View clinical trials related to Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.
Filter by:The objective of the clinical investigation is to assess the proportion of lumbar spinal stenosis surgical treatment plans that change when an objective measurement of spinal stability is included and applied following a simple treatment algorithm. The objective spinal stability metric is calculated from flexion-extension radiographs using previously validated methods.
This study will describe postoperative pain management for spine surgery patients receiving liposomal bupivacaine (Exparel®) compared to patients not receiving the drug.
The objective of this study is to perform a prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial to compare radiographic fusion rates and patient reported outcomes, including pain and function preoperatively and postoperatively, using Depuy ViviGen® Cellular Bone Matrix mixed with cortical/cancellous allograft in conjunction with an approved Depuy Synthes pedicle screw system compared to autograft mixed with cortical/cancellous allograft in conjunction with the same DePuy Synthes pedicle screw system used for a one or two - level posterolateral lumbar fusion.
The purpose of this randomized controlled trial is to assess and compare radiographic and clinical outcomes in patients who are to undergo combined interbody/posterolateral lumbar fusion procedures, supplemented with pedicle screw instrumentation, using one of the following interbody cages; the Nexxt Spine Nexxt MatrixxTM 3D-printed titanium cage or the HonourTM poly-ether-ether-ketone cage.
The purpose of the project is to perform an RCT comparing patient satisfaction and outcome with or without the use of an expert panel. The purpose is also to create a registry to compare the effectiveness of decompression alone versus decompression with fusion for patients with degenerative grade I spondylolisthesis and symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis. Primary analysis will focus on the patients' improvement from baseline patient-reported outcome questionnaires. In addition, the SLIP II registry aims to (i) develop an algorithm which could identify cases in which surgical experts are likely to recommend one treatment (i.e. >80% of experts recommend one form of treatment) and (ii) develop a radiology-based machine learning algorithm that would prospectively classify patients as either 'stable' or 'unstable.' In addition to patient reported outcomes, step counts will be collected in order to determine the correlation of step count with patient-reported outcomes (ODI and EQ-5D) and the need for re-operation. This registry portion of the study aims to prospectively collect comparative data for these patients treated with either decompression alone or decompression with fusion.
Introduction: Lumbar spinal stenosis is a common cause of low back and leg pain in elderly impacting physical activity and quality of life. Initial treatments are non-surgical options. If unsuccessful, surgery is advocated. The literature is not clear as to the outcome of surgery when compared to non-surgical treatment, and the optimal time for surgery is not explicit. Materials and analysis: This observational study is designed to investigate the course of treatment, compare effectiveness of surgical and non-surgical treatment in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis, and identify prognostic factors for outcome in the context of current clinical practice. Prospectively registered data on treatment, outcome and patient characteristics are collected from nationwide registers on health and social issues, a clinical registry of people with chronic back pain and hospital medical records. Primary outcome is change in physical function measured by the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire. Secondary outcomes are changes in symptom severity, pain-related function, health-related quality of life, and general self-efficacy. All outcomes are measured at baseline, 6 months and 12 months follow up. Comparisons on these variables will be made between those who undergo surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis and those not receiving surgery at 12 months follow up according to different analysis populations. Prognostic factors include treatment allocation, back and leg pain intensity, comorbidity, duration of symptoms, pre-treatment function, self-rated health, income, general self-efficacy and magnetic resonance imaging graded compression of central stenosis. Ethics and dissemination: The study has been evaluated by The Regional Committees on Health Research for Southern Denmark (S-20172000-200) and notified to the Danish Data Protection Agency (17/30636). All participants provide consent. Findings will be disseminated in peer-reviewed publications and presented at national and international conferences following the guidance from the STROBE and PROGRESS statement. Potential sources of bias will be addressed using ROBINS-I.
The specific aim of this study is to conduct a prospective, multicenter cohort study over four months to compare the cost of standard of allopathic care (control group, N=90) versus standard of care plus osteopathic manipulative treatment (experimental group, N=90) in a cohort of 180 consecutive patients seeking treatment for chronic low back pain at three osteopathic clinics and three allopathic medical clinics (offering only standard care) located in three different regions of the United States.
The purpose of this research is to find out if there are inflammatory biomarkers (also known as biological markers) in epidural space that can predict response to an epidural steroid injection. This study will also be evaluating whether the results of an EMG study (also known as electromyography) can predict the response to an epidural steroid injection.
Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a common spinal disease that leads to pain and disability. LSS is defined as lower extremity and perineal symptoms (e.g. intermittent neurogenic claudication/numbness) that may occur with or without low back pain and that is attributed to congenital or acquired narrowing of space available for the neural and vascular tissues in the lumbar spine. Patients with LSS,who do not respond to conservative treatments after 3 months or more, will be eligible for spinal decompression surgery in order to improve functional outcomes. While various studies have shown that preoperative exercises (prehabilitation) may benefit patients receiving different surgeries (e.g, abdominal surgery, anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction), little is known regarding the effect of prehabilitation for patients undergoing LSS surgery. The aim of the current randomized controlled trial is to compare the effectiveness of a 6-week prehabilitation program with usual preoperative care in improving multiple outcomes of patients undergoing LSS surgery at baseline, 6 weeks after baseline evaluation, and at 3 and 6 months postoperatively. It is hypothesized that prehabilitation will yield significantly better pre- and post-operative clinical outcomes as compared to usual preoperative care.
The purpose of this study was to compare standard open laminectomy with ULBD approach in regard to efficiency, safety, and clinical outcome.