Outcomes of One Versus Two Level MIS Decompression With Adjacent Level Stenosis.

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Tejas Subramanian, Pratyush Shahi, Takashi Hirase, Gregory S Kazarian, Venkat Boddapati, Austin C Kaidi, Tomoyuki Asada, Sumedha Singh, Eric Mai, Chad Z Simon, Izzet Akosman, Eric R Zhao, Junho Song, Troy B Amen, Kasra Araghi, Maximilian K Korsun, Joshua Zhang, Cole T Kwas, Avani S Vaishnav, Olivia Tuma, Eric T Kim, Nishtha Singh, Myles R J Allen, Annika Bay, Evan D Sheha, Francis C Lovecchio, James E Dowdell, Sheeraz A Qureshi, Sravisht Iyer
{"title":"Outcomes of One Versus Two Level MIS Decompression With Adjacent Level Stenosis.","authors":"Tejas Subramanian, Pratyush Shahi, Takashi Hirase, Gregory S Kazarian, Venkat Boddapati, Austin C Kaidi, Tomoyuki Asada, Sumedha Singh, Eric Mai, Chad Z Simon, Izzet Akosman, Eric R Zhao, Junho Song, Troy B Amen, Kasra Araghi, Maximilian K Korsun, Joshua Zhang, Cole T Kwas, Avani S Vaishnav, Olivia Tuma, Eric T Kim, Nishtha Singh, Myles R J Allen, Annika Bay, Evan D Sheha, Francis C Lovecchio, James E Dowdell, Sheeraz A Qureshi, Sravisht Iyer","doi":"10.1177/21925682241303104","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>Retrospective cohort study.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>Decompression for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) has shown excellent clinical outcomes. In patients with symptomatic single level stenosis and asymptomatic adjacent level disease, it is unknown whether decompressing only the symptomatic level is sufficient. The objective of this study is to compare outcomes between single level and dual level minimally invasive (MIS) decompression in patients with adjacent level stenosis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The current study is a retrospective review of patients undergoing primary single or dual level MIS decompression for LSS. Radiographic stenosis severity was graded using the Schizas grading. Patients undergoing single level decompression (SLD) with moderate stenosis at the adjacent level were compared with patients undergoing dual level decompression (DLD) for multi-level LSS. Clinical outcomes, complications, and reoperations were compared. Subgroup analysis was performed on patients with the same Schizas grade at the adjacent level in the SLD group and the second surgical level in the DLD group.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>148 patients were included (126 SLD, 76 DLD). There were no significant differences in patient reported outcomes between the two groups at any timepoint up to 2 years postoperatively, including in the matched stenosis severity subgroups. Operative time was longer in the DLD cohort (<i>P</i> < 0.001). There were no significant differences in complications or reoperation rates.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In patients with single level symptomatic LSS and adjacent level stenosis, decompression of only the symptomatic level provided equivalent clinical outcomes compared to dual level decompression. The additional operative time and potential incremental risk of dual level surgery may not be justified.</p>","PeriodicalId":12680,"journal":{"name":"Global Spine Journal","volume":" ","pages":"21925682241303104"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Spine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/21925682241303104","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Study design: Retrospective cohort study.

Objective: Decompression for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) has shown excellent clinical outcomes. In patients with symptomatic single level stenosis and asymptomatic adjacent level disease, it is unknown whether decompressing only the symptomatic level is sufficient. The objective of this study is to compare outcomes between single level and dual level minimally invasive (MIS) decompression in patients with adjacent level stenosis.

Methods: The current study is a retrospective review of patients undergoing primary single or dual level MIS decompression for LSS. Radiographic stenosis severity was graded using the Schizas grading. Patients undergoing single level decompression (SLD) with moderate stenosis at the adjacent level were compared with patients undergoing dual level decompression (DLD) for multi-level LSS. Clinical outcomes, complications, and reoperations were compared. Subgroup analysis was performed on patients with the same Schizas grade at the adjacent level in the SLD group and the second surgical level in the DLD group.

Results: 148 patients were included (126 SLD, 76 DLD). There were no significant differences in patient reported outcomes between the two groups at any timepoint up to 2 years postoperatively, including in the matched stenosis severity subgroups. Operative time was longer in the DLD cohort (P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in complications or reoperation rates.

Conclusion: In patients with single level symptomatic LSS and adjacent level stenosis, decompression of only the symptomatic level provided equivalent clinical outcomes compared to dual level decompression. The additional operative time and potential incremental risk of dual level surgery may not be justified.

相邻层面狭窄的单层 MIS 减压术与两层 MIS 减压术的疗效。
研究设计回顾性队列研究:减压治疗腰椎管狭窄症(LSS)取得了良好的临床疗效。对于有症状的单水平狭窄和无症状的邻近水平疾病患者,仅对有症状的水平进行减压是否足够尚不清楚。本研究的目的是比较单层和双层微创(MIS)减压术对邻近层面狭窄患者的疗效:本研究是一项回顾性研究,研究对象是因 LSS 而接受初级单层或双层微创减压术的患者。采用Schizas分级法对放射学狭窄严重程度进行分级。将接受单层减压术(SLD)且邻近层中度狭窄的患者与接受双层减压术(DLD)治疗多层LSS的患者进行比较。比较了临床疗效、并发症和再手术情况。对SLD组相邻层面Schizas分级相同的患者和DLD组第二手术层面的患者进行了分组分析:结果:共纳入148例患者(126例SLD,76例DLD)。在术后两年内的任何时间点,两组患者报告的疗效均无明显差异,包括在狭窄严重程度匹配的亚组中。DLD 组的手术时间更长(P < 0.001)。并发症或再次手术率无明显差异:结论:对于单水平无症状 LSS 和邻近水平狭窄的患者,仅对无症状水平进行减压与双水平减压的临床效果相当。双水平手术增加的手术时间和潜在风险可能并不合理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Global Spine Journal
Global Spine Journal Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
8.30%
发文量
278
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: Global Spine Journal (GSJ) is the official scientific publication of AOSpine. A peer-reviewed, open access journal, devoted to the study and treatment of spinal disorders, including diagnosis, operative and non-operative treatment options, surgical techniques, and emerging research and clinical developments.GSJ is indexed in PubMedCentral, SCOPUS, and Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信