More on Fusion Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

Findings from a pilot randomized trial of spinal decompression alone or spinal decompression plus instrumented fusion

Aims

Symptomatic spinal stenosis is a very common problem, and decompression surgery has been shown to be superior to nonoperative treatment in selected patient groups. However, performing an instrumented fusion in addition to decompression may avoid revision and improve outcomes. The aim of the SpInOuT feasibility study was to establish whether a definitive randomized controlled trial (RCT) that accounted for the spectrum of pathology contributing to spinal stenosis, including pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis (PI-LL) mismatch and mobile spondylolisthesis, could be conducted.

Methods

As part of the SpInOuT-F study, a pilot randomized trial was carried out across five NHS hospitals. Patients were randomized to either spinal decompression alone or spinal decompression plus instrumented fusion. Patient-reported outcome measures were collected at baseline and three months. The intended sample size was 60 patients.

Results

Of the 90 patients screened, 77 passed the initial screening criteria. A total of 27 patients had a PI-LL mismatch and 23 had a dynamic spondylolisthesis. Following secondary inclusion and exclusion criteria, 31 patients were eligible for the study. Six patients were randomized and one underwent surgery during the study period. Given the low number of patients recruited and randomized, it was not possible to assess completion rates, quality of life, imaging, or health economic outcomes as intended.

Conclusion

This study provides a unique insight into the prevalence of dynamic spondylolisthesis and PI-LL mismatch in patients with symptomatic spinal stenosis, and demonstrates that there is a need for a definitive RCT which stratifies for these groups in order to inform surgical decision-making. Nonetheless a definitive study would need further refinement in design and implementation in order to be feasible.

Laminectomy With Fusion is Associated With Greater Functional Improvement Compared With Laminectomy Alone for the Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE

To compare outcomes and complications profile of laminectomy alone versus laminectomy and fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis is a common cause of back pain and functional impairment. DLS is associated with high monetary (up to $100 billion annually in the US) and nonmonetary societal and personal costs. While nonoperative management remains the first-line treatment for DLS, decompressive laminectomy with or without fusion is indicated for the treatment-resistant disease.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed and EMBASE for RCTs and cohort studies from inception through April 14, 2022. Data were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. The risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute risk of bias tool. We generated odds ratio and standard mean difference estimates for select parameters.

RESULTS

A total of 23 manuscripts were included (n=90,996 patients). Complication rates were higher in patients undergoing laminectomy and fusion compared with laminectomy alone (OR: 1.55, P <0.001). Rates of reoperation were similar between both groups (OR: 0.67, P =0.10). Laminectomy with fusion was associated with a longer duration of surgery (Standard Mean Difference: 2.60, P =0.04) and a longer hospital stay (2.16, P =0.01). Compared with laminectomy alone, the extent of functional improvement in pain and disability was superior in the laminectomy and fusion cohort. Laminectomy with fusion had a greater mean change in ODI (-0.38, P <0.01) compared with laminectomy alone. Laminectomy with fusion was associated with a greater mean change in NRS leg score (-0.11, P =0.04) and NRS back score (-0.45, P <0.01).

CONCLUSION

Compared with laminectomy alone, laminectomy with fusion is associated with greater postoperative improvement in pain and disability, albeit with a longer duration of surgery and hospital stay.

Decompression alone versus decompression with fusion in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Surgical decompression is standard care in the treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis in patients with symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis, but there remains controversy over the benefits of adding fusion. The persistent lack of consensus on this matter and the availability of new data warrants a contemporary systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature.

METHODS

Multiple online databases were systematically searched up to October 2022 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective studies comparing outcomes of decompression alone versus decompression with fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis in patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis. Primary outcome was the Oswestry Disability Index. Secondary outcomes included leg and back pain, surgical outcomes, and radiological outcomes. Pooled effect estimates were calculated and presented as mean differences (MD) with their 95% confidence intervals (CI) at two-year follow-up.

RESULTS

Of the identified 2403 studies, eventually five RCTs and two prospective studies were included. Overall, most studies had a low or unclear risk of selection bias and most studies were focused on low grade degenerative spondylolisthesis. All patient-reported outcomes showed low statistical heterogeneity. Overall, there was high-quality evidence suggesting no difference in functionality at two years of follow-up (MD - 0.31, 95% CI - 3.81 to 3.19). Furthermore, there was high-quality evidence of no difference in leg pain (MD - 1.79, 95% CI - 5.08 to 1.50) or back pain (MD - 2.54, 95% CI - 6.76 to 1.67) between patients undergoing decompression vs. decompression with fusion. Pooled surgical outcomes showed less blood loss after decompression only, shorter length of hospital stay, and a similar reoperation rate compared to decompression with fusion.

CONCLUSION

Based on the current literature, there is high-quality evidence of no difference in functionality after decompression alone compared to decompression with fusion in patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis at 2 years of follow-up. Further studies should focus on long-term comparative outcomes, health economic evaluations, and identifying those patients that may benefit more from decompression with fusion instead of decompression alone. This review was registered at Prospero (CRD42021291603).

Decompression with or without Fusion in Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis

BACKGROUND

In patients with lumbar spinal stenosis and degenerative spondylolisthesis, it is uncertain whether decompression surgery alone is noninferior to decompression with instrumented fusion.

METHODS

We conducted an open-label, multicenter, noninferiority trial involving patients with symptomatic lumbar stenosis that had not responded to conservative management and who had single-level spondylolisthesis of 3 mm or more. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to undergo decompression surgery (decompression-alone group) or decompression surgery with instrumented fusion (fusion group). The primary outcome was a reduction of at least 30% in the score on the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI; range, 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating more impairment) during the 2 years after surgery, with a noninferiority margin of -15 percentage points. Secondary outcomes included the mean change in the ODI score as well as scores on the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire, leg and back pain, the duration of surgery and length of hospital stay, and reoperation within 2 years.

RESULTS

The mean age of patients was approximately 66 years. Approximately 75% of the patients had leg pain for more than a year, and more than 80% had back pain for more than a year. The mean change from baseline to 2 years in the ODI score was -20.6 in the decompression-alone group and -21.3 in the fusion group (mean difference, 0.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.8 to 4.3). In the modified intention-to-treat analysis, 95 of 133 patients (71.4%) in the decompression-alone group and 94 of 129 patients (72.9%) in the fusion group had a reduction of at least 30% in the ODI score (difference, -1.4 percentage points; 95% CI, -12.2 to 9.4), showing the noninferiority of decompression alone. In the per-protocol analysis, 80 of 106 patients (75.5%) and 83 of 110 patients (75.5%), respectively, had a reduction of at least 30% in the ODI score (difference, 0.0 percentage points; 95% CI, -11.4 to 11.4), showing noninferiority. The results for the secondary outcomes were generally in the same direction as those for the primary outcome. Successful fusion was achieved with certainty in 86 of 100 patients (86.0%) who had imaging available at 2 years. Reoperation was performed in 15 of 120 patients (12.5%) in the decompression-alone group and in 11 of 121 patients (9.1%) in the fusion group.

CONCLUSIONS

In this trial involving patients who underwent surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis, most of whom had symptoms for more than a year, decompression alone was noninferior to decompression with instrumented fusion over a period of 2 years. Reoperation occurred somewhat more often in the decompression-alone group than in the fusion group. (NORDSTEN-DS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02051374.).

Comparative Effectiveness of Microdecompression Alone vs Decompression Plus Instrumented Fusion in Lumbar Degenerative Spondylolisthesis

IMPORTANCE

Conflicting evidence and large practice variation are present in the surgical treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis. More than 90% of surgical procedures in the United States include instrumented fusion compared with 50% or less in other countries.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether the effectiveness of microdecompression alone is noninferior to decompression with instrumented fusion in a real-world setting.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This multicenter comparative effectiveness study with a noninferiority design assessed prospective data from the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery. From September 19, 2007, to December 21, 2015, 1376 patients at 35 Norwegian orthopedic and neurosurgical departments underwent surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis without scoliosis. After excluding patients undergoing laminectomy alone, fusion without instrumentation, or surgery in more than 2 levels and those with a former operation at the index level, 794 patients were included in the analyses, regardless of missing or incomplete follow-up data, before propensity score matching. Data were analyzed from March 20 to October 30, 2018.

EXPOSURES

Microdecompression alone or decompression with instrumented fusion.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

A reduction from baseline of 30% or greater in the Oswestry Disability Index at 12-month follow-up.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, 570 patients (413 female [72%]; mean [SD] age, 64.7 [9.5] years) were included for comparison, with 285 undergoing microdecompression (mean [SD] age, 64.6 [9.8] years; 205 female [72%]) and 285 undergoing decompression with instrumented fusion (mean [SD] age, 64.8 [9.2] years; 208 female [73%]). The proportion of each type of procedure varied between departments. However, changes in outcome scores varied within patients but not between departments. The proportion of patients with improvement in the Oswestry Disability Index of at least 30% was 150 of 219 (68%) in the microdecompression group and 155 of 215 (72%) in the instrumentation group. The 95% CI (-12% to 5%) for the difference of -4% was above the predefined margin of noninferiority (-15%). Microdecompression alone was associated with shorter operation time (mean [SD], 89 [44] vs 180 [65] minutes; P < .001) and shorter hospital stay (mean [SD], 2.5 [2.4] vs 6.4 [3.0] days; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis, the clinical effectiveness of microdecompression alone was noninferior to that of decompression with instrumented fusion. Microdecompression alone was also associated with shorter durations of surgery and hospital stay, supporting the suggestion that the less invasive procedure should be considered for most patients.