Search

Study Design: A prospective multicenter cohort study., Objectives: This study evaluates the risk for surgical site infections (SSIs) or wound healing problems (WHPs) in patients who underwent corticosteroid injection before lumbar decompression surgery., Summary of Background Data: Corticosteroid injections are often used for the treatment of the degenerated spine. However, their well-known immunosuppressive effects could increase the risk for local infections, particularly if a surgical intervention follows the injection rapidly., Methods: The Swiss Lumbar Stenosis Outcome Study (LSOS), which is a prospective multicenter cohort study of patients with symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis, was used as database. Of 743 patients, 422 patients underwent surgery and were eligible for the study. Ten patients (2.4%) were revised for either SSIs (n = 6) or WHPs (n = 4). A control group (n = 19) was constructed matched according to age, sex, diabetes, and body mass index (BMI). Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated by using a conditional logistic regression model to quantify the risk of SSI or WHP after preoperative corticosteroid injection. Subgroup analysis was performed for patients with injection within 0 to 3 months before surgery, 0 to 6 months before surgery, or any injection at all before surgery., Results: Within this cohort, no significant association could be found between preoperative corticosteroid injection and postoperative SSI or WHP in patients with corticosteroid injections within 0 to 3 months before surgery [OR = 0.36, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.04-3.22], 0 to 6 months before surgery (OR = 0.69 95% CI 0.14-3.49), or any time before surgery (OR = 0.43, 95% CI 0.04-3.22)., Conclusion: Within the here investigated cohort, the risk of SSIs or WHPs following lumbar spinal decompression surgery seems not highly associated with preoperative corticosteroid injections. However, the safe time interval between corticosteroid infiltrations and surgery remains unknown, should not be decreased incautiously, and is the subject of further research., Level of Evidence: 2.

Study Design: Prospective multicenter cohort study., Objective: To study the question whether paravertebral muscle quality may affect the clinical outcome of epidural steroid infiltration (ESI) or surgical decompression in patients with symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS)., Summary of Background Data: To the present, the impact of paravertebral muscle quality on clinical outcome of ESI or surgical decompression in patients with LSS has not been clarified., Methods: The Lumbar Stenosis Outcome Study was used as database. Patients with symptomatic LSS who received an ESI (group I) or lumbar decompression surgery (group II), had a follow-up of at least 12 months and a pretreatment lumbar magnetic resonance imaging were included (n = 205). Paravertebral muscle quality was quantified by the degree of fatty degeneration (according to Goutallier) on the level L3. Clinical outcome was assessed using the Spinal Stenosis Measure, Numeric Rating Scale, Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire, and EQ-5D-3L sum score. Reinfiltration, surgery following infiltration, or revision was defined as treatment failure., Results: ESI (group I) and surgical treatment (group II) were associated with a failure rate of 60% and 12.7%, respectively. In group I, there was a tendency for the rate of reintervention to be less in patients with bad muscle quality (P = 0.22). In group II, improvements in the clinical outcomes up to 12 months did not differ between Goutallier stage ≤1 and ≥2. Patients with Goutallier stage ≤1 had more improvement in Spinal Stenosis Measure symptoms (P = 0.04)., Conclusion: Relevant fatty degeneration of the paravertebral musculature, as a sign of low muscle quality, has low impact on clinical outcome and the high failure rates with conservative treatment by ESI compared to surgical decompression. Therefore fatty degeneration has no relevant prognostic value for LSS treatment., Level of Evidence: 2.

Study Design: Retrospective analysis of a prospective, multicenter cohort study., Objective: To estimate the added effect of surgical fusion as compared to decompression surgery alone in symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis patients with spondylolisthesis., Summary of Background Data: The optimal surgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis patients with spondylolisthesis remains controversial., Methods: Patients of the Lumbar Stenosis Outcome Study with confirmed DLSS and spondylolisthesis were enrolled in this study. The outcomes of this study were Spinal Stenosis Measure (SSM) symptoms (score range 1-5, best-worst) and function (1-4) over time, measured at baseline, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months follow-up. In order to quantify the effect of fusion surgery as compared to decompression alone and number of decompressed levels, we used mixed effects models and accounted for the repeated observations in main outcomes (SSM symptoms and SSM function) over time. In addition to individual patients' random effects, we also fitted random slopes for follow-up time points and compared these two approaches with Akaike's Information Criterion and the chi-square test. Confounders were adjusted with fixed effects for age, sex, body mass index, diabetes, Cumulative Illness Rating Scale musculoskeletal disorders, and duration of symptoms., Results: One hundred thirty-one patients undergoing decompression surgery alone (n = 85) or decompression with fusion surgery (n = 46) were included in this study. In the multiple mixed effects model the adjusted effect of fusion compared with decompression alone surgery on SSM symptoms was 0.06 (95% confidence interval: -0.16-0.27) and -0.07 (95% confidence interval: -0.25-0.10) on SSM function, respectively., Conclusion: Among the patients with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis and spondylolisthesis our study confirms that in the two groups, decompression alone and decompression with fusion, patients distinctively benefited from surgical treatment. When adjusted for confounders, fusion surgery was not associated with a more favorable outcome in both SSM scores as compared to decompression alone surgery., Level of Evidence: 3.

Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis., Objective: To determine the efficacy of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) on pain reduction, overall improvement, and reported adverse effects in people with sciatica., Summary of Background Data: NSAIDs are one of the most frequently prescribed drugs for sciatica., Methods: We updated a 2008 Cochrane Review through June 2015. Randomized controlled trials that compared NSAIDs with placebo, with other NSAIDs, or with other medication were included. Outcomes included pain using mean difference (MD, 95% confidence intervals [95% CI]). For global improvement and adverse effects risk ratios (RR, 95% CI) were used. We assessed level of evidence using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach., Results: Ten trials were included (N = 1651). Nine out of 10 trials were assessed at high risk of bias. For pain reduction (visual analog scale, 0 to 100) NSAIDs were no more effective than placebo (MD -4.56, 95% CI -11.11 to 1.99, quality of evidence: very low). For global improvement NSAIDs were more effective than placebo (RR 1.14 [95% CI 1.03 to 1.27], low quality of evidence). One trial reported the effect of NSAIDs on disability with very low-quality evidence that NSAIDs are no more effective than placebo. There was low-quality evidence that the risk for adverse effects is higher for NSAID than placebo (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.93)., Conclusion: Our findings show very low-quality evidence that the efficacy of NSAIDs for pain reduction is comparable with that of placebo, low-quality evidence that NSAIDs is better than placebo for global improvement and low-quality evidence for higher risk of adverse effects using NSAIDs compared with placebo. The findings must be interpreted with caution, due to small study samples, inconsistent results, and a high risk of bias in the included trials., Level of Evidence: 1.

Study Design: Prospective multicenter cohort study., Objective: To evaluate the effect of pre- and postoperatively assessed fear avoidance beliefs (FAB) on pain and disability in patients with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) after decompression surgery., Summary of Background Data: To the present, the influence of pre- and postoperative FAB on the prognosis after surgery for LLS is still unclear., Methods: Patients of the Swiss Lumbar Stenosis Outcome Study (LSOS) with confirmed LSS undergoing first-time decompression without fusion were enrolled in this study. The main outcome of this study was minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in spinal stenosis measure symptoms (pain) and function (disability) after 12 months. To analyze the influence of pre- and postoperatively assessed FAB on pain and disability we built simple and multiple logistic regression models., Results: In this analysis of 234 patients undergoing decompression surgery for symptomatic degenerative LSS we found baseline FAB measured by the FAB physical activity subscale (FABQ-P) not to be associated with pain (OR 0.95; 95% CI: 0.55-1.67) and disability (OR 1.11; 95% CI: 0.64-1.92) at 12 months' follow-up. In the final multiple logistic regression models patients with high FABQ-P at 6 months (OR 0.46; 95% CI: 0.24-0.91) and high persistent FABQ-P at baseline and 6 months (OR 0.34, 95% CI: 0.16-0.73) were less likely to report a MCID for spinal stenosis measure symptoms at 12 months. Our analysis found a similar trend for disability; however, the results were not statistically significant., Conclusion: In elderly patients undergoing decompression surgery for symptomatic degenerative LSS preoperative fear avoidance beliefs were not a prognostic indicator for the outcome. Patients with FAB at 6 months and persistent FAB were less likely to experience clinically relevant improvement in pain at 12 months. Studies should address the importance of persistent postoperative FAB., Level of Evidence: 3.

Study Design: A prospective multicenter cohort study., Objective: The aim of this study was to identify an association between pain and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) parameters in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS)., Summary of Background Data: At present, the relationship between abnormal MRI findings and pain in patients with LSS is still unclear., Methods: First, we conducted a systematic literature search. We identified relationships of relevant MRI parameters and pain in patients with LSS. Second, we addressed the study question with a thorough descriptive and graphical analysis to establish a relationship between MRI parameters and pain using data of the LSS outcome study (LSOS)., Results: In the systematic review including four papers about the associations between radiological findings in the MRI and pain, the authors of two articles reported no association and two of them did. Of the latters, only one study found a moderate correlation between leg pain measured by Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and the degree of stenosis assessed by spine surgeons. In the data of the LSOS study, we could not identify a relevant association between any of the MRI parameters and buttock, leg, and back pain, quantified by the Spinal Stenosis Measure (SSM) and the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS). Even by restricting the analysis to the level of the lumbar spine with the most prominent radiological "stenosis," no relevant association could be shown., Conclusion: Despite a thorough analysis of the data, we were not able to prove any correlation between radiological findings (MRI) and the severity of pain. There is a need for innovative "methods/techniques" to learn more about the causal relationship between radiological findings and the patients' pain-related complaints., Level of Evidence: 2.

Study Design: Prospective, multicenter cohort study including 8 medical centers of the Cantons Zurich, Lucerne, and Thurgau, Switzerland., Objective: The aim of the study was to assess whether obese patients benefit after decompression surgery for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS)., Summary and Background Data: Lumbar decompression surgery has been shown to improve quality of life in patients with DLSS. In the existing literature, the efficacy of lumbar decompression in the obese population remains controversial., Methods: Baseline patient characteristics and outcomes were analyzed at 6 and 12 months follow-up with the Spinal Stenosis Measure (SSM), the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), Feeling Thermometer (FT), the EQ-5D-EL, and the Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ). Body mass index (BMI) was classified into 3 categories according to the WHO. Minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) in SSM for different BMI categories were considered as main outcome., Results: Of the 656 patients in the Lumbar Spinal Outcome Study database as of end of October 2014, 166 patients met the inclusion criteria. Fifty (30.1%) had a BMI less than 25 (underweight and normal weight group), 72 (43.4%) had a BMI between 25 and less than 30 (preobesity group), and 44 (26.5%) patients had a BMI at least 30 (obese group). We found for the main outcome that in obese patients 36% reached MCID at 6 months, and 48% at 12 months. The estimated odds ratios for MCID in the obese group were 0.78 (0.34-1.82) at 6 months and 0.99 (0.44-2.23) at 12 months in a logistic regression model adjusting for levels of laminectomy. In the additional outcomes, SSM, NRS, FT, and RMDQ showed statistically significant mean improvements in the 6 and 12 months follow-up., Conclusion: Obese patients can expect clinical improvement after lumbar decompression for DLSS, but the percentage of patients with a meaningful improvement is lower than in the group of patients with underweight, normal weight, and preobese weight at 6 and 12 months.

Study Design: Retrospective analysis of data from patients participating in the Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Outcome Study (LSOS)., Objective: The aim of LSOS was to assess clinical outcomes after surgical or nonoperative treatment in patients with and without prior epidural steroid injections., Summary of Background Data: Epidural steroid injections (ESI), a common treatment modality, reduce symptoms in the short-term, but according to a subgroup analysis from the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) they reduce the amount of improvement after subsequent surgical or nonoperative treatment., Methods: The data of 281 patients with lumbar spinal stenosis who had completed baseline and 6-month follow-up assessments were analyzed. Patients completed the Spinal Stenosis Measure (SSM). Changes in the SSM scores from baseline to follow-up were compared between patients with and without prior ESI, for the surgical and nonsurgical treatment groups., Results: The mean (SD) age of the patients was 75 (8.7) years. 229 patients underwent surgery and 111 of these had received an ESI in the 12 months before surgery. Of the 52 patients treated nonoperatively, 29 had received a prior ESI. The unadjusted changes (improvement) in the SSM-symptom scores between baseline and 6 months' follow up were: surgery and prior ESI 0.95, surgery and no prior ESI 0.78 (P = 0.15); no surgery and prior ESI 0.28, no surgery and no prior ESI 0.29 (P = 0.85). When adjusted for confounding factors, the reduction in SSM-symptom score was greater for surgery than for nonoperative treatment by 0.41 points (P < 0.001); the effect of having had an ESI prior to study entry was -0.08 (P = 0.40)., Conclusion: The analysis of outcomes in the LSOS cohort provided no evidence that ESIs have a negative effect on the short-term outcome of surgery or nonoperative treatment in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis., Level of Evidence: 3.

Study Design: Systematic review., Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the effect of catastrophizing on treatment efficacy and outcome in patients treated for low back pain., Summary of Background Data: Psychological factors including catastrophizing thoughts are thought to increase the risk for chronic low back pain. The influence of catastrophizing is debated., Methods: In September 2012, the following databases were searched: BIOSIS, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, OTseeker, PeDRO, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science. For 50 of 706 references, full text was assessed. Results based on 11 studies were included in this analysis., Results: In the 11 studies, a total of 2269 patients were included. Seven studies were of good and 4 of moderate methodological quality. Heterogeneity in study settings, treatments, outcomes, and patient populations impeded meta-analysis. Catastrophizing at baseline was predictive for disability at follow-up in 4 studies and for pain in 2 studies. Three studies found no predictive effect of catastrophizing. A mediating effect was found in all studies (n = 5) assessing the impact of a decrease in catastrophizing during treatment. A greater decrease was associated with better outcome. Most studies that investigated the moderating effects on treatment efficacy found no effect (n = 5). However, most studies did not look for a direct interaction between the treatment and catastrophizing thoughts. No study investigated the influence of catastrophizing on work-related outcomes including return to work., Conclusion: Catastrophizing predicted degree of pain and disability and mediated treatment efficacy in most studies. The presence of catastrophizing should be considered in patients with persisting back pain. Limited evidence was found for the moderating effects on treatment efficacy. Future research should aim to clarify the role of catastrophizing as a moderator of outcome and investigate its importance for work-related outcomes., Level of Evidence: 1.