Abstract
Purpose
To investigate potential associations between preoperative MRI findings and patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) after surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).
Methods
The NORDSTEN trial included 437 patients. We investigated the association between preoperative MRI findings such as morphological grade of stenosis (Schizas grade), quantitative grade of stenosis (dural sac cross-sectional area), disc degeneration (Pfirrmann score), facet joint tropism and fatty infiltration of the multifidus muscle, and improvement in patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) 2 years after surgery. We dichotomized each radiological parameter into a moderate or severe category. PROMs i.e., Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ) and Numeric rating scale (NRS) for back and leg pain were collected before surgery and at 2 year follow-up. In the primary analysis, we investigated the association between MRI findings and ODI score (dichotomized to ≥ 30% improvement or not). In the secondary analysis, we investigated the association between MRI findings and the mean improvement on the ODI-, ZCQ- and NRS scores. We used multivariable regression models adjusted for patients’ gender, age, smoking status and BMI.
Results
The primary analysis showed that severe disc degeneration (Pfirrmann score 4–5) was significantly associated with less chance of achieving a 30% improvement on the ODI score (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.34, 0.88). In the secondary analysis, we detected no clinical relevant associations.
Conclusion
Severe disc degeneration preoperatively suggest lesser chance of achieving 30% improvement in ODI score after surgery for LSS. Other preoperative MRI findings were not associated with patient reported outcome.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a clinical diagnosis characterized by symptoms of back- and leg pain, neurogenic claudication and corresponding MRI findings showing narrowing of the spinal canal. Several studies have shown that surgery is a beneficial treatment option [1, 2] and LSS is currently the most frequent cause of spinal surgery in the western world [3, 4]. Patient reported outcome after surgery is reported to be good or excellent in 60–80 percent of the patients [5,6,7,8]. Unfavorable outcomes have been attributed to inadequate patient selection and individual risk factors such as comorbidity, psychosocial factors, high BMI and smoking [9,10,11].
Radiological imaging is mandatory for establishing the LSS diagnosis and several radiological classification systems have been proposed, but their correlation to symptom severity is generally weak [12,13,14]. Previous studies evaluating the relationship between radiological findings and patient reported outcomes have reported conflicting results [15,16,17]. The identification of prognostic factors could improve surgical decision-making and possibly clinical outcomes. Thus, the aim of this analysis was to investigate a broad spectrum of preoperative MRI findings in LSS patients and their potential associations with PROMs 2 years after surgery.
Methods
The NORwegian Degenerative spondylolisthesis and spinal STENosis (NORDSTEN) study is a large RCT evaluating clinical and radiological outcomes of different surgical treatments for LSS. The patients included in the present analysis are from the NORDSTEN Spinal Stenosis Trial (SST), which includes 437 LSS patients without spondylolisthesis [18].
Inclusion process and patient recruitment
All patients included had MRl findings and symptoms consistent with LSS. In total 2227 patients were referred for evaluation at a spine surgery unit, and 437 patients fulfilling all eligibility criteria were finally included in the SST trial (Fig. 1). All patients were enrolled between February 2014 and October 2018. The patients were randomized and treated with three commonly used surgical techniques for LSS. All three techniques resulted in similar success rates [19]. The included patients answered the questionnaires preoperatively and at the 2-year follow up. Inclusion criteria are presented in Table 1.
Magnetic resonance imaging
All participants underwent a 1.5 or 3 Tesla MRI of the lumbar spine within 6 months before surgery. The MRI protocol included sagittal T1- and axial and sagittal T2- weighted images with repetition time (TR)/ echo time (TE) 1500–6548/82–126 ms for T2-weighted images and 400–826/8–14 ms for T1-weighted images, slice thickness: 3–5 mm, FOV:160–350 mm. All MRI examinations were anonymized. PACS IDS7 (SECTRA) integrated measurement tools were used for assessment of morphological changes.
Two experienced radiologists established a protocol for MRI evaluation in concordance with previously validated classification systems. The inter- and intra-observer agreement analysis is evaluated in a previous study [20].
We defined the index level as the narrowest lumbar level measured with dural sac cross-sectional area (DSCA). At index level, we investigated the following parameters and dichotomized the radiological scores into moderate and severe changes:
-
Schizas qualitative grading system, grading the morphology of the dural sac ranging from A (no or minor narrowing) to D (extreme narrowing). Schizas grade C and D were classified as severe changes. The distinction between moderate and severe changes is determined by observation of cerebrospinal fluid surrounding the neural structures [12].
-
DSCA according to the method described by Sconstrom and Hansson [21]. DSCA less than 75 mm2 was classified as severe changes.
-
Pfirrmann grading system to evaluate the intervertebral disc degeneration from 1 (normal) to 5 (worst)) [22]. Pfirrmann 4 and 5 was classified as severe changes. Moderate changes were distinguishable by white/grey disc and severe changes by black/collapsed disc.
-
Facet joint angle measured according to the method described by Noren et al. [23] and facet joint tropism evaluated according to the method of Vanharanta [24]. Tropism of 15° or more was classified as severe changes.
-
Fat infiltration of the multifidus muscle according to the Goutallier classification from 0 (normal) to 4 (severe) [25]. Goutallier grade 2–4 was classified as severe changes. Worst side right/left from the index level was used in the analysis.
Outcome measures
Before surgery and at the 2-year follow up, the patients completed a self-administered questionnaire containing commonly used PROMs such as the Norwegian version of the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI, the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ) and numeric rating scale (NRS) for leg and back pain.
The primary outcome measure was a reduction of at least 30% of the ODI score after the 2 year follow up period determined as threshold value to define the surgical intervention as a success [26,27,28,29].
Secondary patient reported outcomes measures were summary scores reported at 2 year follow-up for ODI, ZCQ and NRS for leg and back pain.
The ODI is a low back pain-specific questionnaire consisting of ten questions concerning pain related disability. The ODI score ranges from zero (no disability) to 100 (most severe disability) [30, 31].
The ZCQ is a disease specific questionnaire for LSS measuring symptom severity and physical function[32]. The symptom severity- scale ranges from 1.0 to 5.0. The activity scale ranges from 1.0 to 4.0. For all scales, 1.0 is minimum burden. The NRS for leg and back pain ranges is from zero (no pain) to 10 (worst pain imaginable) [33].
Statistical analysis
The present study is a blinded analysis of data collected prospectively in a RCT, nested within the NORDSTEN Spinal Stenosis Trail. Standard descriptive statistics were used to present demographic data at baseline and outcome measures at baseline and follow-up. Paired-sample T-tests were used to compare differences in means between baseline and 2-year follow-up. To analyze the association between MRI findings and the primary and secondary outcomes we applied multivariable regression models including all MRI parameters and controlling for the most relevant patient demographics including age (continuous), sex, current smoking status (yes/no) and BMI (continuous). For the primary dichotomous outcome, a logistic regression model was used, estimating odds ratios and corresponding 95% confidence intervals. For the continuous secondary outcomes we used linear regressions, and estimated unstandardized regression coefficients with corresponding 95% confidence intervals. All analyses were done using Stata version 16.1.
Ethics and trial registration
The Committee for Medical and Health Research Ethics of Central Norway approved the study (study identifier: 2011/2034). The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (22.11.2013) under the identifier NCT02007083. All patients provided written informed consent.
Results
Baseline data
This analysis included 437 patients, mean age was 66.8 (SD 8.4) years, 52.7% were males and 20.8% were smokers. Patient characteristics and PROMs preoperatively and 2 years after surgery are presented in Table 2. The proportion of patients categorized with severe radiological changes preoperatively were: Schizas grade 296 of 415 (71%), DSCA 360 of 415 (86%), Pfirrmann score 241 of 415 (58%), fatty infiltration of the multifidus muscle 308 of 368 (84%), facet joint tropism 49 of 415 (12%). In total 35 Patients (8%) dropped out during follow up.
Clinical outcomes
Mean improvement in ODI from baseline to two-year follow-up for the cohort was 19.1 (95% CI 17.5–20.8). The proportion of patients with minimum 30% improvement in ODI score was 273/393 (69.5%). Mean improvement in ZCQ was 1.0 (95% CI 0.9–1.1) for Symptom Severity and 0.8 (95% CI 0.8–0.9) for Physical Function. The mean NRS leg pain improvement was 3.5 (95% CI 3.2–3.8) and 2.7 (95% CI 2.4–3.0) for NRS Back pain There was a statistically significant improvement between baseline scores and scores at 2 years follow-up for all investigated PROMs with p values < 0.001.
Risk factor analyses
Primary analysis
When controlling for gender, age, smoking status and BMI, the only MRI parameter associated with less chance of achieving the targeted goal of minimum 30% improvement in ODI score was severe disc degeneration (Pfirrmann score 4–5) (OR 0.54 95% CI 0.34, 0.88) (Table 3).
Secondary analyses
Compared to moderate disc degeneration (Pfirrmann score 1–3), severe disc degeneration (Pfirmann score 4–5) was significantly associated with higher ZCQ symptom and function score with mean difference of 0.19 points (95% CI 0.02, 0.36) and 0.17 points (95% CI 0.04, 0.29).
The comparison between tropism yes/no indicated a statistically significant association between absence of facet joint tropism preoperatively and less improved PROMs measured with NRS leg pain with mean difference of -1.12 (95% CI − 2.13, − 0.12) and NRS lumbar pain with mean difference of − 0.98 (95% CI − 1.91, − 0.01).
Compared to severe morphological changes (Schizas grade C-D), moderate morphological changes (Schizas grade A-B) was statistically significantly associated with less improved ODI score with mean difference of − 4.6 ODI points (95% CI − 8.6, − 0.6) (Table 4).
Discussion
Our main finding in this analysis is the negative association between severe disc degeneration (Pfirrmann score 4–5) and the odds of achieving a 30% improvement on the ODI score. Patients categorized with severe disc degeneration had almost 50% reduction of their probability to experience successful outcome 2 years after surgery. The finding in the primary analysis was supported by the secondary analysis, using continuous PROM improvement as dependent variables. The effect size was small, and probably not clinically important [26] but due to the consistency of severe disc degeneration across different outcomes, we still consider the negative prognostic impact as clinically relevant.
The association between facet joint tropism and improvement in leg and back pain, and between PROMs and Schizas grade in the secondary analyses reached statistical significance. However, the effect sizes were small, and most probably not clinically relevant [26]. No such associations were found in the primary analyses, we therefore consider these finding as incidental, probably due to multiple testing.
Mannion et al. conducted one of the major studies in this field. They found a significant and clinically relevant association between improvement in PROMs after surgery, and higher preoperative Schizas grade and a higher reduction of DSCA [17]. We could not reproduce this observation. A possible explanation might be the use of different outcome measures i.e., the ODI score in our analysis and the Core Outcome Measure Index (COMI) used in the study by Mannion. Considering that patients with clinical and radiological lateral stenosis were also included in the NORDSTEN cohort, the authors cannot rule out the possibility that the influence of a severe central stenosis might consequently be statistically weakened.
Sigmundsson et al. suggested that decreased DSCA at baseline was associated with less back and leg pain at follow up. The utilized instrument was a VAS scale and the clinical relevance was by the authors considered as minor. No association between baseline DSCA and ODI at follow-up was detected [15]. The relatively small Swedish study with 109 participants did not dichotomize DSCA. Consequently, this observation is not directly comparable with our findings. Weber et al. investigated preoperatively Schizas grade and PROMS at 1 year follow up based on unselected patients from the Norwegian Spine Registry without finding any clinical association [16].
None of the referred studies investigated the possible association between PROMs and preoperative disc degeneration, fatty infiltration, or tropism. The investigated radiological parameters were chosen based on previously suggested potential but limited published data as well as easily applicable parameters. In addition to Schizas grade and DSCA, earlier studied have investigated the potential predicative value of other MRI findings. Kuittinen et al. investigated lateral spinal canal recess stenosis and foraminal stenosis preoperatively without detecting any association to outcome scores after surgery [34]. The present analysis do not include measurements of lateral or foraminal stenosis. Regarding the predictive value of severe disc degeneration one cannot exclude the presence of possible confounders, such as overall more degeneration of the spine or more multilevel central stenosis than unilateral one level stenosis. The NORDSTEN group have earlier published a paper investigating the association between symptom severity before surgery and preoperative MRI findings in patients with LSS. A significant association between Pfirrmann score and ODI score was detected, but with uncertain clinical relevance.[14].
The dichotomization of the scores in the different radiological classification systems was chosen to differentiate between patients with moderate and severe MRI changes and in concordance with earlier studies [12, 14, 21, 24].
To adjust for potential confounders we used gender, age, smoking status and BMI as covariates in the analysis. These variables have been identified as independent predictors for surgical outcomes in previous studies [11, 17, 35, 36]. Other potential predictors suggested i.e., depression, grade of physical activity and observed scoliosis could not be included in the analyses due to the absence of such data in the NORDSTEN cohort.
Limitations and strengths
The large number of participants gave us the opportunity to investigate a large number of radiological variables without compromising the strength of our statistical models. However, the chance of false significant associations increase with increasing number of variates. Due to the low number of dropouts we consider the risk of attrition bias to be low.
The MRIs investigated in this paper are collected from a large number of institutions. Factors as slice orientation and magnet strength may vary. This could inflict our measurements and consequently bias the result of the analysis. However, due to the strict MRI protocol distributed to all radiological institutions, we consider the risk of information bias to be low. All radiological measurements were performed by investigators, blinded to clinical data, and both inter- and intra- reliability were high.
It is important to recognize is that that the results cannot be generalized to subgroups not included in the study cohort, for example those with a concomitant degenerative spondylolisthesis and those with unilateral recess stenosis. For the included patient groups, some risk of selection bias does still exist. Due to a low number of included patients at some spine surgery units, it is likely that a considerable number of patients were not screened for eligibility. Hence the representation of included patients might not be in accordance with the defined study population.
Conclusion
In this study on patients operated for LSS, severe disc degeneration was the only preoperative MRI finding associated with reduced chance of achieving a 30% improvement in ODI score 2 years after surgery. Grade of spinal stenosis measured by Schizas and DSCA was not associated with outcome.
References
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, Investigators S (2008) Surgical versus nonsurgical therapy for lumbar spinal stenosis. N Engl J Med 358:794–810. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0707136
Malmivaara A, Slatis P, Heliovaara M, Sainio P, Kinnunen H, Kankare J, Dalin-Hirvonen N, Seitsalo S, Herno A, Kortekangas P, Niinimaki T, Ronty H, Tallroth K, Turunen V, Knekt P, Harkanen T, Hurri H, Finnish Lumbar Spinal Research G (2007) Surgical or nonoperative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis? A randomized controlled trial. Spine 32:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000251014.81875.6d (Phila Pa 1976)
Weinstein JN, Lurie JD, Olson PR, Bronner KK, Fisher ES (2006) United States’ trends and regional variations in lumbar spine surgery: 1992–2003. Spine 31:2707–2714. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000248132.15231.fe (Phila Pa 1976)
Stromqvist B, Fritzell P, Hagg O, Jonsson B, Swedish Society of Spinal S (2009) The Swedish Spine Register: development, design and utility. Eur Spine J 18(Suppl 3):294-304. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-009-1043-4
Jansson KA, Nemeth G, Granath F, Jonsson B, Blomqvist P (2009) Health-related quality of life (EQ-5D) before and one year after surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 91:210–216. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.91B2.21119
Airaksinen O, Herno A, Turunen V, Saari T, Suomlainen O (1997) Surgical outcome of 438 patients treated surgically for lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 22:2278–2282. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199710010-00016 (Phila Pa 1976)
Hara N, Oka H, Yamazaki T, Takeshita K, Murakami M, Hoshi K, Terayama S, Seichi A, Nakamura K, Kawaguchi H, Matsudaira K (2010) Predictors of residual symptoms in lower extremities after decompression surgery on lumbar spinal stenosis. Eur Spine J 19:1849–1854. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-010-1374-1
Katz JN, Lipson SJ, Brick GW, Grobler LJ, Weinstein JN, Fossel AH, Lew RA, Liang MH (1995) Clinical correlates of patient satisfaction after laminectomy for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 20:1155–1160. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199505150-00008 (Phila Pa 1976)
Sanden B, Forsth P, Michaelsson K (2011) Smokers show less improvement than nonsmokers two years after surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis: a study of 4555 patients from the Swedish spine register. Spine 36:1059–1064. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181e92b36 (Phila Pa 1976)
Athiviraham A, Wali ZA, Yen D (2011) Predictive factors influencing clinical outcome with operative management of lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine J 11:613–617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2011.03.008
Aalto TJ, Malmivaara A, Kovacs F, Herno A, Alen M, Salmi L, Kroger H, Andrade J, Jimenez R, Tapaninaho A, Turunen V, Savolainen S, Airaksinen O (2006) Preoperative predictors for postoperative clinical outcome in lumbar spinal stenosis: systematic review. Spine 31:E648-663. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000231727.88477.da (Phila Pa 1976)
Schizas C, Theumann N, Burn A, Tansey R, Wardlaw D, Smith FW, Kulik G (2010) Qualitative grading of severity of lumbar spinal stenosis based on the morphology of the dural sac on magnetic resonance images. Spine 35:1919–1924. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181d359bd (Phila Pa 1976)
Burgstaller JM, Schuffler PJ, Buhmann JM, Andreisek G, Winklhofer S, Del Grande F, Mattle M, Brunner F, Karakoumis G, Steurer J, Held U, Group LS (2016) Is There an Association Between Pain and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Parameters in Patients With Lumbar Spinal Stenosis? Spine 41:E1053–1062. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000001544 (Phila Pa 1976)
Aaen J, Austevoll IM, Hellum C, Storheim K, Myklebust TA, Banitalebi H, Anvar M, Brox JI, Weber C, Solberg T, Grundnes O, Brisby H, Indrekvam K, Hermansen E (2021) Clinical and MRI findings in lumbar spinal stenosis: baseline data from the NORDSTEN study. Eur Spine J. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-021-07051-4
Sigmundsson FG, Kang XP, Jonsson B, Stromqvist B (2012) Prognostic factors in lumbar spinal stenosis surgery. Acta Orthop 83:536–542. https://doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2012.733915
Weber C, Giannadakis C, Rao V, Jakola AS, Nerland U, Nygaard OP, Solberg TK, Gulati S, Solheim O (2016) Is there an association between radiological severity of lumbar spinal stenosis and disability, pain, or surgical outcome?: A multicenter observational study. Spine 41:E78-83. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000001166 (Phila Pa 1976)
Mannion AF, Fekete TF, Pacifico D, O’Riordan D, Nauer S, von Buren M, Schizas C (2017) Dural sac cross-sectional area and morphological grade show significant associations with patient-rated outcome of surgery for lumbar central spinal stenosis. Eur Spine J 26:2552–2564. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-017-5280-7
Hermansen E, Austevoll IM, Romild UK, Rekeland F, Solberg T, Storheim K, Grundnes O, Aaen J, Brox JI, Hellum C, Indrekvam K (2017) Study-protocol for a randomized controlled trial comparing clinical and radiological results after three different posterior decompression techniques for lumbar spinal stenosis: the Spinal Stenosis Trial (SST) (part of the NORDSTEN Study). BMC Musculoskelet Disord 18:121. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-017-1491-7
Hermansen E, Austevoll IM, Hellum C, Storheim K, Myklebust TA, Aaen J, Banitalebi H, Anvar M, Rekeland F, Brox JI, Franssen E, Weber C, Solberg TK, Furunes H, Grundnes O, Brisby H, Indrekvam K (2022) Comparison of 3 different minimally invasive surgical techniques for lumbar spinal stenosis: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw Open 5:e224291. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.4291
Banitalebi H, Espeland A, Anvar M, Hermansen E, Hellum C, Brox JI, Myklebust TA, Indrekvam K, Brisby H, Weber C, Aaen J, Austevoll IM, Grundnes O, Negard A (2022) Reliability of preoperative MRI findings in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 23:51. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-021-04949-4
Schonstrom N, Hansson T (1988) Pressure changes following constriction of the cauda equine. An experimental study in situ. Spine 13:385–388
Pfirrmann CW, Metzdorf A, Zanetti M, Hodler J, Boos N (2001) Magnetic resonance classification of lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration. Spine 26:1873–1878 (Phila Pa 1976)
Noren R, Trafimow J, Andersson GB, Huckman MS (1991) The role of facet joint tropism and facet angle in disc degeneration. Spine 16:530–532
Vanharanta H, Floyd T, Ohnmeiss DD, Hochschuler SH, Guyer RD (1993) The relationship of facet tropism to degenerative disc disease. Spine 18:1000–1005
Goutallier D, Postel JM, Bernageau J, Lavau L, Voisin MC (1994) Fatty muscle degeneration in cuff ruptures. Pre- and postoperative evaluation by CT scan. Clin Orthop Relat Res 304:78–83
Austevoll IM, Gjestad R, Grotle M, Solberg T, Brox JI, Hermansen E, Rekeland F, Indrekvam K, Storheim K, Hellum C (2019) Follow-up score, change score or percentage change score for determining clinical important outcome following surgery? An observational study from the Norwegian registry for Spine surgery evaluating patient reported outcome measures in lumbar spinal stenosis and lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 20:31. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-018-2386-y
Dworkin RH, Turk DC, Wyrwich KW, Beaton D, Cleeland CS, Farrar JT, Haythornthwaite JA, Jensen MP, Kerns RD, Ader DN, Brandenburg N, Burke LB, Cella D, Chandler J, Cowan P, Dimitrova R, Dionne R, Hertz S, Jadad AR, Katz NP, Kehlet H, Kramer LD, Manning DC, McCormick C, McDermott MP, McQuay HJ, Patel S, Porter L, Quessy S, Rappaport BA, Rauschkolb C, Revicki DA, Rothman M, Schmader KE, Stacey BR, Stauffer JW, von Stein T, White RE, Witter J, Zavisic S (2008) Interpreting the clinical importance of treatment outcomes in chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. J Pain 9:105–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpain.2007.09.005
Austevoll IM, Hermansen E, Fagerland MW, Storheim K, Brox JI, Solberg T, Rekeland F, Franssen E, Weber C, Brisby H, Grundnes O, Algaard KRH, Boker T, Banitalebi H, Indrekvam K, Hellum C, Investigators N-D (2021) Decompression with or without Fusion in Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis. N Engl J Med 385:526–538. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2100990
Ostelo RW, Deyo RA, Stratford P, Waddell G, Croft P, Von Korff M, Bouter LM, de Vet HC (2008) Interpreting change scores for pain and functional status in low back pain: towards international consensus regarding minimal important change. Spine 33:90–94. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31815e3a10 (Phila Pa 1976)
Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB (2000) The Oswestry disability index. Spine 25:2940–2952. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200011150-00017 (Phila Pa 1976)
Grotle M, Brox JI, Vollestad NK (2003) Cross-cultural adaptation of the Norwegian versions of the Roland-Morris disability questionnaire and the Oswestry disability index. J Rehabil Med 35:241–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/16501970306094
Stucki G, Daltroy L, Liang MH, Lipson SJ, Fossel AH, Katz JN (1996) Measurement properties of a self-administered outcome measure in lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 21:796–803. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199604010-00004 (Phila Pa 1976)
Ferreira-Valente MA, Pais-Ribeiro JL, Jensen MP (2011) Validity of four pain intensity rating scales. Pain 152:2399–2404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2011.07.005
Kuittinen P, Sipola P, Leinonen V, Saari T, Sinikallio S, Savolainen S, Kroger H, Turunen V, Airaksinen O, Aalto T (2014) Preoperative MRI findings predict two-year postoperative clinical outcome in lumbar spinal stenosis. PLoS ONE 9:e106404. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0106404
Ogura Y, Kobayashi Y, Shinozaki Y, Kitagawa T, Yonezawa Y, Takahashi Y, Yoshida K, Yasuda A, Ogawa J (2020) Factors influencing patient satisfaction after decompression surgery without fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis. Global Spine J 10:627–632. https://doi.org/10.1177/2192568219868205
Knutsson B, Michaelsson K, Sanden B (2013) Obesity is associated with inferior results after surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis: a study of 2633 patients from the Swedish spine register. Spine 38:435–441. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e318270b243 (Phila Pa 1976)
Acknowledgements
This study has received funding from Central Norway Regional Health Authority (RHA) and Western Regional Health Authority (RHA) and the Department of Research and Innovation, Møre and Romsdal Hospital Trust, Ålesund, Norway.
Funding
Open access funding provided by NTNU Norwegian University of Science and Technology (incl St. Olavs Hospital - Trondheim University Hospital).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Aaen, J., Banitalebi, H., Austevoll, I.M. et al. The association between preoperative MRI findings and clinical improvement in patients included in the NORDSTEN spinal stenosis trial. Eur Spine J 31, 2777–2785 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-022-07317-5
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-022-07317-5