Influence of the Preoperative Duration of Symptoms on Patients’ Clinical Outcomes after Minimally Invasive Surgery-Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Diseases
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Patients and Methods
2.2. Surgery
2.3. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Amundsen, T.; Weber, H.; Nordal, H.J.; Magnaes, B.; Abdelnoor, M.; Lilleâs, F. Lumbar spinal stenosis: Conservative or surgical management?: A prospective 10-year study. Spine 2000, 25, 1424–1436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tadokoro, K.; Miyamoto, H.; Sumi, M.; Shimomura, T. The prognosis of conservative treatments for lumbar spinal stenosis: Analysis of patients over 70 years of age. Spine 2005, 30, 2458–2463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ng, L.C.L.; Tafazal, S.; Sell, P. The effect of duration of symptoms on standard outcome measures in the surgical treatment of spinal stenosis. Eur. Spine J. 2007, 16, 199–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Johnsson, K.E.; Rosén, I.; Udén, A. The natural course of lumbar spinal stenosis. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 1992, 279, 82–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Movassaghi, K.; Basques, B.A.; Louie, P.K.; Khan, J.M.; Derman, P.B.; Nolte, M.T.; Paul, J.C.; Goldberg, E.J.; An, H.S. The Duration of Symptoms Does Not Impact Clinical Outcomes Following Lumbar Decompression Surgery. Spine 2019, 44, 305–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Foley, K.T.; Holly, L.T.; Schwender, J.D. Minimally invasive lumbar fusion. Spine 2003, 28, S26–S35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peng, C.W.B.; Yue, W.M.; Poh, S.Y.; Yeo, W.; Tan, S.B. Clinical and radiological outcomes of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine 2009, 34, 1385–1389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parker, S.L.; Mendenhall, S.K.; Shau, D.N.; Zuckerman, S.L.; Godil, S.S.; Cheng, J.S.; McGirt, M.J. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis: Comparative effectiveness and cost-utility analysis. World Neurosurg. 2014, 82, 230–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parker, S.L.; Adogwa, O.; Witham, T.F.; Aaronson, O.S.; Cheng, J.; McGirt, M.J. Post-operative infection after minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): Literature review and cost analysis. Minim. Invasive Neurosurg. 2011, 54, 33–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lv, Y.; Chen, J.; Chen, J.; Wu, Y.; Chen, X.; Liu, Y.; Chu, Z.; Sheng, L.; Qin, R.; Chen, M. Three-year postoperative outcomes between MIS and conventional TLIF in1-segment lumbar disc herniation. Minim. Invasive Allied Technol. 2017, 26, 168–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Radcliff, K.E.; Rihn, J.; Hilibrand, A.; DiIorio, T.; Tosteson, T.; Lurie, J.D.; Zhao, W.; Vaccaro, A.R.; Albert, T.J.; Weinstein, J.N. Does the duration of symptoms in patients with spinal stenosis and degenerative spondylolisthesis affect outcomes? Analysis of the Spine Outcomes Research Trial. Spine 2011, 36, 2197–2210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Spivak, J.M. Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. J. Bone Jt. Surg. 1998, 80, 1053–1066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kornblum, M.B.; Fischgrund, J.S.; Herkowitz, H.N.; Abraham, D.A.; Berkower, D.L.; Ditkoff, J.S. Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis: A prospective long-term study comparing fusion and pseudarthrosis. Spine 2004, 29, 726–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jönsson, B.; Annertz, M.; Sjöberg, C.; Strömqvist, B. A prospective and consecutive study of surgically treated lumbar spinal stenosis. Part II: Five-year follow-up by an independent observer. Spine 1997, 22, 2938–2944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nygaard, O.P.; Kloster, R.; Solberg, T. Duration of leg pain as a predictor of outcome after surgery for lumbar disc herniation: A prospective cohort study with 1-year follow up. J. Neurosurg. Spine 2000, 92, 131–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- McGregor, A.H.; Hughes, S.P.F. The evaluation of the surgical management of nerve root compression in patients with low back pain: Part 2: Patient expectations and satisfaction. Spine 2002, 27, 1471–1477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Watanabe, R.; Parke, W.W. Vascular and neural pathology of lumbosacral spinal stenosis. J. Neurosurg. 1986, 64, 64–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rydevik, B. Neurophysiology of cauda equina compression. Acta Orthop. Scand. 1993, 251, 52–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Simotas, A.C.; Dorey, F.J.; Hansraj, K.K.; Cammisa, F., Jr. Nonoperative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis. Clinical and outcome results and a 3-year survivorship analysis. Spine 2000, 25, 197–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Olmarker, K.; Holm, S.; Rydevik, B. Importance of compression onset rate for the degree of impairment of impulse propagation in experimental compression injury of the porcine cauda equina. Spine 1990, 15, 416–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gaetani, P.; Aimar, E.; Panella, L.; Debernardi, A.; Tancioni, F.; Rodriguez y Baena, R. Surgery for herniated lumbar disc disease: Factors influencing outcome measures. An analysis of 403 cases. Funct. Neurol. 2004, 19, 43–49. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Paulsen, R.T.; Bouknaitir, J.B.; Fruensgaard, S.; Carreon, L.; Andersen, M. Prognostic Factors for Satisfaction After Decompression Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis. Neurosurgery 2018, 82, 645–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Iversen, M.D.; Daltroy, L.H.; Fossel, A.H.; Katz, J.N. The prognostic importance of patient pre-operative expectations of surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. Patient Educ. Couns. 1998, 34, 169–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Katz, J.N.; Stucki, G.; Lipson, S.J.; Fossel, A.H.; Grobler, L.J.; Weinstein, J.N. Predictors of surgical outcome in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 1999, 24, 2229–2233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abtahi, A.M.; Brodke, D.S.; Lawrence, B.D.; Zhang, C.; Spiker, W.R. Association between patient-reported measures of psychological distress and patient satisfaction scores after spine surgery. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Am. 2015, 97, 824–828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- 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, 251, 78–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Katz, J.N.; Lipson, S.J.; Chang, L.C.; Levine, S.A.; Fossel, A.H.; Liang, M.H. Seven- to 10-year outcome of decompressive surgery for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 1996, 21, 92–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Caputy, A.J.; Luessenhop, A.J. Long-term evaluation of decompressive surgery for degenerative lumbar stenosis. J. Neurosurg. 1992, 77, 669–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fujiwara, A. Japanese version of the Oswestry Disability Index. J. Jpn. Soc. Lumbar. Spine Disord. 2009, 15, 11–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Total | Group S | Group L | p Value | 95% CI | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
163 | 60 | 103 | ||||
Sex (Female) | 51.5% | 45.0% | 55.3% | 0.21 | −0.06, 0.26 | |
Age | 67.4 ± 8.9 | 66.6 ± 10.0 | 67.9 ± 8.2 | 0.40 | −4.32, 1.74 | |
BMI | 24.0 ± 3.4 | 24.1 ± 3.3 | 23.9 ± 3.4 | 0.66 | −0.84, 1.31 | |
DM | 16.0% | 15.0% | 16.5% | 0.80 | −0.13, 0.10 | |
Smoking | 22.3% | 30.0% | 19.4% | 0.14 | −0.36, 0.25 | |
Preoperative paralysis | 50.3% | 43.3% | 54.4% | 0.18 | −0.27, 0.50 | |
Neurological symptom | Cauda equina syndrome plus Mixed Type | 74.2% | 68.3% | 77.7% | 0.21 | −0.52, 0.24 |
Radiculopathy | 25.8% | 31.7% | 22.3% | |||
Disease | LSS (DS−) | 35 | 19 | 16 | 0.14 | |
LSS (DS+) | 117 | 35 | 82 | |||
IS | 11 | 6 | 5 | |||
Surgical level | L2/3 | 3 | 1 | 2 | ||
L3/4 | 27 | 10 | 17 | |||
L4/5 | 115 | 39 | 76 | |||
L5/6 | 2 | 1 | 1 | |||
L5/S1 | 16 | 9 | 7 | |||
Preoperative Radiographic parameters | PI-LL | 11.1 ± 11.1 | 10.8 ± 11.0 | 11.3 ± 11.3 | 0.79 | −4.15, 1.00 |
PT | 18.9 ± 8.3 | 17.9 ± 7.7 | 19.4 ± 8.5 | 0.23 | −4.05, 3.09 |
Group S | Group L | p Value | 95% CI | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Preoperative | ||||
ODI | 35.3 ± 16.7 | 33.8 ± 14.0 | 0.550 | −3.54, 6.60 |
VAS (lower back pain) | 34.2 ± 31.0 | 39.9 ± 28.1 | 0.242 | −15.37, 3.92 |
VAS (leg pain) | 57.3 ± 30.7 | 61.1 ± 27.1 | 0.440 | −13.18, 5.77 |
VAS (numbness) | 56.7 ± 31.6 | 62.4 ± 27.7 | 0.244 | −15.46, 3.98 |
1 month after surgery | ||||
ODI | 17.8 ± 13.3 | 19.4 ± 13.5 | 0.470 | −5.87, 2.72 |
VAS (lower back pain) | 12.7 ± 18.7 | 12.1 ± 14.9 | 0.831 | −4.99, 6.20 |
VAS (leg pain) | 11.5 ± 20.2 | 11.1 ± 14.2 | 0.900 | −5.50, 6.24 |
VAS (numbness) | 13.0 ± 20.1 | 15.2 ± 20.6 | 0.503 | −8.72, 4.30 |
3 months after surgery | ||||
ODI | 10.1 ± 8.9 | 14.0 ± 12.2 | 0.019 * | −7.21, −0.65 |
VAS (lower back pain) | 12.3 ± 16.9 | 15.0 ± 21.4 | 0.386 | −8.64, 3.36 |
VAS (leg pain) | 7.6 ± 14.1 | 13.9 ± 21.9 | 0.027 * | −11.90, −0.74 |
VAS (numbness) | 11.4 ± 19.9 | 15.2 ± 24.0 | 0.284 | −10.66, 3.15 |
6 months after surgery | ||||
ODI | 8.9 ± 10.8 | 12.9 ± 10.0 | 0.022 * | −7.33, −0.58 |
VAS (lower back pain) | 13.2 ± 20.0 | 17.2 ± 22.2 | 0.236 | −10.70, 2.66 |
VAS (leg pain) | 9.8 ± 19.8 | 14.8 ± 22.7 | 0.140 | −11.77, 1.68 |
VAS (numbness) | 11.7 ± 21.9 | 16.6 ± 26.5 | 0.210 | −11.77, 1.68 |
1 year after surgery | ||||
ODI | 9.8 ± 9.2 | 11.9 ± 11.4 | 0.219 | −5.26, 1.21 |
VAS (lower back pain) | 12.4 ± 18.4 | 14.9 ± 20.1 | 0.405 | −8.70, 3.54 |
VAS (leg pain) | 13.5 ± 21.7 | 12.7 ± 20.7 | 0.798 | −5.97, 7.74 |
VAS (numbness) | 17.3 ± 27.7 | 14.8 ± 23.4 | 0.561 | −5.95, 10.92 |
Group S | Group L | p Value | 95% CI | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Preoperative | ||||
ODI | 347 ± 17.1 | 33.6 ± 14.6 | 0.73 | −5.14, 7.31 |
VAS (lower back pain) | 33.7 ± 29.9 | 36.2 ± 28.1 | 0.66 | −13.69, 8.70 |
VAS (leg pain) | 52.8 ± 30.8 | 59.9 ± 27.9 | 0.22 | −18.47, 4.36 |
VAS (numbness) | 59.2 ± 30.3 | 62.4 ± 27.4 | 0.58 | −14.41, 8.08 |
1 month after surgery | ||||
ODI | 17.1 ± 13.3 | 19.1 ± 13.3 | 0.440 | −7.07, 3.10 |
VAS (lower back pain) | 14.5 ± 20.4 | 12.4 ± 15.3 | 0.589 | −5.47, 9.55 |
VAS (leg pain) | 12.9 ± 23.3 | 11.9 ± 15.1 | 0.801 | −7.00, 9.03 |
VAS (numbness) | 15.2 ± 22.8 | 15.0 ± 20.8 | 0.959 | −8.25, 8.69 |
3 months after surgery | ||||
ODI | 9.9 ± 9.1 | 14.1 ± 12.5 | 0.037 * | −8.17, −0.27 |
VAS (lower back pain) | 13.8 ± 17.3 | 14.8 ± 21.6 | 0.782 | −8.20, 6.18 |
VAS (leg pain) | 7.4 ± 13.9 | 14.7 ± 23.1 | 0.032 * | −13.97, −0.62 |
VAS (numbness) | 11.5 ± 20.5 | 16.8 ± 26.0 | 0.216 | −13.94, 3.19 |
6 months after surgery | ||||
ODI | 9.8 ± 12.1 | 12.9 ± 10.4 | 0.166 | −7.53, −1.32 |
VAS (lower back pain) | 14.3 ± 20.6 | 16.6 ± 21.4 | 0.571 | −10.25, 5.69 |
VAS (leg pain) | 10.8 ± 20.8 | 14.8 ± 23.8 | 0.345 | −12.35, 4.36 |
VAS (numbness) | 12.2 ± 22.4 | 18.1 ± 28.4 | 0.210 | −15.33, 3.42 |
1 year after surgery | ||||
ODI | 9.1 ± 9.5 | 11.7 ± 11.8 | 0.193 | −6.53, 1.34 |
VAS (lower back pain) | 13.0 ± 18.3 | 14.9 ± 20.5 | 0.588 | −9.25, 5.28 |
VAS (leg pain) | 13.3 ± 23.4 | 13.2 ± 21.4 | 0.991 | −8.65, 8.75 |
VAS (numbness) | 19.5 ± 30.3 | 15.6 ± 24.8 | 0.470 | −6.96, 14.92 |
Group S | Group L | p Value | 95% CI | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Satisfaction with the surgery | 90.2 ± 14.1 | 89.3 ± 21.7 | 0.760 | −4.70, 6.41 |
Satisfaction with the present condition | 84.4 ± 21.2 | 84.5 ± 20.1 | 0.983 | −6.76, 6.61 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Hiranaka, Y.; Miyazaki, S.; Yurube, T.; Kuroshima, K.; Ryu, M.; Inoue, S.; Kakutani, K.; Tadokoro, K. Influence of the Preoperative Duration of Symptoms on Patients’ Clinical Outcomes after Minimally Invasive Surgery-Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Diseases. Medicina 2023, 59, 22. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina59010022
Hiranaka Y, Miyazaki S, Yurube T, Kuroshima K, Ryu M, Inoue S, Kakutani K, Tadokoro K. Influence of the Preoperative Duration of Symptoms on Patients’ Clinical Outcomes after Minimally Invasive Surgery-Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Diseases. Medicina. 2023; 59(1):22. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina59010022
Chicago/Turabian StyleHiranaka, Yoshiaki, Shingo Miyazaki, Takashi Yurube, Kohei Kuroshima, Masao Ryu, Shinichi Inoue, Kenichiro Kakutani, and Ko Tadokoro. 2023. "Influence of the Preoperative Duration of Symptoms on Patients’ Clinical Outcomes after Minimally Invasive Surgery-Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Diseases" Medicina 59, no. 1: 22. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina59010022