Advertisement

Outcomes in surgical treatment for tandem spinal stenosis: systematic literature review

      Abstract

      BACKGROUND CONTEXT

      Tandem spinal stenosis (TSS) refers to a narrowing of the spinal canal in distinct, noncontiguous regions. TSS most commonly occurs in the cervical and lumbar regions. Decompressive surgery is indicated for those with cervical myelopathy or persistent symptoms from lumbar stenosis despite conservative management. Surgical management typically involves staged procedures, with cervical decompression taking precedence in most cases, followed by lumbar decompression at a later time. However, several studies have shown favorable outcomes in simultaneous decompression.

      PURPOSE

      The aim of this study is to provide a literature review and compare surgical outcomes in patients undergoing staged vs simultaneous surgery for TSS.

      STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

      Systematic literature review.

      METHODS

      A systematic review using PRISMA guidelines to identify original research articles for tandem spinal stenosis. PubMed, Cochrane, Ovid, Scopus, and Web of Science were used for electronic literature search. Original articles from 2005 to 2021 with more than eight adult patients treated surgically for cervical and lumbar TSS in staged or simultaneous procedures were included. Articles including pediatric patients, primarily thoracic stenosis, stenosis secondary to neoplasm or infectious disease, minimally invasive surgery, and non-English language were excluded. Demographic, perioperative, complications, functional outcome, and neurologic outcome data including mJOA (modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association), Nurick grade (NG), and ODI (Oswestry disability index), were extracted and summarized.

      RESULTS

      A total of 667 articles were initially identified. After preliminary screening, 21 articles underwent full-text screening. Ten articles met our inclusion criteria. A total of 831 patients were included, 571 (68%) of them underwent staged procedures, and 260 (32%) underwent simultaneous procedures for TSS. Mean follow-ups ranged from 12 to 85 months. There was no difference in estimated blood loss (EBL) between staged and simultaneous groups (p=.639). Simultaneous surgeries had shorter surgical time than staged surgeries (p<.001). Mean changes in mJOA, NG, and ODI was comparable between staged and simultaneous groups. Complications were similar between the groups. There were more major complications reported in simultaneous operations, although this was not statistically significant (p=.301).

      CONCLUSION

      Staged and simultaneous surgery for TSS have comparable perioperative, functional, and neurologic outcomes, as well as complication rates. Careful selection of candidates for simultaneous surgery may reduce the length of stay and consolidate rehabilitation, thereby reducing hospital-associated costs.

      Key words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to The Spine Journal
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Chen G
        • Fan T
        • Yang X
        • Sun C
        • Fan D
        • Chen Z.
        The prevalence and clinical characteristics of thoracic spinal stenosis: a systematic review.
        Eur Spine J. 2020; 29: 2164-2172https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-020-06520-6
        • Dagi TF
        • Tarkington MA
        • Leech JJ.
        Tandem lumbar and cervical spinal stenosis. Natural history, prognostic indices, and results after surgical decompression.
        J Neurosurg. 1987; 66: 842-849https://doi.org/10.3171/jns.1987.66.6.0842
        • Matsumoto M
        • Okada E
        • Toyama Y
        • Fujiwara H
        • Momoshima S
        • Takahata T.
        Tandem age-related lumbar and cervical intervertebral disc changes in asymptomatic subjects.
        Eur Spine J. 2013; 22: 708-713https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2500-z
        • Lee SH
        • Kim KT
        • Suk KS
        • Lee JH
        • Shin JH
        • So DH
        • et al.
        Asymptomatic cervical cord compression in lumbar spinal stenosis patients: a whole spine magnetic resonance imaging study.
        Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010; 35: 2057-2063https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181f4588a
        • Kawaguchi Y
        • Oya T
        • Abe Y
        • et al.
        Spinal stenosis due to ossified lumbar lesions.
        J Neurosurg Spine. 2005; 3: 262-270https://doi.org/10.3171/spi.2005.3.4.0262
        • Tsutsumimoto T
        • Shimogata M
        • Yui M
        • Ohta H
        • Misawa H.
        The natural history of asymptomatic lumbar canal stenosis in patients undergoing surgery for cervical myelopathy.
        J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012; 94: 378-384https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.94B3.27867
        • Iizuka H
        • Takahashi K
        • Tanaka S
        • Kawamura K
        • Okano Y
        • Oda H.
        Predictive factors of cervical spondylotic myelopathy in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.
        Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2012; 132: 607-611https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-012-1465-z
        • LaBan MM
        • Green ML.
        Concurrent (tandem) cervical and lumbar spinal stenosis: a 10-yr review of 54 hospitalized patients.
        Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2004; 83: 187-190https://doi.org/10.1097/01.phm.0000113405.48879.45
        • Laroche M
        • Moulinier L
        • Arlet J
        • et al.
        Lumbar and cervical stenosis. Frequency of the association, role of the ankylosing hyperostosis.
        Clin Rheumatol. 1992; 11: 533-535https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02283114
        • Nagata K
        • Yoshimura N
        • Hashizume H
        • et al.
        The prevalence of tandem spinal stenosis and its characteristics in a population-based MRI study: the Wakayama Spine Study.
        Eur Spine J. 2017; 26: 2529-2535https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-017-5072-0
        • Hsieh CH
        • Huang TJ
        • Hsu RW.
        Tandem spinal stenosis: clinical diagnosis and surgical treatment.
        Changgeng Yi Xue Za Zhi. 1998; 21: 429-435
        • Epstein NE
        • Epstein JA
        • Carras R
        • Murthy VS
        • Hyman RA.
        Coexisting cervical and lumbar spinal stenosis: diagnosis and management.
        Neurosurgery. 1984; 15: 489-496https://doi.org/10.1227/00006123-198410000-00003
        • Swanson BT.
        Tandem spinal stenosis: a case of stenotic cauda equina syndrome following cervical decompression and fusion for spondylotic cervical myelopathy.
        J Man Manip Ther. 2012; 20: 50-56https://doi.org/10.1179/2042618611Y.0000000010
        • Lee MJ
        • Garcia R
        • Cassinelli EH
        • Furey C
        • Riew KD.
        Tandem stenosis: a cadaveric study in osseous morphology.
        Spine J. 2008; 8: 1003-1006https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2007.12.005
        • Parenteau CS
        • Lau EC
        • Campbell IC
        • Courtney A.
        Prevalence of spine degeneration diagnosis by type, age, gender, and obesity using Medicare data.
        Sci Rep. 2021; 11: 5389https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-84724-6
        • Yamashita K
        • Ohzono K
        • Hiroshima K.
        Five-year outcomes of surgical treatment for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: a prospective observational study of symptom severity at standard intervals after surgery.
        Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006; 31: 1484-1490https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000219940.26390.26
        • Wilson JR
        • Tetreault LA
        • Kim J
        • et al.
        State of the art in degenerative cervical myelopathy: an update on current clinical evidence.
        Neurosurgery. 2017; 80: S33-S45https://doi.org/10.1093/neuros/nyw083
        • Fehlings MG
        • Tetreault LA
        • Kurpad S
        • et al.
        Change in functional impairment, disability, and quality of life following operative treatment for degenerative cervical myelopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        Global Spine J. 2017; 7: 53S-69Shttps://doi.org/10.1177/2192568217710137
        • Moher D
        • Shamseer L
        • Clarke M
        • et al.
        Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement.
        Syst Rev. 2015; 4: 1https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1
      1. National Institutes of Health. Study Quality Assessment Tools. 2022. Available at: https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-topics/study-quality-assessment-tools. Accessed 2 April 2022.

        • Bajwa NS
        • Toy JO
        • Young EY
        • Ahn NU.
        Is congenital bony stenosis of the cervical spine associated with lumbar spine stenosis? An anatomical study of 1072 human cadaveric specimens.
        J Neurosurg Spine. 2012; 17: 24-29https://doi.org/10.3171/2012.3.SPINE111080
        • Yamada T
        • Yoshii T
        • Yamamoto N
        • Hirai T
        • Inose H
        • Okawa A.
        Surgical outcomes for lumbar spinal canal stenosis with coexisting cervical stenosis (tandem spinal stenosis): a retrospective analysis of 565 cases.
        J Orthop Surg Res. 2018; 13: 60https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-018-0765-6
        • Li H
        • Chen Z
        • Li X
        • et al.
        Prioritized cervical or lumbar surgery for coexisting cervical and lumbar stenosis: prognostic analysis of 222 case.
        Int J Surg. 2017; 44: 344-349https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2017.07.027
        • Luo CA
        • Kaliya-Perumal AK
        • Lu ML
        • Chen LH
        • Chen WJ
        • Niu CC.
        Staged surgery for tandem cervical and lumbar spinal stenosis: which should be treated first?.
        Eur Spine J. 2019; 28: 61-68https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-018-5795-6
        • Inoue T
        • Ando K
        • Kobayashi K
        • et al.
        Primary cervical decompression surgery may improve lumbar symptoms in patients with tandem spinal stenosis.
        Eur Spine J. 2021; 30: 899-906https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-020-06693-0
        • Overley SC
        • Kim JS
        • Gogel BA
        • Merrill RK
        • Hecht AC.
        Tandem spinal stenosis: a systematic review.
        JBJS Rev. 2017; 5: e2https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.RVW.17.00007
        • Eskander MS
        • Aubin ME
        • Drew JM
        • et al.
        Is there a difference between simultaneous or staged decompressions for combined cervical and lumbar stenosis?.
        J Spinal Disord Tech. 2011; 24: 409-413https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0b013e318201bf94
        • Cao J
        • Gao X
        • Yang Y
        • et al.
        Simultaneous or staged operation for tandem spinal stenosis: surgical strategy and efficacy comparison.
        J Orthop Surg Res. 2021; 16: 214https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-021-02357-x
        • Aydogan M
        • Ozturk C
        • Mirzanli C
        • Karatoprak O
        • Tezer M
        • Hamzaoglu A.
        Treatment approach in tandem (concurrent) cervical and lumbar spinal stenosis.
        Acta Orthop Belg. 2007; 73: 234-237
        • Pennington Z
        • Alentado VJ
        • Lubelski D
        • et al.
        Quality of life changes after lumbar decompression in patients with tandem spinal stenosis.
        Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2019; 184105455https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clineuro.2019.105455
        • Kikuike K
        • Miyamoto K
        • Hosoe H
        • Shimizu K.
        One-staged combined cervical and lumbar decompression for patients with tandem spinal stenosis on cervical and lumbar spine: analyses of clinical outcomes with minimum 3 years follow-up.
        J Spinal Disord Tech. 2009; 22: 593-601https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0b013e3181929cbd
        • Krishnan A
        • Dave BR
        • Kambar AK
        • Ram H.
        Coexisting lumbar and cervical stenosis (tandem spinal stenosis): an infrequent presentation. Retrospective analysis of single-stage surgery (53 cases).
        Eur Spine J. 2014; 23: 64-73https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-013-2868-4
        • Singrakhia MD
        • Malewar NR
        • Deshmukh S
        • Deshmukh SS.
        Prospective analysis of functional outcome of single-stage surgical treatment for symptomatic tandem spinal stenosis.
        Indian J Orthop. 2019; 53: 315-323https://doi.org/10.4103/ortho.IJOrtho_316_17
        • Abbas Z
        • Asati S
        • Kundnani VG
        • Jain S
        • Prakash R
        • Raut S.
        Surgical outcomes of single stage surgery for Tandem spinal stenosis (TSS) in elderly and younger patients: a comparative study.
        J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2021; 17: 157-162https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcot.2021.03.007
        • Aiwale AB
        • Paspala SAB
        • Ramakrishna Murthy TV
        Simultaneous cervical and lumbar spine surgery: retrospective analysis of 45 Cases.
        Indian J Neurosurg. 2019; 08https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0039-1677962
        • Reuben JD
        • Meyers SJ
        • Cox DD
        • Elliott M
        • Watson M
        • Shim SD.
        Cost comparison between bilateral simultaneous, staged, and unilateral total joint arthroplasty.
        J Arthroplasty. 1998; 13: 172-179https://doi.org/10.1016/s0883-5403(98)90095-x
        • Stubbs G
        • Pryke SE
        • Tewari S
        • et al.
        Safety and cost benefits of bilateral total knee replacement in an acute hospital.
        ANZ J Surg. 2005; 75: 739-746https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1445-2197.2005.03516.x
        • Kane PM
        • Daniels AH
        • Akelman E.
        Double crush syndrome.
        J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2015; 23: 558-562https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOS-D-14-00176