Sunday, 5 April 2020

Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

                          Lumbar Spinal Stenosis



                                       DR KS DHILLON


What is spinal stenosis?

Spinal stenosis is a condition in which the spinal canal space available for the neural and vascular elements is reduced leading to compression of the spinal contents. Spinal stenosis is most often due to degeneration of the spine. Patients with spinal stenosis classically present with neurogenic claudication in the lower limbs on standing and walking and the symptoms are relieved with bending forward, sitting and lying down. The neurogenic claudication symptoms include pain in the lower limbs radiating to the ankles during walking and standing, numbness, tingling, and weakness.
The prevalence of lumbar spinal stenosis in the USA is estimated to be 9% in the general population, and up to 47% in people over age 60 [1].

Etiology of spinal stenosis

Lumbar spinal stenosis results from degenerative, developmental, or congenital disorders. The most common cause is degenerative disease of the spine.
The following classification is useful in understanding the etiology and pathogenesis of spinal stenosis [2].

A.Congenital-developmental stenosis


  • Idiopathic
  • Achondroplasia or hypochondroplasia
  • Hypophosphatemic vitamin D-resistant rickets
  • Morquio's mucopolysaccharidosis
  • Spinal dysraphism



B.Acquired stenosis


  • Degenerative

         1.Spondylosis
         2.Spondylolisthesis
         3.Scoliosis
         4.Ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament
         5.Ossification of the ligamentum flavum
         6.Intraspinal synovial cysts

  • Postoperative

         1.Laminectomy
         2.Fusion

  • Posttraumatic
  • Metabolic or endocrine

         1.Epidural lipomatosis-Cushing's disease
         2.Osteoporosis
         3.Acromegaly
         4.Pseudogout-calcium pyrophosphate dihydrate deposition disease
         5.Renal osteodystrophy
         6.Hypoparathyroidism

  • Other

        1.Paget's disease of bone
        2.Rheumatoid arthritis
        3.Ankylosing spondylitis
       4.Diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis

Congenital or developmental stenosis was first described by Sarpyener [3] in children and later in adults by Verbiest [4]. It is most frequently caused by an idiopathic reduction in the normal spinal canal dimensions or by achondroplastic dwarfism. In symptomatic adults with congenital or developmental stenosis, the anterior-posterior diameter of the lumbar spinal canal has been found to be 12 mm or less, which is much smaller than the 15- to 23-mm diameter in normal cadaver skeletons [5]. There have been suggestions that in familial developmental lumbar stenosis the dimensions of the spinal canal, may be regulated by genetic factors [6,7].

Developmental stenosis of the whole spinal canal is a known feature of achondroplastic dwarfism [8]. The vertebrae, in these patients, have short pedicles and decreased interpediculate distances, which leads to anteroposterior and lateral stenosis of the canal. In adulthood, these patients develop progressive compression of the spinal cord or cauda equina [9]. Minor trauma and disc extrusion in the thoracic or lumbar spine in these patients can lead to a sudden onset of flaccid or spastic paraplegia.

The main cause of acquired lumbar stenosis is degenerative disease of the spine. Degenerative disease is also known as lumbar spondylosis. After the age of 20 years, the water content of the nucleus pulposus begins to decline resulting in a decrease in disc height. This leads to migration of the facets, a reduction of interlaminar space, narrowing of the neural foramina and the spinal canal. Degeneration of the disc leads to disc bulges which cause narrowing of the canal. Increases in stresses on the posterior part of the spine lead to the formation of osteophytes and thickening of laminae, pedicles, and hypertrophy of the facets and ligaments. All these changes contribute to the narrowing of the spinal canal.

In degenerative spondylosis, there is hyperplasia, fibrosis, and cartilaginous metaplasia of the annulus, posterior longitudinal ligament, as well as the ligamentum flavum. The thickness of the ligamentum flavum can increase from its normal of 2 to 5 mm to as much as 5 to 10 mm in patients with spondylosis [2]. This hypertrophied ligamentum flavum is the major cause of lumbar stenosis in some patients [2].

Degeneration of the spine can lead to spondylolisthesis where relative anterior or posterior displacement of one vertebral body on an adjacent vertebra occurs. This can lead to narrowing of the spinal canal resulting in spinal stenosis. Degenerative spondylolisthesis is a frequent complication of advanced lumbar spondylosis [10].

Although acquired spinal stenosis is usually caused by spondylosis and spondylolisthesis, there are many other rarer causes of acquired spinal stenosis. These include vertebral deformities, ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament and the ligamentum flavum, spinal infections, intraspinal synovial cysts, surgical procedures (laminectomy or spinal fusion), trauma, and bony overgrowth due to Paget's disease, ankylosing spondylitis, diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis, or rheumatoid arthritis. There are various metabolic and endocrine abnormalities, such as acromegaly, pseudogout, hypoparathyroidism, or renal osteodystrophy, which can be associated with lumbar stenosis.  Epidural lipomatosis, which can be seen in patients with endogenous obesity who are taking steroids or who have Cushing's syndrome, can cause spinal stenosis leading to radiculopathy [2].

Clinical diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis

Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a poorly defined clinical syndrome. Tomkins-Lane [11] carried out an International Delphi Study to arrive at a consensus on the clinical diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis. Their study showed that within 6 historical questions clinicians become 80% certain about the diagnosis of LSS. They, however, proposed a consensus-based on a set of “7 history items” that act as a practical criterion for defining LSS in the clinical setting.
The most commonly selected factors in the survey were:

  • Leg pain while walking
  • Flex forward while walking to relieve symptoms 
  • Sit down or bend forward to relieve pain
  • Normal foot pulses
  • Relief with rest 
  • Lower extremity weakness 

They found that significant change in certainty ceased after 6 questions at 81% certainty. The task force found that the 7th most popular question was “Does the patient have low back pain?”. The consensus of the Taskforce was that the presence of low back pain was an important component of history taking in patients with LSS diagnosis and they decided that this question should be included in the list of factors for diagnosis of LSS.

The question on top of the list, ‘Does the patient have leg or buttock pain while walking?’, refers to neurogenic claudication which is recognized to be the hallmark of LSS [12,13,14].
A systematic review by de Schepper et al [15] found that the most useful information for making a diagnosis of LSS included age, radiating leg pain which is made worse while standing/walking, absence of pain when seated, improvement of symptoms on bending forward, and a wide-based gait.
Important items identified in the study by Tomkins-Lane [11], that were shown to be less specific or sensitive in the systematic reviews included the presence of motor or sensory disturbances while walking, low back pain and lower extremity weakness. Patients with neurogenic claudication usually report a progressive reduction in the distance they can walk before symptoms are noticed. All patients with suspected neurogenic claudication must have their foot pulses examined to rule out vascular claudication in the lower limbs.

The pathogenesis of nerve root dysfunction in patients with neurogenic claudication, which produces poorly localized leg pain exacerbated with walking and relieved by rest or bending forward remains unclear. It is believed that the pain and weakness may result from intermittent ischemia caused by compression of the radicular microcirculation during periods of increased axonal activity [2].
Positional radiculopathy, which is characterized by radiating leg pain, paresthesias, numbness, or weakness occurring when the patient stands erect or bends backward, is a more common initial symptom of lumbar stenosis than is neurogenic claudication. Extension of the lumbar spine causes relaxing and buckling of the ligamentum flavum as well as increasing disc protrusion which further narrows the canal leading to radiculopathy [16]. Extension of the spine also brings the laminae
closer together and projects the superior facets farther upward, which causes further narrowing the spinal canal and foramina by as much as 60% as compared to their diameter during lumbar flexion [2].

Cauda equina syndrome is uncommon in patients with spinal stenosis. The symptoms in LSS develop gradually unlike in patients with acute disc prolapse where the symptoms appear abruptly. In patients with LSS demonstrable sensory or motor, deficits are usually absent. Since LSS has
a predilection for the mid lumbar spine, patients may present with quadriceps weakness or atrophy and a depressed or absent knee jerk.  Major motor weakness such as a footdrop may be seen in some patients after prolonged walking. Examination of the patient with LSS after making them walk till the symptoms appear may show motor and/or sensory deficit.

Diagnostic test for spinal stenosis

In patients with suspected LSS, plain x rays of the lumbar spine is the first diagnostic test that is carried out. The x rays cannot confirm the diagnosis of LSS but it can show the presence of lumbar spondylosis and/or spondylolisthesis.

The North American Spine Society (NASS) Evidence-Based Clinical Guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of degenerative spinal stenosis [17] recommend that ‘in patients with history and physical examination findings consistent with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis, MRI is suggested as the most appropriate, noninvasive test to confirm the presence of anatomic narrowing of the spinal canal or the presence of nerve root impingement’. The grade of recommendation is grade B.

Mamisch et al [18] carried out a Delphi survey to develop a list of radiologic criteria for describing lumbar spinal stenosis. The survey found that there are no widely accepted quantitative criteria for the diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis though there are partially accepted qualitative criteria for the diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis. The partially accepted criteria include disc protrusion, loss of perineural intraforaminal fat, hypertrophic facet joints, absent cerebrospinal fluid around the cauda equina, and hypertrophy of the ligamentum flavum.

The survey found that cutoff values for the highest-rated quantitative parameters were 12 mm for the midsagittal diameter of the dural sac, 3 mm for the diameter of the foramen, and 3 mm for the lateral recess height.

Generally, these quantitative criteria for the diagnosis of LSS were not accepted by the authorities who were surveyed.

Steurer et al [19] carried out a systematic review of the literature to investigate which quantitative radiological signs are described in the literature and which radiological criteria are used to establish inclusion criteria for a diagnosis of LSS.

They found that there were 10 different parameters which were used to quantify lumbar spinal stenosis. The most often reported measures for central stenosis were the anteroposterior diameter (< 10 mm) and the cross-sectional area (< 70 mm2) of spinal canal. A lateral recess height equal to or less than 2 mm and/or lateral recess depth equal to or less than 3 mm or a lateral recess angle of less than 30° has been described as diagnostic for lateral recess stenosis.

For foraminal stenosis, the only quantitative criterion was the diameter of the foramen and a diameter of 2 to 3 mm is considered to indicate stenosis.

The NASS guidelines [17] recommend that in patients with suspected LSS in whom MRI is either contraindicated or inconclusive, CT myelography is the most appropriate test to confirm the presence of anatomic narrowing of the spinal canal and the presence of nerve root impingement. In patients in whom MRI and CT myelography are contraindicated, inconclusive or inappropriate, CT scan is the preferred test to confirm the narrowing of the spinal canal and presence of nerve root impingement.
The presence of spinal canal narrowing on radiological imaging does not indicate a diagnosis of spinal stenosis because degenerative changes in the spine are common in asymptomatic individuals. Brinjiki et al [20] did a systematic review of literature of imaging features of spinal degeneration in asymptomatic populations. They found that the prevalence of disk degeneration in asymptomatic individuals increased from 37% among 20-year-old individuals to 96% among 80-year-old individuals. The prevalence of disk bulge increased from 30% among 20 years old individuals to 84% among 80 years old individuals. The prevalence of disc protrusion increased from 29% of those 20 years of age to 43% of those 80 years of age.

Boden et al [21] did MRI scans in 67 individuals who never had back pain, sciatica and neurogenic claudication in the past. They found 21% of the individuals had radiological evidence of spinal stenosis.

Wiesel et al [22] did CT scans of the spine in asymptomatic individuals and found the presence of disc herniation, facet degeneration or spinal stenosis in about 50% of the subjects. They also found that there was no significant correlation between the area of the dural sac in axially loaded CT and the clinical symptoms of spinal stenosis.

False-positive and false-negative CT scan and MRI findings of nerve compression have been well documented, which makes radiological imaging as a sole means of diagnosing spinal stenosis untenable [21,22,23]. There is also an element of significant variation of image interpretation of  MRI and CT scan in the diagnosis of spinal stenosis [24].

Therefore the diagnosis of spinal stenosis has to be clinical and it can be confirmed and correlated with imaging studies.

There are several radiological criteria for defining the severity of spinal stenosis but their role remains unclear. Several classifications for defining radiological spinal stenosis have been published in the literature [25].

Lee et al [26] have offered a simple MRI based classification system for central stenosis. They described a 4-grade (0, 1, 2, and 3) system based on the degree of separation of the cauda equina on T2-weighted axial images. They did not measure the parameters. They defined grade 0 as no lumbar stenosis when there was no obliteration of the CSF space in front of the cauda equina; mild or grade 1 stenosis was present when there was no CSF in front of the cauda equina and the cauda equina remained separated; grade 2 or moderate stenosis was present when there was some cauda equina aggregation or bunching and grade 3 or severe stenosis was present when there was no space between the cauda equina elements and the roots cannot be visually separated. They found that with this classification the interobserver reliability was substantial to excellent for all levels and the intraobserver reliability was excellent. This classification system has been independently validated by Park et al [27] who showed that there was substantial interobserver reliability in the diagnosis of spinal stenosis with this classification. The authors also showed that none of the patients with grade 0 stenosis had neurological symptoms and almost all patients with grade 3 stenosis had neurological symptoms. The relevance of grade 1 and 2 stenosis remained unclear.

Lee et al 28] have also developed a grading system for foraminal stenosis. They divided the stenosis into 4 grades, from 0 to 3 based on sagittal MRI images of the lumbar spine. In this classification grade 0 refers to the absence of foraminal stenosis. In grade 1 stenosis there is mild foraminal stenosis with perineural fat obliteration in the two opposing directions, vertical or transverse. In grade 2  stenosis there is moderate foraminal stenosis with perineural fat obliteration in all four directions without morphologic change and grade 3 refers to severe foraminal stenosis with nerve root collapse or morphologic change. The authors concluded that this ‘new grading system for foraminal stenosis of the lumbar spine showed nearly perfect interobserver and intraobserver agreement and would be helpful for clinical study and routine practice’.

Wildermuth et al [29] have similarly divided foraminal stenosis into four Grades (1-4) based on the presence of perineural fat as seen on MRI imaging. Grade 1 is the absence of stenosis with normal perineural fat. In grade 2 or slight stenosis, there is compression of perineural fat but the fat is still present all around the nerve root. In grade 3 or marked stenosis, there is a loss of perineural fat on at least one side of the nerve and in grade 4 or advanced stenosis, there is a complete loss of perineural fat.

There are no universally accepted criteria for radiological diagnosis of lateral canal stenosis. Steuer et al [30] did a systematic review of the literature and found that the height and the depth of the lateral recess and the lateral recess angle are the criteria used for describing lateral canal stenosis. The measurements are done on a CT scan or an MRI (axial T2 weighted) images of the lumbar spine. The depth refers to the measurement between the top of the pedicle and the superior articular facet. The height refers to the distance between the most anterior point of the superior articular facet and the posterior border of the vertebral body and the lateral recess angle as the angle between the lines parallel to the floor and the roof of the lateral recess. A lateral recess height ≤ 2 mm and/or lateral recess depth ≤ 3 mm or a lateral recess angle < 30° has been described as diagnostic for lateral recess stenosis.

Treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis

There is no evidence in the literature to show that the outcome of treatment of spinal stenosis is better as compared to the natural history of the disease (no treatment) [31].

Conservative treatment

Anti-inflammatory medications, physical therapy and conditioning is the usual mode of conservative treatment to relieve pain and improve function in patients with spinal stenosis [32]. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are commonly used in the treatment of LSS. In the elderly population NSAIDs have to be used with caution because of their potential gastrointestinal and cardiovascular adverse effects.

There is no credible evidence that other pharmaceutical agents such as methylcobalamin, gabapentin, prostaglandin E, intranasal calcitonin, and intramuscular calcitonin are of value in the treatment of spinal stenosis [31].

Unfortunately there is insufficient evidence in literature ‘to make a recommendation for or against the use of pharmacological treatment in the management of spinal stenosis’ [31].
There, however, is level II therapeutic evidence that an exercise program which includes stretching, strengthening and low-intensity cycling exercises, in the short term, improves pain and disability in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis [33].

Physical therapy has shown some improvement in physical function in patients with spinal stenosis although the evidence is not so robust [34,35].

Epidural steroid injections

Epidural steroid injections are widely used for the treatment of patients with spinal stenosis despite the absence of credible evidence regarding its efficacy and safety. Friedly et al [36] carried out a multisite, double-blind, randomized trial in 400 patients with spinal stenosis who had moderate to severe leg pain and disability. One group was given epidural injections of glucocorticoids plus lidocaine and the other group lidocaine alone. The epidural injections were fluoroscopically guided. At six weeks they found no difference between the two groups in the primary outcomes as measured by the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) scores and the rating of the intensity of leg pain. Likewise, there was no difference between the subgroups who received interlaminar or foraminal injections. The authors concluded that ‘in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis, epidural injection of glucocorticoids plus lidocaine offered minimal or no short-term benefit as compared with epidural injection of lidocaine alone’.

Complications with epidural injections were not uncommon. The complication rate in the glucocorticoid–lidocaine group was 21.5% and in the lidocaine-alone group was 15.5%. Complication rates were higher in the transforaminal injection group. Cortisol suppression was significantly higher in the glucocorticoid–lidocaine group.

In this study patients in both treatment groups had improvement in function and decreased pain probably due to a placebo effect, the natural history of spinal stenosis, and other factors present in both study groups. Unfortunately this excellent study did not have a sham group.

Chou et al [37] in 2015 did a systematic review and meta-analysis of the published data on the use of epidural corticosteroids in the treatment of lumbar radiculopathy and spinal stenosis. They evaluated 30 placebo-controlled trials of epidural corticosteroid injections for radiculopathy, and 8 trials were for spinal stenosis. They found that with epidural corticosteroid injections for radiculopathy there was an immediate reduction in pain and function but the benefits were small and not sustained. There was also no effect on long term surgical risk. There was some evidence to suggest that there are no benefits of epidural steroids in the treatment of spinal stenosis. They found that ‘serious harms were rare, but harms reporting was suboptimal’.

Nancy E. Epstein [38] in 2013 did a comprehensive review of the literature to assess the risks of epidural and transforaminal steroid injections in the spine. Epidural injections for the management of spinal conditions, though not approved by the FDA, are being performed with an increased frequency (160%). They are typically short-acting with no long term benefit and their use can be associated with major risks/complications. According to Nancy Epstein, there have been reports of contaminated epidural steroid injections which had resulted in meningitis, stroke, paralysis, and even death. Though many of the complications go unreported, other reported complications include ‘life-threatening infections, spinal fluid leaks (0.4-6%), positional headaches (28%), adhesive arachnoiditis (6-16%), hydrocephalus, air embolism, urinary retention, allergic reactions, intravascular injections (7.9-11.6%), stroke, blindness, neurological deficits/paralysis, hematomas, seizures, and death’ [38].
In 2009 FDA started investigations into adverse events related to epidural injections and they found that between 1997 and 2014 there were 90 serious and sometimes fatal neurological complications associated with the use of epidural glucocorticoid injections. The complications included paraplegia, quadriplegia, spinal cord infarction, and stroke. Following this investigations, in 2014, the FDA issued a mandatory requirement that ‘all injectable glucocorticoid product labels carry a warning stating that “serious neurologic events, some resulting in death, have been reported with epidural injection of corticosteroids” and that the “safety and effectiveness of epidural administration of corticosteroids have not been established and corticosteroids are not approved for this use” [39].
Ammendolia et al [40] in 2013 did a Cochrane database systematic review to evaluate the effectiveness of non-operative treatment of patients with spinal stenosis and neurogenic claudication. The review included pharmaceutical and physical therapy interventions as well as epidural injections and they found that ‘moderate and high-quality evidence for nonoperative treatment is lacking’. What about surgical treatment for spinal stenosis?



Surgical treatment of spinal stenosis

Spinal decompression

Since the symptoms of spinal stenosis are due to narrowing of the spinal canal, surgical decompression was considered to be the logical treatment for symptomatic spinal stenosis from time immemorial. However, over the years clinical experience showed that many patients did well without surgery.

There have been many reports in the literature with variable outcomes after surgical treatment for spinal stenosis. The outcome varied from 26% to 100% good results at 4 years [41], 77% good results at 8 years [42], and  68% good results at 12 years [43].

Johnsson et al [44] compared the outcome of surgical and conservative treatment of patients with spinal stenosis. They found that 60% of the patients treated surgically improved and 25% deteriorated at 53 months follow up and of those treated conservatively 30% improved and 60% remained unchanged at 31 months follow up.

Amundsen et al [45] did a long term prospective study in 100 patients to compare the outcome of conservative and surgical treatment of spinal stenosis. In this study there were 19 patients with severe symptoms who had surgical treatment and 50 patients with moderate symptoms had conservative treatment, and another 31 patients were randomized between the conservative treatment group (18 pts) and surgical treatment group (13 pts). All patients were followed up for 10 years.

In the conservative treatment group, good results were reported in 70% of the patients at 6 months, 64% at 1 year and 57% at 4 years. In the surgical group, good results were reported in 79% at 6 months, 89% at 1 year and 84% at 4 years. In patients who were randomly assigned to the conservative and surgical group, the results were much better in the surgical group as compared to the conservative group.

This study provides Level IV evidence that patients with severe symptoms at presentation, who undergo surgical decompression, the outcome will be good 80-90% of the time and in patients with moderate symptoms who undergo conservative treatment, the results will be good in about 70% of the time (31).

Mariconda et al [46] reported a prospective study of 44 patients which compared laminectomy with conservative treatment in patients with mild to moderate leg pain. At 4 years follow up they found that 68% of the surgical group had good results while 33% in the conservative group had good results. There was a 9 percent reoperation rate in the surgical group and 9% crossover rate. This study provides level IV evidence that surgical decompression gives good results in 68% of the patients [31].

The outcome of spinal decompression for the treatment of LSS is very variable. There is only level IV evidence to show that the outcome is good in 68% to 90% of the patients. There is also level IV evidence that conservative treatment can give good results in about 70% of the patients.

Spinal fusion

Spinal fusion is often done after spinal decompression due to a belief that posterior spinal decompression can destabilize the spine. Spinal fusion prolongs the operating time and increases blood loss and can be associated with more complications. Is spinal fusion necessary after posterior decompression?

Grob et al [47] did a study to address this issue. They did a randomized, controlled trial of 45 patients with symptomatic lumbar stenosis with no spinal instability. The patients were randomly assigned to one of the three groups. Group 1 patients had laminotomy with medial facetectomy. In group 2 the patients had decompression with fusion of the most stenotic segment and in group 3 the patients had decompression with fusion of all decompressed segments. At an average follow up  28 months all groups showed an increase in walking ability and a decrease in pain and there was no difference in the outcome between the groups. This study provides Level II therapeutic evidence that there is no difference in the clinical outcome in patients, with spinal stenosis and no spinal instability, who had posterior decompression alone and in those who had decompression with fusion [31].

Patients with spinal instability as defined by Posner’s method [48] generally do not do well if a laminectomy is done without fusion. Yone and Sakou [49] studied 60 patients who had surgery for spinal stenosis. Thirty-three of the 60 patients had spinal instability as defined by the Posner’s criteria. Of the 33 patients with instability 19 had laminectomy with fusion and the other 14 refused fusion and had laminectomy alone. Twenty-seven other patients without instability had laminectomy alone. Eighty percent of the patients without instability and 80% of those with instability and fusion had good outcomes whereas only 43% of patients with instability and no fusion had a good outcome.This study provides Level II  evidence that in patients with spinal stenosis and spinal instability, decompression with fusion is more effective than decompression alone [31]. There are other authors who believe that all patients with spinal stenosis can be treated by decompression alone without fusion.

Iguchi et al [50] studied the long term outcome of posterior spinal decompression without fusion in patients with spinal stenosis. They did laminectomy with partial facetectomy without fusion in 122 patients with spinal stenosis. At a minimum of 10 years (average 13 years) follow up, 37 patients were available for evaluation. In 62.2% of the patients, there was no impairment in activities of daily living. The outcome was excellent in 13 (35.1%), good in 8 (21.6%), fair in 8 (21.6%) , and poor in 8 patients (21.6%). Three of the 8 patients (8.1%) required additional surgery. The outcome was the same in patients with preoperative spondylolisthesis and those without spondylolisthesis. Similarly, the outcome was the same in patients with preoperative scoliosis and those without scoliosis. At least 2 levels of laminectomy was performed in each patient. Preoperative sagittal rotation of more than 10° with multilevel laminectomy was thought to be a risk factor for poor outcome. The authors concluded that acceptable results can be obtained with a laminectomy without spinal fusion in patients with spinal stenosis on long term follow up.

Satisfactory long term outcome (8 years to 13 years) of surgical treatment for spinal stenosis ranges from 55% [51], 56.7% [50] and 71% [45].

The risk factors for unsatisfactory outcomes following surgery for spinal stenosis are numerous. Katz et al [52] found that poor long-term outcome, defined as severe pain or the need for a repeat operation, or both, included comorbidities such as osteoarthrosis, cardiac disease, rheumatoid arthritis, or chronic pulmonary disease, longer duration of follow-up, and laminectomy at a single level. However, Iguchi et al [50] found that patients who had multilevel laminectomies and a 10° or more of sagittal rotation had a poorer outcome. Patients undergoing repeat spinal surgery have poorer prognosis [53]. Lower-income, presence of anxiety and depression, existence of compensation claims, absences of preoperative neurological deficit, less severe canal stenosis and absences of preoperative subjective difficulty in walking, are all associated with poorer outcomes after surgery [54].

Despite the existence of a large number of publications in the scientific literature regarding the treatment of spinal stenosis, there appears to be no consensus as to what is the best form of treatment for spinal stenosis. Zaina et al [55] in 2016, did a systematic review of the literature for the Cochrane group to compare conservative and surgical treatment for spinal stenosis. They were unable to conclude whether surgical treatment or a conservative approach is better for lumbar spinal stenosis. They, however, noted that there was a complication rate of between 10% to 24% in patients treated with surgery and there were no side effects of conservative treatment. There were no clear benefits of surgery when comparison was made with conservative treatment. Their conclusion was that ‘clinicians should be very careful in informing patients about possible treatment options, especially given that conservative treatment options have resulted in no reported side effects’.

There is also no good evidence in the literature on the efficacy of surgery for spinal stenosis. Machado et al [56] in 2016 did a systematic review of literature for the Cochrane group to evaluate the outcome of surgical treatment for spinal stenosis. They found that there was very little literature on the efficacy of surgical treatment of spinal stenosis. There were no trials comparing ‘surgery with no treatment, placebo or sham surgery’ though ‘placebo-controlled trials in surgery are feasible and needed in the field of lumbar spinal stenosis’. They also found that decompression with fusion and interspinous process spacers were not superior to decompression alone.

Conclusion

Clinical or symptomatic spinal stenosis has been well defined with little ambiguity and the etiology has been well elucidated. Radiological narrowing of the spinal canal of the spine has been well studied and classified. However, the natural history of symptomatic spinal stenosis is not known because there are no studies comparing treatment and no treatment. However, from the little evidence available, it appears that the outcome is favorable in one third to half of the patients with mild to moderate spinal stenosis even without treatment. The natural history of patients with severe stenosis remains unknown. Rapid neurological decline does not happen in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.

The use of anti-inflammatory medications, physical therapy, and conditioning remains the mainstay of conservative treatment of symptomatic spinal stenosis. There is no robust evidence to support the use of other pharmaceutical agents in the treatment of spinal stenosis.

Epidural steroid injections are widely used for the treatment of patients with spinal stenosis despite the absence of credible evidence regarding its efficacy and safety. Complications are not uncommon with epidural injections. Complication rates as high as 21.5% have been reported in the literature. Life-threatening infections, paralysis, and even death has been reported.

Despite the presence of a large number of publications in the scientific literature regarding the treatment of spinal stenosis, there appears to be no consensus as to what is the best form of treatment for spinal stenosis. There is no evidence in the literature as to whether surgical or conservative treatment is better for the treatment of spinal stenosis. Surgical treatment can be associated with up to 24% complication rate. Conservative treatment is not known to be associated with side effects. There is no good evidence on the efficacy of surgical treatment for spinal stenosis. Studies show that the outcome of spinal decompression alone is the same as that with decompression with fusion. Interspinous process spacers do not provide any additional benefits to patients in the treatment of spinal stenosis.

Till good evidence is available the treatment of patients has to be individualized and the least invasive treatment which will provide maximum relief with minimal or no side effects should be offered to the patient.


References


  1. Kalichman L, et al. Spinal stenosis prevalence and association with symptoms: the Framingham Study. Spine J. 2009;9:545–550.
  2. Ciricillo SF, Weinstein PR: Lumbar spinal stenosis. West J Med 1993 Feb; 158:171-177.
  3. Sarpyener MA: Congenital stricture of the spinal canal. J Bone Joint Surg 1945; 27:70-79
  4. Verbiest H: A radicular syndrome from developmental narrowing of the lumbar vertebral canal. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 1954; 36:230-237.
  5. Verbiest H: Further experiences on the pathological influence of a developmental narrowness of the bony lumbar vertebral canal. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 1955; 37:576-583.
  6. Varughese G, Quartey GR: Familial lumbar spinal stenosis with acute disc herniations-Case reports of four brothers. J Neurosurg 1979; 51:234-236.
  7. Postacchini F, Massobrio M, Ferro L: Familial lumbar stenosis-Case report of three siblings. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 1985; 67:321-323.
  8. Morgan DF, Young RF: Spinal neurological complications of achondroplasia: Results of surgical treatment. J Neurosurg 1980; 52:463-472.
  9. Epstein JA, Malis LI: Compression of spinal cord and cauda equina in achondroplastic dwarfs. Neurology 1955; 5:875-881.
  10. Ehni G: Surgical treatment of spondylitic caudal radiculopathy, In Weinstein PR, Ehni G, Wilson CB (Eds): Lumbar Spondylosis: Diagnosis, Management and Surgical Treatment. Chicago, Ill, Year Book Medical Publishers, 1977, pp 146-183
  11. Tomkins-Lane C, Melloh M, Lurie J, et al. Consensus on the Clinical Diagnosis of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Results of an International Delphi Study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016;41(15): 1239–1246. 
  12. Ammendolia C, et al. Nonoperative treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication: a systematic review. Spine. 2012;37:E609–E616.
  13. Ammendolia C, et al. Nonoperative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2013;8:CD010712.
  14. Porter RW. Spinal stenosis and neurogenic claudication. Spine. 1996;21:2046–2052.
  15. de Schepper EIT, et al. Diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis: an updated systematic review of the accuracy of diagnostic tests. Spine. 2013;38:E469–E481.
  16. Dyck P, Pheasant HC, Doyle JB, Rieder JJ: Intermittent cauda equina compression syndrome: Its recognition and treatment. Spine 1977; 2:75-81.
  17. North American Spine Society clinical guidelines for multidisciplinary spine care-diagnosis and treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis at https://www.spine.org/Portals/0/assets/downloads/ResearchClinicalCare/Guidelines/LumbarStenosis.pdf. 
  18. Mamisch N, Brumann M, Hodler J, et al. Radiologic criteria for the diagnosis of spinal stenosis: results of a Delphi survey. Radiology. 2012;264(1):174–179. doi:10.1148/radiol.12111930.
  19. Steurer J, Roner S, Gnannt R, Hodler J; LumbSten Research Collaboration. Quantitative radiologic criteria for the diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic literature review. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2011;12:175.
  20. Brinjiki W, Luetmer P, Comstock B, et al. Systematic literature review of imaging features of spinal degeneration in asymptomatic populations. AJNR American Journal of Neuroradiology. 2015;36(4):811-816.
  21. Boden SD, Davis DO, Dina TS, Patronas NJ, Wiesel SW. Abnormal magnetic-resonance scans of the lumbar spine in asymptomatic subjects. A prospective investigation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1990;72:403–408.
  22. Wiesel SW, Tsourmas N, Feffer HL, Citrin CM, Patronas N. A study of computer-assisted tomography. I. The incidence of positive CAT scans in an asymptomatic group of patients. Spine. 1984;9: 549–551.
  23. Coulier B, Devyver B, Ghosez JP. Severe underestimation of lumbar spinal stenosis by supine imaging. Clin Radiol. 2003;58: 167–169.
  24. Stafira JS, Sonnad JR, Yuh WT, Huard DR, Acker RE, Nguyen DL, Maley JE, Ramji FG, Li WB, Loftus CM. Qualitative assessment of cervical spinal stenosis: observer variability on CT and MR images. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2003;24:766–769.
  25. Schroeder GD, Kurd MF, Vaccaro AR. Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: How Is It Classified? J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2016 Dec;24(12): 843-852.
  26. Lee GY, Lee JW, Choi HS, Oh KJ, Kang HS. A new grading system of lumbar central canal stenosis on MRI: an easy and reliable method. Skeletal Radiol. 2011 Aug;40(8):1033-9.
  27. Park HJ, Kim SS, Lee YJ, et al: Clinical correlation of a new practical MRI method for assessing central lumbar spinal stenosis. Br J Radiol 2013;86(1025):20120180.
  28. Lee S, Lee JW, Yeom JS, et al: A practical MRI grading system for lumbar foraminal stenosis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010;194 (4): 1095-1098.
  29. Wildermuth S, Zanetti M, Duewell S, et al: Lumbar spine: Quantitative and qualitative assessment of positional (upright flexion and extension) MR imaging and myelography. Radiology 1998; 207(2): 391-398.
  30. Steurer J, Roner S, Gnannt R, Hodler J; LumbSten Research Collaboration: Quantitative radiologic criteria for the diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis: A systematic literature review. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2011;12:175. 
  31. Kreiner DS, Shaffer WO, Baisden JL, et al; North American Spine Society: An evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (update). Spine J 2013;13(7):734-743.
  32. Covaro A, Vilà-Canet G, de Frutos AG, Ubierna MT, Ciccolo F, Caceres E. Management of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: an evidence-based review. EFORT Open Rev. 2017 Mar 13;1(7): 267-274.
  33. Goren A, Yildiz N, Topuz O, et al. Efficacy of exercise and ultrasound in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Clin Rehabil. 2010;24(7):623-31.
  34. Delitto A, Piva SR, Moore CG, et al. Surgery versus nonsurgical treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 2015;162:465-73. 
  35.  Fritz JM, Lurie JD, Zhao W, et al. Associations between physical therapy and long-term outcomes for individuals with lumbar spinal stenosis in the SPORT study. Spine J 2014;14:1611-21.
  36. Friedly JL, Comstock BA, Turner JA, Heagerty PJ, Deyo RA, Sullivan SD et al. A randomized trial of epidural glucocorticoid injections for spinal stenosis. N Engl J Med. 2014 Jul 3;371(1):11-21. 
  37. Chou R, Hashimoto R, Friedly J, Fu R, Bougatsos C, Dana T et al. Epidural Corticosteroid Injections for Radiculopathy and Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2015 Sep 1;163(5):373-81. 
  38. Nancy E. Epstein. The risks of epidural and transforaminal steroid injections in the Spine: Commentary and a comprehensive review of the literature. Surg Neurol Int. 2013; 4(Suppl 2): S74–S93.
  39. Racoosin JA, Seymour SM, Cascio L, and Gill R. Serious neurologic events after epidural glucocorticoid Injection — The FDA's risk assessment. N Engl J Med 2015; 373: 2299-2301.
  40. Ammendolia C, Stuber KJ, Rok E, Rampersaud R, Kennedy CA, Pennick V et al. Nonoperative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Aug 30;(8): CD 010712. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD 010712.
  41. Turner JA, Ersek M, Herron L, Deyo R. Surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis: Attempted meta-analysis of the literature. Spine 1992;17: 1–8.
  42.  Postacchini F, Cinotti G, Gumina S, Perugia D. Long-term results of surgery in lumbar stenosis: 8-Year review of 64 patients. Acta Orthop Scand 1993; 64(Suppl 251):78–80.
  43.  Herno A, Airaksinen O, Saari T. The long-term prognosis after operation for lumbar spinal stenosis. Scand J Rehabil Med 1993;25: 167–71.
  44.  Johnsson KE, Uden A, Rosen I. The effect of decompression on the natural course of spinal stenosis: A comparison of surgically treated and untreated patients. Spine 1991;16:615–19.
  45. Amundsen T, Weber H, Nordal HJ, Magnaes B, Abdelnoor M, Lilleas F. Lumbar spinal stenosis: conservative or surgical management?: A prospective 10-year study. Spine. 2000;25(11): 1424-1435; (discussion 1435-1426).
  46. Mariconda M, et al. Unilateral laminectomy for bilateral decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis: a prospective comparative study with conservatively treated patients. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2002;15(1):39-46.
  47. Grob D, Humke T, Dvorak J. Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Decompression with and without arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1995 Jul;77(7):1036-41.
  48. Posner I, White AA 3rd, Edwards WT, Hayes WC. A biomechanical analysis of the clinical stability of the lumbar and lumbosacral spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1982;7(4):374–389. 
  49. Yone K, Sakou T. Usefulness of Posner’s definition of spinal instability for selection of surgical treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis. J Spinal Disord. 1999;12(1):40-4.
  50. Iguchi T, Kurihara A, Nakayama J, Sato K, Kurosaka M, and  Yamasaki K. Minimum 10-Year Outcome of Decompressive Laminectomy for Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis. SPINE Volume 25, Number 14, pp 1754–1759. 
  51. Atlas, S.J.,  Keller, R.B.,  Wu, Y.A.,  Deyo, R.A.,  Singer, D.E. Long-term outcomes of surgical and nonsurgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis: 8 to 10 year results from the Maine lumbar spine study. Spine 2005;30 (8): 936-943.
  52. Katz JN; Lipson SJ; Larson MG; McInnes JM; Fossel AH; Liang MH. The outcome of decompressive laminectomy for degenerative lumbar stenosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1991 July; 73(6):809–816.
  53. Herno A, Airaksinen O, Saari T, Sihvonen T. Surgical results of lumbar spinal stenosis. A comparison of patients with or without previous back surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)1995; 20: 964–969.
  54. Foulongne E, Derrey S, Ould Slimane M, Levêque S, Tobenas AC,  Dujardin F, Fréger P, Chassagne P, Proust F. Lumbar spinal stenosis: Which predictive factors of favorable functional results after decompressive laminectomy? Neurochirurgie 2013; 59: 23–29.
  55. Zaina F, Tomkins-Lane C, Carragee E, Negrini S. Surgical versus non-surgical treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Jan 29;(1): CD010264.
  56. Machado GC, Ferreira PH, Yoo RI, Harris IA, Pinheiro MB, Koes BW, van Tulder MW, Rzewuska M, Maher CG, Ferreira ML. Surgical options for lumbar spinal stenosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Nov 1;11:CD012421.


Posted by at

1 comment:

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)