Preoperative fatty infiltration of paraspinal muscles assessed by MRI is associated with less improvement of leg pain 2 years after surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis.

PURPOSE: Fatty infiltration (FI) of the paraspinal muscles may associate with pain and surgical complications in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). We evaluated the prognostic influence of MRI-assessed paraspinal muscles' FI on pain or disability 2 years after surgery for LSS. METHODS: A muscle fat index (MFI) was calculated (by dividing signal intensity of psoas to multifidus and erector spinae) on preoperative axial T2-weighted MRI of patients with LSS. Pain and disability 2 years after surgery were assessed using the Oswestry disability index, the Zurich claudication questionnaire and numeric rating scales for leg and back pain. Multivariate linear and logistic regression analyses (adjusted for preoperative outcome scores, age, body mass index, sex, smoking status, grade of spinal stenosis, disc degeneration and facet joint osteoarthritis) were used to assess the associations between MFI and patient-reported clinical outcomes. In the logistic regression models, odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for associations between the MFI and ≥ 30% improvement of the outcomes (dichotomised into yes/no). RESULTS: A total of 243 patients were evaluated (mean age 66.6 ± 8.5 years), 49% females (119). Preoperative MFI and postoperative leg pain were significantly associated, both with leg pain as continuous (coefficient - 3.20, 95% CI - 5.61, - 0.80) and dichotomised (OR 1.51, 95% CI 1.17, 1.95) scores. Associations between the MFI and the other outcome measures were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Preoperative FI of the paraspinal muscles on MRI showed statistically significant association with postoperative NRS leg pain but not with ODI or ZCQ.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Comparable increases in dural sac area after three different posterior decompression techniques for lumbar spinal stenosis: radiological results from a randomized controlled trial in the NORDSTEN study.

PURPOSE: To investigate changes in dural sac area after three different posterior decompression techniques in patients undergoing surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. Decompression of the nerve roots is the main surgical treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis. The aim of this study was to radiologically investigate three commonly used posterior decompression techniques. METHODS: The present study reports data from one of two multicenter randomized trials included in the NORDSTEN study. In the present trial, involving 437 patients undergoing surgery, we report radiological results after three different midline retaining posterior decompression techniques: unilateral laminotomy with crossover (UL) (n = 146), bilateral laminotomy (BL) (n = 142) and spinous process osteotomy (SPO) (n = 149). MRI was performed before and three months after surgery. The increase in dural sac area and Schizas grade at the most stenotic level was evaluated. Three different predefined surgical indicators of substantial decompression were used: (1) postoperative dural sac area of > 100 mm2, (2) increase in the dural sac area of at least 50% and (3) postoperative Schizas grade A or B. RESULTS: No differences between the three surgical groups were found in the mean increase in dural sac area. Mean values were 66.0 (SD 41.5) mm2 in the UL-group, 71.9 (SD 37.1) mm2 in the BL-group and 68.1 (SD 41.0) mm2 in the SPO-group (p = 0.49). No differences in the three predefined surgical outcomes between the three groups were found. CONCLUSION: For patients with lumbar spinal stenosis, the three different surgical techniques provided the same increase in dural sac area. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov reference on November 22th 2013 under the identifier NCT02007083.

Clinical outcome after surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis in patients with insignificant lower extremity pain. A prospective cohort study from the Norwegian registry for spine surgery.

BACKGROUND: Spinal stenosis is a clinical diagnosis in which the main symptom is pain radiating to the lower extremities, or neurogenic claudication. Radiological spinal stenosis is commonly observed in the population and it is debated whether patients with no lower extremity pain should be labelled as having spinal stenosis. However, these patients is found in the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery, the main object of the present study was to compare the clinical outcomes after decompressive surgery in patients with insignificant lower extremity pain, with those with more severe pain. METHODS: This study is based on data from the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery (NORspine). Patients who had decompressive surgery in the period from 7/1-2007 to 11/3-2013 at 31 hospitals were included. The patients was divided into four groups based on preoperative Numeric Rating Scale (NRS)-score for lower extremity pain. Patients in group 1 had insignificant pain, group 2 had mild or moderate pain, group 3 severe pain and group 4 extremely severe pain. The primary outcome was change in the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Successfully treated patients were defined as patients reporting at least 30% reduction of baseline ODI, and the number of successfully treated patients in each group were recorded. RESULTS: In total, 3181 patients were eligible; 154 patients in group 1; 753 in group 2; 1766 in group 3; and 528 in group 4. Group 1 had significantly less improvement from baseline in all the clinical scores 12 months after surgery compared to the other groups. However, with a mean reduction of 8 ODI points and 56% of patients showing a reduction of at least 30% in their ODI score, the proportion of patients defined as successfully treated in group 1, was not significantly different from that of other groups. CONCLUSION: This national register study shows that patients with insignificant lower extremity pain had less improvement in primary and secondary outcome parameters from baseline to follow-up compared to patients with more severe lower extremity pain.

Decompression alone versus decompression with instrumental fusion the NORDSTEN degenerative spondylolisthesis trial (NORDSTEN-DS); study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Fusion in addition to decompression has become the standard treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS). The evidence for performing fusion among these patients is conflicting and there is a need for further investigation through studies of high quality. The present protocol describes an ongoing study with the primary aim of comparing the outcome between decompression alone and decompression with instrumented fusion. The secondary aim is to investigate whether predictors can be used to choose the best treatment for an individual. The trial, named the NORDSTEN-DS trial, is one of three studies in the Norwegian Degenerative Spinal Stenosis (NORDSTEN) study. METHODS: The NORDSTEN-DS trial is a block-randomized, controlled, multicenter, non-inferiority study with two parallel groups. The surgeons at the 15 participating hospitals decide whether a patient is eligible or not according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Participating patients are randomized to either a midline preserving decompression or a decompression followed by an instrumental fusion. Primary endpoint is the percentage of patients with an improvement in Oswestry Disability Index version 2.0 of more than 30% from baseline to 2-year follow-up. Secondary outcome measurements are the Zürich Claudication Questionnaire, Numeric Rating Scale for back and leg pain, Euroqol 5 dimensions questionnaire, Global perceived effect scale, complications and several radiological parameters. Analysis and interpretation of results will also be conducted after 5 and 10 years. CONCLUSION: The NORDSTEN/DS trial has the potential to provide Level 1 evidence of whether decompression alone should be advocated as the preferred method or not. Further on the study will investigate whether predictors exist and if they can be used to make the appropriate choice for surgical treatment for this patient group. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02051374 . First Posted: January 31, 2014. Last Update Posted: February 14, 2018.

Study-protocol for a randomized controlled trial comparing clinical and radiological results after three different posterior decompression techniques for lumbar spinal stenosis: the Spinal Stenosis Trial (SST) (part of the NORDSTEN Study).

BACKGROUND: There are several posterior decompression techniques for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). There is a trend towards performing less invasive surgical procedures, but no multicentre randomized controlled trials have evaluated the relative efficacy of these techniques at short and long-term. METHOD/DESIGN: A multicentre randomized controlled trial [the Spinal Stenosis Trial (SST) (part of the NORDSTEN study)] including 465 patients aged 18-80 years with neurogenic claudication or radiating pain and MRI findings indicating lumbar spinal stenosis without spondylolisthesis is performed to compare three posterior decompression techniques: unilateral laminotomy with crossover, bilateral laminotomy and spinous process osteotomy. The primary outcome is change in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI 2 years postoperatively). Secondary outcomes are change in EQ-5D, Zurich Claudication Questionnaire, and Numeric Rating Scale for leg-pain and back-pain. Also recorded were Global Perceived Effect score, complications, length of hospital stay, reoperation rate 2 years postoperatively, difference in recurrence of symptoms or postoperative instability, and MRI change in the dural sac area. Further, a 5 and 10 years follow-up is planned with the same outcome measures. DISCUSSION: Newer and less invasive techniques are increasingly favoured in surgery for LSS. This trial will compare the clinical and radiological results of three different techniques, and may contribute to better clinical decision making in the surgical treatment of LSS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov reference: NCT02007083 (November 22, 2013).

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.

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.

A novel MRI index for paraspinal muscle fatty infiltration: reliability and relation to pain and disability in lumbar spinal stenosis: results from a multicentre study.

BACKGROUND: Fatty infiltration of the paraspinal muscles may play a role in pain and disability in lumbar spinal stenosis. We assessed the reliability and association with clinical symptoms of a method for assessing fatty infiltration, a simplified muscle fat index (MFI). METHODS: Preoperative axial T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans of 243 patients aged 66.6 ± 8.5 years (mean ± standard deviation), 119 females (49%), with symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis were assessed. Fatty infiltration was assessed using both the MFI and the Goutallier classification system (GCS). The MFI was calculated as the signal intensity of the psoas muscle divided by that of the multifidus and erector spinae. Observer reliability was assessed in 102 consecutive patients for three independent investigators by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and 95% limits of agreement (LoA) for continuous variables and Gwet's agreement coefficient (AC1) for categorical variables. Associations with patient-reported pain and disability were assessed using univariate and multivariate regression analyses. RESULTS: Interobserver reliability was good for the MFI (ICC 0.79) and fair for the GCS (AC1 0.33). Intraobserver reliability was good or excellent for the MFI (ICC range 0.86-0.91) and moderate to almost perfect for the GCS (AC1 range 0.55-0.92). Mean interobserver differences of MFI measurements ranged from -0.09 to -0.04 (LoA -0.32 to 0.18). Adjusted for potential confounders, none of the disability or pain parameters was significantly associated with MFI or GCS. CONCLUSION: The proposed MFI demonstrated high observer reliability but was not associated with preoperative pain or disability.

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.

What is the influence of weight change on forearm bone mineral density in peri- and postmenopausal women? The health study of Nord-Trondelag, Norway.

Weight loss in the elderly increases bone loss and the risk of fractures, especially at the hip and spine. The influence of weight change on non-weight-bearing parts of the skeleton is less well known. The purpose of this study was to investigate an association between weight change during the peri- and postmenopausal years and forearm bone mineral density (BMD). Among 8,856 women aged 45-60 years attending the first Health Study of Nord-Trøndelag, Norway (HUNT I, 1984-1986), a random sample of 2,795 women was invited to forearm densitometry (single x-ray absorptiometry technology) at HUNT II (1995-1997), after a mean period of 11.3 years. A total of 2,005 women (mean age: 65.1 years) were eligible. The mean weight had increased 3.4 kg; the gain was greater in the youngest women. A total of 382 women (19.1%) had lost and 1,331 women (66.3%) had gained weight. Weight change explained little of the BMD variance, 0.7% and 0.4% for weight loss and weight gain, respectively. Weight loss was an independent and statistically significant negative predictor of BMD, adjusted for body weight, age, age at menopause, smoking, and ovarian hormone treatment, particularly among women with a baseline body mass index greater than 25 kg/m2. No independent association between weight gain and forearm BMD was found.