Conservative Treatment and Percutaneous Pain Relief Techniques in Patients with Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: WFNS Spine Committee Recommendations

Surgical and non-surgical management of spondylolisthesis: a comprehensive review

Spondylolisthesis is a spinal condition characterized by the forward or backward displacement of a vertebral body, most commonly affecting the lower lumbar spine. It can be classified into different types, with isthmic and degenerative being the most prevalent. Early diagnosis is essential to initiate appropriate treatment based on symptom severity, degree of slippage, and neurological deficits. Non-surgical management is the first-line approach for low-grade spondylolisthesis (Grade I-II) and includes physical therapy, activity modification, pain management with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or epidural steroid injections, and, in some cases, bracing. While most patients experience symptom relief with conservative treatment, those with progressive neurological deficits, severe pain, or significant instability may require surgery. Surgical options typically include decompression for nerve compression and fusion to stabilize the spine. The choice between decompression alone and decompression with fusion remains controversial, particularly in degenerative spondylolisthesis without initial instability. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion are the most performed techniques, with minimally invasive surgery gaining popularity due to its less aggressive impact on tissues and faster recovery. Long-term follow-up is necessary to monitor for complications such as adjacent segment disease, pseudarthrosis, or reoperation rate. Advances in imaging, surgical navigation, and regenerative medicine are important for the future of spondylolisthesis treatment, but current management remains centered on optimizing patient outcomes through individualized care and evidence-based treatment selection.

Clinical assessment and management of lumbar spinal stenosis: clinical dilemmas and considerations for surgical referral

Lumbar spinal stenosis is the leading indication for spine surgery in older adults. Surgery is recommended in clinical guidelines if non-surgical treatments have been provided with insufficient benefit. The difficulty for clinicians is that the current number of randomised controlled trials is low, which creates uncertainty about which treatments to provide. For non-surgical clinicians this paucity of data leads to a clinical dilemma of whether to continue managing the patient or refer to a spine surgeon. This Viewpoint aims to provide an update on the assessment of lumbar spinal stenosis, treatment recommendations, indications for referral to a spine surgeon, and current clinical dilemmas facing non-surgical clinicians and spinal surgeons.

Spinal fusion surgery use among adults with low back pain enrolled in a digital musculoskeletal program: an observational study

OBJECTIVES

To compare 12-month spinal fusion surgery rates in the setting of low back pain among digital musculoskeletal (MSK) program participants versus a comparison cohort who only received usual care.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study with propensity score matched comparison cohort using commercial medical claims data representing over 100 million commercially insured lives.

METHODS

All study subjects experienced low back pain between January 2020 and December 2021. Digital MSK participants enrolled in the digital MSK low back program between January 2020 and December 2021. Non-participants had low back pain related physical therapy (PT) between January 2020 and December 2021. Digital MSK participants were matched to non-participants with similar demographics, comorbidities and baseline MSK-related medical care use. Spinal fusion surgery rates at 12 months post participation were compared.

RESULTS

Compared to non-participants, digital MSK participants had lower rates of spinal fusion surgery in the post-period (0.7% versus 1.6%; p < 0.001). Additionally, in the augmented inverse probability weighting (AIPW) model, digital MSK participants were found to have decreased odds of undergoing spinal fusion surgery (adjusted odds ratio: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.51-0.81).

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides evidence that participation in a digital MSK program is associated with a lower rate of spinal fusion surgery.

Repeated epidural delivery of Shinbaro2: effects on neural recovery, inflammation, and pain modulation in a rat model of lumbar spinal stenosis

The choice of treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) depends on symptom severity. When severe motor issues with urinary dysfunction are not present, conservative treatment is often considered to be the priority. One such conservative treatment is epidural injection, which is effective in alleviating inflammation and the pain caused by LSS-affected nerves. In this study, Shinbaro2 (Sh2), pharmacopuncture using natural herbal medicines for patients with disc diseases, is introduced as an epidural to treat LSS in a rat model. The treatment of primary sensory neurons from the rats' dorsal root ganglion (DRG) neurons with Sh2 at various concentrations (0.5, 1, and 2 mg/mL) was found to be safe and non-toxic. Furthermore, it remarkably stimulated axonal outgrowth even under H2O2-treated conditions, indicating its potential for stimulating nerve regeneration. When LSS rats received epidural injections of two different concentrations of Sh2 (1 and 2 mg/kg) once daily for 4 weeks, a significant reduction was seen in ED1+ macrophages surrounding the silicone block used for LSS induction. Moreover, epidural injection of Sh2 in the DRG led to a significant suppression of pain-related factors. Notably, Sh2 treatment resulted in improved locomotor recovery, as evaluated by the Basso, Beattie, and Bresnahan scale and the horizontal ladder test. Additionally, hind paw hypersensitivity, assessed using the Von Frey test, was reduced, and normal gait was restored. Our findings demonstrate that epidural Sh2 injection not only reduced inflammation but also improved locomotor function and pain in LSS model rats. Thus, Sh2 delivery via epidural injection has potential as an effective treatment option for LSS.

Effects of calcitonin on lumbar spinal stenosis

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE

There is some controversy about the effects of calcitonin (CT) on lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). This systematic review and meta-analysis is to assess the strength of the evidence supporting the use of CT in the treatment of patients with LSS.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

We performed an electronic search depicting randomized controlled trials (RCTs) through 4 databases from the date of database creation to January 2023. 3 different researchers conducted independent literature screening, data extractions, and quality assessments. The outcome measures included visual analogue scale (VAS), walking distance, and oswestry disability index (ODI). Meta-analysis and trial sequence analysis (TSA) were carried out using RevMan 5.4, Stata 16.0, and TSA 0.9. GRADE 3.6 was used to evaluate the evidence quality.

RESULTS

We accepted 9 studies with 496 participants. The meta-analysis revealed that CT offered no significant improvement in VAS, walking distance, or ODI in patients with LSS.

CONCLUSION

There is no evidence that CT has a benefit in patients with LSS, either alone or in combination with other treatments, or depending on the route of administration, according to the systematic review and meta-analysis of relevant RCTs.

Convolutional neural network algorithm trained on lumbar spine radiographs to predict outcomes of transforaminal epidural steroid injection for lumbosacral radicular pain from spinal stenosis

Little is known about the therapeutic outcomes of transforaminal epidural steroid injection (TFESI) in patients with lumbosacral radicular pain due to lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). Using lumbar spine radiographs as input data, we trained a convolutional neural network (CNN) to predict therapeutic outcomes after lumbar TFESI in patients with lumbosacral radicular pain caused by LSS. We retrospectively recruited 193 patients for this study. The lumbar spine radiographs included anteroposterior, lateral, and bilateral (left and right) oblique views. We cut each lumbar spine radiograph image into a square shape that included the vertebra corresponding to the level at which the TFESI was performed and the vertebrae juxta below and above that level. Output data were divided into "favorable outcome" (≥ 50% reduction in the numeric rating scale [NRS] score at 2 months post-TFESI) and "poor outcome" (< 50% reduction in the NRS score at 2 months post-TFESI). Using these input and output data, we developed a CNN model for predicting TFESI outcomes. The area under the curve of our model was 0.920. Its accuracy was 87.2%. Our CNN model has an excellent capacity for predicting therapeutic outcomes after lumbar TFESI in patients with lumbosacral radicular pain induced by LSS.

Mechanical Needling With Sterile Water Versus Lidocaine Injection for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

Study Design: This was a retrospective observational study that assessed the clinical outcome of ageing patients who received ultrasound-guided (USG) mechanical needling with sterile water injection. In addition, the clinical outcome of age-and gender matched patients randomly selected from patients who received needling with sterile water was compared to the patients injected with lidocaine in a 1:1 ratio.Objective: This present study aimed to explore the clinical effects of USG mechanical needling with sterile water injection for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).Methods: The data was extracted from the medical records of ageing patients with LSS who received USG injection at the lumbosacral spine by the first author. Low back pain or axial pain, and leg pain or radicular pain were assessed by the visual analogue scale, and gait ability with walking distance were obtained at six different time points.Results: A total of 4328 medical records were examined. Four thousand two hundred and twenty-eight ageing patients received mechanical needling with sterile water injection and found the efficacy lasted up to 6 months. One hundred patients were compared with 100 patients who received lidocaine injection. Those who received lidocaine had pain returned at 3 months and 6 months post-injection.Conclusions: USG mechanical needling with sterile water injection could help relieve axial and radicular pain for at least 6 months. Removal of calcification and fibrosis as well as reduction of sensitization are all possible mechanisms.

A Simple Preoperative Score Predicting Failure Following Decompression Surgery for Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Proper patient selection is crucial for the outcome of surgically treated degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS). Nevertheless, there is still not a clear consensus regarding the optimal treatment option for patients with DLSS.

PURPOSE

To investigate the treatment failure rate and introduce a simple, preoperative score to aid surgical decision-making.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Retrospective observational study.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Four hundred forty-five patients who underwent surgical decompression for DLSS.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Treatment failure (defined as conversion to a fusion of a previously decompressed level) of lumbar decompression.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Several risk factors associated with worse outcomes and treatment failures, such as age, body mass index, smoking status, previous surgery, low back pain (LBP), facet joint effusion, disk degeneration, fatty infiltration of the paraspinal muscles, the presence of degenerative spondylolisthesis and the facet angulation, were investigated.

RESULTS

At a mean follow-up of 44±31 months, 6.5% (29/445) of the patients underwent revision surgery with spinal fusion at an average of 3±9 months following the lumbar decompression due to low back or leg pain. The baseline LBP (≥7) [odds ratio (OR)=5.4, P <0.001], the presence of facet joint effusion (>2 mm) in magnetic resonance imaging (OR=4.2, P <0.001), and disk degeneration (Pfirrmann >4) (OR=3.2, P =0.03) were associated with an increased risk for treatment failure following decompression for DLSS. The receiver operating characteristic curve analysis demonstrated that a score≥6 points yielded a sensitivity of 90% and specificity of 64% for predicting a treatment failure following lumbar decompression for DLSS in the present cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

The newly introduced score quantifying amounts of LBP, facet effusions, and disk degeneration, could predict treatment failure and the need for revision surgery for DLSS patients undergoing lumbar decompression without fusion. Patients with scores >6 have a high chance of needing fusion following decompression surgery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Retrospective observational study, Level III.

Preoperative epidural steroid injections do not increase the risk of postoperative infection in patients undergoing lumbar decompression or fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Epidural corticosteroid injections (ESI) are a mainstay of nonoperative treatment for patients with lumbar spine pathology. Recent literature evaluating infection risk following ESI after elective orthopedic surgery has produced conflicting evidence. Our primary objective was to review the literature and provide a larger meta-analysis analyzing the temporal effects of steroid injections on the risk of infection following lumbar spine surgery.

METHODS

We conducted a query of the PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases from inception until April 1, 2022 for studies evaluating the risk of infection in the setting of prior spinal steroid injections in patients undergoing lumbar spine decompression or fusion. Three meta-analyses were conducted, (1) comparing ESI within 30-days of surgery to control, (2) comparing ESI within 30-days to ESI between 1 and 3 months preoperatively, and (3) comparing any history of ESI prior to surgery to control. Tests of proportions were utilized for all comparisons between groups. Study heterogeneity was assessed via forest plots, and publication bias was assessed quantiatively via funnel plots and qualitatively with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

RESULTS

Nine total studies were included, five of which demonstrated an association between ESI and postoperative infection, while four found no association. Comparison of weighted means demonstrated no significant difference in infection rates between the 30-days ESI group and control group (2.67% vs. 1.69%, p = 0.144), 30-days ESI group and the > 30-days ESI group (2.34% vs. 1.66%, p = 0.1655), or total ESI group and the control group (1.99% vs. 1.70%, p = 0.544). Heterogeneity was low for all comparisons following sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSION

Current evidence does not implicate preoperative ESI in postoperative infection rates following lumbar fusion or decompression. Operative treatment should not be delayed due to preoperative steroid injections based on current evidence. There remains a paucity of high-quality data in the literature evaluating the impact of preoperative ESI on postoperative infection rates.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II.

Efficacy and characteristics of physiotherapy interventions in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review

PURPOSE

To determine the efficacy of physiotherapy approaches used in the treatment of LSS and compare their delivery characteristics.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted using MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, PEDro, CINAHL and Web of Science databases, from inception until March 2021. Inclusion criteria were clinical diagnosis of LSS confirmed through imaging techniques, RCTs written in English comparing physiotherapy interventions among them or versus placebo or usual care without restrictions on treatment and follow-up duration, outcomes related to pain, physical function, disability and quality of life. Two independent reviewers assessed records for eligibility and methodological quality (PEDro scale) and extracted participants' characteristics, interventions details and outcome measures at each timepoint. Pooled or un-pooled findings were reported as mean difference with 95% confidence interval, depending on heterogeneity. Evidence quality was rated using the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

Twelve studies (944 patients, mean PEDro score 7.6, range 5-9) were included. Three weeks of weight-supported walking improved pain and disability, while 8 weeks of aquatic exercises improved pain and walking tolerance (very low evidence). Six weeks of cycling reduced disability compared to weight-supported walking (low evidence). Six weeks of manual therapy plus exercise was not superior to supervised exercises (low evidence), but improved pain, walking tolerance, disability and quality of life compared to home/group exercises (moderate to very low evidence). Very low evidence supported 2 weeks of electromagnetic fields, whereas TENS (low evidence) and ultrasounds (very low evidence) revealed no effects.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings may assist clinicians in delivering effective physiotherapy interventions in LSS patients.

Diagnosis and Management of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Review

IMPORTANCE

Lumbar spinal stenosis is a prevalent and disabling cause of low back and leg pain in older persons, affecting an estimated 103 million persons worldwide. Most are treated nonoperatively. Approximately 600 000 surgical procedures are performed in the US each year for lumbar spinal stenosis.

OBSERVATIONS

The prevalence of the clinical syndrome of lumbar spinal stenosis in US adults is approximately 11% and increases with age. The diagnosis can generally be made based on a clinical history of back and lower extremity pain that is provoked by lumbar extension, relieved by lumbar flexion, and confirmed with cross-sectional imaging, such as computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Nonoperative treatment includes activity modification such as reducing periods of standing or walking, oral medications to diminish pain such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and physical therapy. In a series of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis followed up for up to 3 years without operative intervention, approximately one-third of patients reported improvement, approximately 50% reported no change in symptoms, and approximately 10% to 20% of patients reported that their back pain, leg pain, and walking were worse. Long-term benefits of epidural steroid injections for lumbar spinal stenosis have not been demonstrated. Surgery appears effective in carefully selected patients with back, buttock, and lower extremity pain who do not improve with conservative management. For example, in a randomized trial of 94 participants with symptomatic and radiographic degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis, decompressive laminectomy improved symptoms more than nonoperative therapy (difference, 7.8 points; 95% CI, 0.8-14.9; minimum clinically important difference, 10-12.8) on the Oswestry Disability Index (score range, 0-100). Among persons with lumbar spinal stenosis and concomitant spondylolisthesis, lumbar fusion increased symptom resolution in 1 trial (difference, 5.7 points; 95% CI, 0.1 to 11.3) on the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey physical dimension score (range, 0-100), but 2 other trials showed either no important differences between the 2 therapies or noninferiority of lumbar decompression alone compared with lumbar decompression plus spinal fusion (MCID, 2-4.9 points). In a noninferiority trial, 71.4% treated with lumbar decompression alone vs 72.9% of those receiving decompression plus fusion achieved a 30% or more reduction in Oswestry Disability Index score, consistent with the prespecified noninferiority hypothesis. Fusion is associated with greater risk of complications such as blood loss, infection, longer hospital stays, and higher costs. Thus, the precise indications for concomitant lumbar fusion in persons with lumbar spinal stenosis and spondylolisthesis remain unclear.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Lumbar spinal stenosis affects approximately 103 million people worldwide and 11% of older adults in the US. First-line therapy is activity modification, analgesia, and physical therapy. Long-term benefits from epidural steroid injections have not been established. Selected patients with continued pain and activity limitation may be candidates for decompressive surgery.

Decompression Using Minimally Invasive Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Associated with Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: A Review

Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS), which often occurs concurrently with degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS), is a common disease in the elderly population, affecting the quality of life of aged people significantly. Notwithstanding the frequently good effect of conservative therapy on LSS, a minority of the patients ultimately require surgery. Surgery for LSS aims to decompress the narrowed spinal canals with preservation of spinal stability. Traditional open surgery, either pure decompression or decompression with fusion, was considered effective for the treatment of LSS with or without DS. However, the long-term clinical outcomes of traditional open surgery are still unclear. Moreover, the disadvantages of conventional open surgery are extensive, examples including tissue injuries or secondary instability, with limited outcomes and significant reoperation rates. With the development and improvement of surgical tools, various minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS) methods, including indirect decompression techniques of interspinous process devices (IPDs) and direct decompression techniques such as microscopic spine surgery or endoscopic spine surgery (ESS), have been updated with enhancement. IPDs, such as Superion devices, were reported to behave with comparable physical function, disability, and symptoms outcomes to laminectomy decompression. As an emerging technique of MISS, ESS has beneficial hallmarks including minimal tissue injuries, reduced complication rates, and shortened recovery periods, thus gaining popularity in recent years. ESS can be classified in terms of endoscopic hallmarks and approaches. Predictably, with the continuous development and gradual maturity, MISS is expected to replace traditional open surgery widely in the surgical treatment of LSS associated with DS in the future.

Lumbar spondylolisthesis: STATE of the art on assessment and conservative treatment

INTRODUCTION

There is weak relationship between the presence of lumbar spondylolisthesis [SPL] and low back pain that is not always associated with instability, either at the involved lumbar segment or at different spinal levels. Therefore patients with lumbar symptomatic SPL can be divided into stable and unstable, based on the level of mobility during flexion and extension movements as general classifications for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. Different opinions persist about best treatment (conservative vs. surgical) and among conservative treatments, on the type, dosage, and progression of physical therapy procedures.

PURPOSE AND IMPORTANCE TO PRACTICE

The aim of this Masterclass is to provide clinicians evidence-based indications for assessment and conservative treatment of SPL, taking into consideration some subgroups related to specific clinical presentations.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

This Masterclass addresses the different phases of the assessment of a patient with SPL, including history, imaging, physical exam, and questionnaires on disability and cognitive-behavioral components. Regarding conservative treatment, self- management approaches and graded supervised training, including therapeutic relationships, information and education, are explained. Primary therapeutic procedures for pain control, recovery of the function and the mobility through therapeutic exercise, passive mobilization and antalgic techniques are suggested. Moreover, some guidance is provided on conservative treatment in specific clinical presentations (lumbar SPL with radiating pain and/or lumbar stenosis, SPL complicated by other factors, and SPL in adolescents) and the number/duration of sessions.

FUTURE RESEARCH PRIORITIES

Some steps to improve the diagnostic-therapeutic approach in SPL are to identify the best cluster of clinical tests, define different lumbar SPL subgroups, and investigate the effects of treatments based on that classification, similarly to the approach already proposed for non-specific LBP.

Low Back Pain in Adolescent and Geriatric Populations

Spinal pain is the most common form of musculoskeletal pain. Chronic low back pain may contain nociceptive, neuropathic, and central components. Children are at risk of developing spinal pain. An increasing proportion of children develop low back pain as they become adolescents. In most adolescents, no specific diagnosis is identified. Psychological factors play a role in adolescents with back pain. Lumbar spinal stenosis causes neurogenic claudication in older patients. Magnetic resonance imaging is the best radiographic technique to detect nerve compression. Surgical decompression with or without fusion may offer greater short-term benefit but may not be significantly better than medical therapy.

Pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment approaches to chronic lumbar back pain

Low back pain is a common and important cause of disability. Chronic pain increases disability and cost. In this review, we discuss pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment approaches for chronic low back pain in the light of current data and guidelines.

Degenerative Lumbar Spine Stenosis Consensus Conference: the Italian job. Recommendations of the Spinal Section of the Italian Society of Neurosurgery

In the modern era evidence-based medicine, guidelines and recommendations represent a key-point of daily activity. The Spinal Section of the Italian Society of Neurosurgery introduced some recommendations regarding Degenerative Lumbar Spine Stenosis based on those of the Spine Committee of World Federation of Neurosurgical Societies, revising them on the basis of Italian common practice. In June 2019, a Committee of 21 spine surgeons met in Rome to validate the recommendations of the WFNS. Furthermore, they decided to review the ones that did not reach a consensus to create Italian Recommendations on Degenerative Lumbar Spine Stenosis. A literature review of the last ten years was performed and the statements were voted using the Delphi method. Forty-one statements were discussed, and 7 statements were voted again to reach a consensus with respect to those of the WFNS. A total of 40 statements reached a consensus, of which 36 reached a positive consensus and 4 a negative consensus, while no consensus was reached in 1 case. Conservative multimodal therapy, tailored on the patient, is a reasonable and effective first option choice for the treatment of LSS patients with tolerable moderate symptoms. Surgical treatment is reserved for symptomatic patients non-responding to conservative treatment or with neurological deficits. The best surgical technique to use depends on personal experience; modern MISS techniques are equivalent to open decompressive surgery with some advantages and higher cost-effectiveness. Fusion surgery and mobility preserving surgery only have a marginal role in the treatment of DLSS without instability.