Download PDF
Seminars in Neurosurgery 2000; 11(2): 231-244
DOI: 10.1055/s-2000-13231
Copyright © 2000 by Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc., 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA. Tel.: +1(212) 584-4662

LUMBAR SPINAL STENOSIS: TREATMENT OPTIONS AND RESULTS

Paul J. Marcotte, Anthony Virella
  • Department of Neurosurgery, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
31 December 2000 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Taylor V M, Deyo R A, Cherkin D C. Low back pain hospitalization. Recent United States trends and regional variations.  Spine . 1994;  19 1207-1212
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Quirkily-Willis W H, Paine K W, Caution J. Lumbar spinal stenosis.  Clin Orthopaed Relat Res . 1974;  99 30-50
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Schonstrom N, Hansson T. Pressure changes following constriction of the cauda equina. An experimental study in situ.  Spine . 1988;  13 385-388
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Getty C J. Lumbar spinal stenosis: the clinical spectrum and the results of operation.  J Bone Joint Surg (Br) . 1980;  62B 481-485
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Kirkaldy-Willis W H, Wedge J H, Yong-Hing K. Lumbar spinal nerve lateral entrapment.  Clin Orthopaed Relat Res . 1982;  171-178
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Rydevik B. Neurophysiology of cauda equina compression.  Acta Orthopaed Scand Suppl . 1993;  251 52-55
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Pedowitz R A, Garfin S R, Massie J B. Effects of magnitude and duration of compression on spinal nerve root conduction.  Spine . 1992;  17 194-199
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Rydevik B L, Holm S, Brown M D. Nutrition of spinal nerve roots: the role of diffusion for the CSF.  Trans Orthop Res Soc . 1984;  9 276
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Watanabe R, Parke W W. Vascular and neural pathology of lumbosacral spinal stenosis.  J Neurosurg . 1986;  64 64-70
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Johnsson K E, Rosen I, Uden A. The natural course of lumbar spinal stenosis.  Clin Orthopaed Rel Res . 1992;  82-86
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Onel D, Sari H, Donmez C. Lumbar spinal stenosis: clinical/radiologic therapeutic evaluation in 145 patients. Conservative treatment or surgical intervention?.  Spine . 1993;  18 291-298
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Postacchini F. Management of lumbar spinal stenosis.  J Bone Joint Surg (Br) . 1996;  78 154-164
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Rydevik B L, Cohen D B, Kostuik J P. Spine epidural steroids for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.  Spine . 1997;  22 2313-2317
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Airaksinen O, Herno A, Turunen V. Surgical outcome of 438 patients treated surgically for lumbar spinal stenosis.  Spine . 1997;  22 2278-2282
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Katz J N, Lipson S J, Chang L C. Seven- to 10-year outcome of decompressive surgery for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.  Spine . 1996;  21 92-98
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Eskola A, Alaranta H, Pohjolainen T. Calcitonin treatment in lumbar spinal stenosis: clinical observations.  Calcified Tissue International . 1989;  45 372-374
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Porter R W, Miller C G. Neurogenic claudication and root claudication treated with calcitonin. A double-blind trial.  Spine . 1988;  13 1061-1064
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Herno A, Airaksinen O, Saari T. Long-term results of surgical treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis.  Spine . 1993;  18 1471-1474
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Rompe J D, Eysel P, Zollner J. Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Long-term results after undercutting decompression compared with decompressive laminectomy alone or with instrumented fusion.  Neurosurg Rev . 1999;  22 102-106
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    Google Scholar
  • 45 Lin P M. Internal decompression for multiple levels of lumbar spinal stenosis: a technical note.  Neurosurgery . 1982;  11 546-549
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Postacchini F. Surgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis.  Spine . 1999;  24 1043-1047
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Johnsson K E, Redlund-Johnell I, Uden A. Preoperative and postoperative instability in lumbar spinal stenosis.  Spine . 1989;  14 591-593
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Caputy A J, Luessenhop A J. Long-term evaluation of decompressive surgery for degenerative lumbar stenosis.  J Neurosurg . 1992;  77 669-676
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    Google Scholar
  • 53 Turner J A, Ersek M, Herron L. Surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. Attempted meta-analysis of the literature.  Spine . 1992;  17 1-8
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Katz J N, Stucki G, Lipson S J. Predictors of surgical outcome in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.  Spine . 1999;  24 2229-2233
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Pappas C T, Sontag V K. Lumbar stenosis in the elderly.  Neurosurg Q . 1994;  4 102-112
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 62 Herno A, Airaksinen O, Saari T. The predictive value of preoperative myelography in lumbar spinal stenosis.  Spine . 1994;  19 1335-1338
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 66 Porter R W, Ward D. Cauda equina dysfunction. The significance of two-level pathology.  Spine . 1992;  17 9-15
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 68 Mardjetko S M, Connolly P J, Shott S. Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. A meta-analysis of literature 1970-1993.  Spine . 1994;  19 2256S-2265S
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 69 Lombardi J S, Wiltse L L, Reynolds J. Treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis.  Spine . 1985;  10 821-827
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar