Journals / Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica / 2011 / Cilt: 45 - Sayı: 1

Postoperative evaluation of quality of life in lumbar spinal stenosis patients following instrumented posterior decompression

Enstrümantasyonlu posterior dekompresyon uygulanan lomber dar kanal olgularında ameliyat sonrası yaşam kalitesinin değerlendirilmesi

Pages
47–52
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

There is no sec ondary factor affecting improvement and instability after surgery is not observed in patient groups.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objectives: Spinal stenosis is a clinical condition in which bone and soft tissues compress the spinal canal, neuronal foramina and nerve roots.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Our sample included 64 patients with degenera tive lumbar spinal stenosis on whom posterior decompression and instrumentation was applied.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:There is no sec ondary factor affecting improvement and instability after surgery is not observed in patient groups.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2004 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Laminektomi · Fonksiyon iyileşmesi · Spinal stenoz

Abstract

Objectives: Spinal stenosis is a clinical condition in which bone and soft tissues compress the spinal canal, neuronal foramina and nerve roots. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the effective ness of surgical treatment on patient satisfaction. Our sample included 64 patients with degenera tive lumbar spinal stenosis on whom posterior decompression and instrumentation was applied. Methods: In this retrospective study, files of 64 patients who underwent posterior decompres sion surgery with instrumentation for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis between March 2004 and April 2008 were examined. Patients were evaluated with Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) form, form of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis and the most recent postoperative orthopedic inspection findings for a minimum of one year after surgery. Results: Mean age of patients was 59.9 years and mean follow-up was 27.9 months. When eval uated using the Japanese Orthopaedic Association form, postoperative scores in 63.5% of the patients improved. Based on this postoperative improvement; Japanese Orthopaedic Association scores were found statistically significant (p<0.001). Gender (p=0.651), age (p=0.192), with the length of complaint (p=0.095), time passed after surgery (p=0.933), number of laminectomy level (p=0.997), deformity before operation (p=0.773) and systemic disease were not statistical ly correlated with improvement based upon Japanese Orthopaedic Association scores (p=0.052). But Japanese Orthopaedic Association scores were found to have improved (83%) in cases with no systemic diseases. Conclusion: Our findings show that posterior decompression surgery with instrumentation is a use ful treatment modality for patients with severe degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. There is no sec ondary factor affecting improvement and instability after surgery is not observed in patient groups.

Özet

Amaç: Dar kanal, spinal kanalın ve nöral foramenlerin, kemik ve yumuşak dokular tarafından daraltılmasıyla ortaya çıkan klinik tablodur. Biz bu çalışmamızda, dejeneratif lomber dar kanal tanısı nedeni ile enstrümantasyonlu posterior dekompresyon uygulanan 64 hastayı değerlendirerek, uygulanan cerrahi işlemin hasta memnuniyeti üzerine etkinliğini görmeyi amaçladık. Çalışma planı: Mart 2004—Nisan 2008 tarihleri arasında posterior dekompresyon ve enstrümentas- yon uygulanan 64 dejeneratif lomber dar kanallı olgu geriye dönük olarak incelendi. Takip süresi en az bir yıl olan hastalar kontrole çağrıldı. Son klinik muayeneleri yapılarak dejeneratif lomber dar kanal hasta formu ve Japanese Orthopaedic Association formları yardımı ile değerlendirildiler. Bulgular: Olguların yaşları ortalama 59.9, takip süreleri 27.9 ay idi. Ameliyat sonrası iyileşme oranları Japanese Orthopaedic Association skoru ile değerlendirildiğinde ameliyat öncesine göre %63.5 iyileşme tespit edildi, istatistiksel olarak iyileşme yönünde anlamlı fark bulundu (p<0.001). İyileşme oranı (Japanese Orthopaedic Association skoru) ile olguların cinsiyeti (p=0.651), yaşı (p=0.192), ameliyat öncesi şikayet süresi (p=0.095), ameliyattan sonra geçen süre (p=0.933), uygulanan laminektomi seviyelerinin sayısı (p=0.997), ameliyat öncesi eşlik eden deformite varlığı (p=0.773) ve sistemik hastalık varlığı karşılaştırıldığında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı ilişki bulunamadı (p=0.052). Ancak sistemik hastalığı olmayanlarda Japanese Orthopaedic Association skorunun daha iyi (%83.3) olduğu görüldü. Çıkarımlar: İleri derecede dejeneratif lomber dar kanallı olguların enstrümantasyonlu posterior dekompresyon tedavisinden fayda gördüğü, iyileşme oranını sekonder faktörlerin etkilemediği ve ameliyat sonrası cerrahi girişime bağlı instabilite izlenmediği görüldü.

🔖

Cite This Article

AYKAÇ, B., ÇOPUROĞLU, C., ÖZCAN, M., ÇİFTDEMİR, M., YALNIZ, E. (2011). Postoperative evaluation of quality of life in lumbar spinal stenosis patients following instrumented posterior decompression. Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica, Cilt: 45 - Sayı: 1, 47–52. https://ajindex.com/articles/354053

References (15)

  1. Whiffen JR, Neuwirth MG. Spinal stenosis. In: Bridwell KH, DeWald RL, editors. The Textbook of Spinal Surgery, 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Raven Publishers; 1997. p.1561-80
  2. Jeffrey M. Spivak. Current concepts reviev. Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1998;80: 1053-66
  3. Koç ÖN. İnstabilitesi Olmayan Dejeneratif Lomber Spinal Stenoz Olgularında Tek Taraflı Yaklaşımla Bilateral Mik rodekompresyonun Klinik Sonuçları (tez). İstanbul: Şişli Etfal Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi; 2005
  4. Katz JN, Stucki G, Lipson SJ, Jeffrey N, Stephan J, Anne H, et al. Predictors of surgical outcome in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1999;21:2229-33
  5. Kaya A, Güçlü B, Benli İT. Spinal stenosis. [Article in Turkish] The Journal of Turkish Spinal Surgery 2007;18(2):31-56
  6. Verbiest H. Further experiences on the pathological influ ence of the bony lumbar canal. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1955; 37:576-83
  7. Altınmakas M, Oğuz E. Dejeneratif lomber spinal stenoz. Türkiye Klinikleri J Surg Med Sci 2006;2:49-61
  8. Wiltse LL, Kirkaldy-Willis WH, Mclvor GWD. The treat ment of spinal stenosis. Clin Orthop 1976;(115):83-93
  9. Karaeminoğulları O. Dejeneratif lomber spinal stenoz. In: Yazar T, Altun N, editors. Dejeneratif omurga hastalıkları. Ankara: Türk Omurga Derneği Yayınları; 2007. p. 373-400
  10. Glassman S, Gornet MF, Branch C, Polly D Jr, Peloza J, Schwender JD, et al. MOS short form 36 and Oswestry Disability Indexoutcomes in lumbar fusion: a multicenter experience. Spine J 2006;6:21-6
  11. Bjarke Christensen F, Stender Hansen E, Laursen M, Thomsen K, Bünger CE. Long-term functional outcome of pedicle screw instrumentation as a support for posterolat eral spinal fusion: randomized clinical study with a 5-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2002;27:1269-77
  12. Lenoir T, Dauzac C, Rillardon L, Guigui P. Long term sur vival analysis after surgical management for degenerative lumbar stenosis. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 2008;94:464-71
  13. Haro H, Maekawa S, Hamada Y. Prospective analysis of clinical evaluation and self-assessment by patients after decompression surgery for degenerative lumbar canal stenosis Spine J 2008;8:380-4
  14. Güner G, Elmalı N, Ertem K. Lumbar spinal stenoz. Turgut Özal Tıp Merkezi Dergisi 1997;4:236-42
  15. Whitecloud TS III, Wolfe MW. Indications for internal fix ation and fusion in the degenerative lumbar spine. In: Bridwell KH, DevVald RL (Eds.). The Textbook of Spinal Surgery, 2t