A variety of modalities are available for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. The nonoperative treatment techniques include anti-inflammatories, physical therapy and steroid injections. Controlled, randomized trials of these various treatment modalities have not been undertaken. The available data suggest that nonoperative treatment modalities have a sustained benefit in a minority of patients. The majority of patients who present with symptoms and signs of stenosis do not improve with nonoperative treatment, but typically do not progress over the short term. The indication to operate is based upon the severity of symptoms and the degree of associated disability.
Decompressive operative techniques available for stenosis include a laminectomy, laminectomy and mesial facetectomy and laminotomies. The techniques vary in their degree of technical difficulty and the likelihood of incurring complications. The principle of decompressive surgery is to effect adequate decompression of the neural elements without inducing instability. Indications to proceed with segmental fusion are not clear. Overall, results of incorporating a fusion along with a decompression are better than with a decompression alone in selected patients, although there is an associated increase in complication potential.
There is a spectrum of outcomes reported following surgery for spinal stenosis. Summaries of the retrospective and prospective data indicate the overall good to excellent outcome following surgery is 64 and 67%, respectively. Better controlled studies indicate the overall likelihood of improvement following surgery is in the order of 79%, the likelihood of relieving leg pain is greater than 75%. Preoperative leg pain and severe stenosis are favorable prognostic factors, whereas the presence of a comorbid medical condition and the occurrence of surgical complications adversely affect outcome.
Decompressive surgery is a physiologically appropriate and effective treatment for appendicular symptoms from stenosis. If the surgeon's and patient's expectations for the results of surgery are oriented toward relief of leg symptoms with surgery, the subjective and objective results of surgery should be optimized.
KEYWORD
Lumbar stenosis - surgery - outcome
REFERENCES
1
Verbiest H.
A radicular syndrome from developmental narrowing of the lumbar vertebral canal.
J Bone Joint Surg (Br) .
1954;
36B
230-237
2
Deen Jr G H, Zimmerman R S, Lyons M K.
Measurement of exercise tolerance on the treadmill in patients with symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis: a useful indicator of functional status and surgical outcome.
J Neurosurg .
1995;
83
27-30
3
Frazier D D, Lipson S J, Fossel A H.
Associations between spinal deformity and outcomes after decompression for spinal stenosis.
Spine .
1997;
22
2025-2029
4
Javid M J, Hadar E J.
Long-term follow-up review of patients who underwent laminectomy for lumbar stenosis: a prospective study.
J Neurosurg .
1998;
89
1-7
5
Tuite G F, Doran S E, Stern J D.
Outcome after laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis. Part II: radiographic changes and clinical correlations.
J Neurosurg .
1994;
81
707-715
7
Katz J N, Lipson S J, Brick G W.
Clinical correlates of patient satisfaction after laminectomy for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.
Spine .
1995;
20
1155-1160
8
Verbiest H.
Neurogenic intermittent claudication in cases with absolute and relative stenosis of the lumbar vertebral canal (ASLC and RSLC), in cases with narrow lumbar intervertebral foramina, and in cases with both entities.
Clin Neurosurg .
1973;
20
204-214
9
Verbiest H.
Results of surgical treatment of idiopathic developmental stenosis of the lumbar vertebral canal. A review of twenty-seven years' experience.
J Bone Joint Surg (Br) .
1977;
59
181-188
10
Arnoldi C C, Brodsky A E, Cauchoix J.
Lumbar spinal stenosis and nerve root entrapment syndromes. Definition and classification.
Clin Orthopaed Relat Res .
1976;
115
4-5
13
Epstein J A, Epstein B S, Lavine L S.
Nerve root compression associated with narrowing of the lumbar spinal canal.
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiat .
1962;
25
176
14
Epstein J A, Epstein B S, Rosenthal A D.
Sciatica caused by nerve root entrapment in the lateral recess: the superior facet syndrome.
J Neurosurg .
1972;
36
584-589
21
Delamarter R B, Bohlman H H, Dodge L D.
Experimental lumbar spinal stenosis.
Analysis of the cortical evoked potentials, microvasculature, and histopathology. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) .
1990;
72
110-120
22
Schonstrom N, Bolender N F, Spengler D M.
Pressure changes within the cauda equina following constriction of the dural sac. An in vitro experimental study.
Spine .
1984;
9
604-607
23
Schonstrom N S, Bolender N F, Spengler D M.
The pathomorphology of spinal stenosis as seen on CT scans of the lumbar spine.
Spine .
1985;
10
806-811
24
Blau J N, Logue V.
Intermittent claudication of the cauda equina: an unusual syndrome resulting from the central protrusion of a lumbar intervertebral disc.
Lancet .
1961;
1
1081-1086
25
Atlas S J, Deyo R A, Keller R B.
The Maine Lumbar Spine Study, Part III. One year outcomes of surgical and nonsurgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis.
Spine .
1996;
21
1787-1794
26
Herno A, Airaksinen O, Saari T.
Lumbar spinal stenosis: a matched-pair study of operated and non-operated patients.
Br J Neurosurg .
1996;
10
461-465
27
Herno A, Airaksinen O, Saari T.
The effect of prior back surgery on surgical outcome in patients operated on for lumbar spinal stenosis. A matched-pair study.
Acta Neurochirurgica .
1996;
138
357-363
34
Eskola A, Alaranta H, Pohjolainen T.
Calcitonin treatment in lumbar spinal stenosis: clinical observations.
Calcified Tissue International .
1989;
45
372-374
37
Katz J N, Lipson S J, Lew R A.
Lumbar laminectomy alone or with instrumented or noninstrumented arthrodesis in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Patient selection, costs, and surgical outcomes.
Spine .
1997;
22
1123-1131
39
Herkowitz H N, Kurz L T.
Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis. A prospective study comparing decompression with decompression and intertransverse process arthrodesis.
J Bone Joint Surg (Am) .
1991;
73
802-808
40
Postacchini F, Cinotti G, Perugia D.
The surgical treatment of central lumbar stenosis. Multiple laminotomy compared with total laminectomy.
J Bone Joint Surg (Br) .
1993;
75
386-392
41
Jonsson B, Stromqvist B.
Decompression for lateral lumbar spinal stenosis. Results and impact on sick leave and working conditions.
Spine .
1994;
19
2381-2386
42
DiPierro C G, Helm G A, Shaffrey C I.
Treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis by extensive unilateral decompression and contralateral autologous bone fusion: operative technique and results.
J Neurosurg .
1996;
84
166-173
43
Shenkin H A, Hash C J.
Spondylolisthesis after multiple bilateral laminectomies and facetectomies for lumbar spondylosis. Follow-up review.
J Neurosurg .
1979;
50
45-47
44 Jane Sr J A, Jane Jr J A, Helm G A.
Acquired lumbar spinal stenosis. In: Loftus CM (ed): Clinical Neurosurgery. San Francisco: Williams & Wilkens 1996: 275-299
46
Young S, Veerapen R, O'Laoire S A.
Relief of lumbar canal stenosis using multilevel subarticular fenestrations as an alternative to wide laminectomy: preliminary report.
Neurosurgery .
1988;
23
628-633
48
Herron L D, Trippi A C.
L4-5 degenerative spondylolisthesis. The results of treatment by decompressive laminectomy without fusion.
Spine .
1989;
14
534-538
49
Fox M W, Onofrio B M, Onofrio B M.
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 .
1996;
85
793-802
52 Pappas C T, Sontag V K. Degenerative disorders of the spine: lumbar stenosis. In: Menzes A, Sonntag VKH (eds): Principles of Spinal Surgery
New York: McGraw Hill 1996: 631-644
55
Jonsson B, Annertz M, Sjoberg C.
A prospective and consecutive study of surgically treated lumbar spinal stenosis. Part I: Clinical features related to radiographic findings.
Spine .
1997;
22
2932-2937
56
Jonsson B, Annertz M, Sjoberg C.
A prospective and consecutive study of surgically treated lumbar spinal stenosis. Part II: Five-year follow-up by an independent observer.
Spine .
1997;
22
2938-2944
57
Grob D, Humke T, Dvorak J.
Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Decompression with and without arthrodesis.
J Bone Joint Surg (Am) .
1995;
77
1036-1041
58
Larequi-Lauber T, Vader J P, Burnand B.
Appropriateness of indications for surgery of lumbar disc hernia and spinal stenosis.
Spine .
1997;
22
203-209
60
Weinstein J N, Scafuri R L, McNeill T W.
The Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's lumbar spine analysis form: a prospective study of patients with ``spinal stenosis''.
Spine .
1983;
8
891-896
61
Herno A, Airaksinen O, Saari T.
Surgical results of lumbar spinal stenosis. A comparison of patients with or without previous back surgery.
Spine .
1995;
20
964-969
63
Herno A, Airaksinen O, Saari T.
Computed tomography after laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis. Patients' pain patterns, walking capacity, and subjective disability had no correlation with computed tomography findings.
Spine .
1994;
19
1975-1978
64
Herno A, Partanen K, Talaslahti T.
Long-term clinical and magnetic resonance imaging follow-up assessment of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis after laminectomy.
Spine .
1999;
24
1533-1537
65
Herno A, Airaksinen O, Saari T.
Computed tomography findings 4 years after surgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis. No correlation with clinical outcome.
Spine .
1999;
24
2234-2239
67
Sato K, Kikuchi S.
Clinical analysis of two-level compression of the cauda equina of the nerve roots in lumbar spinal canal stenosis.
Spine .
1997;
22
1898-1903
70
Bridwell K H, Sedgewick T A, O'Brien M F.
The role of fusion and instrumentation in the treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis.
J Spinal Dis .
1993;
6
461-472
71
Deyo R A, Ciol M A, Cherkin D C.
Lumbar spinal fusion. A cohort study of complications, reoperations, and resource use in the Medicare population.
Spine .
1993;
18
1463-14701