» Articles » PMID: 36453045

Decompression Alone or Decompression with Fusion for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: a Randomized Clinical Trial with Two-year MRI Follow-up

Overview
Journal Bone Joint J
Date 2022 Dec 1
PMID 36453045
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Aims: The aims of this study were first, to determine if adding fusion to a decompression of the lumbar spine for spinal stenosis decreases the rate of radiological restenosis and/or proximal adjacent level stenosis two years after surgery, and second, to evaluate the change in vertebral slip two years after surgery with and without fusion.

Methods: The Swedish Spinal Stenosis Study (SSSS) was conducted between 2006 and 2012 at five public and two private hospitals. Six centres participated in this two-year MRI follow-up. We randomized 222 patients with central lumbar spinal stenosis at one or two adjacent levels into two groups, decompression alone and decompression with fusion. The presence or absence of a preoperative spondylolisthesis was noted. A new stenosis on two-year MRI was used as the primary outcome, defined as a dural sac cross-sectional area ≤ 75 mm at the operated level (restenosis) and/or at the level above (proximal adjacent level stenosis).

Results: A total of 211 patients underwent surgery at a mean age of 66 years (69% female): 103 were treated by decompression with fusion and 108 by decompression alone. A two-year MRI was available for 176 (90%) of the eligible patients. A new stenosis at the operated and/or adjacent level occurred more frequently after decompression and fusion than after decompression alone (47% vs 29%; p = 0.020). The difference remained in the subgroup with a preoperative spondylolisthesis, (48% vs 24%; p = 0.020), but did not reach significance for those without (45% vs 35%; p = 0.488). Proximal adjacent level stenosis was more common after fusion than after decompression alone (44% vs 17%; p < 0.001). Restenosis at the operated level was less frequent after fusion than decompression alone (4% vs 14%; p = 0.036). Vertebral slip increased by 1.1 mm after decompression alone, regardless of whether a preoperative spondylolisthesis was present or not.

Conclusion: Adding fusion to a decompression increased the rate of new stenosis on two-year MRI, even when a spondylolisthesis was present preoperatively. This supports decompression alone as the preferred method of surgery for spinal stenosis, whether or not a degenerative spondylolisthesis is present preoperatively.Cite this article:  2022;104-B(12):1343-1351.

Citing Articles

Clinical and radiological outcomes of lumbar endoscopic decompression for treating lumbar spinal stenosis and degenerative lumbar scoliosis: a retrospective study at mean 4.4 years follow-up.

Fan N, Wang A, Yuan S, Du P, Wang T, Zang L Front Surg. 2025; 11:1525843.

PMID: 39882069 PMC: 11774992. DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2024.1525843.


Single and multilevel decompression alone in patients with multilevel lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Gomes F, Larcipretti A, Udoma-Udofa O, da Mata P, de Andrade Bannach M Neurosurg Rev. 2025; 48(1):60.

PMID: 39820737 DOI: 10.1007/s10143-025-03219-4.


Delta large-channel endoscopy versus unilateral biportal endoscopy decompressive laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis: a prospective randomized controlled trial.

Wei R, Liu W, Yu M, Zhu Y, Yao R, Wang B J Orthop Surg Res. 2025; 20(1):10.

PMID: 39754230 PMC: 11699819. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-024-05409-0.


Clinical, laboratory, and hospital factors associated with preoperative complications in Peruvian older adults with hip fracture.

Aguirre-Milachay E, Leon-Figueroa D, Valladares-Garrido M PLoS One. 2024; 19(11):e0313089.

PMID: 39495713 PMC: 11534202. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0313089.


Role of unilateral partial facet joint preservation in postero-lateral approach lumbar interbody fusion for patients with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis presenting bilateral lower limb symptoms: a retrospective study.

Sun C, Qu C, Zhou C, Zhu K, Tao H, Ma X J Orthop Surg Res. 2024; 19(1):537.

PMID: 39223558 PMC: 11370034. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-024-05020-3.


References
1.
Bisson E, Mummaneni P, Virk M, Knightly J, Alvi M, Goyal A . Open versus minimally invasive decompression for low-grade spondylolisthesis: analysis from the Quality Outcomes Database. J Neurosurg Spine. 2020; 33(3):349-359. DOI: 10.3171/2020.3.SPINE191239. View

2.
Leone A, Guglielmi G, Cassar-Pullicino V, Bonomo L . Lumbar intervertebral instability: a review. Radiology. 2007; 245(1):62-77. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2451051359. View

3.
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

4.
Schonstrom N, Bolender N, Spengler D, Hansson T . Pressure changes within the cauda equina following constriction of the dural sac. An in vitro experimental study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1984; 9(6):604-7. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-198409000-00011. View

5.
Zaina F, Tomkins-Lane C, Carragee E, Negrini S . Surgical Versus Nonsurgical Treatment for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016; 41(14):E857-E868. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001635. View