3.9 Article

One-staged Combined Cervical and Lumbar Decompression for Patients With Tandem Spinal Stenosis on Cervical and Lumbar Spine Analyses of Clinical Outcomes With Minimum 3 Years Follow-up

期刊

JOURNAL OF SPINAL DISORDERS & TECHNIQUES
卷 22, 期 8, 页码 593-601

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e3181929cbd

关键词

tandem spinal stenosis; surgical treatment; cervical spine; lumbar spine; middle-term clinical outcome

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Study Design: Retrospective study of clinical outcomes of 1-staged combined cervical and lumbar decompression for patients with tandem spinal stenosis (TSS). Objective: To describe middle-term clinical outcomes of this procedure. Summary and Background Data: Little is known with regard to the clinical outcomes of 1-staged combined cervical and lumbar decompression for TSS. Method: Surgical intervention, perioperative complications, and clinical outcomes were reviewed in 17 TSS patients who underwent 1-staged combined cervical and lumbar decompression and were followed-up for more than 3 years. Clinical symptoms were evaluated using the Japan Orthopaedic Association Score for back pain (JOA-B) and cervical myelopathy (JOA-C) and activity of daily life, before surgery, at 6 months postoperatively, and at final follow-up. Patient satisfaction was determined at final follow-up. Results: The JOA-B, JOA-C scores, and activities of daily life improved significantly 6 months after surgery, but ultimately deteriorated. At 6 months, the improvement ratios in JOA-B and JOA-C scores were positively correlated. Complications involving other parts of the body significantly influenced clinical deterioration. Twelve patients (71%) were satisfied. Conclusions: One-staged combined cervical and lumbar decompression for TSS provided fair results, even for elderly patients. Although reasons other than spinal pathology affected symptom deterioration at final follow-up, most patients expressed satisfaction at middle-term follow-up periods.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据