European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society
-
The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcome of spinal process osteotomy with two other midline-retaining methods, bilateral laminotomy and unilateral laminotomy with crossover, among patients undergoing surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. ⋯ In a propensity scored matched cohort, there were no differences in the clinical outcome 12 months after surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis performed using the three different posterior decompression techniques. Bilateral laminotomy had shortest duration of surgery and shortest length of hospital stay. Surgical technique does not seem to affect clinical outcome after three different midline-retaining posterior decompression techniques.
-
To compare MRI-defined back muscle volume between AS patients and age, and spinopelvic alignment matched control patients with chronic back pain. ⋯ AS patients without deformity already have decreased paraspinal muscle volume compared with age and spinopelvic alignment matched non-AS patients with chronic back pain. Such decrease in paraspinal muscle volume was significantly associated with kyphotic deformity of AS patients even after multivariate adjustment. Although the result of our study supports the causal relationship between muscle degeneration and kyphotic deformity in AS patients, further study is required to prove the causality.
-
To evaluate the impact of pelvic balance, physical activity, and fear-avoidance in a cohort of patients undergoing decompression and instrumented fusion for degenerative lumbar stenosis. ⋯ The fear-avoidance and the physical inactivity are related to the highest levels of low back pain, more than pelvic imbalance. "Inactive" and "fear-avoidant" patients have also the worst outcome after surgery and the worst level of disability.
-
Patients enrolled in clinical studies typically represent a sub-set of all who are eligible, and selection bias may compromise the generalizability of the findings. Using Registry data, we evaluated whether surgical patients recruited by one of the referring centres into the Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Outcome Study (LSOS; a large-scale, multicentre prospective observational study to determine the probability of clinical benefit after surgery) differed in any significant way from those who were eligible but not enrolled. ⋯ A high proportion of eligible patients were not enrolled in the study. Non-enrolment was explained in part by the specific surgeon, worse baseline COMI status, and having a fusion. The findings may reflect a tendency of the referring surgeon not to overburden more disabled patients and those undergoing more extensive surgery with the commitments of a study. Beyond these factors, non-enrolment appeared to be somewhat arbitrary, and was likely related to surgeon forgetfulness, time constraints, and administrative errors. Researchers should be aware of potential selection bias in their clinical studies, measure it (where possible) and discuss its implications for the interpretation of the study's findings.
-
We aimed to study generational changes in the dimensions of cervical and lumbar bony spinal canals in Western Switzerland. ⋯ Younger generation patients have smaller bony spinal canals also in the cervical spine even though this difference is less marked than at the lumbar level. There is, nevertheless, moderate positive correlation between these two anatomical regions. Perinatal factors that adversely influence spinal growth, such as increased maternal age and smoking, could explain these generational changes, given that body height has increased during the same time period. The lesser difference observed in the cervical spine could be due to later closure of the neurocentral synchondrosis at this level.