» Articles » PMID: 33437287

A Comparative Study of Lumbar Decompression and Fusion with Internal Fixation Versus Simple Decompression in Elderly Patients with Two-segment Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

Overview
Journal Pak J Med Sci
Specialty General Medicine
Date 2021 Jan 13
PMID 33437287
Citations 1
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: To investigate and compare the effect of decompression and fusion with internal fixation vs. simple decompression in the treatment of elderly patients with two-segment lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) in perioperative and postoperative follow-up periods.

Methods: Twenty-eight elderly patients with two-segment LSS admitted in Baoding First Hospital between Mar. 2017 and Jan. 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. Fifteen patients who underwent simple decompression were included in the simple decompression group, and 13 who underwent decompression and fusion with internal fixation were included in the decompression-fixation group. The general data and perioperative conditions including wound complications, operation time, blood loss, and VAS (legs) and JOA score were analyzed and compared between the two groups.

Results: There was no significant difference in postoperative leg pain (VAS) between the two groups, and a statistically significant difference in JOA score was found between the two groups one month after the operation. The operation time, length of stay, and blood loss in the decompression-fixation group were significantly different from those in the simple decompression group and no significant difference in wound complications was observed between the two groups.

Conclusion: There is no significant difference in leg pain relief in elderly patients with two-segment LSS when treated with decompression and fusion with internal fixation or simple decompression. Simple decompression is associated with less intraoperative injuries, better postoperative functional recovery, and reduced hospital stay.

Citing Articles

Retrospective comparison of cortical bone trajectory and pedicle screw in lumbar fusion for patients over 80, including sagittal balance: a single-center study.

Jang G, Ryu S, Lee S, Park J, Shin D, Zhang H BMC Geriatr. 2025; 25(1):37.

PMID: 39819456 PMC: 11737266. DOI: 10.1186/s12877-024-05590-1.


Comparative study of clinical effects between oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) and lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) in the treatment of degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine.

Wang Y, Song Y, Ma Y, Sun X, Wang H Pak J Med Sci. 2024; 40(10):2238-2242.

PMID: 39554660 PMC: 11568700. DOI: 10.12669/pjms.40.10.9344.

References
1.
Ghogawala Z, Dziura J, Butler W, Dai F, Terrin N, Magge S . Laminectomy plus Fusion versus Laminectomy Alone for Lumbar Spondylolisthesis. N Engl J Med. 2016; 374(15):1424-34. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1508788. View

2.
Ciol M, Deyo R, Howell E, Kreif S . An assessment of surgery for spinal stenosis: time trends, geographic variations, complications, and reoperations. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1996; 44(3):285-90. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.1996.tb00915.x. View

3.
Bae H, Rajaee S, Kanim L . Nationwide trends in the surgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013; 38(11):916-26. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182833e7c. View

4.
Machado G, Ferreira P, Yoo R, Harris I, Pinheiro M, Koes B . Surgical options for lumbar spinal stenosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016; 11:CD012421. PMC: 6464992. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012421. View

5.
Deyo R, Mirza S, Martin B, Kreuter W, Goodman D, Jarvik J . Trends, major medical complications, and charges associated with surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis in older adults. JAMA. 2010; 303(13):1259-65. PMC: 2885954. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2010.338. View