Step Activity Monitoring in Lumbar Stenosis Patients Undergoing Decompressive Surgery

Overview

Journal Eur Spine J

Specialty Orthopedics

Date 2010 Feb 27

PMID 20186442

Citations 20

Authors

Tobias L Schulte

Tim Schubert

Corinna Winter

Mirko Brandes

Lars Hackenberg

Hansdetlef Wassmann

Dennis Liem

Dieter Rosenbaum

Viola Bullmann

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Symptomatic degenerative central lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a frequent indication for decompressive spinal surgery, to reduce spinal claudication. No data are as yet available on the effect of surgery on the level of activity measured with objective long-term monitoring. The aim of this prospective, controlled study was to objectively quantify the level of activity in central LSS patients before and after surgery, using a continuous measurement device. The objective data were correlated with subjective clinical results and the radiographic degree of stenosis. Forty-seven patients with central LSS and typical spinal claudication scheduled for surgery were included. The level of activity (number of gait cycles) was quantified for 7 consecutive days using the StepWatch Activity Monitor (SAM). Visual analogue scales (VAS) for back and leg pain, Oswestry disability index and Roland-Morris score were used to assess the patients' clinical status. The patients were investigated before surgery and 3 and 12 months after surgery. In addition, the radiographic extent of central LSS was measured digitally on preoperative magnetic resonance imaging or computed tomography. The following results were found preoperatively: 3,578 gait cycles/day, VAS for back pain 5.7 and for leg pain 6.5. Three months after surgery, the patients showed improvement: 4,145 gait cycles/day, VAS for back pain 4.0 and for leg pain 3.0. Twelve months after surgery, the improvement continued: 4,335 gait cycles/day, VAS for back pain 4.1 and for leg pain 3.3. The clinical results and SAM results showed significant improvement when preoperative data were compared with data 3 and 12 months after surgery. The results 12 months after surgery did not differ significantly from those 3 months after surgery. The level of activity correlated significantly with the degree of leg pain. The mean cross-sectional area of the spinal canal at the central LSS was 94 mm(2). The radiographic results did not correlate either with objective SAM results or with clinical outcome parameters. In conclusion, this study is the first to present objective data on continuous activity monitoring/measurements in patients with central LSS. The SAM could be an adequate tool for performing these measurements in spine patients. Except for leg pain, the objective SAM results did not correlate with the clinical results or with the radiographic extent of central LSS.

Citing Articles

Multicentre investigation on the effect of decompressive surgery on Balance and physical ActiviTy Levels amongst patients with lumbar Spinal stenosis (B-ATLAS): protocol for a prospective cohort study.

Zielinski O, Hallager D, Jensen K, Carreon L, Andersen M, Diederichsen L BMJ Open. 2024; 14(9):e085667.

PMID: 39313282 PMC: 11418479. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-085667.

Physical functioning in the lumbar spinal surgery population: A systematic review and narrative synthesis of outcome measures and measurement properties of the physical measures.

Kowalski K, Mistry J, Beilin A, Goodman M, Lukacs M, Rushton A PLoS One. 2024; 19(8):e0307004.

PMID: 39208263 PMC: 11361614. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0307004.

SmartWear body sensors for neurological and neurosurgical patients: A review of current and future technologies.

Gupta N, Kasula V, Sanmugananthan P, Panico N, Dubin A, Sykes D World Neurosurg X. 2023; 21:100247.

PMID: 38033718 PMC: 10682285. DOI: 10.1016/j.wnsx.2023.100247.

Spatiotemporal Gait Parameters and Gait Asymmetry in Patients With Lumbar Disc Herniation, Treated With Microdiscectomy: A Prospective, Observational Study.

Bonab M, Sener S, Kuru Colak T, Amirrashedi M, Yeldan I, Konya D Neurospine. 2023; 20(3):947-958.

PMID: 37798989 PMC: 10562239. DOI: 10.14245/ns.2346122.061.

Is radiographic lumbar spinal stenosis associated with the quality of life?: The Wakayama Spine Study.

Arita S, Ishimoto Y, Hashizume H, Nagata K, Muraki S, Oka H PLoS One. 2022; 17(2):e0263930.

PMID: 35176078 PMC: 8853503. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0263930.

References

Athiviraham A, Yen D, Scott C, Soboleski D . Clinical correlation of radiological spinal stenosis after standardization for vertebral body size. Clin Radiol. 2007; 62(8):776-80. DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2007.02.011. View

Whitehurst M, Brown L, Eidelson S, DAngelo A . Functional mobility performance in an elderly population with lumbar spinal stenosis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2001; 82(4):464-7. DOI: 10.1053/apmr.2001.20828. View

Murphy D, Hurwitz E, Gregory A, Clary R . A non-surgical approach to the management of lumbar spinal stenosis: a prospective observational cohort study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2006; 7:16. PMC: 1397818. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2474-7-16. View

Daffner S, Wang J . The pathophysiology and nonsurgical treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. Instr Course Lect. 2009; 58:657-68. View

Wildermuth S, Zanetti M, Duewell S, Schmid M, Romanowski B, Benini A . Lumbar spine: quantitative and qualitative assessment of positional (upright flexion and extension) MR imaging and myelography. Radiology. 1998; 207(2):391-8. DOI: 10.1148/radiology.207.2.9577486. View

Mannion A, Junge A, Fairbank J, Dvorak J, Grob D . Development of a German version of the Oswestry Disability Index. Part 1: cross-cultural adaptation, reliability, and validity. Eur Spine J. 2005; 15(1):55-65. PMC: 3454571. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-004-0815-0. View

Schonstrom N, Bolender N, Spengler D . The pathomorphology of spinal stenosis as seen on CT scans of the lumbar spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1985; 10(9):806-11. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-198511000-00005. View

Rydevik B . The effects of compression on the physiology of nerve roots. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1992; 15(1):62-6. View

Deen H, Zimmerman R, Lyons M, McPhee M, Verheijde J, Lemens S . Use of the exercise treadmill to measure baseline functional status and surgical outcome in patients with severe lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1998; 23(2):244-8. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-199801150-00019. View

10.

Brandes M, Rosenbaum D . Correlations between the step activity monitor and the DynaPort ADL-monitor. Clin Biomech (Bristol). 2003; 19(1):91-4. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2003.08.001. View

11.

Gelalis I, Stafilas K, Korompilias A, Zacharis K, Beris A, Xenakis T . Decompressive surgery for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: long-term results. Int Orthop. 2005; 30(1):59-63. PMC: 2254667. DOI: 10.1007/s00264-005-0030-6. View

12.

Szpalski M, Gunzburg R . Lumbar spinal stenosis in the elderly: an overview. Eur Spine J. 2003; 12 Suppl 2:S170-5. PMC: 3591819. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-003-0612-1. View

13.

Schulte T, Bullmann V, Lerner T, Schneider M, Marquardt B, Liljenqvist U . [Lumbar spinal stenosis]. Orthopade. 2006; 35(6):675-92. DOI: 10.1007/s00132-006-0971-5. View

14.

Bowden M, Behrman A . Step Activity Monitor: accuracy and test-retest reliability in persons with incomplete spinal cord injury. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2008; 44(3):355-62. DOI: 10.1682/jrrd.2006.03.0033. View

15.

Bjornson K, Belza B, Kartin D, Logsdon R, McLaughlin J . Ambulatory physical activity performance in youth with cerebral palsy and youth who are developing typically. Phys Ther. 2007; 87(3):248-57. PMC: 1852474. DOI: 10.2522/ptj.20060157. View

16.

Vanhees L, Lefevre J, Philippaerts R, Martens M, Huygens W, Troosters T . How to assess physical activity? How to assess physical fitness?. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil. 2005; 12(2):102-14. DOI: 10.1097/01.hjr.0000161551.73095.9c. View

17.

Geisser M, Haig A, Tong H, Yamakawa K, Quint D, Hoff J . Spinal canal size and clinical symptoms among persons diagnosed with lumbar spinal stenosis. Clin J Pain. 2007; 23(9):780-5. DOI: 10.1097/AJP.0b013e31815349bf. View

18.

Rydevik B, Brown M, Lundborg G . Pathoanatomy and pathophysiology of nerve root compression. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1984; 9(1):7-15. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-198401000-00004. View

19.

de Bruin E, Najafi B, Murer K, Uebelhart D, Aminian K . Quantification of everyday motor function in a geriatric population. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2008; 44(3):417-28. DOI: 10.1682/jrrd.2006.01.0003. View

20.

Braybrooke J, Ahn H, Gallant A, Ford M, Bronstein Y, Finkelstein J . The impact of surgical wait time on patient-based outcomes in posterior lumbar spinal surgery. Eur Spine J. 2007; 16(11):1832-9. PMC: 2223329. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-007-0452-5. View