Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Predictors of outcome after decompressive lumbar surgery and instrumented posterolateral fusion

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

There has been no agreement among different authors on guidelines to specify the situations in which arthrodesis is justified in terms of results, risks and complications. The aim of this study was to identify preoperative predictors of outcome after decompressive lumbar surgery and instrumented posterolateral fusion. A prospective observational study design was performed on 203 consecutive patients. Potential preoperative predictors of outcome included sociodemographic factors as well as variables pertaining to the preoperative clinical situation, diagnosis, expectations and surgery. Separate multiple linear regression models were used to assess the association between selected predictors and outcome variables, defined as the improvement after 1 year on the visual analog scale (VAS) for back pain, VAS for leg pain, physical component scores (PCS) of SF-36 and Oswestry disability index (ODI). Follow-up was available for 184 patients (90.6%). Patients with higher educational level and optimistic preoperative expectations had a more favourable postoperative leg pain (VAS) and ODI. Smokers had less leg pain relief. Patients with better mental component score (emotional health) had greater ODI improvement. Less preoperative walking capacity predicted more leg pain relief. Patients with disc herniation had greater relief from back pain and more PCS and ODI improvement. More severe lumbar pain was predictive of less improvement on ODI and PCS. Age, sex, body mass index, analgesic use, surgeon, self-rated health, the number of decompressed levels and the length of fusion had no association with outcome. This study concludes that a higher educational level, optimistic expectations for improvement, the diagnosis of “disc herniation”, less walking capacity and good emotional health may significantly improve clinical outcome. Smoking and more severe lumbar pain are predictors of worse results.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Aalto TJ, Malmivaara A, Kovacs F et al (2006) Preoperative predictors for postoperative clinical outcome in lumbar spinal stenosis: systematic review. Spine 31:E648–E663

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Alonso J, Prieto L, Anto JM (1995) The Spanish version of the SF-36 health survey (the SF-36 health questionnaire): an instrument for measuring clinical results. Med Clin (Barc.) 104:771–776

    Google Scholar 

  3. Andersen T, Christensen FB, Laursen M (2001) Smoking as a predictor of negative outcome in lumbar spinal fusion. Spine 26:2623–2628

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Atlas SJ, Deyo RA, Keller RB (1996) The maine lumbar spine study, part II: 1-year outcomes of surgical and nonsurgical management of sciatica. Spine 21:1777–1786

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Atlas SJ, Keller RB, Robson D (2000) Surgical and nonsurgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis: four-year outcomes from the maine lumbar spine study. Spine 25:556–562

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Belsley DA (1991) Conditioning diagnostics: collinearity and weak data in regression. Wiley, New York

  7. Bombardier C (2000) Outcome assessments in the evaluation of treatment of spinal disorders: summary and general recommendations. Spine 25:3100–3103

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Bono CM, Lee CK (2004) Critical analysis of trends in fusion for degenerative disc disease over the past 20 years: influence of technique on fusion rate and clinical outcome. Spine 29:455–463

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Chen L, Tang T, Yang H (2003) Complications associated with posterior lumbar interbody fusion using Bagby and Kuslich method for treatment of spondylolisthesis. Chin Med J Engl 116:99–103

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Chen Q, Baba H, Kamitani K (1994) Postoperative bone re-growth in lumbar spinal stenosis: a multivariate analysis of 48 patients. Spine 19:2144–2149

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Cherkin D, Deyo RA, Loeser JD (1994) An international comparison of back surgery rates. Spine 19:1201–1206

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ciol MA, Deyo RA, Howell E (1996) An assessment of surgery for spinal stenosis: time trends, geographic variations, complications, and reoperations. J Am Geriatr Soc 44:285–290

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Cobo Soriano J (2008) Estudio prospectivo de resultados clínicos y de factores pronósticos en artrodesis instrumentada lumbar. Análisis económico y de relación de coste efectividad. http://hdl.handle.net/10486/2099

  14. Davis H (1994) Increasing rates of cervical and lumbar spine surgery in the United States, 1979–1990. Spine 19:1117–1123

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Derby R, Lettice JJ, Kula TA (2005) Single-level lumbar fusion in chronic discogenic low-back pain: psychological and emotional status as a predictor of outcome measured using the 36-item short form. J Neurosurg Spine 3:255–261

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Deyo RA, Andersson G, Bombardier C (1994) Outcome measures for studying patients with low back pain. Spine 19:2032S–2036S

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Deyo RA, Cherkin DC, Loeser JD (1992) Morbidity and mortality in association with operations on the lumbar spine: the influence of age, diagnosis, and procedure. J Bone Joint Surg Am 74:536–543

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Deyo RA, Ciol MA, Cherkin DC (1993) Lumbar spinal fusion: a cohort study of complications, reoperations, and resource use in the Medicare population. Spine 18:1463–1470

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Dionne C, Koepsell TD, Von KM (1995) Formal education and back-related disability: in search of an explanation. Spine 20:2721–2730

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Fardon DF (2001) Nomenclature and classification of lumbar disc pathology. Spine 26:461–462

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Feldmann PH, Wittenberg RH (2003) Surgical treatment of spinal stenosis. Orthopade 32:877–888

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Flood P, Daniel D (2004) Intranasal nicotine for postoperative pain treatment. Anesthesiology 101:1417–1421

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Flórez García M, García Pérez MA, García Pérez F (1995) Adaptación transcultural a la población española de la escala de incapacidad por dolor lumbar de Oswestry. Rehabilitación 29:138–145

    Google Scholar 

  24. Fritzell P, Hagg O, Wessberg P et al (2002) Chronic low back pain and fusion: a comparison of three surgical techniques: a prospective multicenter randomized study from the Swedish lumbar spine study group. Spine 27:1131–1141

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Gibson JNA, Grant TC, Waddell G (1999) The cochrane review of surgery for lumbar disc prolapse and degenerative lumbar spondylosis. Spine 24:1820–1832

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Gibson JN, Waddell G (2005) Surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylosis: updated cochrane review. Spine 30:2312–2320

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Glassman SD, Anagnost SC, Parker A (2000) The effect of cigarette smoking and smoking cessation on spinal fusion. Spine 25:2608–2615

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Hagg O, Fritzell P, Ekselius L (2003) Predictors of outcome in fusion surgery for chronic low back pain: a report from the Swedish lumbar spine study. Eur Spine J 12:22–33

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Herkowitz HN, Kurz LT (1991) Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis: a prospective study comparing decompression with decompression and intertransverse process arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 73:802–808

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Herron LD, Turner J, Clancy S (1986) The differential utility of the Minnesota multiphasic personality inventory: a predictor of outcome in lumbar laminectomy for disc herniation versus spinal stenosis. Spine 11:847–850

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Iversen MD, Daltroy LH, Fossel AH (1998) The prognostic importance of patient pre-operative expectations of surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. Patient Educ Couns 34:169–178

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Jacobsson L, Lindgarde F, Manthorpe R (1992) Effect of education, occupation and some lifestyle factors on common rheumatic complaints in a Swedish group aged 50–70 years. Ann Rheum Dis 51:835–843

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Jenkins LT, Jones AL, Harms JJ (1994) Prognostic factors in lumbar spinal fusion. Contemp Orthop 29:173–180

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Katz JN, Lipson SJ, Larson MG (1991) The outcome of decompressive laminectomy for degenerative lumbar stenosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 73:809–816

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Katz JN, Lipson SJ, Lew RA (1997) Lumbar laminectomy alone or with instrumented or noninstrumented arthrodesis in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: patient selection, costs, and surgical outcomes. Spine 22:1123–1131

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Katz JN, Lipson SJ, Brick GW (1995) Clinical correlates of patient satisfaction after laminectomy for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 20:1155–1160

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Katz JN, Stucki G, Lipson SJ (1999) Predictors of surgical outcome in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 24:2229–2233

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Kuntz KM, Snider RK, Weinstein JN (2000) Cost-effectiveness of fusion with and without instrumentation for patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis and spinal stenosis. Spine 25:1132–1139

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Larequi-Lauber T, Vader JP, Burnand B (1997) Appropriateness of indications for surgery of lumbar disc hernia and spinal stenosis. Spine 22:203–209

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Lutz GK, Butzlaff ME, Atlas SJ (1999) The relation between expectations and outcomes in surgery for sciatica. J Gen Intern Med 14:740–744

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Pheasant HC, Gilbert D, Goldfarb J (1979) The MMPI as a predictor of outcome in low-back surgery. Spine 4:78–84

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Pincus T, Callahan LF, Burkhauser RV (1987) Most chronic diseases are reported more frequently by individuals with fewer than 12 years of formal education in the age 18–64 United States population. J Chronic Dis 40:865–874

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Postacchini F, Cinotti G (1992) Bone regrowth after surgical decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 74:862–869

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Trief PM, Ploutz-Snyder R, Fredrickson BE (2006) Emotional health predicts pain and function after fusion: a prospective multicenter study. Spine 31:823–830

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Turner JA, Ersek M, Herron L (1992) Surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. attempted meta-analysis of the literature. Spine 17:1–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Vilagut G, Ferrer M, Rajmil L (2005) The Spanish version of the short form 36 health survey: a decade of experience and new developments. Gac Sanit 19:135–150

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Weinstein JN, Lurie JD, Olson PR (2006) United States’ trends and regional variations in lumbar spine surgery: 1992–2003. Spine 31:2707–2714

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Wiltse L, Kikardy-Willis W, McIvor G (1976) The treatment of spinal stenosis. Clin Orthop 115:83

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Zdeblick TA (1993) A prospective, randomized study of lumbar fusion: preliminary results. Spine 18:983–991

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Javier Cobo Soriano or Martín Fabregate Fuente.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cobo Soriano, J., Sendino Revuelta, M., Fabregate Fuente, M. et al. Predictors of outcome after decompressive lumbar surgery and instrumented posterolateral fusion. Eur Spine J 19, 1841–1848 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-010-1284-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-010-1284-2

Keywords

Navigation