The Journal of Spinal Surgery

Register      Login

VOLUME 3 , ISSUE 1 ( January-March, 2016 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Management Protocol of Patients with Lumbar Spinal Stenosis, using the Qualitative Grading as a Tool

Shardul Madhav Soman, Jayprakash Vrajlal Modi

Citation Information : Soman SM, Modi JV. Management Protocol of Patients with Lumbar Spinal Stenosis, using the Qualitative Grading as a Tool. J Spinal Surg 2016; 3 (1):1-4.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10039-1074

Published Online: 01-03-2012

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2016; The Author(s).


Abstract

Objectives

Several parameters exist for assessment of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) but these parameters lack clinical correlation. To formulate a protocol for management of these group of patients using the qualitative grading as a tool.

Materials and methods

A prospective study was undertaken using the qualitative grading on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to assess the clinical outcome of LSS at a single level. Irrespective of the grade every patient underwent a minimum 3 months period of conservative management after which depending on the oswestry disability index (ODI) and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain he was grouped into success or failure and the failed patients were advised for decompression surgery at the involved level. These patients were then further assessed after a period of 3 months after surgery. A decrease in ODI by 10 points and a 20 points decrease in VAS was considered as a success.

Results

Out of the 90 patients, there were 61 failures in conservative group, out of these 57 were operated of which only nine did not match the success criteria, while the other four either refused surgery or were lost to follow-up. In grades A1 to 3, only two patients failed conservative trial while from A4 to D, there was a gradual decline in success of conservative trial.

Conclusion

Qualitative grading is a useful tool in LSS and correlates with the clinical outcome and to decision making of these patients.

How to cite this article

Soman SM, Modi JV. Management Protocol of Patients with Lumbar Spinal Stenosis, using the Qualitative Grading as a Tool. J Spinal Surg 2016;3(1):1-4.


PDF Share
  1. Abnormal magnetic imaging scans of the lumbar spine in asymptomatic subjects: a prospective investigation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1990;72:403-408.
  2. Magnetic resonance imaging of the lumbar spine in people without back pain. N Engl J Med 1994;331:69-73.
  3. Treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: a balancing act. Spine J 2010;10(7):625-627.
  4. Qualitative grading of severity of lumbar spinal stenosis based on the morphology of the dural sac on magnetic resonance images. Spine 2010;35:1919-1924.
  5. Measuring pain and efficacy of pain treatment in inflammatory arthritis: a systematic literature review. J Rheumatol Suppl 2012 Sep;90:3-10.
  6. Swedish lumbar spine study group: the clinical importance of changes in outcome scores after treatment for chronic low back pain. Eur Spine J 2003;12(1):12-20.
  7. Spinal stenosis. London: Edward Arnold; 1991.
  8. Spinal-fusion surgery: the case for restraint. N Engl J Med 2004;350(7):722-726.
  9. Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: an evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine J 2008;8(2):305-310.
  10. The stenosis ratio: a new tool for the diagnosis of degenerative spinal stenosis. Int J Surg Investig 1999;1:127-131.
  11. MR evaluation of lumbar spinal stenosis: is rapid visual assessment as good as area measurement? Eur Spine J 2014;23:1320-1324.
  12. Reliability of the clinical examination in the diagnosis of neurogenic versus vascular claudication. Spine J 2013;13(12):1826-1834.
  13. Surgery versus conservative treatment for symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Spine 2011;36(20):E1335-1351.
  14. Is surgery more effective than nonsurgical treatment for spinal stenosis, and which nonsurgical treatment is more effective? A systematic review. Physiotherapy 2013;99(1):12-20.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.