Lumbar Decompression Versus Spinal Fusion in a Private Outpatient Setting: A Retrospective Study with Three Years of Follow-up
- PMID: 34900105
- PMCID: PMC8651442
- DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1724083
Lumbar Decompression Versus Spinal Fusion in a Private Outpatient Setting: A Retrospective Study with Three Years of Follow-up
Abstract
Objective To compare pain, function, quality of life and adverse events of lumbar decompression and spinal fusion in patients with degenerative spinal pathologies who participated in a second opinion program for spinal surgeries with a 36-month follow-up. Methods The data for this retrospective cohort were withdrawn from a private healthcare system between June 2011 and January 2014. The study sample consisted of 71 patients with a lumbar spine surgical referral. The outcomes for the comparisons between lumbar decompression and spinal fusion were quality of life (evaluated through the EuroQoL 5D), pain (measured by the Numerical Rating Scale) and function (assessed through the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire) measured at baseline, and at 12 and 36 months after the surgical procedures. The definitions of recovery were established by the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). The baseline differences between the groups were analyzed by non-paired t -test, and the differences in instrument scores between time points, by generalized mixed models. The results were presented as mean values adjusted by the models and 95% confidence intervals. Results Concerning the surgical techniques, 22 patients were submitted to spinal fusion and 49 patients, to lumbar decompression. As for the comparisons of the findings before and after the surgical interventions, the MCID was achieved in all outcomes regarding quality of life, pain and function at both time points when compared to baseline scores Moreover, concerning the complication rates, only lumbar decompression presented a surgical rate of 4% ( n = 3) for recurrence of lumbar disc hernia. Conclusion Patients with degenerative spinal pathologies present improvements in long-term outcomes of pain, function and quality of life which are clinically significant, no matter the surgical intervention.
Keywords: back pain; musculoskeletal diseases; outcome assessment, health care; spine; surgical interventions.
Sociedade Brasileira de Ortopedia e Traumatologia. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commecial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ ).
Conflict of interest statement
Conflito de Interesses Os autores declaram não haver conflito de interesse.
Similar articles
-
Minimum clinically important difference of major patient-reported outcome measures in patients undergoing decompression surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis.Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2020 Sep;196:105966. doi: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2020.105966. Epub 2020 May 30. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2020. PMID: 32485521
-
A comparison of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and decompression alone for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.Neurosurg Focus. 2019 May 1;46(5):E13. doi: 10.3171/2019.2.FOCUS18722. Neurosurg Focus. 2019. PMID: 31042655
-
Minimum clinically important difference in pain, disability, and quality of life after neural decompression and fusion for same-level recurrent lumbar stenosis: understanding clinical versus statistical significance.J Neurosurg Spine. 2012 May;16(5):471-8. doi: 10.3171/2012.1.SPINE11842. Epub 2012 Feb 10. J Neurosurg Spine. 2012. PMID: 22324801
-
Long-term durability of minimal invasive posterior transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a clinical and radiographic follow-up.J Spinal Disord Tech. 2011 Jul;24(5):288-96. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e3181f9a60a. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2011. PMID: 20975594
-
Efficacy and Safety of Full-endoscopic Decompression via Interlaminar Approach for Central or Lateral Recess Spinal Stenosis of the Lumbar Spine: A Meta-analysis.Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2018 Dec 15;43(24):1756-1764. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000002708. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2018. PMID: 29794584 Review.
Cited by
-
Demographic predictors of treatments and surgical complications of lumbar degenerative diseases: An analysis of over 250,000 patients from the National Inpatient Sample.Medicine (Baltimore). 2022 Mar 18;101(11):e29065. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000029065. Medicine (Baltimore). 2022. PMID: 35356929 Free PMC article.
References
-
- GBD 2016 Risk Factors Collaborators Gakidou E, Afshin A, Abajobir A A.Global, regional, and national comparative risk assessment of 84 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks, 1990-2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016 Lancet 2017390(10100):1345–1422. - PMC - PubMed
-
- Kaiser M G, Eck J C, Groff M W. Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 1: introduction and methodology. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014;21(01):2–6. - PubMed
-
- Jain N, Acharya S, Adsul N M. Lumbar Canal Stenosis: A Prospective Clinicoradiologic Analysis. J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg. 2020;81(05):387–391. - PubMed
-
- Verbiest H. A radicular syndrome from developmental narrowing of the lumbar vertebral canal. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1954;36(02):230–237. - PubMed
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Research Materials