Bacterial growth in patients with low back pain and Modic changes: protocol of a multicentre, case-control biopsy study.

INTRODUCTION: Bacterial infection and Modic changes (MCs) as causes of low back pain (LBP) are debated. Results diverged between two randomised controlled trials examining the effect of amoxicillin with and without clavulanic acid versus placebo on patients with chronic LBP (cLBP) and MCs. Previous biopsy studies have been criticised with regard to methods, few patients and controls, and insufficient measures to minimise perioperative contamination. In this study, we minimise contamination risk, include a control group and optimise statistical power. The main aim is to compare bacterial growth between patients with and without MCs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This multicentre, case-control study examines disc and vertebral body biopsies of patients with cLBP. Cases have MCs at the level of tissue sampling, controls do not. Previously operated patients are included as a subgroup. Tissue is sampled before antibiotic prophylaxis with separate instruments. We will apply microbiological methods and histology on biopsies, and predefine criteria for significant bacterial growth, possible contamination and no growth. Microbiologists, surgeons and pathologist are blinded to allocation of case or control. Primary analysis assesses significant growth in MC1 versus controls and MC2 versus controls separately. Bacterial disc growth in previously operated patients, patients with large MCs and growth from the vertebral body in the fusion group are all considered exploratory analyses. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Regional Committees for Medical and Health Research Ethics in Norway (REC South East, reference number 2015/697) has approved the study. Study participation requires written informed consent. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03406624). Results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals, scientific conferences and patient fora. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03406624.

Dural Sac Cross-sectional area change from preoperatively and up to 2 years after decompressive surgery for central lumbar spinal stenosis: investigation of operated levels, data from the NORDSTEN study.

PURPOSE: The aim of the present study was to investigate how canal area size changed from before surgery and up to 2 years after decompressive lumbar surgery lumbar spinal stenosis. Further, to investigate if an area change postoperatively (between 3 months to 2 years) was associated with any preoperative demographic, clinical or MRI variables or surgical method used. METHODS: The present study is analysis of data from the NORDSTEN- SST trial where 437 patients were randomized to one of three mini-invasive surgical methods for lumbar spinal stenosis. The patients underwent MRI examination of the lumbar spine before surgery, and 3 and 24 months after surgery. For all operated segments the dural sac cross-sectional area (DSCA) was measured in mm2. Baseline factors collected included age, gender, BMI and smoking habits. Furthermore, surgical method, index level, number of levels operated, all levels operated on and baseline Schizas grade were also included in the analysis. RESULTS: 437 patients were enrolled in the NORDSTEN-SST trial, whereof 310 (71%) had MRI at 3 months and 2 years. Mean DSCA at index level was 52.0 mm2 (SD 21.2) at baseline, at 3 months it increased to 117.2 mm2 (SD 43.0) and after 2 years the area was 127.7 mm2 (SD 52.5). Surgical method, level operated on or Schizas did not influence change in DSCA from 3 to 24 months follow-up. CONCLUSION: The spinal canal area after lumbar decompressive surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis increased from baseline to 3 months after surgery and remained thereafter unchanged 2 years postoperatively.

The association between lumbar lordosis preoperatively and changes in PROMs for lumbar spinal stenosis patients 2 years after spinal surgery: radiological and clinical results from the NORDSTEN-spinal stenosis trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) sometimes have lower lumbar lordosis (LL), and the incidence of LSS correlates closely with the loss of LL. The few studies that have evaluated the association between LL and clinical outcomes after non-instrumented surgery for LSS show conflicting results. This study investigates the association between preoperative LL and changes in PROMs 2 years after decompressive surgery. METHOD: This prospective cohort study obtained preoperative and postoperative data for 401 patients from the multicenter randomized controlled spinal stenosis trial as part of the NORwegian degenerative spondylolisthesis and spinal STENosis (NORDSTEN) study. Before surgery, the radiological sagittal alignment parameter LL was measured using standing X-rays. The association between LL and 2-year postoperative changes was analyzed using the oswestry disability index (ODI), a numeric rating scale (NRS) for low back and leg pain, the Zurich claudication questionnaire (ZCQ), and the global perceived effect (GPE) score. The changes in PROMs 2 years after surgery for quintiles of lumbar lordosis were adjusted for the respective baseline PROMs: age, sex, smoking, and BMI. The Schizas index and the Pfirrmann index were used to analyze multiple regressions for changes in PROMs. RESULTS: There were no associations in the adjusted and unadjusted analyses between preoperative LL and changes in ODI, ZCQ, GPE, and NRS for back and leg pain 2 years after surgery. CONCLUSION: LL before surgery was not associated with changes in PROMs 2 years after surgery. Lumbar lordosis should not be a factor when considering decompressive surgery for LSS.

Do patients with lumbar spinal stenosis benefit from decompression of levels with adjacent moderate stenosis? A prospective cohort study from the NORDSTEN study.

BACKGROUND: Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is characterized by pain that radiates to the buttocks and/or legs, aggravated by walking and relieved by forward flexion. There is poor correlation between clinical symptoms and severity of stenosis on MRI, and multilevel stenosis has not been described to present worse symptoms or treatment outcomes, compared with patients with single-level stenosis. In patients with one level with severe stenosis combined with an adjacent level with moderate stenosis, the surgeon must decide whether to decompress only the narrowest level or both, to achieve the best possible outcome. The potential benefits of performing surgery on an adjacent moderate stenosis is debated, and the scientific evidence in scarce. PURPOSE: The aim of the present study was to investigate whether patients with a level of adjacent moderate stenosis, along with an index stenosis, benefitted from a dual-level decompression (DLD) compared with a single-level decompression (SLD). Furthermore, to investigate whether DLD patients had longer duration of surgery and hospital stay, higher rates of complications and/or lower rate of reoperations compared with SLD patients. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE: We analyzed data from the Norwegian Degenerative Spondylisthesis and Spinal Stenosis study- Spinal Stenosis Trial (NORDSTEN-SST). In this randomized multicenter study, 437 patients were included, evaluating clinical outcomes of three different surgical treatment options for LSS. Patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis were excluded. METHOD: Based on preoperative MRI, the present analysis included all patients who had a moderate stenosis (defined as Schizas B or C) in addition to a predefined index stenosis (the level with the smallest cross-sectional area). We compared patients who, based on the surgeons` choice, received a dual-level decompression, with those receiving a single-level decompression. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was mean change in the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score from baseline to 2-year follow up. Secondary outcomes were proportion of success (30% reduction in ODI score), the Numeric Rating Scales for back and leg pain (NRS), the EuroQol 5-dimensional questionnaire utility index (EQ-5D), the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ), the Global Perceived Effect (GPE)-scale, duration of surgery, duration of hospital stay, perioperative complications and reoperation rates. RESULTS: Among the 222 patients, included in the analysis, 108 underwent DLD and 114 underwent SLD. There was no difference in change scores for any of the investigated patient-reported outcomes between the groups after 2 years. However, the DLD group had longer duration of surgery and longer length of hospital stay. There was no difference in reoperation rates or perioperative complications. CONCLUSION: This study, alongside the NORDSTEN-LSS trial on patients with adjacent moderate stenosis as well as an index stenosis, showed no superior clinical effectiveness for dual-level surgery compared with single-level surgery.

Long-term comparison of anterior (ALIF) versus transforaminal (TLIF) lumbar interbody fusion: a propensity score-matched register-based study.

PURPOSE: Anterior (ALIF) and transforaminal (TLIF) lumbar interbody fusion have shown similar clinical outcomes at short- and medium-term follow-ups. Possible advantages of ALIF in the long run could be better disc height and lumbar lordosis and reduced risk of adjacent segment disease. We aimed to study if ALIF could be associated with superior clinical outcomes than TLIF at long-term follow-up. METHODS: We analysed 535 patients treated with ALIF or TLIF of the L5-S1 spinal segment between 2007 and 2017 who completed long-term follow-up in a national spine registry database (NORspine). We defined treatment success after surgery as at least 30% improvement in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) at long-term follow-up. Patients treated with ALIF and TLIF and who responded at long term were balanced by propensity score matching. The proportions of successfully treated patients within each group were compared by numbers and percentages with corresponding relative risk. RESULTS: The mean (95%CI) age of the total study population was 50 (49-51) years, and 264 (49%) were females. The mean (95%CI) preoperative ODI score was 40 (39-42), and 174 (33%) had previous spine surgery. Propensity score matching left 120 patients in each treatment group. At a median (95%CI) of 92 (88-97) months after surgery, we found no difference in proportions successfully treated patients with ALIF versus TLIF (68 (58%) versus 77 (65%), RR (95%CI) = 0.88 (0.72 to1.08); p = 0.237). CONCLUSIONS: This propensity score-matched national spine register study of patients treated with ALIF versus TLIF of the lumbosacral junction found no differences in proportions of successfully treated patients at long-term follow-up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE I: Diagnostic: individual cross-sectional studies with the consistently applied reference standard and blinding.

The Norwegian registry for spine surgery (NORspine): cohort profile.

PURPOSE: To review and describe the development, methods and cohort of the lumbosacral part of the Norwegian registry for spine surgery (NORspine). METHODS: NORspine was established in 2007. It is government funded, covers all providers and captures consecutive cases undergoing operations for degenerative disorders. Patients' participation is voluntary and requires informed consent. A set of baseline-, process- and outcome-variables (3 and 12 months) recommended by the International Consortium for Health Outcome Measurement is reported by surgeons and patients. The main outcome is the Oswestry disability index (ODI) at 12 months. RESULTS: We show satisfactory data quality assessed by completeness, timeliness, accuracy, relevance and comparability. The coverage rate has been 100% since 2016 and the capture rate has increased to 74% in 2021. The cohort consists of 60,647 (47.6% women) cases with mean age 55.7 years, registered during the years 2007 through 2021. The proportions > 70 years and with an American Society of Anaesthesiologists' Physical Classification System (ASA) score > II has increased gradually to 26.1% and 19.3%, respectively. Mean ODI at baseline was 43.0 (standard deviation 17.3). Most cases were operated with decompression for disc herniation (n = 26,557, 43.8%) or spinal stenosis (n = 26,545, 43.8%), and 7417 (12.2%) with additional or primary fusion. The response rate at 12 months follow-up was 71.6%. CONCLUSION: NORspine is a well-designed population-based comprehensive national clinical quality registry. The register's methods ensure appropriate data for quality surveillance and improvement, and research.

The Norwegian degenerative spondylolisthesis and spinal stenosis (NORDSTEN) study: study overview, organization structure and study population.

PURPOSE: To provide an overview of the The Norwegian Degenerative spondylolisthesis and spinal stenosis (NORDSTEN)-study and the organizational structure, and to evaluate the study population. METHODS: The NORDSTEN is a multicentre study with 10 year follow-up, conducted at 18 public hospitals. NORDSTEN includes three studies: (1) The randomized spinal stenosis trial comparing the impact of three different decompression techniques; (2) the randomized degenerative spondylolisthesis trial investigating whether decompression surgery alone is as good as decompression with instrumented fusion; (3) the observational cohort tracking the natural course of LSS in patients without planned surgical treatment. A range of clinical and radiological data are collected at defined time points. To administer, guide, monitor and assist the surgical units and the researchers involved, the NORDSTEN national project organization was established. Corresponding clinical data from the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery (NORspine) were used to assess if the randomized NORDSTEN-population at baseline was representative for LSS patients treated in routine surgical practice. RESULTS: A total of 988 LSS patients with or without spondylolistheses were included from 2014 to 2018. The clinical trials did not find any difference in the efficacy of the surgical methods evaluated. The NORDSTEN patients were similar to those being consecutively operated at the same hospitals and reported to the NORspine during the same time period. CONCLUSION: The NORDSTEN study provides opportunity to investigate clinical course of LSS with or without surgical interventions. The NORDSTEN-study population were similar to LSS patients treated in routine surgical practice, supporting the external validity of previously published results. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT02007083 10/12/2013, NCT02051374 31/01/2014 and NCT03562936 20/06/2018.

Is the presence of foraminal stenosis associated with outcome in lumbar spinal stenosis patients treated with posterior microsurgical decompression.

BACKGROUND: We aim to investigate associations between preoperative radiological findings of lumbar foraminal stenosis with clinical outcomes after posterior microsurgical decompression in patients with predominantly central lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). METHODS: The study was an additional analysis in the NORDSTEN Spinal Stenosis Trial. In total, 230 men and 207 women (mean age 66.8 (SD 8.3)) were included. All patients underwent an MRI including T1- and T2-weighted sequences. Grade of foraminal stenosis was dichotomized into none to moderate (0-1) and severe (2-3) category using Lee's classification system. The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ), and numeric rating scale (NRS) for back and leg pain were collected at baseline and at 2-year follow-up. Primary outcome was a reduction of 30% or more on the ODI score. Secondary outcomes included the mean improvement on the ODI, ZCQ, and NRS scores. We performed multivariable regression analyses with the radiological variates foraminal stenosis, Pfirrmann grade, Schizas score, dural sac cross-sectional area, and the possible plausible confounders: patients' gender, age, smoking status, and BMI. RESULTS: The cohort of 437 patients presented a high degree of degenerative changes at baseline. Of 414 patients with adequate imaging of potential foraminal stenosis, 402 were labeled in the none to moderate category and 12 in the severe category. Of the patients with none to moderate foraminal stenosis, 71% achieved at least 30% improvement in ODI. Among the patients with severe foraminal stenosis, 36% achieved at least 30% improvement in ODI. A significant association between severe foraminal stenosis and less chance of reaching the target of 30% improvement in the ODI score after surgery was detected: OR 0.22 (95% CI 0.06, 0.83), p=0.03. When investigating outcome as continuous variables, a similar association between severe foraminal stenosis and less improved ODI with a mean difference of 9.28 points (95%CI 0.47, 18.09; p=0.04) was found. Significant association between severe foraminal stenosis and less improved NRS pain in the lumbar region was also detected with a mean difference of 1.89 (95% CI 0.30, 3.49; p=0.02). No significant association was suggested between severe foraminal stenosis and ZCQ or NRS leg pain. CONCLUSION: In patients operated with posterior microsurgical decompression for LSS, a preoperative severe lumbar foraminal stenosis was associated with higher proportion of patients with less than 30% improvement in ODI. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (22.11.2013) under the identifier NCT02007083.

Surgery in degenerative spondylolisthesis: does fusion improve outcome in subgroups? A secondary analysis from a randomized trial (NORDSTEN trial).

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Patients with spinal stenosis and degenerative spondylolisthesis are treated surgically with decompression alone or decompression with fusion. However, there is debate regarding which subgroups of patients may benefit from additional fusion. PURPOSE: To investigate possible treatment effect modifiers and prognostic variables among patients operated for spinal stenosis and degenerative spondylolisthesis. DESIGN: A secondary exploratory study using data from the Norwegian Degenerative Spondylolisthesis and Spinal Stenosis (NORDSTEN-DS) trial. Patients were randomized to decompression alone or decompression with instrumented fusion. PATIENT SAMPLE: The sample in this study consists of 267 patients from a randomized multicenter trial involving 16 hospitals in Norway. Patients were enrolled from February 12, 2014, to December 18, 2017. The study did not include patients with degenerative scoliosis, severe foraminal stenosis, multilevel spondylolisthesis, or previous surgery. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was an improvement of ≥ 30% on the Oswestry Disability Index score (ODI) from baseline to 2-year follow-up. METHODS: When investigating possible variables that could modify the treatment effect, we analyzed the treatment arms separately. When testing for prognostic factors we analyzed the whole cohort (both treatment groups). We used univariate and multiple regression analyses. The selection of variables was done a priori, according to the published trial protocol. RESULTS: Of the 267 patients included in the trial (183 female [67%]; mean [SD] age, 66 [7.6] years), complete baseline data for the variables required for the present analysis were available for 205 of the 267 individuals. We did not find any clinical or radiological variables at baseline that modified the treatment effect. Thus, none of the commonly used criteria for selecting patients for fusion surgery influenced the chosen primary outcome in the two treatment arms. For the whole cohort, less comorbidity (American Society of Anesthesiologists Classification [ASA], OR = 4.35; 95% confidence interval (CI [1.16-16.67]) and more preoperative leg pain (OR = 1.23; CI [1.02-1.50]) were significantly associated with an improved primary outcome. CONCLUSIONS: In this study on patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis, neither previously defined instability criteria nor other pre-specified baseline variables were associated with better clinical outcome if fusion surgery was performed. None of the analyzed variables can be applied to guide the decision for fusion surgery in patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis. For both treatment groups, less comorbidity and more leg pain were associated with improved outcome 2 years after surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NORDSTEN-DS ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02051374.

Impact of the number of previous lumbar operations on patient-reported outcomes after surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis or lumbar disc herniation.

Repeated lumbar spine surgery has been associated with inferior clinical outcomes. This study aimed to examine and quantify the impact of this association in a national clinical register cohort. This is a population-based study from the Norwegian Registry for Spine surgery (NORspine). We included 26,723 consecutive cases operated for lumbar spinal stenosis or lumbar disc herniation from January 2007 to December 2018. The primary outcome was the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), presented as the proportions reaching a patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS; defined as an ODI raw score ≤ 22) and ODI raw and change scores at 12-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes were the Global Perceived Effect scale, the numerical rating scale for pain, the EuroQoL five-dimensions health questionnaire, occurrence of perioperative complications and wound infections, and working capability. Binary logistic regression analysis was conducted to examine how the number of previous operations influenced the odds of not reaching a PASS. The proportion reaching a PASS decreased from 66.0% (95% confidence interval (CI) 65.4 to 66.7) in cases with no previous operation to 22.0% (95% CI 15.2 to 30.3) in cases with four or more previous operations (p < 0.001). The odds of not reaching a PASS were 2.1 (95% CI 1.9 to 2.2) in cases with one previous operation, 2.6 (95% CI 2.3 to 3.0) in cases with two, 4.4 (95% CI 3.4 to 5.5) in cases with three, and 6.9 (95% CI 4.5 to 10.5) in cases with four or more previous operations. The ODI raw and change scores and the secondary outcomes showed similar trends. We found a dose-response relationship between increasing number of previous operations and inferior outcomes among patients operated for degenerative conditions in the lumbar spine. This information should be considered in the shared decision-making process prior to elective spine surgery.

Postoperative Dural Sac Cross-Sectional Area as an Association for Outcome After Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Clinical and Radiological Results From the NORDSTEN-Spinal Stenosis Trial.

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to investigate the association between postoperative dural sac cross-sectional area (DSCA) after decompressive surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis and clinical outcome. Furthermore, to investigate if there is a minimum threshold for how extensive a posterior decompression needs to be to achieve a satisfactory clinical result. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: There is limited scientific evidence for how extensive lumbar decompression needs to be to obtain a good clinical outcome in patients with symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients were included in the Spinal Stenosis Trial of the NORwegian Degenerative spondylolisthesis and spinal STENosis (NORDSTEN)-study. The patients underwent decompression according to three different methods. DSCA measured on lumbar magnetic resonance imaging at baseline and at three months follow-up, and patient-reported outcome at baseline and at two-year follow-up were registered in a total of 393 patients. Mean age was 68 (SD: 8.3), proportion of males were 204/393 (52%), proportion of smokers were 80/393 (20%), and mean body mass index was 27.8 (SD: 4.2).The cohort was divided into quintiles based on the achieved DSCA postoperatively, the numeric, and relative increase of DSCA, and the association between the increase in DSCA and clinical outcome were evaluated. RESULTS: At baseline, the mean DSCA in the whole cohort was 51.1 mm 2 (SD: 21.1). Postoperatively the area increased to a mean area of 120.6 mm 2 (SD: 46.9). The change in Oswestry disability index in the quintile with the largest DSCA was -22.0 (95% CI: -25.6 to -18), and in the quintile with the lowest DSCA the Oswestry disability index change was -18.9 (95% CI: -22.4 to -15.3). There were only minor differences in clinical improvement for patients in the different DSCA quintiles. CONCLUSION: Less aggressive decompression performed similarly to wider decompression across multiple different patient-reported outcome measures at two years following surgery.

Incidental dural tears associated with worse clinical outcomes in patients operated for lumbar spinal stenosis.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: Incidental dural (ID) tear is a common complication of spine surgery with a prevalence of 4-10%. The association between ID and clinical outcome is uncertain. Former studies found only minor differences in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). We aimed to examine the association of ID with treatment failure after surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). METHODS: Between 2007 and 2017, 11,873 LSS patients reported to the national Norwegian spine registry (NORspine), and 8,919 (75.1%) completed the 12-month follow-up. We used multivariate logistic regression to study the association between ID and failure after surgery, defined as no effect or any degrees of worsening; we also compared mean ODI between those who suffered a perioperative ID and those who did not. RESULTS: The mean (95% CI) age was 66.6 (66.4-66.9) years, and 52% were females. The mean (95% CI) preoperative ODI score (95% CI) was 39.8 (39.4-40.1); all patients were operated on with decompression, and 1125 (12.6%) had an additional fusion procedure. The prevalence of ID was 4.9% (439/8919), and the prevalence of failure was 20.6% (1829/8919). Unadjusted odds ratio (OR) (95% CI) for failure for ID was 1.51 (1.22-1.88); p < 0.001, adjusted OR (95% CI) was 1.44 (1.11-1.86); p = 0.002. Mean postoperative ODI 12 months after surgery was 27.9 for ID vs. 23.6 for no ID. CONCLUSION: We demonstrated a significant association between ID and increased odds for patient-reported failure 12 months after surgery. However, the magnitude of the detrimental effect of ID on the clinical outcome was small.

The association between preoperative MRI findings and clinical improvement in patients included in the NORDSTEN spinal stenosis trial.

PURPOSE: To investigate potential associations between preoperative MRI findings and patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) after surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). METHODS: The NORDSTEN trial included 437 patients. We investigated the association between preoperative MRI findings such as morphological grade of stenosis (Schizas grade), quantitative grade of stenosis (dural sac cross-sectional area), disc degeneration (Pfirrmann score), facet joint tropism and fatty infiltration of the multifidus muscle, and improvement in patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) 2 years after surgery. We dichotomized each radiological parameter into a moderate or severe category. PROMs i.e., Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ) and Numeric rating scale (NRS) for back and leg pain were collected before surgery and at 2 year follow-up. In the primary analysis, we investigated the association between MRI findings and ODI score (dichotomized to ≥ 30% improvement or not). In the secondary analysis, we investigated the association between MRI findings and the mean improvement on the ODI-, ZCQ- and NRS scores. We used multivariable regression models adjusted for patients' gender, age, smoking status and BMI. RESULTS: The primary analysis showed that severe disc degeneration (Pfirrmann score 4-5) was significantly associated with less chance of achieving a 30% improvement on the ODI score (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.34, 0.88). In the secondary analysis, we detected no clinical relevant associations. CONCLUSION: Severe disc degeneration preoperatively suggest lesser chance of achieving 30% improvement in ODI score after surgery for LSS. Other preoperative MRI findings were not associated with patient reported outcome.

Comparison of 3 Different Minimally Invasive Surgical Techniques for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Operations for lumbar spinal stenosis is the most often performed surgical procedure in the adult lumbar spine. This study reports the clinical outcome of the 3 most commonly used minimally invasive posterior decompression techniques. Objective: To compare the effectiveness of 3 minimally invasive posterior decompression techniques for lumbar spinal stenosis. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial used a parallel group design and included patients with symptomatic and radiologically verified lumbar spinal stenosis without degenerative spondylolisthesis. Patients were enrolled between February 2014 and October 2018 at the orthopedic and neurosurgical departments of 16 Norwegian public hospitals. Statistical analysis was performed in the period from May to June 2021. Interventions: Patients were randomized to undergo 1 of the 3 minimally invasive posterior decompression techniques: unilateral laminotomy with crossover, bilateral laminotomy, and spinous process osteotomy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome was change in disability measured with Oswestry Disability Index (ODI; range 0-100), presented as mean change from baseline to 2-year follow-up and proportions of patients classified as success (>30% reduction in ODI). Secondary outcomes were mean change in quality of life, disease-specific symptom severity measured with Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ), back pain and leg pain on a 10-point numeric rating score (NRS), patient perceived benefit of the surgical procedure, duration of the surgical procedure, blood loss, perioperative complications, number of reoperations, and length of hospital stay. Results: In total, 437 patients were included with a median (IQR) age of 68 (62-73) years and 230 men (53%). Of the included patients, 146 were randomized to unilateral laminotomy with crossover, 142 to bilateral laminotomy, and 149 to spinous process osteotomy. The unilateral laminotomy with crossover group had a mean change of -17.9 ODI points (95% CI, -20.8 to -14.9), the bilateral laminotomy group had a mean change of -19.7 ODI points (95% CI, -22.7 to -16.8), and the spinous process osteotomy group had a mean change of -19.9 ODI points (95% CI, -22.8 to -17.0). There were no significant differences in primary or secondary outcomes among the 3 surgical procedures, except a longer duration of the surgical procedure in the bilateral laminotomy group. Conclusions and Relevance: No differences in clinical outcomes or complication rates were found among the 3 minimally invasive posterior decompression techniques used to treat patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02007083.

Reliability of preoperative MRI findings in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) is an important tool in preoperative evaluation of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). Reported reliability of various MRI findings in LSS varies from fair to excellent. There are inconsistencies in the evaluated parameters and the methodology of the studies. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reliability of the preoperative MRI findings in patients with LSS between musculoskeletal radiologists and orthopaedic spine surgeons, using established evaluation methods and imaging data from a prospective trial. METHODS: Consecutive lumbar MRI examinations of candidates for surgical treatment of LSS from the Norwegian Spinal Stenosis and Degenerative Spondylolisthesis (NORDSTEN) study were independently evaluated by two musculoskeletal radiologists and two orthopaedic spine surgeons. The observers had a range of experience between six and 13 years and rated five categorical parameters (foraminal and central canal stenosis, facet joint osteoarthritis, redundant nerve roots and intraspinal synovial cysts) and one continuous parameter (dural sac cross-sectional area). All parameters were re-rated after 6 weeks by all the observers. Inter- and intraobserver agreement was assessed by Gwet's agreement coefficient (AC1) for categorical parameters and Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) for the dural sac cross-sectional area. RESULTS: MRI examinations of 102 patients (mean age 66 ± 8 years, 53 men) were evaluated. The overall interobserver agreement was substantial or almost perfect for all categorical parameters (AC1 range 0.67 to 0.98), except for facet joint osteoarthritis, where the agreement was moderate (AC1 0.39). For the dural sac cross-sectional area, the overall interobserver agreement was good or excellent (ICC range 0.86 to 0.96). The intraobserver agreement was substantial or almost perfect/ excellent for all parameters (AC1 range 0.63 to 1.0 and ICC range 0.93 to 1.0). CONCLUSIONS: There is high inter- and intraobserver agreement between radiologists and spine surgeons for preoperative MRI findings of LSS. However, the interobserver agreement is not optimal for evaluation of facet joint osteoarthritis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02007083 , registered December 2013.

Clinical and MRI findings in lumbar spinal stenosis: baseline data from the NORDSTEN study.

PURPOSE: The aim was to describe magnetic resonance imaging findings in patients planned for lumbar spinal stenosis surgery. Further, to describe possible associations between MRI findings and patient characteristics with patient reported disability or pain. METHODS: The NORDSTEN spinal stenosis trial included 437 patients planned for surgical decompression of LSS. The following MRI findings were evaluated before surgery: morphological (Schizas) and quantitative (cross-sectional area) grade of stenosis, disk degeneration (Pfirrmann), facet joint tropism and fatty infiltration of the multifidus muscle. Patients were dichotomized into a moderate or severe category for each radiological parameter classification. A multivariable linear regression analysis was performed to investigate the association between MRI findings and preoperative scores for Oswestry Disability Index, Zurich Claudication Questionnaire and Numeric rating scale for back and leg pain. The following patient characteristics were included in the analysis: gender, age, smoking and weight. RESULTS: The percentage of patients with severe scores was as follows: Schizas (C + D) 71.3%, cross-sectional area (< 75 mm2) 86.8%, Pfirrmann (4 + 5) 58.1%, tropism (≥ 15°) 11.9%, degeneration of multifidus muscle (2-4) 83.7%. Regression coefficients indicated minimal changes in severity of symptoms when comparing the groups with moderate and severe MRI findings. Only gender had a significant and clinically relevant association with ODI score. CONCLUSION: In this cross-sectional study, the majority of the patients had MRI findings classified as severe LSS changes, but the findings had no clinically relevant association with patient reported disability and pain at baseline. Patient characteristics have a larger impact on disability and pain than radiological findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov identifier: NCT02007083, registered December 2013.

Decompression with or without Fusion in Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis.

BACKGROUND: In patients with lumbar spinal stenosis and degenerative spondylolisthesis, it is uncertain whether decompression surgery alone is noninferior to decompression with instrumented fusion. METHODS: We conducted an open-label, multicenter, noninferiority trial involving patients with symptomatic lumbar stenosis that had not responded to conservative management and who had single-level spondylolisthesis of 3 mm or more. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to undergo decompression surgery (decompression-alone group) or decompression surgery with instrumented fusion (fusion group). The primary outcome was a reduction of at least 30% in the score on the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI; range, 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating more impairment) during the 2 years after surgery, with a noninferiority margin of -15 percentage points. Secondary outcomes included the mean change in the ODI score as well as scores on the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire, leg and back pain, the duration of surgery and length of hospital stay, and reoperation within 2 years. RESULTS: The mean age of patients was approximately 66 years. Approximately 75% of the patients had leg pain for more than a year, and more than 80% had back pain for more than a year. The mean change from baseline to 2 years in the ODI score was -20.6 in the decompression-alone group and -21.3 in the fusion group (mean difference, 0.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.8 to 4.3). In the modified intention-to-treat analysis, 95 of 133 patients (71.4%) in the decompression-alone group and 94 of 129 patients (72.9%) in the fusion group had a reduction of at least 30% in the ODI score (difference, -1.4 percentage points; 95% CI, -12.2 to 9.4), showing the noninferiority of decompression alone. In the per-protocol analysis, 80 of 106 patients (75.5%) and 83 of 110 patients (75.5%), respectively, had a reduction of at least 30% in the ODI score (difference, 0.0 percentage points; 95% CI, -11.4 to 11.4), showing noninferiority. The results for the secondary outcomes were generally in the same direction as those for the primary outcome. Successful fusion was achieved with certainty in 86 of 100 patients (86.0%) who had imaging available at 2 years. Reoperation was performed in 15 of 120 patients (12.5%) in the decompression-alone group and in 11 of 121 patients (9.1%) in the fusion group. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial involving patients who underwent surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis, most of whom had symptoms for more than a year, decompression alone was noninferior to decompression with instrumented fusion over a period of 2 years. Reoperation occurred somewhat more often in the decompression-alone group than in the fusion group. (NORDSTEN-DS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02051374.).