PURPOSE: The natural course of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) fluctuates and is not necessarily progressive. The aim of this study was to explore the predictors of clinical outcome in patients with LSS that might eventually help to optimise the therapeutic choices. METHODS: A group of 56 patients (27 men, 29 women, median age 55; range 31-72 years) with clinically symptomatic mild-to-moderate LSS were re-examined after a median period of 88 months and their clinical outcomes classified as satisfactory (34 patients, 60.7 % with stable or improved clinical status) or unsatisfactory (22 patients, 39.3 % for whom clinical status deteriorated). A wide range of demographical, clinical, imaging and electrophysiological entry parameters were evaluated as possible predictors of clinical outcome. RESULTS: Unlike the demographical, clinical and imaging variables, certain electrophysiological parameters were significantly associated with unsatisfactory outcomes. There was a significantly higher prevalence of pluriradicular involvement detected by EMG in patients with unsatisfactory outcome than those with satisfactory outcome (68.2 vs. 32.3 %; p = 0.035). Patients with unsatisfactory outcome had more frequent bilateral abnormalities of the soleus H-reflex (50.0 vs. 14.7 %; p = 0.015) and lower mean H-reflex amplitude. Multivariate logistic regression proposed two variables as mutually independent predictors of unsatisfactory outcome: EMG signs of pluriradicular involvement (OR = 3.72) and averaged soleus H-reflex amplitude ≤ 2.8 mV (OR = 2.87). CONCLUSIONS: Satisfactory outcomes were disclosed in about 61 % of the patients with mild-to-moderate LSS in a 7-year follow-up. Electrophysiological abnormalities, namely the presence of pluriradicular involvement and abnormalities of the soleus H-reflex, were predictive of deterioration of clinical status in these patients.

Department of Neurology Faculty Hospital and Masaryk University Brno Jihlavska 20 62500 Brno Czech Republic

Zobrazit více v PubMed

Arnoldi CC, Brodsky AE, Cachoix J, et al. Lumbar spinal stenosis and nerve root entrapment. Syndromes, definition, and classification. Clin Orthop. 1976;115:4–5. PubMed

Siebert E, Prüss H, Klingebiel R, Failli V, Einhäupl KM, Schwab JM. Lumbar spinal stenosis: syndrome, diagnostics and treatment. Nat Rev Neurol. 2009;5:392–403. doi: 10.1038/nrneurol.2009.90. PubMed DOI

Turner JA, Ersek M, Herron L, Deyo R. Surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. Attempted meta-analysis of the literature. Spine. 1992;17:1–8. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199201000-00001. PubMed DOI

Benoist M. The natural history of lumbar degenerative spinal stenosis. Joint Bone Spine. 2002;69:450–457. doi: 10.1016/S1297-319X(02)00429-3. PubMed DOI

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

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, SPORT Investigators Surgical versus nonsurgical therapy for lumbar spinal stenosis. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:794–810. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0707136. PubMed DOI PMC

Malmivaara A, Slätis P, Heliövaara M, Sainio P, Kinnunen H, Kankare J, Dalin-Hirvonen N, Seitsalo S, Herno A, Kortekangas P, Niinimäki T, Rönty H, Tallroth K, Turunen V, Knekt P, Härkänen T, Hurri H, Finnish Lumbar Spinal Research Group Surgical or nonoperative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis? A randomized controlled trial. Spine. 2007;32:1–8. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000251014.81875.6d. PubMed DOI

Slätis P, Malmivaara A, Heliövaara M, Sainio P, Herno A, Kankare J, Seitsalo S, Tallroth K, Turunen V, Knekt P, Hurri H. Long-term results of surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis: a randomised controlled trial. Eur Spine J. 2011;20:1174–1181. doi: 10.1007/s00586-010-1652-y. PubMed DOI PMC

Hurri H, Slätis P, Soini J, Tallroth K, Alaranta H, Laine T, Heliövaara M. Lumbar spinal stenosis: assessment of long-term outcome 12 years after operative and conservative treatment. J Spinal Disord. 1998;11:110–115. doi: 10.1097/00002517-199804000-00003. PubMed DOI

Simotas AC, Dorey FJ, Hansraj KK, Cammisa F., Jr Nonoperative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis. Clinical and outcome results and a 3-year survivorship analysis. Spine. 2000;25:197–203. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200001150-00009. PubMed DOI

Atlas SJ, Keller RB, Robson D, Deyo RA, Singer DE. Surgical and non surgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis: four-year outcomes from the maine lumbar spine study. Spine. 2000;25:556–562. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200003010-00005. PubMed DOI

Haig AJ, Tong HC, Yamakawa KS, Parres C, Quint DJ, Chiodo A, Miner JA, Phalke VC, Hoff JT, Geisser ME. Predictors of pain and function in persons with spinal stenosis, low back pain, and no back pain. Spine. 2006;31:2950–2957. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000247791.97032.1e. PubMed DOI

Amundsen T, Weber H, Nordal HJ, Magnaes B, Abdelnoor M, Lilleas F. Lumbar spinal stenosis: conservative or surgical management? A prospective 10-year study. Spine. 2000;25:1424–1435. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200006010-00016. PubMed DOI

Adamova B, Vohanka S, Dusek L. Differential diagnostics in patients with mild lumbar spinal stenosis: the contributions and limits of various tests. Eur Spine J. 2003;12:190–196. PubMed PMC

Adamova B, Vohanka S, Dusek L. Dynamic electrophysiological examination in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: is it useful in clinical practice? Eur Spine J. 2005;14:269–276. doi: 10.1007/s00586-004-0738-9. PubMed DOI PMC

Mičánková Adamová B, Voháňka S. The results and contribution of electrophysiological examination in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Scr Med (Brno) 2009;82(1):38–45.

Egli D, Hausmann O, Schmid M, et al. Lumbar spinal stenosis: assessment of cauda equina involvement by electrophysiological recordings. J Neurol. 2007;254:741–750. doi: 10.1007/s00415-006-0427-1. PubMed DOI

Haig AJ, Geisser ME, Tong HC, Yamakawa KS, Quint DJ, Hoff JT, Chiodo A, Miner JA, Phalke VV. Electromyographic and magnetic resonance imaging to predict lumbar stenosis, low-back pain, and no back symptoms. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89:358–366. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.E.00704. PubMed DOI

Wilbourn AJ, Aminoff MJ. AAEM minimonograph 32: the electrodiagnostic examination in patients with radiculopathies. Muscle Nerve. 1998;21:1612–1631. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4598(199812)21:12<1612::AID-MUS2>3.0.CO;2-0. PubMed DOI

Adamova B, Bednarik J, Smardova L, Moravcova E, Chvatalova N, Prokes B, Kadanka Z. The association between cervical and lumbar spinal canal stenosis (in Czech) Ces Slov Neurol Neurochir. 2000;5:261–267.

Johnsson KE, Rosen I, Uden A. The natural course of lumbar spinal stenosis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1992;279:82–86. PubMed

Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB. The Oswestry Disability Index. Spine. 2000;25:2940–2952. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200011150-00017. PubMed DOI

Atlas SJ, Keller RB, Wu YA, Deyo RA, Singer DE. Long-term outcomes of surgical and nonsurgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis: 8 to 10 year results from the maine lumbar spine study. Spine. 2005;30:936–943. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000158953.57966.c0. PubMed DOI

Dhand UK, Das SK, Chopra JS. Patterns of H-reflex abnormality in patients with low back pain. Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1991;31:209–213. PubMed

Aiello I, Rosati G, Serra G, Manca M. The diagnostic value of H-index in S1 root compression. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1981;44:171–172. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.44.2.171. PubMed DOI PMC

Braddom RI, Johnson EW. Standardization of H reflex and diagnostic use in S1 radiculopathy. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1974;55:161–166. PubMed

Outcomes and their predictors in lumbar spinal stenosis: a 12-year follow-up

Neurological impairment score in lumbar spinal stenosis