Explore the vast range of titles available.

Abstract Objective The purpose of this study is to provide Level-1 objective, real-world outcome data for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis suffering from neurogenic claudication secondary to hypertrophic ligamentum flavum. Design The MOTION Study is a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial comparing the mild® Procedure (minimally invasive lumbar decompression; Vertos Medical, Aliso Viejo, CA, USA) as a first-line therapy in combination with nonsurgical conventional medical management (CMM) vs CMM alone as the active control. Methods Patients in the test group received the mild Procedure at baseline. Both the mild+CMM group and the control group were allowed unrestricted access to conventional real-world therapies. Patient-reported outcomes included the Oswestry Disability Index, the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire, and the Numeric Pain Rating Scale. A validated Walking Tolerance Test, the incidence of subsequent lumbar spine interventions, and the occurrence of adverse events were used to measure objective outcomes. Results Sixty-nine patients in each group were analyzed at 1-year follow-up. No device- or procedure-related adverse events were reported in either group. Results from all primary and secondary outcome measures showed statistical significance in favor of mild+CMM. Conclusions One-year results of this Level-1 study demonstrated superiority of mild+CMM over CMM alone for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis who were suffering from neurogenic claudication secondary to hypertrophic ligamentum flavum. Use of the validated Walking Tolerance Test to objectively measure increased ability to walk without severe symptoms provided evidence of statistically significantly better outcomes for mild+CMM than for CMM alone. With no reported device or procedure-related adverse events, the long-standing safety profile of the mild Procedure was reaffirmed. mild is a safe, durable, minimally invasive procedure that has been shown to be effective as an early interventional therapy for patients suffering from symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis.

Background Incidental durotomy is a well-known complication during surgery for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS). In this prospective multicenter cohort study including eight medical centers our aim was to assess whether incidental durotomy during first-time lumbar spinal stenosis decompression surgery without fusion has an impact on long-term outcome. Methods Patients of the multi-center Lumbar Stenosis Outcome Study (LSOS) with confirmed DLSS undergoing first-time decompression without fusion were enrolled in this study. Baseline patient characteristics and outcomes were analyzed at 6, 12, and 24 months follow-up respectively with the Spinal Stenosis Measure (SSM), the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), Feeling Thermometer (FT), the EQ-5D-EL, and the Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ). Results A total of 167 patients met the inclusion criteria. Fifteen (9 %) of those patients had an incidental durotomy. Baseline characteristics were similar between the durotomy and no-durotomy group. All patients improved over time. In the group of durotomy patients, the median improvement in SSM symptoms scale was 1.1 points at 6 months, 1.1 points at 12 months, and 1.6 points at 24 months after baseline. For the no-durotomy group, these improvements were 0.8, 0.9, and 0.9. For SSM function the improvements were 1.0, 0.8, and 0.9 in the durotomy group, and 0.6, 0.8, and 0.8 in the no-durotomy group. None of the between-group differences were statistically significant. Conclusions Incidental durotomy in patients with DLSS undergoing first-time decompression surgery without fusion did not have negative effect on long-term outcome and quality of life. However, only 15 patients were included in the durotomy group but these findings remained even after adjusting for observed differences in baseline characteristics.

Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is the most common reason for spine surgery in older US adults. There is an evidence gap about nonsurgical LSS treatment options. To explore the comparative clinical effectiveness of 3 nonsurgical interventions for patients with LSS. Three-arm randomized clinical trial of 3 years' duration (November 2013 to June 2016). Analysis began in August 2016. All interventions were delivered during 6 weeks with follow-up at 2 months and 6 months at an outpatient research clinic. Patients older than 60 years with LSS were recruited from the general public. Eligibility required anatomical evidence of central canal and/or lateral recess stenosis (magnetic resonance imaging/computed tomography) and clinical symptoms associated with LSS (neurogenic claudication; less symptoms with flexion). Analysis was intention to treat. Medical care, group exercise, and manual therapy/individualized exercise. Medical care consisted of medications and/or epidural injections provided by a physiatrist. Group exercise classes were supervised by fitness instructors in senior community centers. Manual therapy/individualized exercise consisted of spinal mobilization, stretches, and strength training provided by chiropractors and physical therapists. Primary outcomes were between-group differences at 2 months in self-reported symptoms and physical function measured by the Swiss Spinal Stenosis questionnaire (score range, 12-55) and a measure of walking capacity using the self-paced walking test (meters walked for 0 to 30 minutes). A total of 259 participants (mean [SD] age, 72.4 [7.8] years; 137 women [52.9%]) were allocated to medical care (88 [34.0%]), group exercise (84 [32.4%]), or manual therapy/individualized exercise (87 [33.6%]). Adjusted between-group analyses at 2 months showed manual therapy/individualized exercise had greater improvement of symptoms and physical function compared with medical care (-2.0; 95% CI, -3.6 to -0.4) or group exercise (-2.4; 95% CI, -4.1 to -0.8). Manual therapy/individualized exercise had a greater proportion of responders (≥30% improvement) in symptoms and physical function (20%) and walking capacity (65.3%) at 2 months compared with medical care (7.6% and 48.7%, respectively) or group exercise (3.0% and 46.2%, respectively). At 6 months, there were no between-group differences in mean outcome scores or responder rates. A combination of manual therapy/individualized exercise provides greater short-term improvement in symptoms and physical function and walking capacity than medical care or group exercises, although all 3 interventions were associated with improvements in long-term walking capacity. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01943435.

Background Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) causing neurogenic claudication (NC) is a leading cause of disability which is intimately related to a decrease in walking capacity. Walking limitation has negative physical and mental impacts on patients. Recent guidelines recommend the use of conservative treatment options such as exercises before considering surgery. Unfortunately, dedicated healthcare resources for the conservative management of patients with LSS causing NC are uncommon. Thus, it is important to develop accessible and specific rehabilitation programs aimed at improving patients’ self-management, especially with regard to walking capacity. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of a 6-week specific rehabilitation program combining education and exercises on walking capacity in patients with LSS causing NC. Methods/design This is a prospective randomized controlled parallel-group clinical trial. Sixty-six patients with LSS causing NC will be recruited from identified clinics and local advertisements. The intervention group will receive standardized education and specific exercises while the control group will only receive a standardized education. The program in both groups will last for 6 weeks with 5 evaluation time points (baseline, week 2, week 4, week 6, and week 12). The primary outcome will be walking capacity measured with the Self-Paced Walking Test, and the secondary outcomes will be back and leg pain intensity, LSS-related disability, self-efficacy, level of physical activity, anxiety, depression, gait pattern characteristics, balance, and global perceived change. Discussion This study will assess the effectiveness of a 6-week specific rehabilitation program combining education and exercises on walking capacity in patients with LSS causing NC. By measuring objective gait pattern characteristics, the study will also provide new information about the impact of NC on gait pattern that could eventually improve the evaluation and the management of LSS. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05513326 . Registered on August 22, 2022

IntroductionSymptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis is the most common indication for spinal surgery. However, more than one-third of the patients undergoing surgery for lumbar stenosis report dissatisfaction with the results. On the other hand, conservative treatment has shown positive results in some cases. This trial will compare the outcomes of surgical versus non-surgical treatment for lumbar stenosis. The study includes a multidimensional follow-up, aiming to study the association between outcome and other studied parameters, mainly electromyography and nerve conduction. Moreover, it may contribute to a better understanding of the pathophysiology of lumbar stenosis and to the development of future pharmacological treatments.Methods and analysisUppSten is a single-centre randomised controlled trial in which 150 patients with symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis will be randomised into one of two treatment arms. The patients in the surgical arm will undergo laminectomy; the patients in the non-surgical arm will be given a structured physical training programme. The primary outcome of the study will be the Oswestry Disability Index. Secondary outcomes will include motor amplitude and degree of denervation activity obtained by means of nerve conduction studies and electromyography. Patient-reported outcome measures will be also used as secondary outcomes. Blood sample analysis and the investigation of potential inflammation markers are the additional secondary outcome parameters. Laboratory evaluation will include blood sample collection before the treatment initiation and after 6 months. Flavum ligament biopsies will be performed in the surgical group. Finally, tertiary outcomes will include neurophysiological measures, the objective walking ability and radiological evaluation.Ethics and disseminationThe study is approved by the Local Ethics Committee (Dnr 2017–506), the Hospital’s Clinical Trials Committee (2018–0001) and the National Biobank Council and Uppsala Biobank (BbA-827-2018-025). The results will be presented in peer-reviewed journals and at international conferences.Trial registration number NCT03495661

Background: Patients suffering from neurogenic claudication due to lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) often experience moderate to severe pain and significant functional disability. Neurogenic claudication results from progressive degenerative changes in the spine, and most often affects the elderly. Both the MILD® procedure and epidural steroid injections (ESIs) offer interventional pain treatment options for LSS patients experiencing neurogenic claudication refractory to more conservative therapies. MILD provides an alternative to ESIs via minimally invasive lumbar decompression. Study Design: Prospective, multi-center, randomized controlled clinical trial. Setting: Twenty-six US interventional pain management centers. Objective: To compare patient outcomes following treatment with either MILD (treatment group) or ESIs (active control group) in LSS patients with neurogenic claudication and verified ligamentum flavum hypertrophy. Methods: This prospective, multi-center, randomized controlled clinical trial includes 2 study arms with a 1-to-1 randomization ratio. A total of 302 patients were enrolled, with 149 randomized to MILD and 153 to the active control. Six-month follow-up has been completed and is presented in this report. In addition, one year follow-up will be conducted for patients in both study arms, and supplementary 2 year outcome data will be collected for patients in the MILD group only. Outcome Measures: Outcomes are assessed using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), numeric pain rating scale (NPRS) and Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ). Primary efficacy is the proportion of ODI responders, tested for statistical superiority of the MILD group versus the active control group. ODI responders are defined as patients achieving the validated Minimal Important Change (MIC) of ≥10 point improvement in ODI from baseline to follow-up. Similarly, secondary efficacy includes proportion of NPRS and ZCQ responders using validated MIC thresholds. Primary safety is the incidence of device or procedure-related adverse events in each group. Results: At 6 months, all primary and secondary efficacy results provided statistically significant evidence that MILD is superior to the active control. For primary efficacy, the proportion of ODI responders in the MILD group (62.2%) was statistically significantly higher than for the epidural steroid group (35.7%) (P < 0.001). Further, all secondary efficacy parameters demonstrated statistical superiority of MILD versus the active control. The primary safety endpoint was achieved, demonstrating that there is no difference in safety between MILD and ESIs (P = 1.00). Limitations: Limitations include lack of patient blinding due to considerable differences in treatment protocols, and a potentially higher non-responder rate for both groups versus standard-of-care due to study restrictions on adjunctive pain therapies. Conclusions: Six month follow-up data from this trial demonstrate that the MILD procedure is statistically superior to epidural steroids, a known active treatment for LSS patients with neurogenic claudication and verified central stenosis due to ligamentum flavum hypertrophy. The results of all primary and secondary efficacy outcome measures achieved statistically superior outcomes in the MILD group versus ESIs. Further, there were no statistically significant differences in the safety profile between study groups. This prospective, multi-center, randomized controlled clinical trial provides strong evidence of the effectiveness of MILD versus epidural steroids in this patient population. Key words: MILD, lumbar central spinal stenosis, minimally invasive lumbar decompression, interlaminar epidural steroid injection, neurogenic claudication, ligamentum flavum, Oswestry Disability Index, ODI, Numeric Pain Rating Scale, NPRS, Zurich Claudication Questionnaire, ZCQ

Background Lumbar spinal stenosis is one of the most common causes of low back pain among older adults and can cause significant disability. Despite its prevalence, treatment of spinal stenosis symptoms remains controversial. Epidural steroid injections are used with increasing frequency as a less invasive, potentially safer, and more cost-effective treatment than surgery. However, there is a lack of data to judge the effectiveness and safety of epidural steroid injections for spinal stenosis. We describe our prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial that tests the hypothesis that epidural injections with steroids plus local anesthetic are more effective than epidural injections of local anesthetic alone in improving pain and function among older adults with lumbar spinal stenosis. Methods We will recruit up to 400 patients with lumbar central canal spinal stenosis from at least 9 clinical sites over 2 years. Patients with spinal instability who require surgical fusion, a history of prior lumbar surgery, or prior epidural steroid injection within the past 6 months are excluded. Participants are randomly assigned to receive either ESI with local anesthetic or the control intervention (epidural injections with local anesthetic alone). Subjects receive up to 2 injections prior to the primary endpoint at 6 weeks, at which time they may choose to crossover to the other intervention. Participants complete validated, standardized measures of pain, functional disability, and health-related quality of life at baseline and at 3 weeks, 6 weeks, and 3, 6, and 12 months after randomization. The primary outcomes are Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and a numerical rating scale measure of pain intensity at 6 weeks. In order to better understand their safety, we also measure cortisol, HbA1c, fasting blood glucose, weight, and blood pressure at baseline, and at 3 and 6 weeks post-injection. We also obtain data on resource utilization and costs to assess cost-effectiveness of epidural steroid injection. Discussion This study is the first multi-center, double-blind RCT to evaluate the effectiveness of epidural steroid injections in improving pain and function among older adults with lumbar spinal stenosis. The study will also yield data on the safety and cost-effectiveness of this procedure for older adults. Trial Registration Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01238536

BackgroundIn 1989, a group of sixty-seven asymptomatic individuals with no history of back pain underwent magnetic resonance imaging of the lumbar spine. Twenty-one subjects (31%) had an identifiable abnormality of a disc or of the spinal canal. In the current study, we investigated whether the findings on the scans of the lumbar spine that had been made in 1989 predicted the development of low-back pain in these asymptomatic subjects.MethodsA questionnaire concerning the development and duration of low-back pain over a seven-year period was sent to the sixty-seven asymptomatic individuals from the 1989 study. A total of fifty subjects completed and returned the questionnaire. A repeat magnetic resonance scan was made for thirty-one of these subjects. Two neuroradiologists and one orthopaedic spine surgeon interpreted the original and repeat scans in a blinded fashion, independent of clinical information. At each disc level, any radiographic abnormality, including bulging or degeneration of the disc, was identified. Radiographic progression was defined as increasing severity of an abnormality at a specific disc level or the involvement of additional levels.ResultsOf the fifty subjects who returned the questionnaire, twenty-nine (58%) had no back pain. Low-back pain developed in twenty-one subjects during the seven-year study period. The 1989 scans of these subjects demonstrated normal findings in twelve, a herniated disc in five, stenosis in three, and moderate disc degeneration in one. Eight individuals had radiating leg pain; four of them had had normal findings on the original scans, two had had spinal stenosis, one had had a disc protrusion, and one had had a disc extrusion. In general, repeat magnetic resonance imaging scans revealed a greater frequency of disc herniation, bulging, degeneration, and spinal stenosis than did the original scans.ConclusionsThe findings on magnetic resonance scans were not predictive of the development or duration of low-back pain. Individuals with the longest duration of low-back pain did not have the greatest degree of anatomical abnormality on the original, 1989 scans. Clinical correlation is essential to determine the importance of abnormalities on magnetic resonance images.

Background Interspinous spacers are a minimally invasive surgical alternative for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) unresponsive to conservative care. The purpose of this prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial was to compare 2-year clinical outcomes in patients with moderate LSS treated with the Superion® (Experimental) or the X-Stop®, a FDA-approved interspinous spacer (Control). Methods A total of 250 patients with moderate LSS unresponsive to conservative care were randomly allocated to treatment with the Experimental (n = 123) or Control (n = 127) interspinous spacer and followed through 2 years post-treatment. Complication data were available for all patients and patient-reported outcomes were available for 192 patients (101 Experimental, 91 Control) at 2 years. Results Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ) Symptom Severity and Physical Function scores improved 34% to 36% in both groups through 2 years (all p < 0.001). Patient Satisfaction scores at 2 years were 1.8 ± 0.9 with Experimental and 1.6 ± 0.8 with Control. Axial pain decreased from 59 ± 26 mm at baseline to 21 ± 26 mm at 2 years with Experimental and from 55 ± 26 mm to 21 ± 25 mm with Control (both p < 0.001). Extremity pain decreased from 67 ± 24 mm to 14 ± 22 mm at 2 years with Experimental and from 63 ± 24 mm to 18 ± 23 mm with Control (both p < 0.001). Back function assessed with the Oswestry Disability Index similarly improved with Experimental (37 ± 12% to 18 ± 16%) and Control (39 ± 12% to 20 ± 16%) (both p < 0.001). Freedom from reoperation at the index level was 84% for Experimental and 83% for Control (log-rank: p = 0.38) at 2 years. Conclusions Both interspinous spacers effectively alleviated pain and improved back function to a similar degree through 2 years in patients with moderate LSS who were unresponsive to conservative care. Trial registration NCT00692276 .

Background: Spinal canal stenosis is one of the most common causes of low back pain and disability. Its management varies from surgical to conservative, and the indications for ideal management are not clearly defined. Objectives: This study was conducted to evaluate the effect of adding calcitonin to local anesthetic and corticosteroid in epidural injection for patients suffering from degenerative lumbar spinal canal stenosis. Study Design: Randomized double-blind clinical trial. Setting: Hospital outpatient setting. Methods: One hundred thirty-two patients with degenerative spinal canal stenosis were randomly allocated into 2 groups. Group I received C-arm guided epidural injection of local anesthetic and corticosteroid and Group II received 50 international unit calcitonin added to the mixture of local anesthetic and corticosteroid. Both groups received 2 sets of injections, one week apart. Visual analogue scale for pain during movement and walking distance until incidence of neurogenic claudication have been used for pain assessment, and Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire and analgesic consumption were evaluated for one year. Results: Both groups showed comparable benefits regarding improvement in pain intensity, walking distance, Oswestry scale, and analgesic consumption during the first month follow-up period. These beneficial effects continued in calcitonin group for one year. Limitations: The present study patients would be graded as having mild or at worst moderate stenosis. So, the present study did not examine the efficacy of epidural calcitonin in severe spinal canal stenosis and did not stratify the results according to degree of stenosis which would also have been useful in determining the validity of calcitonin in different degrees of stenosis. Conclusion: Adding calcitonin to epidural steroid and local anesthetic injection seems to be more effective than epidural steroid and local anesthesia alone in management of spinal canal stenosis regarding increased walking distance, better Oswestry scale, diminished pain intensity and perception of paresthesia, and less analgesic consumption, all the above mentioned benefits continued up to one year. So, epidural calcitonin may be considered as a new therapeutic modality in the management of pain in spinal canal stenosis. Key words: Calcitonin, epidural steroid, lumbar, spinal canal stenosis