Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis in older people: current treatment options

Rolf Kalff, Christian Ewald, Albrecht Waschke, Lars Gobisch, Christof Hopf, Rolf Kalff, Christian Ewald, Albrecht Waschke, Lars Gobisch, Christof Hopf

Abstract

Background: Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis is increasingly being diagnosed in persons over age 65. In 2011, 55 793 older people with this condition were treated as inpatients in German hospitals. Among physicians, there is much uncertainty about the appropriate treatment strategy.

Method: Selective literature review.

Results: Lumbar spinal stenosis in older people is characterized by spinal claudication and neurological deficits. A precise clinical history and physical examination and ancillary radiological studies are the necessary prerequisites for treatment. Magnetic resonance imaging is the radiological study of choice. Conservative treatment consists of physiotherapy, drugs, and local injections; various surgical treatments can be considered, depending on the severity of the problem. The main purpose of surgery is to decompress the spinal canal. If the lumbar spine is demonstrably unstable, an instrumented fusion should be performed in addition. There is, however, only moderately good evidence supporting the superiority of surgery over conservative treatment. In a prospective study, the complication rate of purely decompressive surgery was found to be 18%. The utility of the current operative techniques cannot be definitively assessed, because they are applied to a wide variety of patients in different stages of the disease and at different degrees of severity, and the reported results are thus not comparable from one trial to another.

Conclusion: No evidence-based recommendation on the diagnosis and treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis in older people can be formulated at present because of the lack of pertinent randomized trials.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The number of spinal operations performed annually in Germany from 2005 to 2010. Overall increase, 105%; increase in persons over age 65, 162%.(Source: Federal Statistical Office, Bonn)
Figure 2
Figure 2
Methods of simple decompression: a) laminectomy b) hemilaminectomy c) bilateral and d) unilateral interlaminar fenestration with undercutting
Figure 3
Figure 3
Bilateral, severe spinal canal and lateral recess stenosis a) Preoperative axial T2-weighted MRI at the L3 and L4 levels b) An MRI six months after surgery reveals the extent of decompression, performed in this case as a unilateral interlaminar decompression from the left with undercutting on the right. The typical spinal claudication that was present before surgery resolved completely. Back pain on movement remained to some extent but did not cause any significant impairment. (With kind permission of the Neuroradiology Division at the Universitätsklinikum Jena)
Figure 4
Figure 4
This otherwise healthy 79-year-old woman presented in 2011 with severe pain and could not walk more than 200 m without pausing. She also had marked radicular symptoms. Imaging revealed lumbar scoliosis with rotational slippage and consequent spinal stenosis, along with typical age-associated degenerative changes at all of the spinal levels depicted
Figure 5
Figure 5
A lateral view of the same patient reveals loss of height of all of the lumbar discs, with vacuum phenomena at L2/3, L4/5, and L5/S1 and corresponding osteochondrosis. The double contours of the posterior edges of the L2 and L3 vertebral bodies indicate that these two vertebrae are rotated
Figure 6
Figure 6
1 1/2 years after unilateral, multisegmental, dorsoventral decompression and fusion, the spinal deformity in the frontal x-ray view has been fully corrected. Laminectomies were performed at the apex of the curvature. There are unaltered signs of degeneration at the levels adjacent to the fusion. More important than the postoperative images is the clinical result: the patient now complains only of mild back pain and takes no medication. For longer walks away from home, she uses a cane to feel secure. She has no radicular symptoms
Figure 7
Figure 7
A lateral view of the same patient reveals a correct implant configuration without any evidence of loosening or dislocation. There are unaltered signs of degeneration at the adjacent levels. No instability has arisen

References

    1. Allen RT, Rihn JA, Glassman SD, Currier B, Albert TJ, Phillips FM. An evidence-based approach to spine surgery. Am J Med Qual. 2009;24(Suppl 6):15–24.
    1. Watters WC, Baisden J, Gilbert TJ, et al. Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: an evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine J. (3rd) 2008;8:305–310.
    1. Statistisches Bundesamt Gesundheit. Fachserie 12 Reihe 6.2.1. Wiesbaden: Statistisches Bundesamt; 2011. Diagnosedaten der Patienten und Patientinnen in Krankenhäusern (einschließlich Sterbe- und Stundenfälle)
    1. Cheung KM, Karppinen J, Chan D, et al. Prevalence and pattern of lumbar magnetic resonance imaging changes in a population study of one thousand forty-three individuals. Spine. 2009;34:934–940.
    1. Jensen MC, Brant-Zawadzki MN, Obuchowski N, Modic MT, Malkasian D, Ross JS. Magnetic resonance imaging of the lumbar spine in people without back pain. N Engl J Med. 1994;331:69–73.
    1. Porter RW. Spinal stenosis and neurogenic claudication. Spine. 1996;21:2046–2052.
    1. Suri P, Rainville J, Kalichman L, Katz JN. Does this older adult with lower extremity pain have the clinical syndrome of lumbar spinal stenosis? JAMA. 2010;304:2628–2636.
    1. Imagama S, Matsuyama Y, Sakai Y, et al. An arterial pulse examination is not sufficient for diagnosis of peripheral arterial disease in lumbar spinal canal stenosis: a prospective multicenter study. Spine. 2011;36:1204–1210.
    1. Saito J, Ohtori S, Kishida S, et al. Difficulty of diagnosing the orgin of lower leg pain in patients with both lumbar spinal stenosis and hip joint osteoarthritis. Spine. 2012;37:2089–2093.
    1. Lee BH, Moon SH, Kim HJ, Lee HM, Kim TH. Osteoporotic profiles in elderly patients with symptomatic lumbar spinal canal stenosis. Indian J Orthop. 2012;46:279–284.
    1. Wassenaar M, van Rijn RM, van Tulder MW, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosing lumbar spinal pathology in adult patients with low back pain or sciatica: a diagnostic systematic review. Eur Spine J. 2012;21:220–227.
    1. Chou R, Baisden J, Carragee EJ, Resnick DK, Shaffer WO, Loeser JD. Surgery for low back pain: a review of the evidence for an American Pain Society Clinical Practice Guideline. Spine. 2009;34:1094–1109.
    1. Atlas SJ, Keller RB, Wu YA, Deyo RA, Singer DE. 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;30:936–943.
    1. Chang Y, Singer DE, WuYa, Keller RB, Atlas SJ. The effect of surgical and nonsurgical treatment on longitudinal outcomes of lumbar spinal stenosis over 10 years. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005;53:785–792.
    1. Pearson A, Lurie J, Tosteson T, Zhao W, Abdu W, Weinstein JN. Who should have surgery for spinal stenosis? Treatment effect predictors in SPORT. Spine. 2012;37:1791–1802.
    1. Atlas SJ, Elitto A. Spinal stenosis: surgical versus nonsurgical treatment. Clin Orthopad Relat Res. 2006;443:198–207.
    1. van Tulder MW, Koes B, Malmivaara A. Outcome of non-invasive treatment modalities on back pain: an evidence-based review. Eur Spine J. 2006;15(Suppl 1):64–81.
    1. Brown LL. A double-blind, randomized, prospective study of epidural steroid injection vs. the mild(®) procedure in patients with symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis. Pain Pract. 2012;12:333–341.
    1. Cohen SP, Bicket MC, Jamison D, Wilkinson I, Rathmell JP. Epidural steroids: a comprehensive, evidence-based review. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2013;38:175–200.
    1. Thomé C, Börm W, Meyer F. Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: current strategies in diagnosis and treatment. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2008;105(20):373–379.
    1. Thomé C, Zevgaridis D, Leheta O, et al. Outcome after less-invasive decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis: a randomized comparison of unilateral laminotomy, bilateral laminotomy, and laminectomy. J Neurosurg Spine. 2005;3:129–141.
    1. Jakola AS, Sørlie A, Gulati S, Nygaard OP, Lydersen S, Solberg T. Clinical outcomes and safety assessment in elderly patients undergoing decompressive laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis: a prospective study. BMC Surg. 2010;10
    1. Jansson KG, Nemeth G, Granath F, Blomqvist P. Spinal stenosis reoperation rate in Sweden is 11% at 10 years—a national analysis of 9,664 operations. Eur Spine J. 2005;14:659–663.
    1. Resnick DK, Choudhri TF, Dailey AT, et al. Guidelines for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 9: fusion in patients with stenosis and spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg Spine. 2005;2:679–685.
    1. Schulte TL, Bullmann V, Lerner T, et al. Lumbar spinal stenosis. Orthopade. 2006;35:675–692.
    1. Gibson JN, Waddell G. Surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylosis: updated Cochrane Review. Spine. 2005;30:2312–2320.
    1. van Tulder MW, Koes B, Seitsolo S, Malmivaara A. Outcome of invasive treatment modalities on back pain and sciatica: an evidence-based review. Euro Spine J. 2006;15(Suppl 1):82–92.
    1. Hanley EN, Phillips ED, Kostuik JP. Frymoyer JW, editor. Who should be fused? The adult spine. Principles and practice. 1991:1873–1917.
    1. Christie SD, Song JK, Fessler RG. Dynamic interspinous process technology. Spine. 2005;30:73–78.
    1. Richards JC, Majumdar S, Lindsey DP, Beaupré GS, Yerby SA. The treatment mechanism of an interspinous process implant for lumbar neurogenic intermittent claudication. Spine. 2005;30:744–749.
    1. Zucherman JF, Hsu KY, Hartjen CA, et al. A multicenter, prospective, randomized trial evaluating the X-Stop interspinous process decompression system for the treatment of neurogenic intermittens claudication: two year follow-up results. Spine. 2005;30:1351–1358.
    1. Grob D, Benini A, Junge A, Mannion AF. Clinical experience with the Dynesys semirigid fixation system for the lumbar spine: surgical and patient-oriented outcome in 50 cases after an average of 2 years. Spine. 2005;30:324–331.
    1. Sapkas G, Mavrogenis AF, Starantzis KA, Soultanis K, Kokkalis ZT, Papagelopoulos PJ. Outcome of a dynamic neutralization system for the spine. Orthopedics. 2012;35:e1497–e1502.
    1. Schnake KJ, Schaeren S, Jeanneret B. Dynamic stabilization in addition to decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis. Spine. 2006;31:442–449.
    1. Garfin SR, Herkowitz HN, Mirkovic S. Spinal stenosis. Instr Course Lect. 2000;49:361–374.
    1. Weinstein JN, Lurie JD, Tosteson TD, et al. Surgical compared with nonoperative treatment for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. four-year results in the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) randomized and observational cohorts. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;9:1295–1304.
    1. Lee CK. Accelerated degeneration of the segment adjacent to a lumbar fusion. Spine. 1988;13:375–377.
    1. Min JH, Jang JS, Jung B, et al. The clinical characteristics and risk factors for the adjacent segment degeneration in instrumented lumbar fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2008;21:305–309.
    1. Scheufler KM, Dohmen H, Vougioukas VI. Percutaneous transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar instability. Neurosurgery. 2007;60(Suppl 2):203–212.
    1. Gepstein R, Shabat S, Reichel M, Pikarsky I, Folman Y. Treatment of postdiscectomy low back pain by percutaneous posterior lumbar interbody fusion versus open posterior lumbar fusion with pedicle screws. Spine J. 2008;8:741–746.

Source: PubMed

3
Abonnere