有症状腰椎管狭窄症患者多余神经根的临床重要性:对 NORDSTEN 椎管狭窄症试验数据的二次分析。

IF 2.6 2区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Spine Pub Date : 2025-07-15 Epub Date: 2024-09-26 DOI:10.1097/BRS.0000000000005160
Eric Franssen, Clemens Weber, Tor Åge Myklebust, Ivar Magne Austevoll, Helena Brisby, Christian Hellum, Kjersti Storheim, Jørn Aaen, Hasan Banitalebi, Jens Ivar Brox, Kari Indrekvam, Erland Hermansen
{"title":"有症状腰椎管狭窄症患者多余神经根的临床重要性:对 NORDSTEN 椎管狭窄症试验数据的二次分析。","authors":"Eric Franssen, Clemens Weber, Tor Åge Myklebust, Ivar Magne Austevoll, Helena Brisby, Christian Hellum, Kjersti Storheim, Jørn Aaen, Hasan Banitalebi, Jens Ivar Brox, Kari Indrekvam, Erland Hermansen","doi":"10.1097/BRS.0000000000005160","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>Post hoc analysis of data from a randomized clinical trial.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare preoperative symptoms of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis with and without redundant nerve roots (RNRs), and to compare the change in clinical outcomes between those two groups 2 years after decompression surgery.</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>RNRs are often seen on magnetic resonance imaging in patients with spinal stenosis. Previous studies have reported that patients with RNR are older and have worse symptoms at baseline. A meta-analysis from 2018 concluded that this radiologic sign could be seen as a negative predictor of outcome. High-quality prospective studies are lacking.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>Patient characteristics and reported pain and function scores were compared between lumbar spinal stenosis groups with (RNR+) and without RNR (RNR-) at baseline and after 2 years of follow-up. The primary outcome was the mean change in the Oswestry Disability Score (Oswestry Disability Index). Secondary outcomes included mean change in scores of the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire and the Numerical Rating Scale for leg and back pains.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of 416 patients included in the present analysis, 163 (39%) had RNR at baseline. Both groups were similar in regard to patient age, smoking habits, Body Mass Index, and duration of symptoms. Both groups also showed similar pain and function scores at baseline. The RNR+ group contained a significantly higher proportion of men, patients with severe stenosis and multiple stenotic levels on magnetic resonance imaging. At a 2-year follow-up, the mean change of the Oswestry Disability Index was -22.1 in the RNR+ group and -17.4 in the RNR- group [mean difference: 4.7 (95% CI: 1.3 to 8.2); P = 0.007]. Statistically significant differences were also found for secondary outcomes Zurich Claudication Questionnaire, and Numerical Rating Scale leg and back pains favoring the RNR+ group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Patients with RNR had similar baseline characteristics and similar symptoms as patients without. RNR before surgery was associated with better clinical improvement 2 years after decompression.</p>","PeriodicalId":22193,"journal":{"name":"Spine","volume":" ","pages":"941-947"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinical Importance of Redundant Nerve Roots in Patients With Symptomatic Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Secondary Analysis of NORDSTEN Spinal Stenosis Trial Data.\",\"authors\":\"Eric Franssen, Clemens Weber, Tor Åge Myklebust, Ivar Magne Austevoll, Helena Brisby, Christian Hellum, Kjersti Storheim, Jørn Aaen, Hasan Banitalebi, Jens Ivar Brox, Kari Indrekvam, Erland Hermansen\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/BRS.0000000000005160\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>Post hoc analysis of data from a randomized clinical trial.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare preoperative symptoms of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis with and without redundant nerve roots (RNRs), and to compare the change in clinical outcomes between those two groups 2 years after decompression surgery.</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>RNRs are often seen on magnetic resonance imaging in patients with spinal stenosis. Previous studies have reported that patients with RNR are older and have worse symptoms at baseline. A meta-analysis from 2018 concluded that this radiologic sign could be seen as a negative predictor of outcome. High-quality prospective studies are lacking.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>Patient characteristics and reported pain and function scores were compared between lumbar spinal stenosis groups with (RNR+) and without RNR (RNR-) at baseline and after 2 years of follow-up. The primary outcome was the mean change in the Oswestry Disability Score (Oswestry Disability Index). Secondary outcomes included mean change in scores of the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire and the Numerical Rating Scale for leg and back pains.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of 416 patients included in the present analysis, 163 (39%) had RNR at baseline. Both groups were similar in regard to patient age, smoking habits, Body Mass Index, and duration of symptoms. Both groups also showed similar pain and function scores at baseline. The RNR+ group contained a significantly higher proportion of men, patients with severe stenosis and multiple stenotic levels on magnetic resonance imaging. At a 2-year follow-up, the mean change of the Oswestry Disability Index was -22.1 in the RNR+ group and -17.4 in the RNR- group [mean difference: 4.7 (95% CI: 1.3 to 8.2); P = 0.007]. Statistically significant differences were also found for secondary outcomes Zurich Claudication Questionnaire, and Numerical Rating Scale leg and back pains favoring the RNR+ group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Patients with RNR had similar baseline characteristics and similar symptoms as patients without. RNR before surgery was associated with better clinical improvement 2 years after decompression.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":22193,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Spine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"941-947\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Spine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000005160\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/9/26 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Spine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000005160","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究设计对随机临床试验数据进行事后分析:比较伴有和不伴有多余神经根(RNR)的腰椎管狭窄症(LSS)患者的术前症状,并比较两组患者在减压手术 2 年后的临床疗效变化:背景数据摘要:在椎管狭窄患者的核磁共振成像中经常可以看到冗余神经根。以往的研究表明,RNR 患者年龄较大,基线症状较重。2018 年的一项荟萃分析得出结论,这种放射学征象可被视为预后的负面预测因素。目前尚缺乏高质量的前瞻性研究:比较基线和随访 2 年后有 RNR+(RNR-)和无 RNR(RNR-)的 LSS 组患者特征以及报告的疼痛和功能评分。主要结果是 Oswestry 失能评分(ODI)的平均变化。次要结果包括苏黎世跛行问卷(ZCQ)以及腿部和背部疼痛数字评分量表(NRS)得分的平均变化:在参与本次分析的 416 名患者中,163 人(39%)在基线时患有 RNR。两组患者的年龄、吸烟习惯、体重指数和症状持续时间相似。两组患者在基线时的疼痛和功能评分也相似。RNR+组中男性、严重狭窄患者和核磁共振成像显示多处狭窄的比例明显更高。随访两年时,RNR+ 组的 ODI 平均变化为-22.1,RNR- 组为-17.4(平均差异为 4.7 (95%CI 1.3-8.2) P=0.007)。在次要结果 ZCQ、NRS 腿部和背部疼痛方面,RNR+ 组的差异也具有统计学意义:结论:RNR患者的基线特征和症状与无RNR患者相似。结论:有 RNR 的患者与无 RNR 的患者的基线特征相似,症状也相似。手术前有 RNR 的患者在减压 2 年后的临床改善更好。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Clinical Importance of Redundant Nerve Roots in Patients With Symptomatic Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Secondary Analysis of NORDSTEN Spinal Stenosis Trial Data.

Study design: Post hoc analysis of data from a randomized clinical trial.

Objective: To compare preoperative symptoms of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis with and without redundant nerve roots (RNRs), and to compare the change in clinical outcomes between those two groups 2 years after decompression surgery.

Background: RNRs are often seen on magnetic resonance imaging in patients with spinal stenosis. Previous studies have reported that patients with RNR are older and have worse symptoms at baseline. A meta-analysis from 2018 concluded that this radiologic sign could be seen as a negative predictor of outcome. High-quality prospective studies are lacking.

Patients and methods: Patient characteristics and reported pain and function scores were compared between lumbar spinal stenosis groups with (RNR+) and without RNR (RNR-) at baseline and after 2 years of follow-up. The primary outcome was the mean change in the Oswestry Disability Score (Oswestry Disability Index). Secondary outcomes included mean change in scores of the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire and the Numerical Rating Scale for leg and back pains.

Results: Out of 416 patients included in the present analysis, 163 (39%) had RNR at baseline. Both groups were similar in regard to patient age, smoking habits, Body Mass Index, and duration of symptoms. Both groups also showed similar pain and function scores at baseline. The RNR+ group contained a significantly higher proportion of men, patients with severe stenosis and multiple stenotic levels on magnetic resonance imaging. At a 2-year follow-up, the mean change of the Oswestry Disability Index was -22.1 in the RNR+ group and -17.4 in the RNR- group [mean difference: 4.7 (95% CI: 1.3 to 8.2); P = 0.007]. Statistically significant differences were also found for secondary outcomes Zurich Claudication Questionnaire, and Numerical Rating Scale leg and back pains favoring the RNR+ group.

Conclusion: Patients with RNR had similar baseline characteristics and similar symptoms as patients without. RNR before surgery was associated with better clinical improvement 2 years after decompression.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Spine
Spine 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
6.70%
发文量
361
审稿时长
6.0 months
期刊介绍: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins is a leading international publisher of professional health information for physicians, nurses, specialized clinicians and students. For a complete listing of titles currently published by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins and detailed information about print, online, and other offerings, please visit the LWW Online Store. Recognized internationally as the leading journal in its field, Spine is an international, peer-reviewed, bi-weekly periodical that considers for publication original articles in the field of Spine. It is the leading subspecialty journal for the treatment of spinal disorders. Only original papers are considered for publication with the understanding that they are contributed solely to Spine. The Journal does not publish articles reporting material that has been reported at length elsewhere.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信