Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Should age be a contraindication for degenerative lumbar surgery?

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction and purpose

The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare disability, quality of life and satisfaction outcomes between young people and elderly who were operated on for degenerative lumbar disease.

Material and methods

A database of 263 patients undergoing lumbar surgery for degenerative conditions was collected. There were 74 patients who were 65 years old or above and 189 who were below 65 who had complete preoperative and 2-year postoperative HRQOL data measures: ODI, SF-36 and COMI.

Results

There were no significant differences in the outcomes between the two age groups (p > 0.05). An improvement from baseline in all quality of life measures in the two age groups was observed. A median improvement of 6.0 points was found in the ODI in the younger patients versus 12.0 in older ones. A median improvement in the SF36 physical component score of 6.95 was seen in the younger group while improvement was reported at 6.36 points in patients over 65. The SF36 mental component score improved by 4.48 points and 4.96 points, respectively. COMI improved a median of 1.2 points in both groups. In terms of satisfaction, 66.9 % of the younger patients were pleased or very pleased whereas this was found to be 59.7 % for the older group.

Conclusion

Older patients can see substantial clinical improvement after degenerative lumbar disease surgery similar to that obtained in younger patients in terms of quality of life and satisfaction. The improvement in terms of the disability is greater for older patients. Thus, age should not be a contraindication for this procedure.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1, 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Koes B (2011) Management of low back pain in primary care: a new approach. Lancet 378(9802):1530–2

    Google Scholar 

  2. Balagué F, Mannion AF, Pellisé F, Cedraschi C (2012) Non-specific low back pain. Lancet 379(9814):482–491

    Google Scholar 

  3. Rajaee SS, Bae HW, Kanim L, Delamarter RB (2012) Spinal fusion in the United States: analysis of trends from 1998 to 2008. Spine 37(1):67–76

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bassols A, Bosch F, Campillo M, Baños JE (2003) El dolor de espalda en la población catalana. Prevalencia, características y conducta terapéutica. GacSanit 17(2):97–107

  5. Robaina-Padrón FJ (2007) Controversias de la cirugía instrumentada y el tratamiento del dolor lumbar por enfermedad degenerativa. Resultados de la evidencia científica. Neurocirugia 18(5):406–413

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Instituto Nacional de Estadística (2010) Long term evolution of the Spanish population. Madrid: INE on-line: http://www.ine.es/prensa/np587.pdf. Accessed Nov 2013

  7. Carreon LY, Puno RM, Dimar JR, Glassman SD, Johnson JR (2003) Perioperative complications of posterior lumbar decompression and arthrodesis in older adults. J Bone Jt Surg Am 85(11):2089–2092

    Google Scholar 

  8. Sobottke R, Aghayev E, Röder C, Eysel P, Delank SK, Zweig T (2012) Predictors of surgical, general and follow-up complications in lumbar spinal stenosis relative to patient age as emerged from the Spine Tango Registry. Eur Spine J 21(3):411–417

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Raffo CS, Lauerman WC (2006) Predicting morbidity and mortality of lumbar spine arthrodesis in patients in their ninth decade. Spine 31(1):99–103

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Micankova Adamova B, Vohanka S, Dusek L, Jarkovsky J, Bednarik (2012) Prediction of long-term clinical outcome in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Eur Spine J 21(12):2611–2619

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Glassman SD, Carreon LY, Dimar JR, Campbell MJ, Puno RM, Johnson JR (2007) Clinical outcomes in older patients after posterolateral lumbar fusion. Spine J 7(5):547–551

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Resnick DK, Choudhri TF, Dailey AT, Hadley MN et al (2005) Guidelines for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Introduction and methodology. J Neurosurg Spine 2(6):637–638

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Keats AS (1978) The ASA classification of physical status—a recapitulation. Anaesthesiology 49(4):233–236

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD (1992) The MOS 36-item short-form healthy survey (SF-36). Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 30(6):473–83

  15. Alonso J, Prieto L, Antó JM (1995) The Spanish version of the SF-36 health survey (the SF-36 health questionnaire): an instrument for measuring clinical results. Med Clin 104(20):771–776

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Fairback JC, Pynsent PB (2000) The oswestry disability index. Spine 25(22):2940–2952

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Alcántara-Bumbiedro S, Flórez-García MT, Echávarri-Pérez C, García- Pérez F (2006) Escala de incapacidad por dolor lumbar de Oswestry. Rehabilitación 40(3):150–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Deyo R, Battie M, Beurskens A, Bombardier C, Croft P, Koes B et al (1998) Outcome measures for low back pain research: a proposal for standardised use. Spine 23:2003–2013

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ferrer M, Pellisé F, Escudero O, Alvarez L, Pont A, Alonso J, Deyo R (2006) Validation of a minimum outcome core set in the evaluation of patients with back pain. Spine 31(12):1372–1379

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lozano-Álvarez C, Pérez-Prieto D, Saló G, Molina A, Lladó A, Ramírez M (2012) Usefulness of the core outcome measures index in daily clinical practice for assessing patients with degenerative lumbar disease. Adv Orthop 2012:474685

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Deyo RA, Gray DT, Kreuter W, Mirza S, Martin BI (2005) United States trends in lumbar fusion surgery for degenerative conditions. Spine 30(12):1441–1445

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Glassman SD, Polly DW, Bono CM, Burkus K, Dimar JR (2009) Outcome of lumbar arthrodesis in patients sixty-five years of age or older. J Bone Jt Surg Am 91(4):783–790

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Okuda S, Oda T, Miyauchi A, Haku T, Yamamoto T, Iwasaki M (2006) Surgical outcomes of posterior lumbar interbody fusion in elderly patients. J Bone Jt Surg Am 88(12):2714–2720

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Crawford CH 3rd, Smail J, Carreon LY, Glassman SD (2011) Health-related quality of life after posterolateral lumbar arthrodesis in patients seventy-five years of age and older. Spine 36(13):1065–1068

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Glassman SD, Copay AG, Berven SH, Polly DW, Subach BR, Carreon LY (2008) Defining substantial clinical benefit following lumbar spine arthrodesis. J Bone Jt Surg Am 90(9):1839–1847

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Lingard EA, Sledge CB, Learmonth ID (2006) Patient expectations regarding total knee arthroplasty: differences among the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia. J Bone Jt Surg Am 88(6):1201–1207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Mannion AF, Denzler R, Dvorak J, Grob D (2010) Five-year outcome of surgical decompression of the lumbar spine without fusion. Eur Spine J 19(11):1883–1891

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel Pérez-Prieto.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pérez-Prieto, D., Lozano-Álvarez, C., Saló, G. et al. Should age be a contraindication for degenerative lumbar surgery?. Eur Spine J 23, 1007–1012 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-014-3178-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-014-3178-1

Keywords

Navigation