This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Letters to the Editor: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Letters to the Editor are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Grob, D
Right arrow Articles by Dvorak, J
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Grob, D
Right arrow Articles by Dvorak, J
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Vol 77, Issue 7 1036-1041, Copyright © 1995 by Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc


JOURNAL CONTENTS

Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Decompression with and without arthrodesis

D Grob, T Humke and J Dvorak
Spine Unit, Schulthess Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland.

We prospectively evaluated the results of decompression of the spine, with and without arthrodesis, for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis without instability in forty-five patients (twenty-one men and twenty-four women) who had been managed between November 1989 and November 1990. The average age at the time of the operation was sixty-seven years (range, forty-eight to eighty-seven years). The patients were randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups (fifteen patients in each group) according to when they were admitted to the hospital. Group I was treated with decompression with laminotomy and medial facetectomy; Group II, with decompression and arthrodesis of the most stenotic segment; and Group III, with decompression and arthrodesis of all of the decompressed vertebral segments. All of the operations were performed by the same surgeon. The average duration of follow-up was twenty-eight months (range, twenty-four to thirty-two months). All three groups had a significant improvement in the distance that the patients were able to walk at the time of the latest follow-up examination compared with before the operation (p < 0.001 for Group I, p < 0.002 for Group II, and p < 0.005 for Group III). With the numbers available, there were no significant differences in the results among the three groups with regard to the relief of pain (p = 0.25 for Group I compared with Group II, p = 0.36 for Group II compared with Group III, and p = 0.92 for Group I compared with Group III).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
NEJMHome page
R. A. Deyo, A. Nachemson, and S. K. Mirza
Spinal-Fusion Surgery -- The Case for Restraint
N. Engl. J. Med., February 12, 2004; 350(7): 722 - 726.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JBJSHome page
S. R. GARFIN, H. N. HERKOWITZ, and S. MIRKOVIC
Instructional Course Lectures, The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons - Spinal Stenosis*{{dagger}}
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., April 1, 1999; 81(4): 572 - 86.
[Full Text]


Home page
JBJSHome page
J. M. SPIVAK
Current Concepts Review - Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., July 1, 1998; 80(7): 1053 - 66.
[Full Text]