Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
Spinearrow_drop_down
Spine
Article . 1989 . Peer-reviewed
Data sources: Crossref
Spine
Article . 1989
versions View all 2 versions
addClaim

This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.

You have already added 0 works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.

Rationale for Spinal Fusion in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

Authors: Richard J. Nasca;

Rationale for Spinal Fusion in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

Abstract

In order to define the indications for spinal fusion in patients undergoing decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis, 114 patients surgically treated were reviewed. Follow-up was 24 to 108 months. Patients were grouped into four categories: 15 with lateral recess stenosis, 45 with central-mixed stenosis, 43 with stenosis following prior lumbar surgery(s), and 11 with scoliosis and spinal stenosis. Only two patients with lateral recess stenosis underwent fusion with fair results. Approximately one-third of those with central-mixed stenosis required a fusion. Results were good in 70%. In those with stenosis following prior lumbar surgeries, although not statistically significant, those who had concomitant decompression and arthrodesis had a better outcome than those in whom decompression only was done. Patients with scoliosis and stenosis had decompression for significant motor and reflex deficits and fusion over the length of their major curves. Patients having decompression for lumbar stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis, isolated disc resorption with degenerative facet joints, intervertebral disc disease with instability, and those with scoliosis with multidirectional instabilities benefit from concomitant spinal fusion.

Keywords

Male, Lumbar Vertebrae, Spinal Fusion, Spinal Stenosis, Time Factors, Scoliosis, Laminectomy, Humans, Female, Middle Aged, Follow-Up Studies

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    citations
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    66
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Top 10%
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
citations
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
66
Top 10%
Top 10%
Average
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!