Surgical trends and regional variation in Danish patients diagnosed with lumbar spinal stenosis between 2002 and 2018: a retrospective registry-based study of 83,783 patients.

BACKGROUND: Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is the most common reason for spine surgery in older people. However, surgery rates vary widely both internationally and nationally. This study compared patient and sociodemographic characteristics, geographical location and comorbidity between surgically and non-surgically treated Danish patients diagnosed with LSS from 2002 to 2018 and described variations over time. METHODS: Diagnostic ICD-10 codes identifying patients with LSS and surgical procedure codes for decompression with or without fusion were retrieved from the Danish National Patient Register. Patients ≥ 18 years who had been admitted to private or public hospitals in Denmark between 2002 and 2018 were included. Data on age, sex, income, retirement status, geographical region and comorbidity were extracted. A multivariable logistic regression model was used to calculate the relative risk for surgically versus non-surgically treated LSS patients using the total population and subsequently divided into three time periods. Variations over time were displayed graphically. RESULTS: A total of 83,783 unique patients with an LSS diagnosis were identified, and of these, 38,362 (46%) underwent decompression surgery. Compared to those who did not receive surgery, the surgically treated patients were more likely to be aged 65-74 years, were less likely to have comorbidities, had higher income and were more likely to reside in the northern part of Denmark. Patients aged 65-74 years remained more likely to receive surgery over time, although the difference between age groups eventually diminished, as older patients (aged ≥ 75) were increasingly more likely to undergo surgery. Large variations and differences in the relative risk of surgery were observed within and between the geographical regions. The likelihood of receiving surgery varied up to threefold between regions. CONCLUSION: Danish patients with LSS who receive surgery differ in a number of respects from those not receiving surgery. Patients aged 65 to 74 years were more likely to receive surgery than other age groups, and LSS surgical patients were healthier, more often retired and had higher incomes than those not undergoing surgery. There were considerable variations in the relative risk of surgery between and within geographical regions.

Surgery rates for lumbar spinal stenosis in Denmark between 2002 and 2018: a registry-based study of 43,454 patients.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Over the last decades, many countries have shown increased surgery rates for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS), but little information is available from Denmark. We describe the development in diagnosis and surgery of LSS in Denmark between 2002 and 2018. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We collected diagnostic ICD10-codes and surgical procedure codes from private and public hospitals in Denmark from the Danish National Patient Register. Patients diagnosed with LSS and those with surgical procedure codes for decompression surgery with or without fusion were identified. Annual surgery rates were stratified by age, sex, and type of surgery. RESULTS: During these 17 years, 132,138 patients diagnosed with LSS and 43,454 surgical procedures for LSS were identified. The number of surgical procedures increased by 144%, from 23 to 56 per 100,000 inhabitants. The proportion of patients diagnosed with LSS who received surgery was about 33%, which was almost stable over time. Decompression without fusion increased by 128% from 18 to 40 per 100,000 inhabitants and decompression with fusion increased by 199%, from 5 to 15 per 100,000. INTERPRETATION: Both the prevalence of LSS diagnoses and LSS surgery rates more than doubled in Denmark between 2002 and 2018. However, the proportion of patients diagnosed with LSS who received surgery remained stable. Decompression surgery with fusion increased at a higher rate than decompression without fusion, although recent evidence suggests no advantage of decompression plus fusion over decompression alone.

Effect of blood-flow restricted vs heavy-load strength training on muscle strength: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Heavy-load strength training (HLT) is generally considered the Gold Standard exercise modality for inducing gains in skeletal muscle strength. However, use of heavy external exercise loads may be contraindicative in frail individuals. Low-load resistance exercise combined with partial blood-flow restriction (LL-BFR exercise) may offer an effective alternative for increasing mechanical muscle strength and size. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of LL-BFR training to HLT on maximal muscle strength gains. Prospero registration-id (CRD42014013382). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic search in six healthcare science databases and reference lists was conducted. Data selected for primary analysis consisted of post-intervention changes in maximal muscle strength. A random-effects meta-analysis with standardized mean differences (SMD) was used. RESULTS: Of 1413 papers identified through systematic search routines, sixteen papers fulfilled the inclusion criteria, totalling 153 participants completing HLT and 157 completing LL-BFR training. The magnitude of training-induced gains in maximal muscle strength did not differ between LL-BFR training and HLT (SMD of -0.17 (95% CI: -0.40; 0.05)). Low between-study heterogeneity was noted (I2  = 0.0%, Chi2 P = 9.65). CONCLUSION: Low-load blood-flow-restricted training appears equally effective of producing gains in maximal voluntary muscle strength compared to HLT in 20- to 80-year-old healthy and habitually active adults.

Clinically acceptable agreement between the ViMove wireless motion sensor system and the Vicon motion capture system when measuring lumbar region inclination motion in the sagittal and coronal planes.

BACKGROUND: Wireless, wearable, inertial motion sensor technology introduces new possibilities for monitoring spinal motion and pain in people during their daily activities of work, rest and play. There are many types of these wireless devices currently available but the precision in measurement and the magnitude of measurement error from such devices is often unknown. This study investigated the concurrent validity of one inertial motion sensor system (ViMove) for its ability to measure lumbar inclination motion, compared with the Vicon motion capture system. METHODS: To mimic the variability of movement patterns in a clinical population, a sample of 34 people were included - 18 with low back pain and 16 without low back pain. ViMove sensors were attached to each participant's skin at spinal levels T12 and S2, and Vicon surface markers were attached to the ViMove sensors. Three repetitions of end-range flexion inclination, extension inclination and lateral flexion inclination to both sides while standing were measured by both systems concurrently with short rest periods in between. Measurement agreement through the whole movement range was analysed using a multilevel mixed-effects regression model to calculate the root mean squared errors and the limits of agreement were calculated using the Bland Altman method. RESULTS: We calculated root mean squared errors (standard deviation) of 1.82° (±1.00°) in flexion inclination, 0.71° (±0.34°) in extension inclination, 0.77° (±0.24°) in right lateral flexion inclination and 0.98° (±0.69°) in left lateral flexion inclination. 95% limits of agreement ranged between -3.86° and 4.69° in flexion inclination, -2.15° and 1.91° in extension inclination, -2.37° and 2.05° in right lateral flexion inclination and -3.11° and 2.96° in left lateral flexion inclination. CONCLUSIONS: We found a clinically acceptable level of agreement between these two methods for measuring standing lumbar inclination motion in these two cardinal movement planes. Further research should investigate the ViMove system's ability to measure lumbar motion in more complex 3D functional movements and to measure changes of movement patterns related to treatment effects.

The Accuracy of Locating Lumbar Vertebrae When Using Palpation Versus Ultrasonography.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the accuracy of locating lumbar vertebrae using palpation vs ultrasonography. METHODS: In this study, ultrasonic imaging was used by 2 experienced clinicians to identify the third lumbar spinous process (target) of a female participant. The target was then located by 16 undergraduate chiropractic students using clinical palpation techniques learned in their academic program (with participant seated and prone) and ultrasonic imaging learned through a 5-minute training video. Presumed target locations identified by students were recorded by infrared motion capture equipment. The coordinates of the presumed target site were then compared statistically. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the presumed target position identified by the students using sitting and prone palpation (P = .346). These positions were significantly different from the target location identified by expert clinicians using ultrasonic imaging (P < .0001 in both cases). The vertebra identified by ultrasonic imaging by the students was the same vertebra identified by the expert clinicians using ultrasound. This position error in the vertebra identified by palpation resulted in the students mistakenly identifying the L4 spinous process as the target vertebra. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that ultrasonography provided more accurate identification of a lumbar spinal landmark when compared with palpation. In addition, our data suggest that ultrasonic imaging to identify spinal landmarks can be learned easily and can improve accuracy of landmark detection. Although the time to use ultrasonic imaging was greater than with palpation, these results suggest that this procedure could potentially be used in clinical practice to identify spinal landmarks.

Musculoskeletal Dysfunctions in Patients With Chronic Pelvic Pain: A Preliminary Descriptive Survey.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the prevalence of musculoskeletal dysfunctions based on a standardized clinical examination of patients with chronic pelvic pain (CPP) who were referred to a specialized tertiary care center for laparoscopic examination. In addition, we stratified levels of self-reported pelvic pain, self-rated health, education, and work status based on musculoskeletal dysfunction status. METHODS: This study used a cross-sectional design to determine the prevalence of musculoskeletal dysfunctions in women with CPP who were referred to a tertiary care center specializing in care of women with CPP. The women completed a questionnaire and underwent a blinded systematic objective clinical examination of the musculoskeletal system by a doctor of chiropractic who then categorized the patients as having or not having musculoskeletal dysfunction. RESULTS: Ninety-four patients returned the questionnaire, completed the clinical examination, and fulfilled the inclusion criteria. More than half of the referred patients with CPP (48 out of 94) had musculoskeletal dysfunctions in the lumbar/pelvic region. No statistically significant differences were found between the groups with respect to self-rated health, education, work status, and pain level. Pain location was significantly different after Bonferroni correction in 1 out of the 36 aspects. CONCLUSIONS: In this sample of CPP patients, 51% were categorized as having a musculoskeletal dysfunction. Overall, CPP patients were similar with respect to certain characteristics, such as age, body mass index, and pain level, regardless of their classification; however, patients with musculoskeletal dysfunction tended to report more pain in the front and back of the lower limbs.

Diagnostic Screening for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.

PURPOSE: To develop a self-administered diagnostic screening questionnaire for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) consisting of items with high content validity and to investigate the diagnostic value of the questionnaire and the items. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A self-reported diagnostic LSS screening questionnaire was developed based on items from the existing literature describing key symptoms of LSS. The screening questionnaire (index test) was to be tested in a cohort of patients with persistent lumbar and/or leg pain recruited from a Danish publicly funded outpatient secondary care spine clinic with clinicians performing the reference test. However, to avoid unnecessary collection of data if the screening questionnaire proved to be of limited value, a case-control design was incorporated into the cohort design including an interim analysis. Additional cases for the case-control study were recruited at two Danish publicly funded spine surgery departments. Prevalence, sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratio (OR) were calculated for each individual item, and AUC (area under the curve) was calculated to examine the performance of the full questionnaire. RESULTS: A 13-item Danish questionnaire was developed and tested in 153 cases and 230 controls. The interim analysis was not in favour of continuing the cohort study, and therefore, only results from the case-control study are reported. There was a positive association for all items except the presence of back pain. However, the association was only moderate with ORs up to 3.3. When testing the performance of the whole questionnaire, an AUC of 0.72 was reached with a specificity of 20% for a fixed sensitivity of 95%. CONCLUSION: The items were associated with LSS and therefore have some potential to identify LSS patients. However, the association was not strong enough to provide sufficient accuracy for a diagnostic tool. Additional dimensions of symptoms of LSS need identification to obtain a reliable questionnaire for screening purposes.