View clinical trials related to Spinal Stenosis.
Filter by:The purpose of this study is to determine which type of lumbar stabilization exercise is more effective to improve functionality and reduce pain in patients operated with lumbar arthrodesis, to guide clinical practice in the rehabilitation of these patients.
This is a long-term follow-up study for more than 3 years to evaluate the efficacy and safety of bioactive glass-ceramic intervertebral spacer (Novomax) in posterior lumbar interbody fusion.
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 characterized by low back and leg pain, walking disturbances and sometimes instability, impaired balance and numbness of the lower limbs. This condition is caused by degenerative changes in the lumbar spine including bulging discs, osteophytes from the arthritic facet joints and thickened ligamentum flavum which together cause narrowing of the spinal canal and thus affect the lumbar nerve roots. This diagnosis is attracting more and more interest due to the aging population with increasing demands for physical activity. LSS is the most common indication for spinal surgery. The surgical treatment involves relieving the pressure from the nerve structures in the stenotic segments through a posterior approach. In several studies, surgery has been shown to have better results than the conservative treatment. However, methodological difficulties and a large proportion of cross-over in these studies indicate that there is still uncertainty about whether surgery is generally a better option. It has been speculated whether the compression of the nerve roots causes in some patients permanent nerve damage with muscle denervation, while in other cases a reinnervation and recovery of the function may occur. Results from neurography and EMG studies have been shown these modalities to have a possible predictive value for the natural process of LSS. If a neurophysiological examination could be able to predict which patients are able to benefit from surgery, many patients could avoid surgery and the risks involved in it. The aim of this study is primarily to evaluate whether surgery with decompression leads to superior results than the non-surgical treatment with structured physical therapy. The main secondary aim is to investigate by means of Neurography and EMG, whether the degree of neurological affection caused by nerve compression affects the outcome of surgery for LSS.
Rationale: Minimally invasive techniques have gained popularity to decompress lumbar spinal stenosis in the elderly. However, high quality evidence based on randomised controlled trials are not available. Objective: To investigate whether small size interarcuair decompression is more effective than conventional laminectomy in patients with intermittent neurogenic claudication caused by lumbar spinal stenosis. Study design: Double-blinded multi-centre randomised controlled trial Study population: In total 236 patients are to be included. The inclusion criteria are: subjects > 40 years of age with at least 12 weeks of complaints of intermittent neurogenic claudication based on MRI confirmed of LSS, with sufficient knowledge of the Dutch language. Intervention: Small size interarcuair decompression versus conventional laminectomy. Main study parameters/endpoints: Primary outcome is the Modified Roland Morris Questionnaire. Secondary outcomes are leg pain, back pain and a 6 minute walk test amongst others. Nature and extent of the burden and risks associated with participation: based on available literature , it is believed that the risks associated with small size interarcuair decompression are no greater than that associated with a laminectomy, although these will be examined.
Establish a data repository of patients who have undergone single, two-, or three-level lumbar instrumented arthrodesis procedures supplemented by the Implanet Jazz System.
In a multinational prospective study, preoperative, intraoperative, perioperative and follow-up data on patients receiving thoracolumbar pedicle screw placement for degenerative disease or infections or tumors will be collected. The three arms consist of robot-guided (RG), navigated (NV), or freehand (FH) screw insertion.
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.