The influence of comorbidity on the results of surgical treatment of elderly and senile patients with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis

Objective. To analyze the influence of somatic comorbidity on the results of surgical treatment of elderly and senile patients with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.

Material and Methods. The study design corresponds to a single-center non-randomized retrospective cohort study with level 3 evidence (OCEBM Levels of Evidence Working Group. The Oxford 2011 Levels of Evidence). The influence of somatic comorbidity on quality of life after surgery for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis was analyzed in 962 patients 60–85 years old. Analysis and evaluation of the results of the study was carried out in two groups of patients with radicular compression syndrome: Group 1 (less than 5 points according to White – Panjabi criteria) included 625 (65%) patients, and Group 2 (5 or more points according to White – Panjabi criteria) – 337 (35%) patients.

Results. Body mass index of patients in Group 1 was statistically significantly lower than in Group 2. Repeated surgical interventions performed during the first year after the primary operation were statistically significantly more frequent in Group 1, and those performed after 3–4 years were more frequent in Group 2 (BMI ≥ 30) due to the development of adjacent level disease. In obese patients, the duration of surgery, blood loss and postoperative hospital stay are statistically significantly increased. One year after surgery, a statistically significant negative effect of increase in BMI on the parameters of back pain, lower limb pain, functional adaptation, and quality of life was revealed in both groups of patients. No association of obesity and complication rates was noted. In Group 2, the incidence of adjacent level disease 2–5 years after the primary operation was higher in patients with BMI ≥ 30 compared with patients with BMI < 30 and with patients in Group 1. It was found that somatic comorbidity and the age of patients statistically significantly prolonged postoperative hospital stay in Group 1 and did not affect its duration in Group 2. No effect of the comorbidity index on the quality of life was noted. Osteoporosis was statistically significantly associated with an increase in the frequency of technical complications during surgery (malposition of pedicle screws, cage migration, and damage to the vertebral endplates).

Conclusion. Obesity is statistically significantly associated with an increase in postoperative hospital stay, surgery duration and blood loss, and is a predictor of the development of instability of the spinal motion segment and adjacent level disease. Obese patients have higher levels of back and lower limb pain and worse quality of life parameters after surgical interventions than patients with normal body weight. When using minimally invasive technologies in the surgical treatment of degenerative lumbar spine pathology, the number of complications in obese patients is not higher than in patients with normal body weight. The effect of comorbidity on the results of minimally invasive surgery for degenerative lumbar pathology was not detected. Osteoporosis affects the frequency of technical complications during surgery.

1. Adogwa O, Carr KR, Kudyba K, Karikari I, Bagley AC, Gokaslan LZ, Theodore N, Cheng SJ.Revision lumbar surgery in elderly patients with symptomatic pseudarthrosis, adjacent-segment disease, or same-level recurrent stenosis. Two-year outcomes and clinical efficacy: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine. 2013;18:139–146. DOI: 10.3171/2012.11.spine12224.

2. Mannion AF, Fekete TF, Porchet F, Haschtmann D, Jeszenszky D, Kleinstuck FS.The influence of comorbidity on the risks and benefits of spine surgery for degenerative lumbar disorders.Eur Spine J. 2014;23(Suppl 1):S66–S71. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-014-3189-y.

3. Arinzon Z, Adunsky A, Fidelman Z, Gepstein R.Outcomes of decompression surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis in elderly diabetic patients. Eur Spine J. 2004;13:32–37. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-003-0643-7.

4. Cassinelli E, Eubanks J, Vogt M, Furey C, Yoo J, Bohlman H.Risk factors for the development of perioperative complications in elderly patients undergoing lumbar decompression and arthrodesis for spinal stenosis: an analysis of 166 patients. Spine. 2007;32:230–235. DOI: 10.1097/01.brs.0000251918.19508.b3.

5. Deyo R, Hickam D, Duckart J, Piedra M.Complications after surgery for lumbar stenosis in a veteran population. Spine. 2013;38:1695–1702. DOI: 10.1097/brs.0b013e31829f65c1.

6. Jakola A, Sorlie A, Gulati S, Nygaard O, Lydersen S, Solberg T.Clinical outcomes and safety assessment in elderly patients undergoing decompressive laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis: a prospective study. BMC Surg. 2010;10:34. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2482-10-34.

7. McClendon J Jr, Smith TR, Thompson SE, Sugrue PA, Oʼshaughnessy BA, Ondra SL, Koski TR. The impact of body mass index on hospital stay and complications after spinal fusion.Neurosurgery. 2014;74:42–50. DOI: 10.1227/neu.0000000000000195.

8. Morgalla MN, Noak N, Merkle M, Tatagiba M.Lumbar spinal stenosis in elderly patients: is a unilateral microsurgical approach sufficient for decompression? J Neurosurg Spine. 2011;14:305–312. DOI: 10.3171/2010.10.spine09708.

9. Aalto TJ, Malmivaara A, Kovacs F, Herno A, Alen M, Salmi L, Kroger H, Andrade J, Jimenez R, Tapaninaho A, Turunen V, Savolainen S, Airaksinen O. Preoperative predictors for postoperative clinical outcome in lumbar spinal stenosis: systematic review. Spine. 2006;31:E648–E663. DOI: 10.1097/01.brs.0000231727.88477.da.

10. Chan AK, Bisson EF, Mohamad B, Glassman SD, Foley KT, Potts EA, Shaffrey CI, Shaffrey ME, Coric D, Knightly JJ, Park P, Fu Kai-Ming, Slotkin JR, Asher AL, Virk MS, Kerezoudis P, Chotai S, DiGiorgio AM, Chan AY, Haid RW, Mummaneni PV.Women fare best following surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: a comparison of the most and least satisfied patients utilizing data from the Quality Outcomes Database. Neurosurg Focus. 2018;44:E3. DOI: 10.3171/2017.10.FOCUS17553.

11. Chapin L, Ward K, Ryken T.Preoperative depression, smoking, and employment status are significant factors in patient satisfaction after lumbar spine surgery. Clin Spine Surg. 2017;30:E725–E732. DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000000331.

12. Elsayed G, Davis MC, Dupepe EC, McCluggage SG, Szerlip P, Walters BC, Hadley MN.Obese (body mass index > 30) patients have greater functional improvement and reach equivalent outcomes at 12 months following decompression surgery for symptomatic lumbar stenosis. World Neurosurg.2017;105:884–894. DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2017.06.072.

13. Castle-Kirszbaum MD, Tee JW, Chan P, Hunn MK.Obesity in neurosurgery: a narrative review of the literature. World Neurosurg. 2017;106:790–805. DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2017.06.049.

14. Cobb JR.Outline for the study of scoliosis. Am Acad Orthop Surg Inst Course Lect1948;5:261–275.

15. White AA, Panjabi MM.Clinical Biomechanics of the Spine. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, Pa: JB Lippincott Co, 1990:351–354.

16. Hayes MH, Paterson DG.Experimental development of the graphic rating method. Psychological Bulletin, 1921;18:98–99.

17. Fairbank JC, Couper J, Davies JB, O’Brien JP. The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy. 1980;66:271–273.

18. Ware JE, Sherbourne CD.The MOS 36-item short form health survey (SF36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30:473–483.

19. Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, McKenzie CR.A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40:373–383. DOI: 10.1016/0021-9681(87)90171-8.

20. De Groot V, Beckerman H, Lankhorst GJ, Bouter LM.How to measure comorbidity: a critical review of available methods. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56:221–229. DOI: 10.1016/s0895-4356(02)00585-1.

21. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, 2019. [Electronic resource]. URL: https://www.R-project.org.

22. Jackson LK, Devine JG.The Effects of obesity on spine surgery: a systematic review of the literature. GlobalSpine J. 2016;6:394–400. DOI: 10.1055/s-0035-1570750.

23. Byval’tsev VA, Kalinin AA. Minimally invasive dorsal decompression-stabilization surgery in patients with overweight and obesity. Zh Vopr NeirokhirIm N N Burdenko. 2018;5:69–80. In Russian. DOI: 10.17116/neiro20188205169.

24. Lenz M, Meyer C, Boese CK, Siewe J, Eysel P, Scheyerer MJ.The impact of obesity measured by outer abdominal fat on instability of the adjacent segments after rigid pedicle screw fixation. Orthop Rev (Pavia). 2018;10:7684. DOI: 10.4081/or.2018.7684.

25. Aleksanyan MM, Kheilo AL, Mikaelian KP, Gemdzhian EG, Aganesov AG. Microsurgical discectomy in the lumbar spine: efficiency, pain syndrome and obesity. Hir. Pozvonoc. 2018;15(1):42–48. In Russian. DOI: 10.14531/ss2018.1.42-48.

26. Senker W, Stefanits H, Gmeiner M, Trutschnig W, Weinfurter I, Gruber A. Does obesity affect perioperative and postoperative morbidity and complication rates after minimal access spinal technologies in surgery for lumbar degenerative disc disease? World Neurosurg. 2018;111:e374–e385. DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2017.12.075.

27. Rihn JA, Radcliff K, Hilibrand AS, Anderson DT, Zhao W, Lurie J, Vaccaro AR, Freedman MK, Albert TJ, Weinstein JN. Does obesity affect outcomes of treatment for lumbar stenosis and degenerative spondylolisthesis? Ana lysis of the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT).Spine. 2012;37:1933–1946. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31825e21b2.

28. Djurasovic M, Bratcher KR, Glassman SD, Dimar JR, Carreon LY.The effect of obesity on clinical outcomes after lumbar fusion.Spine. 2008;33:1789–1792. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31817b8f6f.

29. Knutsson B, Michaelsson K, Sanden B.Obesity is associated with inferior results after surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis: a study of 2633 patients from the Swedish spine register. Spine. 2013;38:435–441. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318270b243.