Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Predictors of improvement in quality of life and pain relief in lumbar spinal stenosis relative to patient age: a study based on the Spine Tango registry

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

Abstract

Background

An open decompression is the most common treatment for lumbar spinal canal stenosis (LSS), even in the elderly. However, it is not clear whether the treatment outcome is age dependent. The main purpose of this study was to evaluate the improvement in quality of life (QoL) and pain relief, after open decompression for LSS in relation to patient age.

Methods

The study was performed on the basis of Spine Tango registry data. The database query resulted in 4768 patients from 40 international Spine Tango centres. The patients were subdivided into three age groups: (1) 20–64, (2) 65–74, and (3) ≥75 years. In multivariate logistic regression models, predictors for improvement in QoL and achievement of the minimum clinically relevant change in pain of two points were analysed.

Results

All groups benefited from significant improvement in QoL and back and leg pain relief. Age group had no significant influence on the outcomes. The preoperative status of each outcome was a predictor for its own postoperative outcome. Fewer previous surgeries, rigid or dynamic stabilization, and lower patient comorbidity also had a partially predictive influence for one or the other outcome.

Conclusions

Our results confirm that all age groups significantly benefit from the open decompressive treatment of LSS. Age group had no significant influence on any outcome.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Porter RW (1996) Spinal stenosis and neurogenic claudication. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 21:2046–2052

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Sinikallio S, Aalto T, Airaksinen O, Herno A, Kroger H, Savolainen S, Turunen V, Viinamaki H (2007) Somatic comorbidity and younger age are associated with life dissatisfaction among patients with lumbar spinal stenosis before surgical treatment. Eur Spine J 16:857–864. doi:10.1007/s00586-006-0080-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Vogt MT, Cawthon PM, Kang JD, Donaldson WF, Cauley JA, Nevitt MC (2006) Prevalence of symptoms of cervical and lumbar stenosis among participants in the Osteoporotic Fractures in Men Study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31:1445–1451. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000219875.19688.a6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Battie MC, Jones CA, Schopflocher DP, Hu RW (2012) Health-related quality of life and comorbidities associated with lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine J 12:189–195. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2011.11.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ulrich NH, Kleinstuck F, Woernle CM, Antoniadis A, Winklhofer S, Burgstaller JM, Farshad M, Oberle J, Porchet F, Min K, LumbSten Research C (2015) Clinical outcome in lumbar decompression surgery for spinal canal stenosis in the aged population: a prospective swiss multicenter cohort study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 40:415–422. doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000000765

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Amundsen T, Weber H, Nordal HJ, Magnaes B, Abdelnoor M, Lilleas F (2000) Lumbar spinal stenosis: conservative or surgical management?: A prospective 10-year study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25:1424–1435 (discussion 1435–1426)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Malmivaara A, Slatis P, Heliovaara M, Sainio P, Kinnunen H, Kankare J, Dalin-Hirvonen N, Seitsalo S, Herno A, Kortekangas P, Niinimaki T, Ronty H, Tallroth K, Turunen V, Knekt P, Harkanen T, Hurri H, Finnish Lumbar Spinal Research Group (2007) Surgical or nonoperative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis? A randomized controlled trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32:1–8. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000251014.81875.6d

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Weinstein JN, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD, Tosteson AN, Blood E, Hanscom B, Herkowitz H, Cammisa F, Albert T, Boden SD, Hilibrand A, Goldberg H, Berven S, An H, Investigators S (2008) Surgical versus nonsurgical therapy for lumbar spinal stenosis. N Engl J Med 358:794–810. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0707136

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Sobottke R, Aghayev E, Roder C, Eysel P, Delank SK, Zweig T (2012) Predictors of surgical, general and follow-up complications in lumbar spinal stenosis relative to patient age as emerged from the Spine Tango Registry. Eur Spine J 21:411–417. doi:10.1007/s00586-011-2016-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Shabat S, Arinzon Z, Folman Y, Leitner J, David R, Pevzner E, Gepstein R, Pekarsky I, Shuval I (2008) Long-term outcome of decompressive surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis in octogenarians. Eur Spine J 17:193–198. doi:10.1007/s00586-007-0514-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Aalto TJ, Malmivaara A, Kovacs F, Herno A, Alen M, Salmi L, Kroger H, Andrade J, Jimenez R, Tapaninaho A, Turunen V, Savolainen S, Airaksinen O (2006) Preoperative predictors for postoperative clinical outcome in lumbar spinal stenosis: systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31:E648–E663. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000231727.88477.da

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gotzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP, Initiative S (2007) The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Bull World Health Organ 85:867–872

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Melloh M, Staub L, Aghayev E, Zweig T, Barz T, Theis JC, Chavanne A, Grob D, Aebi M, Roeder C (2008) The international spine registry SPINE TANGO: status quo and first results. Eur Spine J 17:1201–1209. doi:10.1007/s00586-008-0665-2

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Mannion AF, Elfering A, Staerkle R, Junge A, Grob D, Semmer NK, Jacobshagen N, Dvorak J, Boos N (2005) Outcome assessment in low back pain: how low can you go? Eur Spine J 14:1014–1026. doi:10.1007/s00586-005-0911-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Munting E, Roder C, Sobottke R, Dietrich D, Aghayev E, Spine Tango C (2015) Patient outcomes after laminotomy, hemilaminectomy, laminectomy and laminectomy with instrumented fusion for spinal canal stenosis: a propensity score-based study from the Spine Tango registry. Eur Spine J 24:358–368. doi:10.1007/s00586-014-3349-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Jakola AS, Sorlie A, Gulati S, Nygaard OP, Lydersen S, Solberg T (2010) Clinical outcomes and safety assessment in elderly patients undergoing decompressive laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis: a prospective study. BMC Surg 10:34. doi:10.1186/1471-2482-10-34

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Benz RJ, Ibrahim ZG, Afshar P, Garfin SR (2001) Predicting complications in elderly patients undergoing lumbar decompression. Clin Orthop Relat Res 384:116–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Galiano K, Obwegeser AA, Gabl MV, Bauer R, Twerdy K (2005) Long-term outcome of laminectomy for spinal stenosis in octogenarians. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30:332–335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Sanderson PL, Wood PL (1993) Surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis in old people. J Bone Joint Surg Br 75:393–397

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Cornefjord M, Byrod G, Brisby H, Rydevik B (2000) A long-term (4- to 12-year) follow-up study of surgical treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. Eur Spine J 9:563–570

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Arinzon Z, Adunsky A, Fidelman Z, Gepstein R (2004) Outcomes of decompression surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis in elderly diabetic patients. Eur Spine J 13:32–37. doi:10.1007/s00586-003-0643-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Thome C, Zevgaridis D, Leheta O, Bazner H, Pockler-Schoniger C, Wohrle J, Schmiedek P (2005) Outcome after less-invasive decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis: a randomized comparison of unilateral laminotomy, bilateral laminotomy, and laminectomy. J Neurosurg Spine 3:129–141. doi:10.3171/spi.2005.3.2.0129

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Rosen DS, O’Toole JE, Eichholz KM, Hrubes M, Huo D, Sandhu FA, Fessler RG (2007) Minimally invasive lumbar spinal decompression in the elderly: outcomes of 50 patients aged 75 years and older. Neurosurgery 60:503–510. doi:10.1227/01.NEU.0000255332.87909.58 (discussion 509–510)

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Athiviraham A, Wali ZA, Yen D (2011) Predictive factors influencing clinical outcome with operative management of lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine J 11:613–617. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2011.03.008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Javid MJ, Hadar EJ (1998) Long-term follow-up review of patients who underwent laminectomy for lumbar stenosis: a prospective study. J Neurosurg 89:1–7. doi:10.3171/jns.1998.89.1.0001

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Thornes E, Ikonomou N, Grotle M (2011) Prognosis of surgical treatment for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: a prospective cohort study of clinical outcomes and health-related quality of life across gender and age groups. Open Orthop J 5:372–378. doi:10.2174/1874325001105010372

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Schluessmann E, Diel P, Aghayev E, Zweig T, Moulin P, Roder C, Group SWR (2009) SWISSspine: a nationwide registry for health technology assessment of lumbar disc prostheses. Eur Spine J 18:851–861. doi:10.1007/s00586-009-0934-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Szpalski M, Nordin M, Skovron ML, Melot C, Cukier D (1995) Health care utilization for low back pain in Belgium. Influence of sociocultural factors and health beliefs. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 20:431–442

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Saban KL, Penckofer SM (2007) Patient expectations of quality of life following lumbar spinal surgery. J Neurosci Nurs 39:180–189

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Stoll TM, Dubois G, Schwarzenbach O (2002) The dynamic neutralization system for the spine: a multi-center study of a novel non-fusion system. Eur Spine J 11(Suppl 2):S170–S178. doi:10.1007/s00586-002-0438-2

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Schaeren S, Broger I, Jeanneret B (2008) Minimum four-year follow-up of spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis treated with decompression and dynamic stabilization. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33:E636–E642. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31817d2435

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Putzier M, Schneider SV, Funk JF, Tohtz SW, Perka C (2005) The surgical treatment of the lumbar disc prolapse: nucleotomy with additional transpedicular dynamic stabilization versus nucleotomy alone. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30:E109–E114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Stoffel M, Behr M, Reinke A, Stuer C, Ringel F, Meyer B (2010) Pedicle screw-based dynamic stabilization of the thoracolumbar spine with the Cosmic-system: a prospective observation. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 152:835–843. doi:10.1007/s00701-009-0583-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Grob D, Benini A, Junge A, Mannion AF (2005) Clinical experience with the Dynesys semirigid fixation system for the lumbar spine: surgical and patient-oriented outcome in 50 cases after an average of 2 years. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30:324–331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Cakir B, Ulmar B, Koepp H, Huch K, Puhl W, Richter M (2003) Posterior dynamic stabilization as an alternative for dorso-ventral fusion in spinal stenosis with degenerative instability. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 141:418–424. doi:10.1055/s-2003-41568

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Deyo RA, Martin BI, Kreuter W, Jarvik JG, Angier H, Mirza SK (2011) Revision surgery following operations for lumbar stenosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 93:1979–1986. doi:10.2106/JBJS.J.01292

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Forsth P, Michaelsson K, Sanden B (2013) Does fusion improve the outcome after decompressive surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis? A two-year follow-up study involving 5390 patients. Bone Joint J 95-B:960–965. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.95B7.30776

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Forsth P, Carlsson T, Michaelsson K, Sanden B (2014) No benefits from fusion in decompressive surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. 2 year results from the Swedish spinal stenosis study, a multicenter RCT of 229 patients. Presented at the Eurospine Meeting, Lyon. Eur Spine J 23(Suppl 25):S495

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

All the participants of the Spine Tango Register are acknowledged for their continuous contribution that makes it possible for us to conduct such studies reflecting the daily practice of spine surgeons. The data of the following centres were used (in alphabetic order of country, city, hospital and department): Dept. of Spinal Surgery in Royal Adelaide Hospital (Australia); Dept. of Spinal Surgery in St. Andrew’s Hospital in Adelaide (Australia); Dept. of Orthopaedic Surgery in University Hospital Graz (Austria); Dept. of Orthopaedic Surgery in Grand Hôpital de Charleroi (Belgium); Dept. of Orthopaedic Surgery in Edith Cavell Clinic of Brussels (Belgium); Dept. of Orthopaedic Surgery in University Hospital of St. Luc (Belgium); Dept. of Orthopaedic Surgery in Saint Pierre Clinic of Ottignies (Belgium); Dept. of Neurosurgery in Köpenick Hospital DRK Kliniken Berlin (Germany); Dept. of Neurosurgery in University Hospital of Cologne (Germany); Dept. of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology in University Hospital of Cologne (Germany); Dept. of Neurosurgery in Hospital Cologne-Merheim (Germany); Dept. of Spine Surgery in Hospital Dortmund (Germany); Group Practice of Orthopaedics and Neurosurgery in Hof (Germany); Dept. of Special Spine Surgery in Leopoldina Hospital of Schweinfurt (Germany); Department of Neurosurgery in Sant’Andrea Hospital of the Sapienza University (Italy); Dept. of Orthopaedic Surgery in Orthopaedic and Traumatological Clinic Poznan (Poland); Dept. of Neurosurgery in Specialized Medical Centre S.A. Polanica (Poland); Dept. of Neurosurgery in Medical University Silesia (Poland); Dept. of Neurosurgery in Bethesda Hospital of Basel (Switzerland); Dept. of Spine Surgery in Bethesda Hospital of Basel (Switzerland); Dept. of Neurosurgery in University Hospital of Bern (Switzerland); Dept. of Orthopaedic Surgery in Salem Hospital of Bern (Switzerland); Dept. of Spine Surgery in Sonnenhof Hospital of Bern (Switzerland); Dept. of Orthopaedic Surgery in Cantonal Hospital of Fribourg (Switzerland); Dept. of Neurosurgery in General Hospital of Fribourg (Switzerland); Dept. of Orthopaedic Surgery in Hospital Schwyz (Switzerland); Dept. of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology in Cantonal Hospital of St. Gallen (Switzerland); Dept. of Spine Surgery in The Spine Centre Thun (Switzerland); Dept. of Orthopaedic Surgery in Zollikerberg Hospital (Switzerland); Dept. of Spine Surgery in University Hospital Balgrist of Zurich (Switzerland); Spine Centre Division in Schulthess Clinic of Zurich (Switzerland); Spine Unit of Nuffield Oxford Centre (UK); Dept. of Neurosurgery in Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust (UK); Dept. of Spine Surgery in Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust (UK); Dept. of Neurosurgery in The Walton Centre (UK); Dept. of Spine Surgery of Christiana Care Hospital in Newark, Delaware (USA); Division of Spine Surgery in NYU Hospital of New York (USA).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Medizinisches Zentrum StädteRegion Aachen GmbH, Mauerfeldchen 25, 52146, Würselen, Germany

    Rolf Sobottke

  2. Department of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, University of Cologne, Joseph-Stelzmann-Straße 9, 50924, Cologne, Germany

    Rolf Sobottke & Jan Siewe

  3. Department for Trauma and Reconstructive Surgery, University Clinic RWTH Aachen, Pauwelsstraße 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany

    Christian Herren

  4. Spine Centre Division, Department of Research and Development, Schulthess Klinik, Lengghalde 2, 8008, Zurich, Switzerland

    Anne F. Mannion

  5. Institute for Evaluative Research in Medicine, University of Bern, Stauffacherstrasse 78, 3014, Bern, Switzerland

    Christoph Röder & Emin Aghayev

Authors
  1. Rolf Sobottke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christian Herren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jan Siewe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Anne F. Mannion
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Christoph Röder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Emin Aghayev
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christian Herren.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None.

Additional information

On behalf of the Spine Tango Contributors.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sobottke, R., Herren, C., Siewe, J. et al. Predictors of improvement in quality of life and pain relief in lumbar spinal stenosis relative to patient age: a study based on the Spine Tango registry. Eur Spine J 26, 462–472 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-4078-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-4078-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation