauryssen C. Technical advances in minimally invasive surgery: direct decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010;35:S287–S293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Oldridge NB, Yuan Z, Stoll JE, Rimm AR. Lumbar spine surgery and mortality among Medicare beneficiaries, 1986. Am J Public Health. 1994;84:1292–1298.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Peng CW, Yue WM, Poh SY, Yeo W, Tan SB. Clinical and radiological outcomes of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009;34:1385–1389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Podichetty VK, Spears J, Isaacs RE, Booher J, Biscup RS. Complications associated with minimally invasive decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2006;19:161–166.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Raffo CS, Lauerman WC. Predicting morbidity and mortality of lumbar spine arthrodesis in patients in their ninth decade. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006;31:99–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ragab AA, Fye MA, Bohlman HH. Surgery of the lumbar spine for spinal stenosis in 118 patients 70 years of age or older. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003;28:348–353.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rampersaud YR, Gray R, Lewis SJ, Massicotte EM, Fehlings MG. Cost-utility analysis of posterior minimally invasive fusion compared with conventional open fusion for lumbar spondylolisthesis. SAS J. 2011;5:29–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rampersaud YR, Neary MA, White K. Spine adverse events severity system: content validation and interobserver reliability assessment. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010;35:790–795.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rampersaud YR, Ravi B, Lewis SJ, Stas V, Barron R, Davey R, Mahomed N. Assessment of health-related quality of life after surgical treatment of focal symptomatic spinal stenosis compared with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. Spine J. 2008;8:296–304.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rampersaud YR, Wai EK, Fisher CG, Yee AJ, Dvorak MF, Finkelstein JA, Gandhi R, Abraham EP, Lewis SJ, Alexander DI, Oxner WM, Davey JR, Mahomed N. Postoperative improvement in health-related quality of life: a national comparison of surgical treatment for focal (one- to two-level) lumbar spinal stenosis compared with total joint arthroplasty for osteoarthritis. Spine J. 2011;11:1033–1041.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rosen DS, O’Toole JE, Eichholz KM, Hrubes M, Huo D, Sandhu FA, Fessler RG. Minimally invasive lumbar spinal decompression in the elderly: outcomes of 50 patients aged 75 years and older. Neurosurgery. 2007;60:503–509; discussion 509–510.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Suri P, Rainville J, Kalichman L, Katz JN. Does this older adult with lower extremity pain have the clinical syndrome of lumbar spinal stenosis? JAMA. 2010;304:2628–2636.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Thornes E, Ikonomou N, Grotle M. Prognosis of surgical treatment for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: a prospective cohort study of clinical outcomes and health-related quality of life across gender and age groups. Open Orthop J. 2011;5:372–378.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Vitaz TW, Raque GH, Shields CB, Glassman SD. Surgical treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis in patients older than 75 years of age. J Neurosurg. 1999;91:181–185.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    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. Surgical versus nonsurgical treatment for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:2257–2270.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Weinstein JN, Lurie JD, Tosteson TD, Zhao W, Blood EA, Tosteson AN, Birkmeyer N, Herkowitz H, Longley M, Lenke L, Emery S, Hu SS. 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. 2009;91:1295–1304.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Weinstein JN, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD, Tosteson A, Blood E, Herkowitz H, Cammisa F, Albert T, Boden SD, Hilibrand A, Goldberg H, Berven S, An H. Surgical versus nonoperative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis four-year results of the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010;35:1329–1338.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    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. Surgical versus nonsurgical therapy for lumbar spinal stenosis. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:794–810.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons® 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SurgeryUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Division of Orthopaedic SurgeryToronto Western HospitalTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations