Incidence of Revision Surgery After Decompression With vs Without Fusion Among Patients With Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.

Importance: Only limited data derived from large prospective cohort studies exist on the incidence of revision surgery among patients who undergo operations for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS). Objective: To assess the cumulative incidence of revision surgery after 2 types of index operations-decompression alone or decompression with fusion-among patients with DLSS. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study analyzed data from a multicenter, prospective cohort study, the Lumbar Stenosis Outcome Study, which included patients aged 50 years or older with DLSS at 8 spine surgery and rheumatology units in Switzerland between December 2010 and December 2015. The follow-up period was 3 years. Data for this study were analyzed between October and November 2021. Exposures: All patients underwent either decompression surgery alone or decompression with fusion surgery for DLSS. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the cumulative incidence of revision operations. Secondary outcomes included changes in the following patient-reported outcome measures: Spinal Stenosis Measure (SSM) symptom severity (higher scores indicate more pain) and physical function (higher scores indicate more disability) subscale scores and the EuroQol Health-Related Quality of Life 5-Dimension 3-Level questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L) summary index score (lower scores indicate worse quality of life). Results: A total of 328 patients (165 [50.3%] men; median age, 73.0 years [IQR, 66.0-78.0 years]) were included in the analysis. Of these, 256 (78.0%) underwent decompression alone and 72 (22.0%) underwent decompression with fusion. The cumulative incidence of revisions after 3 years of follow-up was 11.3% (95% CI, 7.4%-15.1%) for the decompression alone group and 13.9% (95% CI, 5.5%-21.5%) for the fusion group (log-rank P = .60). There was no significant difference in the need for revision between the 2 groups over time (unadjusted absolute risk difference, 2.6% [95% CI, -6.3% to 11.4%]; adjusted absolute risk difference, 3.9% [95% CI, -5.2% to 17.0%]; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.40 [95% CI, 0.63-3.13]). The number of revisions was significantly associated with higher SSM symptom severity scores (ß, 0.171; 95% CI, 0.047-0.295; P = .007) and lower EQ-5D-3L summary index scores (ß, -0.061; 95% CI, -0.105 to -0.017; P = .007) but not with higher SSM physical function scores (ß, 0.068; 95% CI, -0.036 to 0.172; P = .20). The type of index operation was not significantly associated with the corresponding outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study showed no significant association between the type of index operation for DLSS-decompression alone or fusion-and the need for revision surgery or the outcomes of pain, disability, and quality of life among patients after 3 years. Number of revision operations was associated with more pain and worse quality of life.

The influence of comorbidities on the treatment outcome in symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) affects mainly elderly patients. To this day, it is unclear whether comorbidities influence treatment success. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the impact of comorbidities on the treatment effectiveness in symptomatic LSS. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis and reviewed prospective or retrospective studies from Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and CINAHL from inception to May 2020, including adult patients with LSS undergoing surgical or conservative treatment. Main outcomes were satisfaction, functional and symptoms improvement, and adverse events (AE). Proportions of outcomes within two subgroups of a comorbidity were compared with risk ratio (RR) as summary measure. Availability of ≥3 studies for the same subgroup and outcome was required for meta-analysis. RESULTS: Of 72 publications, 51 studies, mostly assessing surgery, there was no evidence reported that patients with comorbidities were less satisfied compared to patients without comorbidities (RR 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 1.45, I 2 94%), but they had an increased risk for AE (RR 1.46, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.01, I 2 72%). A limited number of studies found no influence of comorbidities on functional and symptoms improvement. Older age did not affect satisfaction, symptoms and functional improvement, and AE (age >80 years RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.52, I 2 60%). Diabetes was associated with more AE (RR 1.72, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.47, I 2 58%). CONCLUSION: In patients with LSS and comorbidities (in particular diabetes), a higher risk for AE should be considered in the treatment decision. Older age alone was not associated with an increased risk for AE, less functional and symptoms improvement, and less treatment satisfaction.

Outcomes after spinal stenosis surgery by type of surgery in adults aged 60 years and older.

AIMS OF THE STUDY: Mobility disability due to spinal stenosis is common in the senior population and often surgery is warranted for patients with severe symptoms and neurological dysfunction. However, although current clinical guidelines recommend stabilisation surgery in addition to decompression in patients with spinal stenosis and instability due to degenerative spondylolisthesis, the relationship between outcomes and the specific type of surgery have not been well studied. We therefore assessed the postoperative recovery timeline for 12 months and compared patient-reported outcomes dependent on the extent of decompression and additional stabilisation among seniors undergoing spinal stenosis surgery. METHODS: We investigated 457 patients (mean age 76.0 ± 10.7 years, 58% women) from a consecutive cohort prior to spinal stenosis surgery. Follow-up was at 3 or 6months and at 12 months postoperatively. At each visit, pain, neurological dysfunction and disability were assessed using the North American Spine Society questionnaire. Repeated-measures analysis compared outcomes by type of surgery adjusting for baseline symptoms, gender, age, number of comorbidities, centre and year of surgery. RESULTS: Most improvement occurred within the first 3 to 6 months with little or no further improvement at 12 months. Over 12 months and in adjusted models, patients receiving one-segment versus multi-segment decompression experienced significantly greater reduction of pain (−49.2% vs −41.9%, p = 0.013) and neurological dysfunction (−37.1% vs −25.9%, p <0.0001), but only borderline greater reduction of disability (−32.7% vs −28.2%, p = 0.051). Moreover, reduction in pain and neurological function did not differ with or without additional stabilisation and extend of decompression. However, patients who received one-segment (−28.9%) or multi-segment (−28.3%) stabilisation experienced significantly less reduction in disability after surgery compared with those who were not stabilised (−34.1%, p <0.043). CONCLUSIONS: Among senior patients undergoing spinal stenosis surgery, recovery was largely complete by 3 to 6 months after surgery and differed little by type of surgery independently of symptoms prior to surgery and other covariates. However we could document a trend toward more improvement in particularly neurological dysfunction and disability with less invasive surgery.

Increased risk of adverse events in non-cancer patients with chronic and high-dose opioid use-A health insurance claims analysis.

BACKGROUND: Chronic and high dose opioid use may result in adverse events. We analyzed the risk associated with chronic and high dose opioid prescription in a Swiss population. METHODS: Using insurance claims data covering one-sixth of the Swiss population, we analyzed recurrent opioid prescriptions (≥2 opioid claims with at least 1 strong opioid claim) between 2006 and 2014. We calculated the cumulative dose in milligrams morphine equivalents (MED) and treatment duration. Excluded were single opioid claims, opioid use that was cancer treatment related, and opioid use in substitution programs. We assessed the association between the duration of opioid use, prescribed opioid dose, and benzodiazepine use with emergency department (ED) visits, urogenital and pulmonary infections, acute care hospitalization, and death at the end of the episode. RESULTS: In 63,642 recurrent opioid prescription episodes (acute 38%, subacute 7%, chronic 25.8%, very chronic (>360 days) episodes 29%) 18,336 ED visits, 30,209 infections, 19,375 hospitalizations, and 9,662 deaths occurred. The maximum daily MED dose was <20 mg in 15.8%, 20-<50 mg in 16.6%, 50-<100 mg in 21.6%, and ≥100 mg in 46%. Compared to acute episodes (<90 days), episode duration was an independent predictor of ED visits (chronic OR 1.09 (95% CI 1.03-1.15), very chronic (>360 days) OR 1.76 (1.67-1.86)) for adverse effects; infections (chronic OR 1.74 (1.66-1.82), very chronic 4.16 (3.95-4.37)), and hospitalization (chronic: OR 1.22 (1.16-1.29), very chronic OR 1.82 (1.73-1.93)). The risk of death decreased over time (very chronic OR 0.46 (0.43-0.50)). A dose dependent increased risk was observed for ED visits, hospitalization, and death (≥100mg daily MED OR 1.21 (1.13-1.29), OR 1.29 (1.21-1.38), and OR 1.67, 1.50-1.85, respectively). A concomitant use of benzodiazepines increased the odds for ED visits by 46% (OR 1.46, 1.41-1.52), infections by 44% (OR 1.44, 1.41-1.52), hospitalization by 12% (OR 1.12, 1.07-1.1), and death by 45% (OR 1.45, 1.37-1.53). CONCLUSION: The length of opioid use and higher prescribed morphine equivalent dose were independently associated with an increased risk for ED visits and hospitalizations. The risk for infections, ED visits, hospitalizations, and death also increased with concomitant benzodiazepine use.

Long-term Results After Surgical or Nonsurgical Treatment in Patients With Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Prospective Multicenter Study.

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, multicenter cohort study. OBJECTIVE: The aim of our study was to assess the course of patients over a period of 3 years undergoing surgical or nonsurgical treatments for degenerative lumbar spinal stenoses (DLSS) based on data from the Lumbar Stenosis Outcome Study (LSOS), prospectively performed in eight hospitals. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The optimal treatment strategy for patients with DLSS is still debated. METHODS: The outcomes of patients with verified DLSS were quantified by Spinal Stenosis Measure (SSM) symptoms- and SSM function-scores, and EQ-5D-3L (quality of life) summary index (SI) over time (up to 36-month follow-up), and minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in SSM symptoms, SSM function, and EQ-5D-3L SI from baseline to 36-month follow-up. RESULTS: For this study, 601 patients met the inclusion criteria; 430 underwent surgery, 18 of them only after more than a year after enrolment, 171 received nonsurgical treatment only. At baseline, patients in the surgical and nonsurgical groups had similar values for the SSM symptoms and SSM function scores, but patients in the surgical group suffered significantly more from buttocks pain and reported more worsening symptoms over the last 3 months before enrollment in the study. Surgically treated patients (except changers) performed significantly better in all clinical outcome measures (P < 0.001) with a plateau at 12-month follow-up staying constant until the follow-up ended. Further, two-thirds of patients in the surgical group had a relevant improvement in function, symptoms, and quality of life, compared with only about half of those in terms of symptoms and even less in terms of function and quality of life with nonsurgical treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical treatment of DLSS results in more favorable clinical outcomes with a sustained effect over time, compared to nonsurgical treatment. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Two-year outcome comparison of decompression in 14 lipomatosis cases with 169 degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis cases: a Swiss prospective multicenter cohort study.

PURPOSE: Spinal epidural lipomatosis (SEL) is defined as an abnormal and extensive accumulation of unencapsulated adipose tissue within the spinal epidural space. To date, there is a lack of high-level evidence studies reporting the outcome of surgical treatment of symptomatic SEL in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). The aim was to compare clinical outcomes in patients with symptomatic LSS with and without SEL who underwent decompression surgery alone at the 12- and 24-month follow-up. METHODS: One hundred and eighty-three patients met the inclusion criteria, of which 14 had mainly SEL on at least one level operated in addition to possible degenerative changes on other levels and 169 degenerative LSS only. The main outcomes were pain (Spinal Stenosis Measure (SSM) symptoms), disability (SSM function), and quality of life [EQ-5D-3L summary index (SI)] at 24-month follow-up, and minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in SSM symptoms, SSM function, and EQ-5D-3L SI. RESULTS: The multiple regression linear models showed that SEL was associated with worse SSM symptoms (p = 0.045) and EQ-5D-3L SI scores (p = 0.026) at 24-month follow-up, but not with worse SSM function scores. Further, depression (in all models) was negatively associated with better clinical outcomes at 24-month follow-up. In the outcomes SSM symptoms and EQ-5D-3L SI, distinctly more patients in the classical LSS group reached MCID than in the SEL group (71.3% and 62.3% vs. 50.0% and 42.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrated that decompression alone surgery was associated with significant improvement in disability in both groups at 2 years, but not in pain and quality of life in patients with SEL.

Datasets describing the introduction of the high-sensitive troponin in the emergency department.

Chest pain is a common clinical condition in the emergency department. A high sensitive (hs) troponin test assay may help to identify patients with acute coronary syndrome earlier compared to conventional tests but also entails the risk of a high proportion of positive test results in patients without cardiac disease. We assessed the impact of the introduction of the hs-troponin test in clinical practice in an emergency department. We compared December 1, 2009 until November 30, 2010 (standard test period) to December 1, 2010 - the date of the introduction of the hs-troponin assay - until December 31, 2011 (hs troponin test period) of patients presenting with chest pain to one of the ten largest hospitals in Switzerland. We identified electronic health records using the following ICD-10 codes: R06.4 (hyperventilation), R07.1 (chest pain when breathing), R07.2 (precordial pain), R07.3 (other chest pain), and R07.4 (chest pain not specified), I20 (angina pectoris), I21 (acute MI), I22 (recurrent MI), I23 (complications after acute MI), and I24 (other acute ischemic heart disease). Included were all medical records of adult patients (≥18 years) presenting to the ED with chest pain and with ≥1 troponin test. Excluded were records without troponin test, pregnancy, trauma patients/life-threatening conditions, malignant disease, current fracture, renal replacement therapy/severe kidney failure (creatinine clearance <30ml/min/1.73m2), patients with disability, or patients disagreeing that their data will be used for scientific purposes. Two researchers screened all records for in-/exclusion. The first presentation for chest pain to the ED and all presentations within the following three months extracted. Presentations after >3 months due to chest pain were defined as a new index visit of a second episode. The extraction form with predefined variables was pilot-tested in 20 records. Additional diagnostic tests were ECG, treadmill test, coronary angiography, MIBI scintigraphy, echocardiography, chest X-ray, computer tomography (CT) of the chest or abdomen, sonography of the abdomen or pleura, gastroscopy, and lung function tests. We compared the number of non-invasive / invasive cardiac diagnostic tests in troponin positive and negative patients and the number of diagnostic tests after the exclusion of patients with STEMI diagnosis. Non-invasive / invasive cardiac tests included treadmill test, coronary angiography, MIBI scintigraphy, and echocardiography. We calculated average monthly tests per patient and compared mean tests per patient between groups. We used a t-test to quantify the evidence for differential number of diagnostic tests per patient in each period. Between-group differences were estimated with 95% confidence intervals. All analyses were performed with the statistical software R for windows [1]. Interpretation of this data can be found in a research article titled Impact of the introduction of high-sensitive troponin assay on the evaluation of chest pain patients in the emergency department: a retrospective study [2]).

Evaluating the Minimal Clinically Important Difference of EQ-5D-3L in Patients With Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Swiss Prospective Multicenter Cohort Study.

STUDY DESIGN: Analysis of a prospective, multicenter cohort study. OBJECTIVE: The aim of our study was to compare thresholds of published minimal clinically important differences (MCID) for the three-level EuroQol-5D health survey (EQ-5D-3L) summary index (range -0.53 to 1.00) with our anchor-based estimate and evaluate how useful these thresholds are in determining treatment success in patients undergoing surgery for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: MCID values for EQ-5D-3L are specific to the underlying disease and only three studies have been published for DLSS patients reporting different values. METHODS: Patients of the multicenter Lumbar Stenosis Outcome Study with confirmed DLSS undergoing first-time decompression or fusion surgery with 12-month follow-up were enrolled in this study. To calculate MCID we used the Spinal Stenosis Measure satisfaction subscale as anchor. RESULTS: For this study, 364 patients met the inclusion criteria; of these, 196 were very satisfied, 72 moderately satisfied, 43 somewhat satisfied, and 53 unsatisfied 12 months after surgery. The MCID calculation estimated for EQ-5D-3L a value of 0.19. Compared with published MCID values (ranging from 0.30 to 0.52), our estimation is less restrictive. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with LSS undergoing surgery, we estimated an MCID value for EQ-5D-3L summary index of 0.19 with the help of the average change anchor-based method, which we find to be the most suitable method for assessing patient change scores. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.