Abstract
Introduction
The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcome of spinal process osteotomy with two other midline-retaining methods, bilateral laminotomy and unilateral laminotomy with crossover, among patients undergoing surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis.
Methods
This cohort study was based on data from the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery (NORspine). Patients were operated on between 2009 and 2013 at 31 Norwegian hospitals. The patients completed questionnaires at admission for surgery, and after 3 and 12 months. The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were duration of surgery and hospital stay, Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) for back pain and leg pain, and EQ-5D and EQ-VAS. The patients were classified into one of three treatment groups according to the surgery they had received, and a propensity score was utilized to minimize bias. The three treatment groups were divided into subgroups based on Propensity Scores, and the statistical analyses were performed with and within the Propensity Score stratified subgroups.
Results
103 patients had spinal process osteotomy, 966 patients had bilateral laminotomy, and 462 patients had unilateral laminotomy with crossover. Baseline clinical scores were similar in the three groups. There were no differences in improvement after 3 and 12 months between treatment groups. At 12 months, mean ODI improvement was 15.2 (SD 16.7) after spinous process osteotomy, 16.9 (SD 17.0) after bilateral laminotomy, and 16.7 (SD 16.9) after unilateral laminotomy with crossover. There were no differences in the secondary clinical outcomes or complication rates. Mean duration of surgery was greatest for spinal process osteotomy (p < 0.05). Length of stay was 2.1 days (SD 2.1) in the bilateral laminotomy group, 3.5 (SD 2.4) days for unilateral laminotomy, and 6.9 days (SD 4.1) for spinous process osteotomy group (p < 0.05).
Conclusion
In a propensity scored matched cohort, there were no differences in the clinical outcome 12 months after surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis performed using the three different posterior decompression techniques. Bilateral laminotomy had shortest duration of surgery and shortest length of hospital stay. Surgical technique does not seem to affect clinical outcome after three different midline-retaining posterior decompression techniques.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Several posterior decompression techniques are used for decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS), but there is neither evidence to recommend one particular technique nor to suggest how extensive the decompression should be [1–3]. To our knowledge, there are no objective scientific criteria that can guide the extent of decompression needed. Neither radiological parameters, neuromonitoring, nor epidural pressure monitoring have been useful in deciding surgical technique or the extent of decompression needed. Bilateral laminotomy has been compared to a full laminectomy in some trials. One study found superior clinical results after bilateral laminotomy compared to laminectomy [4], but these findings have not been confirmed by subsequent studies [5–8]. Unilateral laminotomy with crossover has also been presented as a minimally invasive surgical technique, but clinical results have been reported to be equal to bilateral laminotomy [9–11]. Both bilateral laminotomy and unilateral laminotomy with crossover have gained popularity as midline-preserving methods, and are considered to reduce the risk of iatrogenic post-operative instability, as compared to laminectomy, but scientific evidence is lacking.
Another midline-preserving method is spinal process osteotomy, which was first introduced in 1978 by Yong-Hing and Kirkaldy-Willis [12]. Theoretically, this method may have some advantages over other midline-preserving methods, including better visualization of the spinal canal and the lateral recesses, facilitating a more extensive decompression. Studies of spinal process osteotomy have shown good clinical results [13–15], but the effectiveness has not been compared with the other midline-preserving methods. Takaso et al. reported in 2011 [16] that a modified version could be performed with a minimally invasive surgical technique with good results.
While the proposed advantages of posterior decompression techniques that limit the extent of bony decompression or avoid removal of posterior midline structures regarding iatrogenic instability and post-operative low back pain are plausible, the scientific evidence documenting these advantages is lacking. A recently published Cochrane review evaluated 10 trials and 733 patients, treated with different midline-preserving and conventional techniques, concluded that the studies were of very low quality, and that further research is necessary to compare the safety and effectiveness of these decompression techniques [3].
The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical outcome after spinal process osteotomy and compare them to bilateral laminotomy and unilateral laminotomy with crossover.
Methods
Study population
This cohort study is based on data from the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery (NORspine). During the given period 31 of 36 (86 %), hospitals in Norway were reporting to the NORspine register. Patients with lumbar spinal stenosis who had midline-retaining decompression in the period from 1/1-2009 to 11/3-2013 at 31 Norwegian hospitals were included. The NORspine register does not record spinal process osteotomy in the register forms. The bilateral laminotomy and unilateral laminotomy with crossover groups were identified from the register from 27 hospitals not performing spinal process osteotomy. In three other hospitals, spinal process osteotomy is performed occasionally, and patients from these hospitals were excluded. The spinal process osteotomy group was identified manually by reviewing the operative protocol for all patients who had surgery for LSS at one large hospital (the Coastal Hospital in Hagevik), performing this type of surgery on a regular basis. Patients missing exact data about the surgical method or who had a unilateral decompression were excluded. Informed consent was obtained from all participants. The registry protocol was approved by the Norwegian board of ethics, REC Central (2014/98).
Patient-reported outcome measures
The patient questionnaires were self-administered and identical at admission for surgery (baseline) and at 3 and 12 months follow-up; they contained established patient-reported outcome measures. At baseline, the forms include additional questions about demographics and lifestyle issues. During the hospital stay data, concerning comorbidity; radiological classifications; American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade; perioperative complications; operation method; duration of surgery; and hospital stay were recorded by the surgeon.
Primary outcome
Pain-related function was assessed by the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire, Norwegian version 2.0, (ODI) [17], and change in the ODI score was chosen as the primary outcome measure. ODI scores range from 0 (no disability) to 100 (worst possible).
Secondary outcomes
Secondary outcome measures were duration of surgery, length of stay, health related quality of life, measured by the EQ-5D (ranging from −0.59 to 1), EQ-VAS, leg pain and back pain numeric rating from 0 (no) to 10 (worst possible), and a seven point global perceived effect scale (1 = completely recovered, 2 = much improved, 3 = slightly improved, 4 = no change, 5 = slightly worse, 6 = much worse, and 7 = worse than ever).
The NRS pain scales, ODI, and EQ-5D have shown good validity and reliability, and the Norwegian versions of these instruments have shown good psychometric properties [18–20].
We also analyzed differences between patients who were excluded and those included in the trial, both at baseline and during follow-up.
Statistics
Propensity score matching (PSM) [21] is frequently used in orthopedic research [22, 23] to reduce selection bias and confounding caused by a non-random treatment assignment. The patients are then divided into subgroups according to their propensity scores, and the statistical analysis is performed within these subgroups. The purpose is to balance prognostic factors in different patients in order. A propensity score is calculated by summarizing a score generated by logistic regression analysis from different baseline parameters to balance groups with respect to factors that may influence clinical outcome.
The Propensity Score was performed by three logistic regression models for each combination of treatment groups, using the following baseline variables: age, gender, smoking, education, hip/knee arthritis, ischemic heart disease, vascular claudication, osteoporosis, hypertension, diabetes, and the number of levels operated on. All variables, except gender, differed significantly between at least two groups in the unadjusted sample. The individuals from each comparison were then stratified into three or five subgroups (three when spinal process osteotomy was involved, due to the smaller number in this group) based on their Propensity Score. Statistical analysis was performed between the PSM subgroups with the two-way ANOVA. Unmatched comparisons between the three treatments groups were made by the one-way ANOVA for continuous variables, Kruskal–Wallis test for ordinal variables, and Pearson’s Chi-square test for categorical variables. A p value <0.05 was regarded statistically significant without adjustment for multiple comparisons.
Results
Of 2935 patients screened, 1531 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria, and were included in the study. Follow-up response rates varied from 71.4 to 86.4 % (Fig. 1).
Baseline data
There were small differences in baseline data between patients who were excluded and those included in the study (Table 1). The mean age of the excluded patients [61.9 years (SD 12.0)] was almost 4 years younger (p < 0.05) than those included in the study [65.7 years (SD 10.7)]. Number of levels operated on were 1.3 (SD 0.6) for the excluded versus 1.4 (SD 0.5) for those included (p < 0.05). There were 27 % smokers in the excluded group and 24 % in the included group. Otherwise, there were no differences between excluded and included patients (Table 1).
We identified 103 patients treated by spinal process osteotomy, 966 by bilateral laminotomy, and 462 by unilateral laminotomy with crossover. There were small differences in clinical scores between the groups at baseline. Patients who underwent bilateral laminotomy with crossover were younger (p < 0.05), and the spinal process osteotomy group had more patients with multilevel surgery (p < 0.05) (Table 1).
Primary outcome
Analysis of primary and secondary outcome measures after 12 months showed no differences between the patients excluded from the study versus the patients included.
The clinical improvement was most pronounced at 3 months, and then slightly reduced at 12 months after surgery for the whole cohort (Table 2; Fig. 2). The mean unadjusted improvement in ODI points at 12 months was 15.2 (SD 16.7) in the spinous process osteotomy group, 16.9 (SD 17.0) in the bilateral laminotomy group, and 16.7 (SD 16.9) in the unilateral laminotomy with crossover group (Table 2). Differences between the three groups were not statistically significant. The adjusted mean improvement in ODI in the propensity scores stratified subgroups was not significantly different.
Secondary outcomes
There were no significant differences in patient-reported outcome measures between the three surgical groups (Table 2).
The chosen operation method had no impact on self-assessed improvement, which was reported in 84.8 % in the spinous process osteotomy group, 80.8 % in the bilateral laminotomy group, and 80.1 % in the unilateral laminotomy with crossover group. A worse outcome was reported by 8.2, 10.2, and 9.5 %, respectively (Table 3).
When summarizing Table 3, 80.8 % of the included patients report that they are “slightly improved,” “much improved,” or “completely recovered”. If one uses a success criteria that is “much improved” or “completely recovered” 59.5 % of the included patients report clinical success.
A complete overview of the improvement in clinical scores (ODI, EQ-5D, NRS leg pain, NRS back pain, and EQ-VAS) within the global perceived effect scale subgroups is shown in Table 4.
The bilateral laminotomy procedure lasted shorter than unilateral laminotomy with crossover and spinal process osteotomy. Bilateral laminotomy lasted 85 min (SD 37), unilateral laminotomy with crossover 104 min (SD 40), and spinous process osteotomy 121 min (SD 41), whereas length of hospital stay was 2.1 days (SD 2.1) following bilateral laminotomy, 3.5 days (SD 2.4) following unilateral laminotomy with crossover, and 6.9 days (SD 4.1) days following spinal process osteotomy. These findings were significantly different between groups in both the analyses (Table 2).
Complications included accidental dural tears, nerve root injury, wrong level surgery, peri-operative bleeding requiring transfusion, respiratory, or cardiac complications. There were no significant differences in the number of reported complications (Table 2).
We also analyzed the clinical data for the three methods at the single institution, where the spinous process osteotomy group was operated. There were no significant differences in the baseline data or clinical outcome, complications, duration of surgery, or length of stay between the three groups at this particular hospital.
Discussion
In the present study, clinical outcomes were similar in patients treated with three posterior decompression techniques for lumbar spinal stenosis, both regarding improvement and worsening. In total, 80.8 % of the patients reported improvement, and few patients reported a worse outcome (9.8 %).
These findings are in accordance with a previous study from the Spine Tango register [23], in which no differences in the patient-reported outcome measures after 24 months were reported following four different surgical methods (laminectomy with fusion, laminectomy, hemi-laminectomy, and laminotomy). A recent publication from NORspine reported similar results when comparing laminectomy to micro-decompression [24]. Most of the studies evaluating different surgical techniques have a relatively short (less than 3 years) follow-up [4–8, 11, 23]. In this study, the clinical outcome deteriorated slightly from 3 to 12 months of follow-up. This suggests that longer time for follow-up is warranted. In addition, Overdevest et al. who recently published a Cochrane review on posterior decompression techniques concluded that studies with longer follow-up are warranted [3].
Baseline data regarding pain and function were similar in the three groups. The patients in the unilateral laminotomy with crossover group were younger, and more levels were operated in the spinal process osteotomy group. When adjusting for these differences by the propensity score matching method, we found no differences in primary outcome. Two recent publications concluded that smoking was associated to less improvement after surgery, while increased age was not [25, 26]. In this trial, these factors were incorporated in the propensity score matching, and would, therefore, not confound the comparison of treatment groups.
Although differences at baseline and in outcome measures between the included and excluded patients were small, (Table 1), the included patients were somewhat older, and were operated on at more levels than excluded patients. Both groups reported improved clinical scores after surgery (Table 3). Given these small differences between included and excluded patients, the trial has a high external validity.
When generally accepted definitions of minimally clinical important differences are used [27–29], 80.8 % of the included patients reported a clinically meaningful improvement at follow-up. These results are in accordance with previous reports of minimally important clinical differences in spine surgery [27, 29–32]. Of the patients, 9.8 % reported deterioration after the surgery; this number is also in correspondence with previous trials [33]. Recent year’s clinical success or substantial improvement has been considered as more important than minimal change by several authors [33–36]. In the present study, 59.5 % of the patients altogether had a substantial improvement, when the success criteria “completely recovered” or “much improved” in the global perceived effect scale were applied. No major differences between the surgical groups were found in the global perceived effect scale (Table 3).
A limitation of the present study is that all the spinal process osteotomy procedures were performed at one single orthopedic educational institution. This is considered to be the only high-volume hospital, where orthopedic consultants and residents are performing spinous process osteotomy on a regular basis. This may lead to selection bias and reduce the validity for the findings concerning process osteotomy, even in the propensity score matched cohorts. This single institution had longer duration of surgery and hospital stay, also when performing bilateral laminotomy and unilateral laminotomy with crossover, probably due to local traditions. The effectiveness of all procedures should, therefore, preferably be assessed in a high-quality clinical trial. The NORspine register collects clinical data from follow-up at 3 and 12 months. Not having data for 24 months follow-up, in comparison to the Spine Tango-based paper by Munting et al. [23], is, therefore, another limitation of the present study.
Unilateral laminotomy with crossover is by some considered to be the most technically challenging surgical method with a longer learning curve, and one might expect a longer duration of the operation and a higher rate of complications. The present study only partly confirms these assumptions. Although unilateral laminotomy with crossover lasted longer than bilateral laminotomy, the three operations had similar complication rates. On the other hand, complications may have been underreported [37]. Since unilateral laminotomy with crossover is considered to be more technically challenging, possibly the most experienced surgeons perform this procedure. However, data on surgeon’s experience are not recorded in the NORspine register.
The bilateral laminotomy procedure had shorter duration of surgery compared to the unilateral laminotomy with crossover and spinous process osteotomy procedures. The patients who had a bilateral laminotomy procedure also had a shorter hospital stay than the unilateral laminotomy with crossover group and the spinous process osteotomy group. Despite the fact that all patients in the spinous process osteotomy group were treated in a single institution, which might have influenced the length of hospital stay, the large difference suggests that the spinous process osteotomy is more expensive.
The main goal of surgery for LSS is to reduce pain and disability by relieving the actual stenosis in the affected level of the spine. The amount of bony and ligamentous structures that is removed varies between the posterior decompression techniques applied in this study. It is, however, still unclear how much of the bony and ligamentous structures outside and inside the spinal canal needs to be removed to achieve satisfactory long-term results with minimal iatrogenic complications. To date, we are lacking objective criteria of how extensive the surgical procedure needs to be.
Conclusion
In this prospective study from the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery, no differences in clinical outcome 12 months after decompression of the spinal canal by spinal process osteotomy, bilateral laminotomy, or unilateral laminotomy with crossover were found. Bilateral laminotomy had the shortest duration of surgery and the shortest length of hospital stay. Surgical technique does not seem to affect clinical outcome after three different midline-retaining posterior decompression techniques. A randomized study is needed to assess the relative efficacy of these surgical procedures.
References
Gibson JN, Waddell G (2005) Surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylosis: updated Cochrane review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30:2312–2320
Jacobs WC, Rubinstein SM, Willems PC, Moojen WA, Pellise F, Oner CF, Peul WC, van Tulder MW (2013) The evidence on surgical interventions for low back disorders, an overview of systematic reviews. Eur Spine J 22:1936–1949. doi:10.1007/s00586-013-2823-4
Overdevest GM, Jacobs W, Vleggeert-Lankamp C, Thome C, Gunzburg R, Peul W (2015) Effectiveness of posterior decompression techniques compared with conventional laminectomy for lumbar stenosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 3:CD010036. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD010036.pub2
Thome C, Zevgaridis D, Leheta O, Bazner H, Pockler-Schoniger C, Wohrle J, Schmiedek P (2005) Outcome after less-invasive decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis: a randomized comparison of unilateral laminotomy, bilateral laminotomy, and laminectomy. J Neurosurg Spine 3:129–141
Delank KS, Eysel P, Zollner J, Drees P, Nafe B, Rompe JD (2002) Undercutting decompression versus laminectomy. Clinical and radiological results of a prospective controlled trial. Orthopade 31:1048–1056
Fu YS, Zeng BF, Xu JG (2008) Long-term outcomes of two different decompressive techniques for lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33:514–518
Postacchini F, Cinotti G, Perugia D, Gumina S (1993) The surgical treatment of central lumbar stenosis. Multiple laminotomy compared with total laminectomy. J Bone Joint Surg Br 75:386–392
Thomas NW, Rea GL, Pikul BK, Mervis LJ, Irsik R, McGregor JM (1997) Quantitative outcome and radiographic comparisons between laminectomy and laminotomy in the treatment of acquired lumbar stenosis. Neurosurgery 41:567–574
Arai Y, Hirai T, Yoshii T, Sakai K, Kato T, Enomoto M, Matsumoto R, Yamada T, Kawabata S, Shinomiya K, Okawa A (2014) A Prospective comparative study of 2 minimally invasive decompression procedures for lumbar spinal canal stenosis: unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (ULBD) versus muscle-preserving interlaminar decompression (MILD). Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 39:332–340. doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000000136
Dalgic A, Uckun O, Ergungor MF, Okay O, Daglioglu E, Hatipoglu G, Pasaoglu L, Caglar YS (2010) Comparison of unilateral hemilaminotomy and bilateral hemilaminotomy according to dural sac area in lumbar spinal stenosis. Minim Invasive Neurosurg 53:60–64
Hong SW, Choi KY, Ahn Y, Baek OK, Wang JC, Lee SH, Lee HY (2011) A comparison of unilateral and bilateral laminotomies for decompression of L4–L5 spinal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36:E172–E178
Yong-Hing K, Kirkaldy-Willis WH (1978) Osteotomy of lumbar spinous process to increase surgical exposure. Clin Orthop Relat Res 134:218–220
Gunzburg R, Keller TS, Szpalski M, Vandeputte K, Spratt KF (2003) A prospective study on CT scan outcomes after conservative decompression surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. J Spinal Disord Tech 16:261–267
Gunzburg R, Szpalski M (2003) The conservative surgical treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis in the elderly. Eur Spine J 12(Suppl 2):S176–S180
Hermansen E, Moen G, Barstad J, Birketvedt R, Indrekvam K (2013) Laminarthrectomy as a surgical approach for decompressing the spinal canal: assessment of preoperative versus postoperative dural sac cross-sectional areal (DSCSA). Eur Spine J 22:1913–1919. doi:10.1007/s00586-013-2737-1
Takaso M, Nakazawa T, Imura T, Okada T, Fukushima K, Ueno M, Saito W, Shintani R, Sakagami H, Takahashi K, Yamazaki M, Ohtori S, Kotani T (2011) Less invasive and less technically demanding decompressive procedure for lumbar spinal stenosis—appropriate for general orthopaedic surgeons? Int Orthop 35:67–73. doi:10.1007/s00264-010-0986-8
Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB (2000) The Oswestry Disability Index. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25:2940–2952
Solberg TK, Olsen JA, Ingebrigtsen T, Hofoss D, Nygaard OP (2005) Health-related quality of life assessment by the EuroQol-5D can provide cost-utility data in the field of low-back surgery. Eur Spine J 14:1000–1007
Nord E (1991) EuroQol: health-related quality of life measurement. Valuations of health states by the general public in Norway. Health Policy 18:25–36
Rabin R, Charro FD (2001) EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Ann Med 33:337–343
Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB (1983) The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 70:41–55
Carreon LY, Glassman SD, Kantamneni NR, Mugavin MO, Djurasovic M (2010) Clinical outcomes after posterolateral lumbar fusion in workers’ compensation patients: a case–control study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35:1812–1817. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181c68b75
Munting E, Roder C, Sobottke R, Dietrich D, Aghayev E (2014) Patient outcomes after laminotomy, hemilaminectomy, laminectomy and laminectomy with instrumented fusion for spinal canal stenosis: a propensity score-based study from the Spine Tango registry. Eur Spine J. doi:10.1007/s00586-014-3349-0
Nerland US, Jakola AS, Solheim O, Weber C, Rao V, Lonne G, Solberg TK, Salvesen O, Carlsen SM, Nygaard OP, Gulati S (2015) Minimally invasive decompression versus open laminectomy for central stenosis of the lumbar spine: pragmatic comparative effectiveness study. BMJ 350:h1603. doi:10.1136/bmj.h1603
Rihn JA, Hilibrand AS, Zhao W, Lurie JD, Vaccaro AR, Albert TJ, Weinstein J (2015) Effectiveness of surgery for lumbar stenosis and degenerative spondylolisthesis in the octogenarian population: analysis of the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) data. J Bone Joint Surg Am 97:177–185. doi:10.2106/jbjs.n.00313
Gulati S, Nordseth T, Nerland US, Gulati M, Weber C, Giannadakis C, Nygaard OP, Solberg TK, Solheim O, Jakola AS (2015) Does daily tobacco smoking affect outcomes after microdecompression for degenerative central lumbar spinal stenosis?—a multicenter observational registry-based study. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 157:1157–1164. doi:10.1007/s00701-015-2437-1
Copay AG, Glassman SD, Subach BR, Berven S, Schuler TC, Carreon LY (2008) Minimum clinically important difference in lumbar spine surgery patients: a choice of methods using the Oswestry Disability Index, Medical Outcomes Study questionnaire Short Form 36, and pain scales. Spine J 8:968–974
Hagg O, Fritzell P, Oden A, Nordwall A (2002) Simplifying outcome measurement: evaluation of instruments for measuring outcome after fusion surgery for chronic low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 27:1213–1222
Parker SL, Adogwa O, Mendenhall SK, Shau DN, Anderson WN, Cheng JS, Devin CJ, McGirt MJ (2012) Determination of minimum clinically important difference (MCID) in pain, disability, and quality of life after revision fusion for symptomatic pseudoarthrosis. Spine J 12:1122–1128. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2012.10.006
Hagg O, Fritzell P, Nordwall A (2003) The clinical importance of changes in outcome scores after treatment for chronic low back pain. Eur Spine J 12:12–20
Hagg O, Fritzell P, Ekselius L, Nordwall A (2003) Predictors of outcome in fusion surgery for chronic low back pain. A report from the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study. Eur Spine J 12:22–33
Parker SL, Mendenhall SK, Shau D, Adogwa O, Cheng JS, Anderson WN, Devin CJ, McGirt MJ (2012) Determination of minimum clinically important difference in pain, disability, and quality of life after extension of fusion for adjacent-segment disease. J Neurosurg Spine 16:61–67
Nerland US, Jakola AS, Giannadakis C, Solheim O, Weber C, Nygaard OP, Solberg TK, Gulati S (2015) The risk of getting worse: predictors of deterioration after decompressive surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis: a multicenter observational study. World Neurosurg 84:1095–1102. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2015.05.055
Dworkin RH, Turk DC, McDermott MP, Peirce-Sandner S, Burke LB, Cowan P, Farrar JT, Hertz S, Raja SN, Rappaport BA, Rauschkolb C, Sampaio C (2009) Interpreting the clinical importance of group differences in chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain 146:238–244. doi:10.1016/j.pain.2009.08.019
Dworkin RH, Turk DC, Wyrwich KW, Beaton D, Cleeland CS, Farrar JT, Haythornthwaite JA, Jensen MP, Kerns RD, Ader DN, Brandenburg N, Burke LB, Cella D, Chandler J, Cowan P, Dimitrova R, Dionne R, Hertz S, Jadad AR, Katz NP, Kehlet H, Kramer LD, Manning DC, McCormick C, McDermott MP, McQuay HJ, Patel S, Porter L, Quessy S, Rappaport BA, Rauschkolb C, Revicki DA, Rothman M, Schmader KE, Stacey BR, Stauffer JW, von Stein T, White RE, Witter J, Zavisic S (2008) Interpreting the clinical importance of treatment outcomes in chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. J Pain 9:105–121. doi:10.1016/j.jpain.2007.09.005
Solberg T, Johnsen LG, Nygaard OP, Grotle M (2013) Can we define success criteria for lumbar disc surgery?: estimates for a substantial amount of improvement in core outcome measures. Acta Orthop 84:196–201. doi:10.3109/17453674.2013.786634
Ohrn A, Olai A, Rutberg H, Nilsen P, Tropp H (2011) Adverse events in spine surgery in Sweden: a comparison of patient claims data and national quality register (Swespine) data. Acta Orthop 82:727–731. doi:10.3109/17453674.2011.636673
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
None.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hermansen, E., Romild, U.K., Austevoll, I.M. et al. Does surgical technique influence clinical outcome after lumbar spinal stenosis decompression? A comparative effectiveness study from the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery. Eur Spine J 26, 420–427 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4643-9
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4643-9