Download PDF
Arthritis und Rheuma 2016; 36(06): 382-391
DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1617509
Indikationsqualität in der Orthopädie/Rheumatologie
Schattauer GmbH

Diagnostik und Therapie der lumbalen Spinalkanalstenose

Aktuelle EmpfehlungenDiagnosis and treatment of lumbar spinal stenosisCurrent recommendations
C. Schäfer
1   Klinik für Wirbelsäulenchirurgie, Klinikum Bad Bramstedt, Bad Bramstedt
2   Klinik und Poliklinik für Orthopädie Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg
,
W. Rüther
2   Klinik und Poliklinik für Orthopädie Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg
,
M. Schroeder
1   Klinik für Wirbelsäulenchirurgie, Klinikum Bad Bramstedt, Bad Bramstedt
2   Klinik und Poliklinik für Orthopädie Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
20 December 2017 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Die degenerative lumbale Spinalkanalstenose ist eine häufige Erkrankung mit steigender Prävalenz im höheren Lebensalter. Dabei führt die degenerative Veränderung eines Segmentes zur Einengung von Duralsack und Nervenwurzeln mit typischen Rücken- sowie Beinschmerzen und erheblicher Einschränkung der Lebensqualität und Mobilität der Patienten. Ziel dieser Übersichtsarbeit ist die Darstellung der Pathophysiologie und Diagnostik des Krankheitsbildes mit Evaluation der aktuellen therapeutischen Möglichkeiten mit ihren Limitationen und Erfolgsaussichten. Die modernen mikrochirurgischen Techniken erreichen eine suffiziente Dekompression des Spinalkanals bei deutlicher Reduktion der Invasivität. Aktuelle randomisierte Studien demonstrieren eine klare Überlegenheit der operativen gegenüber der konservativen Therapie; somit sollte diese auch älteren Patienten mit Komorbiditäten bei Versagen der konservativen Therapie angeboten werden. Die begleitende Fusion und Stabilisierung der Wirbelsäule wird nicht empfohlen, ohne dass begleitende höhergradige Instabilitäten oder Deformitäten vorliegen.

Summary

The degenerative lumbar stenosis demonstrates increasing prevalence in older patients. Subsequently to segment degeneration the dural sac and nerve root compression develop and typical symptoms of spinal claudication occur with limited walking distance and reduction in quality of life. The pathophysiology, diagnostic procedure and evaluation of therapeutic options including their limitations and clinical outcome will be discussed. Modern microscopic decompression techniques achieve sufficient decompression of the spinal canal while decreasing the risk of iatrogenic instability and minimize surgery related muscular trauma. Recent randomized studies demonstrated superiority of the surgical vs. non-surgical treatment and therefore surgical intervention should be offered also to older patients with comorbidities refractory to conservative treatment. Additional spinal fusion is not recommended in absence of spinal instabilities or deformities.

Schlüsselwörter

Spinalkanalstenose - Dekompression

Keywords

Spinal stenosis - decompression
 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Ludwig J, Krämer J, Krämer J. In: Hrsg. Spinalkanalstenose. Orthopädie und Orthopädische Chirurgie, Band Wirbelsäule, Thorax. Stuttgart: Thieme; 2004: 405.
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Porter RW. Spinal stenosis and neurogenic claudication. Spine 1996; 21 (17) 2046-2052.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Boden SD, Davis DO, Dina TS. et al. Abnormal magnetic-resonance scans of the lumbar spine in asymptomatic subjects. A prospective investigation. The Journal of bone and joint surgery (American volume) 1990; 72 (03) 403-408.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Ishimoto Y, Yoshimura N, Muraki S. et al. Associations between radiographic lumbar spinal stenosis and clinical symptoms in the general population: the Wakayama Spine Study. Osteoarthritis and cartilage/OARS, Osteoarthritis Research Society 2013; 21 (06) 783-788.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Schizas C, Theumann N, Burn A. et al. Qualitative grading of severity of lumbar spinal stenosis based on the morphology of the dural sac on magnetic resonance images. Spine 2010; 35 (21) 1919-1924.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Katz JN, Dalgas M, Stucki G. et al. Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Diagnostic value of the history and physical examination. Arthritis and rheumatism 1995; 38 (09) 1236-1241.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Kothe R, Ulrich C, Papavero L. Die lumbale Spinalkanalstenose. Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie up2date 2008; 03 (05) 301-316.
    Article in Thieme ConnectGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Lawall H, Huppert P, Rümenapf G. S3-Leitlinie zur Diagnostik, Therapie und Nachsorge der peripheren arteriellen Verschlusskrankheit. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Angiologie & Gesellschaft für Gefäßmedizin - AWMF-Register Nr 065/003 Entwicklungsstufe 3. 2015
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Steurer J, Roner S, Gnannt R, Hodler J. LumbSten Research Collaboration. Quantitative radiologic criteria for the diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic literature review. BMC musculoskeletal disorders 2011; 12: 175.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Athiviraham A, Yen D, Scott C, Soboleski D. Clinical correlation of radiological spinal stenosis after standardization for vertebral body size. Clinical radiology 2007; 62 (08) 776-780.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Kim YU, Kong YG, Lee J. et al. Clinical symptoms of lumbar spinal stenosis associated with morphological parameters on magnetic resonance images. European spine journal 2015; 24 (10) 2236-2243.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Ogikubo O, Forsberg L, Hansson T. The relationship between the cross-sectional area of the cauda equina and the preoperative symptoms in central lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 2007; 32 (13) 1423-1428 discussion 9.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Kuittinen P, Sipola P, Aalto TJ. et al. Correlation of lateral stenosis in MRI with symptoms, walking capacity and EMG findings in patients with surgically confirmed lateral lumbar spinal canal stenosis. BMC musculoskeletal disorders 2014; 15: 247.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Henderson L, Kulik G, Richarme D. et al. Is spinal stenosis assessment dependent on slice orientation? A magnetic resonance imaging study. European spine journal 2012; 21 (Suppl. 06) S760-S764.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Madsen R, Jensen TS, Pope M. et al. The effect of body position and axial load on spinal canal morphology: an MRI study of central spinal stenosis. Spine 2008; 33 (01) 61-67.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Willen J, Danielson B. The diagnostic effect from axial loading of the lumbar spine during computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in patients with degenerative disorders. Spine 2001; 26 (23) 2607-2614.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Rihn JA, Lee JY, Khan M. et al. Does lumbar facet fluid detected on magnetic resonance imaging correlate with radiographic instability in patients with degenerative lumbar disease?. Spine 2007; 32 (14) 1555-1560.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Benoist M. The natural history of lumbar degenerative spinal stenosis. Joint, bone, spine 2002; 69 (05) 450-457.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Matsudaira K, Hara N, Oka H. et al. Predictive Factors for Subjective Improvement in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Patients with Nonsurgical Treatment: A 3-Year Prospective Cohort Study. PloS one 2016; 11 (02) e0148584.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Minamide A, Yoshida M, Maio K. The natural clinical course of lumbar spinal stenosis: a longitudinal cohort study over a minimum of 10 years. J Orthop Sci 2013; 18 (05) 693-698.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Lurie JD, Tosteson TD, Tosteson A. et al. Longterm outcomes of lumbar spinal stenosis: eightyear results of the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT). Spine 2015; 40 (02) 63-76.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Weinstein JN, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD. et al. Surgical versus nonoperative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis four-year results of the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial. Spine 2010; 35 (14) 1329-1338.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Malmivaara A, Slatis P, Heliovaara M. et al. Surgical or nonoperative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis? A randomized controlled trial. Spine 2007; 32 (01) 1-8.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 van Tulder MW, Koes B, Malmivaara A. Outcome of non-invasive treatment modalities on back pain: an evidence-based review. European spine journal 2006; 15 (Suppl. 01) S64-S81.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Schäfer C, Dreimann M, Beyerlein J. Periradikuläre Therapie. arthritis + rheuma 2013; 33 (05) 306-312.
    Google Scholar
  • 26 Manchikanti L, Kaye AD, Manchikanti K. et al. Efficacy of epidural injections in the treatment of lumbar central spinal stenosis: a systematic review. Anesth Pain Med 2015; 05 (01) e23139.
    Google Scholar
  • 27 Gerling MC, Leven D, Passias PG. et al. Risk Factors for Reoperation in Patients Treated Surgically for Lumbar Stenosis: A Subanalysis of the 8-year Data From the SPORT Trial. Spine 2016; 41 (10) 901-909.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Resnick DK, Watters 3rd WC, Mummaneni PV. et al. Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 10: lumbar fusion for stenosis without spondylolisthesis. Journal of neurosurgery: Spine 2014; 21 (01) 62-66.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Ho YH, Tu YK, Hsiao CK, Chang CH. Outcomes after minimally invasive lumbar decompression: a biomechanical comparison of unilateral and bilateral laminotomies. BMC musculoskeletal disorders 2015; 16: 208.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Lee MJ, Bransford RJ, Bellabarba C. et al. The effect of bilateral laminotomy versus laminectomy on the motion and stiffness of the human lumbar spine: a biomechanical comparison. Spine 2010; 35 (19) 1789-1793.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Guha D, Heary RF, Shamji MF. Iatrogenic spondylolisthesis following laminectomy for degenerative lumbar stenosis: systematic review and current concepts. Neurosurg Focus 2015; 39 (04) E9.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Papavero L, Thiel M, Fritzsche E. et al. Lumbar spinal stenosis: prognostic factors for bilateral microsurgical decompression using a unilateral approach. Neurosurgery 2009; 65 (Suppl. 06) 182-187 discussion 7.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Jansson KA, Nemeth G, Granath F, Blomqvist P. Spinal stenosis re-operation rate in Sweden is 11 % at 10 years - a national analysis of 9,664 operations. European spine journal 2005; 14 (07) 659-663.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Matsumura A, Namikawa T, Terai H. et al. The influence of approach side on facet preservation in microscopic bilateral decompression via a unilateral approach for degenerative lumbar scoliosis. Clinical article. Journal of neurosurgery: Spine 2010; 13 (06) 758-765.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Toyoda H, Nakamura H, Konishi S. et al. Clinical outcome of microsurgical bilateral decompression via unilateral approach for lumbar canal stenosis: minimum five-year follow-up. Spine 2011; 36 (05) 410-415.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Lonne G, Johnsen LG, Rossvoll I. et al. Minimally invasive decompression versus x-stop in lumbar spinal stenosis: a randomized controlled multicenter study. Spine 2015; 40 (02) 77-85.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Zucherman JF, Hsu KY, Hartjen CA. et al. A multicenter, prospective, randomized trial evaluating the X STOP interspinous process decompression system for the treatment of neurogenic intermittent claudication: two-year follow-up results. Spine 2005; 30 (12) 1351-1358.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Roder C, Baumgartner B, Berlemann U, Aghayev E. Superior outcomes of decompression with an interlaminar dynamic device versus decompression alone in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis and back pain: a cross registry study. European spine journal 2015; 24 (10) 2228-2235.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Verhoof OJ, Bron JL, Wapstra FH, van Royen BJ. High failure rate of the interspinous distraction device (X-Stop) for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis caused by degenerative spondylolisthesis. European spine journal 2008; 17 (02) 188-192.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Davis RJ, Errico TJ, Bae H, Auerbach JD. Decompression and Coflex interlaminar stabilization compared with decompression and instrumented spinal fusion for spinal stenosis and low-grade degenerative spondylolisthesis: two-year results from the prospective, randomized, multicenter, Food and Drug Administration Investigational Device Exemption trial. Spine 2013; 38 (18) 1529-1539.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 van Tulder MW, Koes B, Seitsalo S, Malmivaara A. Outcome of invasive treatment modalities on back pain and sciatica: an evidence-based review. European spine journal 2006; 15 (Suppl. 01) S82-S92.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Joaquim AF, Milano JB, Ghizoni E, Patel AA. Is There a Role for Decompression Alone for Treating Symptomatic Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis?: A Systematic Review. Clin Spine Surg 2016; 29 (05) 191-202.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Kleinstuck FS, Grob D, Lattig F. et al. The influence of preoperative back pain on the outcome of lumbar decompression surgery. Spine 2009; 34 (11) 1198-1203.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Cho KJ, Kim YT, Shin SH, Suk SI. Surgical treatment of adult degenerative scoliosis. Asian Spine J 2014; 08 (03) 371-381.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Glassman SD, Bridwell K, Dimar JR. et al. The impact of positive sagittal balance in adult spinal deformity. Spine 2005; 30 (18) 2024-2029.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Shaw R, Skovrlj B, Cho SK. Association Between Age and Complications in Adult Scoliosis Surgery: An Analysis of the Scoliosis Research Society Morbidity and Mortality Database. Spine 2016; 41 (06) 508-514.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Soroceanu A, Diebo BG, Burton D. et al. Radiographical and Implant-Related Complications in Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery: Incidence, Patient Risk Factors, and Impact on Health-Related Quality of Life. Spine 2015; 40 (18) 1414-1421.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar