Research article

A non-surgical approach to the management of lumbar spinal stenosis: A prospective observational cohort study

Donald R Murphy^1,2,3 , Eric L Hurwitz⁴ , Amy A Gregory¹ and Ronald Clary¹

¹  Rhode Island Spine Center, 600 Pawtucket Avenue, Pawtucket, RI 02860, USA

²  Department of Community Health, Brown University School of Medicine, USA

³  Research Department, New York Chiropractic College, USA

⁴  Department of Public Health Sciences and Epidemiology, John A. Burns School of Medicine University of Hawaii, Manoa, Hawaii, USA

author email corresponding author email

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 2006, 7:16doi:10.1186/1471-2474-7-16

Published:	23 February 2006

Abstract

Background

While it is widely held that non-surgical management should be the first line of approach in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS), little is known about the efficacy of non-surgical treatments for this condition. Data are needed to determine the most efficacious and safe non-surgical treatment options for patients with LSS. The purpose of this paper is to describe the clinical outcomes of a novel approach to patients with LSS that focuses on distraction manipulation (DM) and neural mobilization (NM).

Methods

This is a prospective consecutive case series with long term follow up (FU) of fifty-seven consecutive patients who were diagnosed with LSS. Two were excluded because of absence of baseline data or failure to remain in treatment to FU. Disability was measured using the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RM) and pain intensity was measured using the Three Level Numerical Rating Scale (NRS). Patients were also asked to rate their perceived percentage improvement.

Results

The mean patient-rated percentage improvement from baseline to the end to treatment was 65.1%. The mean improvement in disability from baseline to the end of treatment was 5.1 points. This was considered to be clinically meaningful. Clinically meaningful improvement in disability from baseline to the end of treatment was seen in 66.7% of patients. The mean improvement in "on average" pain intensity was 1.6 points. This did not reach the threshold for clinical meaningfulness. The mean improvement in "at worst" pain was 3.1 points. This was considered to be clinically meaningful.

The mean duration of FU was 16.5 months. The mean patient-rated percentage improvement from baseline to long term FU was 75.6%. The mean improvement in disability was 5.2 points. This was considered to be clinically meaningful. Clinically meaningful improvement in disability was seen in 73.2% of patients. The mean improvement in "on average" pain intensity from baseline to long term FU was 3.0 points. This was considered to be clinically meaningful. The mean improvement in "at worst" pain was 4.2 points. This was considered to be clinically meaningful. Only two patients went on to require surgery.

No major complications to treatment were noted.

Conclusion

A treatment approach focusing on DM and NM may be useful in bringing about clinically meaningful improvement in disability in patients with LSS.