UNASSIGNED: There are many reports about the risk factors for recurrence after laminectomy surgery. Some surgeons use unilateral and bilateral fusion to provide sufficient stability to the lumbar spine. However, its strength, safety, and effectiveness in young patients are not widely known. Therefore, this study was conducted to compare surgical methods of laminectomy with unilateral and bilateral fixation and laminectomy alone without interbody fusion in young patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.
UNASSIGNED: 90 patients eligible for lumbar spinal stenosis surgery were selected through convenience sampling and randomly divided into three groups: laminectomy without fixation (A), laminectomy with unilateral fixation (B), and bilateral fixation (C). Pain, functional disability, quality of life, recurrent disc, adjacent segment disease (ASD), and fusion rate were evaluated and compared among the three groups six months post-surgery. The data were analyzed using SPSS version 16.
UNASSIGNED: Six months after surgery, the mean score of functional disability in the bilateral group was significantly higher than the other groups (12.92 (3.30) vs 5.52 (1.91) and 4.30 (1.84), P < 0.05). Also, the highest mean score of pain after surgery was observed in the bilateral group (4.33 (0.70) vs 1.81(0.68) and 1.63(0.56), P < 0.05). The mean score of quality of life in the unilateral group was significantly higher than the other groups (87.81 (5.67) vs 68.58 (3.08) and 56.07 (4.04), P < 0.05). No significant difference was observed between the groups (P > 0.05) regarding fusion, recurrent disc herniation, and adjacent segment disease.
UNASSIGNED: Unilateral fixation provides the same benefits as bilateral fixation but has the additional benefits of being less invasive and minimizing the disadvantages of other investigated techniques during and after surgery.

BACKGROUND: Patients surgically treated for lumbar spinal stenosis or cervical radiculopathy report improvement in approximately two out of three cases. Advancements in Machine Learning and the utility of large datasets have enabled the development of prognostic prediction models within spine surgery. This trial investigates if the use of the postoperative outcome prediction model, the Dialogue Support, can alter patient-reported outcome and satisfaction compared to current practice.
METHODS: This is a prospective, multicenter clinical trial. Patients referred to a spine clinic with cervical radiculopathy or lumbar spinal stenosis will be screened for eligibility. Participants will be assessed at baseline upon recruitment and at 12 months follow-up. The Dialogue Support will be used on all participants, and they will thereafter be placed into either a surgical or a non-surgical treatment arm, depending on the decision made between patient and surgeon. The surgical treatment group will be studied separately based on diagnosis of either cervical radiculopathy or lumbar spinal stenosis. Both the surgical and the non-surgical group will be compared to a retrospective matched control group retrieved from the Swespine register, on which the Dialogue Support has not been used. The primary outcome measure is global assessment regarding leg/arm pain in the surgical treatment group. Secondary outcome measures include patient satisfaction, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), EQ-5D, and Numeric Rating Scales (NRS) for pain. In the non-surgical treatment group primary outcome measures are EQ-5D and mortality, as part of a selection bias analysis.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study may provide evidence on whether the use of an advanced digital decision tool can alter patient-reported outcomes after surgery.
BACKGROUND: The trial was retrospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov on April 17th, 2023, NCT05817747.
METHODS: 1.
METHODS: Clinical multicenter trial.

OBJECTIVE: In this study, we aimed to investigate whether multi-segment fusion or fusion-to-sacrum increases sacroiliac joint (SIJ) pathology compared with single-segment fusion or a non-fused sacrum.
METHODS: This study included 116 patients who underwent lumbar or lumbosacral fusion and were followed up for 2 years. The patients were classified into single-segment fusion (n = 46) and multi-segment fusion (more than two levels, n = 70) groups and then reclassified into the non-fused sacrum (n = 68) and fusion-to-sacrum groups (n = 48). Preoperative and postoperative radiographs were used to evaluate radiographic parameters, and computed tomography (CT) was used to evaluate SIJ degeneration. Low back pain (LBP) was assessed using a visual analog scale (VAS, 0-10). Baseline and postoperative values were compared using a paired sample t-test.
RESULTS: LBP VAS scores significantly differed at 6 months (single-segment fusion, 3.04±1.88; multi-segment fusion, 4.83±2.33; P < 0.001) and 2 years postoperatively (single-segment fusion, 3.3±2.2; multi-segment fusion, 4.78±2.59; P = 0.094). There was no significant difference in SIJ degeneration, as assessed by CT scan, between the 2 surgical groups: 14 (30%) and 19 (27%) patients in the single-segment and multi-segment (P = 0.701) fusion groups, respectively. The LBP VAS scale showed comparable differences at 1 (non-fused sacrum, 3±2.18; fusion-to-sacrum, 3.74±2.28; P = 0.090) and 2 years postoperatively (non-fused sacrum, 3.29±2.01; fusion-to-sacrum, 4.66±2.71; P = 0.095). CT scan revealed that 18 (26%) and 15 (31%) patients in the non-fused sacrum and fusion-to-sacrum groups, respectively, developed SIJ arthritis; however, there was no significant intergroup difference (P = 0.574).
CONCLUSIONS: SIJ degeneration occurs independent of the number of fused segments or sacrum involvement.

In adult patients affected by degenerative disc disease with lumbar instability and chronic low back pain, spine surgery with lumbar fixation aims to reduce segmental instability and pain. Different techniques have been developed, but the optimal surgical technique remains controversial. No studies have compared the clinical and radiological outcomes between stand-alone pedicle screw fixation (SAPF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF). This was a retrospective study. All patients who underwent surgery for single-level L4-L5 or L5-S1 lumbar stenosis, associated with minor lumbar instability and treated with SAPF or MI-TLIF techniques were included in the study. Data were collected preoperatively and at 24 monts follow-up. Clinical primary outcomes were Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Numerical Rating Scale (NRS). Secondary outcomes were patient satisfaction, walking ability and self reported back and leg pain. In addition, perioperative data and complications were recorded. Segmental lordosis (L4-L5 and L5-S1) and overall lumbar lordosis (L1-S1) were measured on lumbar X-Rays preoperatively and at least 24 months postoperatively. 277 patients were firstly identified. Baseline data and a minimum of two-year follow-up were available for 62 patients. After the propensity score matching, 44 patients (22 patients in the SAPF group and 22 patients in the MI-TLIF group) were matched. At 24 months follow-up, no difference between the two groups of patients in NRS (p = 0.11) and ODI scores (p = 0.21) were observed. Patients\' satisfaction at follow-up was also not significantly different between the two groups. In both groups, a significant improvement in the walked distance was observed after surgery (p = 0.05) while no difference was observed regarding the type of surgery performed (p = 1.00). No differences were found in the pre- and post-operative median lumbar lordosis (p = 0.91 and p = 0.67) and the same findings were observed for lumbar segmental lordosis (p = 0.65 and p = 0.41 respectively). Significant improvements in ODI and NRS-scores were recorded after 24 months follow-up with both SAPF and MI-TLIF. No significant differences in postoperative PROMs and patients\' satisfaction were observed between the groups. The results of our study indicate no superiority of either surgical technique concerning pain and functional outcomes after 24 months.

To assess whether decompression alone is non-inferior to decompression with instrumented fusion five years after primary surgery in patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.
Five year follow-up of a randomised, multicentre, non-inferiority trial (Nordsten-DS).
16 public orthopaedic and neurosurgical clinics in Norway.
Patients aged 18-80 years with symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis and a spondylolisthesis of 3 mm or more at the stenotic level.
Decompression surgery alone and decompression with additional instrumented fusion (1:1).
The primary outcome was a 30% or more reduction in Oswestry disability index from baseline to five year follow-up. The predefined non-inferiority margin was a -15 percentage point difference in the proportion of patients who met the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included the mean change in Oswestry disability index, Zurich claudication questionnaire, numeric rating scale for leg and back pain, and EuroQol Group 5-Dimension (EQ-5D-3L) questionnaire.
From 12 February 2014 to 18 December 2017, 267 participants were randomly assigned to decompression alone (n=134) and decompression with instrumented fusion (n=133). Of these, 230 (88%) responded to the five year questionnaire: 121 in the decompression group and 109 in the fusion group. Mean age at baseline was 66.2 years (SD 7.6), and 69% were women. In the modified intention-to-treat analysis with multiple imputation of missing data, 84 (63%) of 133 people in the decompression alone group and 81 (63%) of 129 people in the fusion group had a at least a 30% reduction in Oswestry disability index, a difference of 0.4 percentage points. (95% confidence interval (CI) -11.2 to 11.9). The respective results of the per protocol analysis were 65 (65%) of 100 in the decompression alone group and 59 (66%) of 89 in the fusion group, a difference of -1.3 percentage points (95% CI -14.5 to 12.2). Both 95% CIs were higher than the predefined non-inferiority margin of -15%. The mean change in Oswestry disability index from baseline to five years was -17.8 in both groups (mean difference 0.02 (95% CI -3.8 to 3.9)). Results of the other secondary outcomes were in the same direction as the primary outcome. From two to five year follow-up, a new lumbar operation occurred in six (5%) of 123 people in the decompression group and 11 (10%) of 113 people in the fusion group, with a total from baseline to five years of 21 (16%) of 129 people and 23 (18%) of 125, respectively.
In participants with degenerative spondylolisthesis, decompression alone was non-inferior to decompression with instrumented fusion five years after primary surgery. Proportions of subsequent surgeries at the index level or an adjacent lumbar level were no different between the groups.
ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02051374.

BACKGROUND: Recent advancements in cervical interlaminar epidural steroid injections have given rise to the modified paramedian interlaminar (mPIL) approach. The objective of this study was to perform an analysis of the contrast spread pattern within the cervical epidural space, taking into account different needle tip positions in the mPIL approach.
METHODS: A total of 48 patients were included in the study and randomly assigned to either the medial or lateral group based on the needle tip\'s position in the anterior-posterior view. The primary outcome measured was the contrast flow under fluoroscopic visualization. As a secondary outcome, we analyzed the location of the needle tip position in both lateral and contralateral oblique views. Clinical effectiveness was assessed by measuring pain intensity and functional disability post-procedure.
RESULTS: Significant disparities were noted in the ventral distribution of contrast between the medial and lateral groups. In the lateral images, needle tips in the lateral group were positioned more ventrally compared to those in the medial group. Both groups exhibited statistically significant improvements in neck and radicular pain, as well as functional status, 4 weeks after treatment, with no significant differences between them.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that the ventral dispersion of contrast material during cervical interlaminar epidural steroid injections using the mPIL approach may vary depending on the needle tip location.

OBJECTIVE: Selective nerve root blocks (SNRB) are used both as a therapeutic and diagnostic tool for lumbar radicular pain. Most studies evaluate the effect of SNRB simply by its relation to pain reduction. It is well known that pain is associated with other factors such as depression, anxiety, inactivity and sleeping disorders, but these patient-related outcomes are seldom evaluated. This study evaluated the influence of SNRB on pain-related outcomes including depression, anxiety, fatigue, pain interference, activity and sleep.
METHODS: One hundred three patients with lumbar radicular pain were treated with a SNRB. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were assessed with the PROMIS-29 for 12 weeks (84 days) following the SNRB. Patients were stratified based on their pain reduction at the 14-day follow up as responders (≥ 30% pain reduction) and non-responders (< 30% pain reduction). Post-treatment duration was estimated with the Kaplan-Meier analysis with return to baseline as an event. A paired t-test was used to compare pre- and post-treatment responses at specific time intervals.
RESULTS: Forty-four percent (n = 45) of the patients were responders and showed significant improvement in all parameters throughout the 84-days follow-up, the exception was sleep that lost significance at day 70. The mean post-treatment duration among responders was 59 (52-67) days. Non-responders showed significant improvements in pain interference and pain intensity until day 35 and in ability for social participation until 21-day.
CONCLUSIONS: SNRB can improve pain intensity, pain interference, physical function, fatigue, anxiety, depression, sleep disturbance and the ability to participate in social roles.

BACKGROUND: An increase in epidural pressure around the stenosis has been observed in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) with positive signs of sedimentation or redundant nerve roots. Further analysis of the pressure conditions in the stenotic area would be of great interest. We hypothesized that it would be possible to determine the physiological parameters of the epidural pulse wave and its course in pathological stenosis as a basis for objective identification of LSS based on pressure using a new measuring method with continuous spatial and temporal resolution.
METHODS: We performed a single-case proof-of-principle in vivo animal trial and used a newly developed hybrid pressure-measurement probe with a fiber-tip Fabry-Pérot interferometer and several fiber Bragg gratings (FBG).
RESULTS: With reproducible precision, we determined the mean epidural pressure to be 7.5 mmHg and the peak-to-peak value to be 4-5 mmHg. When analyzing the pressure measured by an FBG array, both the heart and respiratory rates can be precisely determined. This study was the first to measure the pulse wave velocity of the cerebrospinal fluid pressure wave as 0.97 m/s using the newly developed pressure probe. A simulated LSS was detected in real time and located exactly.
CONCLUSIONS: The developed fiber-optic pressure sensor probe enables a new objective measurement of epidural pressure. We confirmed our hypothesis that physiological parameters of the epidural pulse wave can be determined and that it is possible to identify an LSS.