Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial with clinical, neurophysiological, laboratory and radiological outcome for surgical versus non-surgical treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis: the Uppsala Spinal Stenosis Trial (UppSten)

Konstantinos Pazarlis, Anna Punga, Nikos Schizas, Bengt Sandén, Karl Michaëlsson, Peter Försth, Konstantinos Pazarlis, Anna Punga, Nikos Schizas, Bengt Sandén, Karl Michaëlsson, Peter Försth

Abstract

Introduction: Symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis is the most common indication for spinal surgery. However, more than one-third of the patients undergoing surgery for lumbar stenosis report dissatisfaction with the results. On the other hand, conservative treatment has shown positive results in some cases. This trial will compare the outcomes of surgical versus non-surgical treatment for lumbar stenosis. The study includes a multidimensional follow-up, aiming to study the association between outcome and other studied parameters, mainly electromyography and nerve conduction. Moreover, it may contribute to a better understanding of the pathophysiology of lumbar stenosis and to the development of future pharmacological treatments.

Methods and analysis: UppSten is a single-centre randomised controlled trial in which 150 patients with symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis will be randomised into one of two treatment arms. The patients in the surgical arm will undergo laminectomy; the patients in the non-surgical arm will be given a structured physical training programme. The primary outcome of the study will be the Oswestry Disability Index. Secondary outcomes will include motor amplitude and degree of denervation activity obtained by means of nerve conduction studies and electromyography. Patient-reported outcome measures will be also used as secondary outcomes. Blood sample analysis and the investigation of potential inflammation markers are the additional secondary outcome parameters. Laboratory evaluation will include blood sample collection before the treatment initiation and after 6 months. Flavum ligament biopsies will be performed in the surgical group. Finally, tertiary outcomes will include neurophysiological measures, the objective walking ability and radiological evaluation.

Ethics and dissemination: The study is approved by the Local Ethics Committee (Dnr 2017-506), the Hospital's Clinical Trials Committee (2018-0001) and the National Biobank Council and Uppsala Biobank (BbA-827-2018-025). The results will be presented in peer-reviewed journals and at international conferences.

Trial registration number: NCT03495661.

Keywords: flavum ligament; laminectomy; lumbar spinal stenosis; neurophysiology; physical training; sagittal balance; spinal decompression.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: KP reports grants from Johnson & Johnson, during the conduct of the study.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow chart of the UppSten trial. EMG, electromyography; NCS, nerve conduction study; PROM, Patient-Reported Outcome Measures.

References

    1. Ciricillo SF, Weinstein PR, stenosis Lspinal. Lumbar spinal stenosis. West J Med 1993;158:171–7.
    1. Yong-Hing K, Kirkaldy-Willis WH. The pathophysiology of degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Orthop Clin North Am 1983;14:491–504.
    1. Kirkaldy-Willis WH, Wedge JH, Yong-Hing K, et al. . Pathology and pathogenesis of lumbar spondylosis and stenosis. Spine 1978;3:319–28. 10.1097/00007632-197812000-00004
    1. Kalichman L, Cole R, Kim DH, et al. . Spinal stenosis prevalence and association with symptoms: the Framingham study. Spine J 2009;9:545–50. 10.1016/j.spinee.2009.03.005
    1. Bae HW, Rajaee SS, Kanim LE. Nationwide trends in the surgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 2013;38:916–26. 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182833e7c
    1. Strömqvist B, Fritzell P, Hägg O, et al. . The Swedish spine register: development, design and utility. Eur Spine J 2009;18:294–304. 10.1007/s00586-009-1043-4
    1. Deyo RA, Gray DT, Kreuter W, et al. . United States trends in lumbar fusion surgery for degenerative conditions. Spine 2005;30:1441–5. 10.1097/01.brs.0000166503.37969.8a
    1. Forsth P, Michaelsson K, Sanden B, et al. . Does fusion improve the outcome after decompressive surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis? A two-year follow-up study involving 5390 patients. Bone Jt J 2013;95:960–5.
    1. Försth P, Ólafsson G, Carlsson T, et al. . A randomized, controlled trial of fusion surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. N Engl J Med 2016;374:1413–23. 10.1056/NEJMoa1513721
    1. Sigmundsson FG, Jönsson B, Strömqvist B. Outcome of decompression with and without fusion in spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis in relation to preoperative pain pattern: a register study of 1,624 patients. Spine J 2015;15:638–46. 10.1016/j.spinee.2014.11.020
    1. Weinstein JN, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD, et al. . Surgical versus nonsurgical therapy for lumbar spinal stenosis. N Engl J Med 2008;358:794–810. 10.1056/NEJMoa0707136
    1. Slätis P, Malmivaara A, Heliövaara M, et al. . Long-Term results of surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis: a randomised controlled trial. Eur Spine J 2011;20:1174–81. 10.1007/s00586-010-1652-y
    1. Strömqvist B, Fritzell P, Hägg O, et al. . Swedish Society of spinal surgeons. Swespine: the Swedish spine register. Eur Spine J 2013;22:953–74.
    1. Atlas SJ, Keller RB, Wu YA, et al. . 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;30:936–43. 10.1097/01.brs.0000158953.57966.c0
    1. Delitto A, Piva SR, Moore CG, et al. . Surgery versus nonsurgical treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. Ann Intern Med 2015;162:465–73. 10.7326/M14-1420
    1. Malmivaara A, Slätis P, Heliövaara M, et al. . Surgical or nonoperative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis? A randomized controlled trial. Spine 2007;32:1–8. 10.1097/01.brs.0000251014.81875.6d
    1. Nord T. Träning minskade behovet AV operation Vid lumbal spinal stenos Belastning AV cirkulationsapparaten I form AV cykling gav Bra effekt. 2015:7–10.
    1. Harris I. Surgery, the ultimate placebo. 1st edn, 2016: 80–112.
    1. Micankova Adamova B, Vohanka S, Dusek L, et al. . Prediction of long-term clinical outcome in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Eur Spine J 2012;21:2611–9. 10.1007/s00586-012-2424-7
    1. Ø L, Dahl J, Ackermann PW, et al. . Pronociceptive and antinociceptive neuromediators in patellar tendinopathy. Am J Sports Med 2006;34:1801–8.
    1. Schizas N, Lian Ø, Frihagen F, et al. . Coexistence of up-regulated NMDA receptor 1 and glutamate on nerves, vessels and transformed tenocytes in tendinopathy. Scand J Med Sci Sports 2010;20:208–15. 10.1111/j.1600-0838.2009.00913.x
    1. Schizas N, Weiss R, Lian Øystein, et al. . Glutamate receptors in tendinopathic patients. J Orthop Res 2012;30:1447–52. 10.1002/jor.22094
    1. Genevay S, Atlas SJ, stenosis Lspinal. Lumbar spinal stenosis. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 2010;24:253–65. 10.1016/j.berh.2009.11.001
    1. Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB. The Oswestry disability index. Spine 2000;25:2940–53. 10.1097/00007632-200011150-00017
    1. Chan AW, Tetzlaff JM, Altman DG, et al. . Spirit 2013 statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. Vol. 158, Annals of internal medicine. American College of Physicians 2013:200–7.
    1. Roland M, Fairbank J. The Roland–Morris disability questionnaire and the Oswestry disability questionnaire. Spine 2000;25:3115–24. 10.1097/00007632-200012150-00006
    1. Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, et al. . Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res 2011;20:1727–36. 10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x
    1. Haefeli M, Elfering A. Pain assessment. Eur Spine J 2006;15(Suppl 1):S17–24. 10.1007/s00586-005-1044-x
    1. Hägg O, Fritzell P, Odén A, et al. . Simplifying outcome measurement: evaluation of instruments for measuring outcome after fusion surgery for chronic low back pain. Spine 2002;27:1213–22. 10.1097/00007632-200206010-00014
    1. Parai C, Hägg O, Lind B, et al. . The value of patient global assessment in lumbar spine surgery: an evaluation based on more than 90,000 patients. Eur Spine J 2018;27:554–63. 10.1007/s00586-017-5331-0
    1. Zigmond AS, Snaith RP. The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1983;67:361–70. 10.1111/j.1600-0447.1983.tb09716.x
    1. ATS Committee on Proficiency Standards for Clinical Pulmonary Function Laboratories Ats statement: guidelines for the six-minute walk test. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2002;166:111–7. 10.1164/ajrccm.166.1.at1102
    1. Gliklich RE, Dreyer NA, Leavy MB. Registries for Evaluating Patient Outcomes. Registries for Evaluating Patient Outcomes: A User’s Guide. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2014.
    1. Schizas C, Theumann N, Burn A, et al. . Qualitative grading of severity of lumbar spinal stenosis based on the morphology of the dural sac on magnetic resonance images. Spine 2010;35:1919–24. 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181d359bd

Source: PubMed

Szponzorok és közreműködők

Egészségi állapot

Kábítószer-beavatkozások

3
Iratkozz fel