Skip to main content Skip to main navigation menu Skip to site footer

Functional evaluation of lumbar spinal stenosis treated with conservative treatment retrospective study



Abstract

Background: Approximately 75% men have low-back pain, and most of them come to get treated for acute low-back pain and cure without operation. Conservative treatment procedures, including surgery, have never been evaluated carefully. Objectives: To assess the efficacy of conservative treatment in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis (LSS) and how to choose the patient for conservative treatment. Material and Methods: As many as 30 patients (9 men and 21 women) who were undergoing treatment between January and December 2014 in Orthopaedic and Traumatology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Airlangga Unversity-dr. Soetomo General Hospital, Orthopaedic and Traumatology Hospital (RSOT) Surabaya were recruited for the study. The mean of age of the participants was 51.9 years LSS (diagnostic with plain radiography and MRI) without indicated operation and they were treated conservatively with TENS, WSD, and ultrasonography and NSAIDs for 6–12 weeks. We evaluate VAS and ODI and assigned scores to predict the efficacy of conservative treatment. Results: VAS decreased significantly in patients with mild and moderate VAS prior to conservative treatment 68.1% (p < 0.001). ODI improved significantly in a patient with a mild and moderate disability prior to conservative treatment 87.5% (p < 0,000). On the basis of scores assigned to predict the efficacy of conservative treatment, we fixed sensitivity and specificity at cut point £ 3.50. Conclusions: Conservative treatment can be effective in some LSS patients if the indications are correctly presented.

Keywords: Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Conservative treatment TENS ODI

References

  1. Hsiang, J. K. (2014, September 28). medscape. Retrieved June 25, 2014, from medscape: http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1913265-overview
  2. Boos, N. (2008). Spinal Disorder. (M. Aebi, Ed.) New York, USA: Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
  3. Shamie, A. N. (2011, May 1). aaos. (American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons) Retrieved June 28, 2014, from aaos.org: http://www.aaos.org/news/aaosnow/may11/clinical10.asp
  4. Harrast, M. A. (2007). Epidural steroid injections for lumbar spinal stenosis . Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med , 1, 32-38.
  5. Jorm Nellensteijn, R. O. (2010). Transforaminal endoscopic surgery for lumbar stenosis: a systematic review . Eur Spine J , 19, 879-886.
  6. Herkowitz, H. N. (2011). The Spine (Vol. II). Philadelphia, USA: Saunders Elsevier.
  7. Genevay, S. (2010). Lumbar Spinal Stenosis. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol , 24 (2), 253-265.
  8. Tran, D. Q. (2010). Lumbar spinal stenosis: a brief review of the nonsurgical management. Can J Anesth , 57, 694-703.
  9. Kaloostian, P. E. (2013). Surgical Versus Non-surgical Management of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis. Curr Phys Med Rehabil Rep , 1, 169-175.
  10. Mazanec, D. J. (2002). Lumbar canal stenosis: Start with nonsurgical therapy . Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine , 69 (11), 909-917.
  11. Wong, D. A. (2007). Macnab's Backache. Colorado: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
  12. Cricillo, S. F. (1993). Lumbar Spinal Stenosis. West J Med , 158, 171-177.
  13. Postacchini, F. (1995). Management of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery , 154-164.
  14. Tomita, K. (2003). Diagnosis and Treatment of Lumbar Spinal Canal Stenosis. JMAJ , 46 (10), 439-444.
  15. Akuthota, V. (2003). Pathogenesis of lumbar spinal stenosis pain: why does an asymptomatic stenotic patient flare? Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am , 14, 17-28.
  16. Lohman, C. M. (2006). Comparison of Radiologic Signs and Clinical Symptoms of Spinal Stenosis . Spine , 31 (16), 1834-1840.
  17. Steurer, J. (2011). Quantitative radiologic criteria for the diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic literature review. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders , 12, 1-9.
  18. Porter, R. W. (1996). Spinal Stenosis and neurogenic claudication. Spine , 21 (17), 2046-2052.
  19. Kreiner, D. S. (2011). Diagnosis and Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis. Boulevard, USA: North American Spine Soc.
  20. Kovacs, F. M. (2011). Surgery Versus Conservative Treatment for Symptomatic Lumbar Spinal Stenosis. Spine , 36 (20), 1335-1351.
  21. M, D., & J, K. (2010). The Oswestry Disability Index. Spine , 25 (22), 2940-2953.
  22. Shah, S. N. (2015). Comparative Study of Conservative Versus Operative Treatment of Lumbar Canal Stenosis (Vol. 70). Vadodara: Gujarat Medical Journal.
  23. Josimari M. DeSantana, e. a. (2008). Effectiveness of Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation for Treatment of Hyperalgesia and Pain (Vol. 10). Sergipe, Brazil: Curr Rheumatol Rep.
  24. D. Scott Kreiner, e. a. (2011). Evidence-Based Clinical Guidelines for Multidisciplinary Spine Care. USA: North American Spine Society.
  25. Shabat. (2006). Failure of conservative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis in elderly patients. Arch Gerontol Geriatr , 44 (3), 235-41.

How to Cite

Irianto, K. A., & Gaol, I. L. (2017). Functional evaluation of lumbar spinal stenosis treated with conservative treatment retrospective study. Bali Medical Journal, 6(2), 258–262. https://doi.org/10.15562/bmj.v6i2.481
ACM ACS APA ABNT Chicago Harvard IEEE MLA Turabian Vancouver
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS) BibTeX

HTML
3

Total
1 2

Share

Search Panel

Komang Agung Irianto
Google Scholar
Pubmed
BMJ Journal

Imelda Lumban Gaol
Google Scholar
Pubmed
BMJ Journal