Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Study Design

Retrospective cohort study.

Objective

Decompression for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) has shown excellent clinical outcomes. In patients with symptomatic single level stenosis and asymptomatic adjacent level disease, it is unknown whether decompressing only the symptomatic level is sufficient. The objective of this study is to compare outcomes between single level and dual level minimally invasive (MIS) decompression in patients with adjacent level stenosis.

Methods

The current study is a retrospective review of patients undergoing primary single or dual level MIS decompression for LSS. Radiographic stenosis severity was graded using the Schizas grading. Patients undergoing single level decompression (SLD) with moderate stenosis at the adjacent level were compared with patients undergoing dual level decompression (DLD) for multi-level LSS. Clinical outcomes, complications, and reoperations were compared. Subgroup analysis was performed on patients with the same Schizas grade at the adjacent level in the SLD group and the second surgical level in the DLD group.

Results

148 patients were included (126 SLD, 76 DLD). There were no significant differences in patient reported outcomes between the two groups at any timepoint up to 2 years postoperatively, including in the matched stenosis severity subgroups. Operative time was longer in the DLD cohort (P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in complications or reoperation rates.

Conclusion

In patients with single level symptomatic LSS and adjacent level stenosis, decompression of only the symptomatic level provided equivalent clinical outcomes compared to dual level decompression. The additional operative time and potential incremental risk of dual level surgery may not be justified.

Keywords

MIS decompression lumbar spinal stenosis single-level surgery dual-level surgery

Introduction

Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) represents a very common pathology. Patient presentations may range from asymptomatic incidental findings to severe debilitating pain with radiculopathy and neurogenic claudication.¹ Surgical treatment is typically reserved for symptomatic patients who have often failed to respond to conservative treatment in the form of physical therapy or steroid injections.^2-4 Minimally invasive (MIS) decompression is a frequently employed surgical approach for the treatment of stenosis in the lumbar spine. Surgical treatment opens the space available for neural elements and has largely demonstrated good outcomes in appropriately selected patients.⁵

Previous studies correlating patient symptoms to preoperative MRI radiographs have largely demonstrated no reliable concordance between the two,^6,7 suggesting an ambiguous relationship between the space available for the cord and disability. In deciding the best surgical approach and operative levels, isolated MRI findings may not be fully reliable, especially considering many patients demonstrate multi-level LSS on MRI.⁸ In these patients with multi-level stenosis there remains a question whether or not decompressing additional levels with no specific localizing symptoms is valuable. Few previous studies have attempted to answer this question. Most recently, Tronstad et al published in a cohort of LSS patients finding no significant differences in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), complications, or reoperations between single or dual level decompression in patients with adjacent level stenosis.⁹ Importantly however, this cohort remained heterogeneous as the proportion of patients with Schizas grade C at the adjacent level was 4 fold greater in the dual level group making it difficult to conclude equivalent clinical outcomes.

The purpose of the present study was to compare outcomes in patients who underwent single or dual-level minimally invasive (MIS) decompression with adjacent-level for the treatment of LSS. Specifically, we aimed to answer (1) Should surgeons decompress the second level in the absence of localizing symptoms? and (2) What is the added “cost” of decompressing the second level, considering factors such as increased operative time and heightened risk of complications?

Methods

Study Design and Patient Cohort

The present study was conducted after approval by the Institutional Review Board (IRB 2018-1142). After appropriate informed consent, patients who underwent primary minimally invasive lumbar decompression (unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression, ULBD) for stenosis of the lumbar spine between February 2017 and June 2022 with a minimum of 1 year follow-up were queried from a prospectively maintained multi-surgeon registry. All surgeries were performed by three fellowship-trained spine surgeons at a single academic institution as previously described in the literature.¹⁰ The side of the ULBD was decided based on the laterality of the symptoms and the relevant anatomy in terms of docking of the tubular retractor.

Data Collection

Data was collected and managed using REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture)^11,12 hosted at Weill Cornell Medicine Clinical and Translational Science Center supported by the National Center For Advancing Translational Science of the National Institute of Health under award number: UL1 TR002384. The following data was collected and analyzed:

1. Demographics: age, gender, race, body mass index (BMI), smoking status, diabetes, depression, anxiety, age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Classification

2. Preoperative X-ray Measurements: Spondylolisthesis at the operated level, spondylolisthesis instability (when applicable), total lumbar lordosis (LL), proximal lordosis (PL), distal lordosis (DL), pelvic incidence (PI), pelvic tilt (PT), sacral slope (SS). PI-LL was additionally calculated.

3. Preoperative MRI Measurements: At all lumbar levels, the Pfirrmann grade, Schizas grade, and dural sac cross-sectional area (DSCSA in mm²) were all evaluated as previously described in the literature.⁵ Muscle health was assessed using the psoas cross-sectional area and Goutallier grading at L3-L4. The presence of a facet cyst or effusion at the operated level was additionally recorded.

4. Preoperative CT Measurements: Bone quality was assessed with Hounsfield units using elliptical regions of interest, calculating a mean at the mid-axial level at each lumbar levels.

5. Surgical characteristics and outcomes: number of levels operated, specific operated levels, estimated blood loss (EBL), radiation dose, operative time, and operative complications were recorded. Postoperative length of stay (LOS), perioperative complications and reoperations were also collected through the patient’s latest follow-up.

6. PROMs: Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) Visual Analog Scale, (VAS) back and leg, 12-Item Short Form Survey Physical Component Score (SF-12 PCS), and global rating change (GRC) were collected at 2 weeks, 6 weeks, 12 weeks, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years after the surgery. Two postoperative timepoints - early (<6 months) and late (>6 months) - were defined for analyses.^13-16

7. Return to activities: Patients completed a return to activities survey as part of their standard of care. Patients who were driving and working preoperatively were asked if they had begun driving and working again at every follow-up visit until they returned to that activity. Patients who took opioids postoperatively were asked the date of cessation if applicable.

Single and Dual Level Decompression Cohorts

Two groups of patients were separated for the purpose of this analysis. Single-level decompression (SLD) patients all underwent single level surgery with demonstrated Schizas grade B or greater at an adjacent level on preoperative MRI. Dual-level decompression (DLD) patients all underwent two-level surgery for multi-level LSS. The decision for SLD vs DLD was based on the surgeon’s clinical judgment. In general, SLD was performed when symptoms and exam findings correlated with a one-level stenosis regardless of the degree of adjacent level stenosis. DLD was performed if symptoms of neurogenic claudication and/or radiculopathy were thought to either (1) stem from two levels based on a combination of symptoms, physical exam, MRI findings, and response to targeted steroid injections or (2) if the adjacent level had a Schizas grade B or higher and a prophylactic decompression was clinically thought to provide a longer-term benefit. To more accurately control for LSS, subgroup analysis was conducted to specifically compare patients with similar preoperative MRIs. SLD patients with adjacent level Schizas B and C were compared with DLD patients with second level Schizas B and C respectively. The adjacent level in the DLD group was defined as the level with the same or lower Schizas grade.

PROMs Analysis

VAS-back, VAS-leg, ODI, and SF-12 PCS were assessed for improvement. Changes in PROMs from their preoperative baseline were assessed at both the early and late timepoints. Additionally, the percentage of patients achieving minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for each PROMs at the late time points were calculated. MCID achievement was defined as a decrease in ODI by 12.8, VAS-back by 1.2, VAS-leg by 1.6, and SF-12 PCS by 4.1 as previously defined by Copay et al.¹⁷ Since preoperative baseline affects the utility of MCID in predicting patient improvement, patients with preoperative ODI <15, VAS-back/leg < 2.5, and SF-12 PCS > 92.1 were excluded from MCID achievement calculations.^18-20

Statistical Analysis

Statistical analyses were conducted to compare differences between the two defined groups. Normally distributed continuous variables between groups were compared with a 2-tailed independent sample t test when appropriate. Non-normally distributed variables were compared between groups with a Mann-Whitney U test as appropriate. Continuous variables were reported as mean ± standard deviation (SD) or as median [interquartile range (IQR)] when non-normally distributed. Categorical variables were compared between groups with a χ2 test or a Fisher exact test when the number of subjects was less than 10. Categorical variables are reported as sample size (%). Statistical significance was taken at P < 0.05. Analyses were performed using the IBM Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 25 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY).

Results

A total of 202 patients were included in the final analysis. The SLD cohort consisted of 126 (62.4%) patients and the DLD cohort consisted of the remaining 76 (37.6%) patients. There were no statistically significant differences in any demographic factors including age, gender, race, BMI, and comorbidities between the two groups (P > 0.05 for all, Table 1).

Table 1.

Cohort Demographics and Preoperative Radiographic Parameters.

	SLD (n = 126)	DLD (n = 76)	P-value
Age (years)	69.9 ± 10.7	68.5 ± 15.2	0.433
Male (%)	84 (66.7%)	52 (68.4%)	0.797
BMI (kg/m²)	28.4 ± 5.1	28.7 ± 4.4	0.636
Race			0.744
White	108 (85.7%)	67 (88.2%)
Black	4 (3.2%)	2 (2.6%)
Asian	3 (2.4%)	3 (3.9%)
Other/Unknown	11 (8.7%)	4 (5.3%)
Smoking Status
Current Smoker	8 (6.4%)	3 (4.0%)	0.466
Former Smoker	36 (28.6%)	21 (27.6%)	0.798
Diabetes	17 (13.5%)	14 (18.4%)	0.300
Depression	14 (11.1%)	4 (5.3%)	0.153
Anxiety	21 (16.7%)	11 (14.5%)	0.679
CCI	3.5 ± 1.7	3.3 ± 2.2	0.527
ASA Class			0.396
I	1 (0.8%)	3 (3.9%)
II	110 (87.3%)	62 (81.6%)
III	15 (11.9%)	11 (14.5%)
Spondylolisthesis	56.2%	31.4%	0.091
Spondylolisthesis Instability	54.2%	30.0%	0.423
Sagittal Parameters
LL	−43.4 ± 12.9	−43.2 ± 16.0	0.908
PL	−18.3 ± 9.5	−16.1 ± 9.1	0.158
DL	−25.2 ± 10.4	−27.1 ± 12.2	0.293
PI	54.6 ± 13.4	52.0 ± 11.1	0.213
PT	24.0 ± 9.4	21.7 ± 9.6	0.143
SS	30.6 ± 9.8	30.2 ± 9.2	0.802
PI-LL	11.4 ± 13.3	7.6 ± 13.0	0.075
Pfirrmann Grade at Operated Level	4.0 ± 0.7	3.8 ± 0.6	0.104
Average DSCSA	99.7 ± 37.8	98.1 ± 30.4	0.763
Schizas at Operated Level 1			0.077
B	29.4%	15.8%
C	54.0%	65.8%
D	16.7%	18.4%
Schizas at Adjacent/Operated Level 2			<0.001
B	74.6%	48.7%
C	25.4%	48.7%
D	0.0%	2.6%
Facet Effusion at Operated Level	23.8%	25.0%	0.848
Facet Cyst at Operated Level	57.9%	53.9%	0.580
Normalized Psoas CXA L34	80.2 ± 27.0	84.6 ± 30.1	0.284
Average Bone Minieral Density	111.9 ± 41.9	102.4 ± 46.2	0.402
Psoas Goutallier Grade L34	1.1 ± 0.8	1.2 ± 0.9	0.610

Preoperative radiographic parameters including sagittal alignment, disc health, muscle health, bone mineral density, and facet cyst/effusion, were similar between the two groups (P > 0.05 for all, Table 1). In the overall cohort, a greater proportion of patients exhibited a higher grade second-level compression in the DLD cohort based on Schizas grading (P < 0.001).

Surgical characteristics were largely similar between the SLD and DLD cohorts. Patients exhibited similar EBL, radiation dose, and length of stay. Operative time was significantly longer for the DLD cohort (74.6 min vs 101.7 min, P < 0.001) (Table 2)

Table 2.

Surgical Details.

	SLD (n = 126)	DLD (n = 76)	P-value
Laminectomy Level			0.073
L1-L2	2 (1.6%)	1 (1.3%)
L2-L3	9 (7.1%)	15 (19.7%)
L3-L4	33 (26.2%)	56 (73.7%)
L4-L5	76 (60.3%)	67 (88.2%)
L5-S1	6 (4.8%)	13 (17.1%)
Estimated Blood Loss	21.3 ± 9.4	24.2 ± 22.2	0.100
Operative Time	74.6 ± 28.2	101.7 ± 42.0	<0.001
Radiation Dose	8.7 ± 8.8	10.2 ± 9.7	0.128
Length of Stay	15.9 ± 16.4	20.5 ± 35.5	0.108
Post Op Day Discharge			0.402
0	69 (54.8%)	41 (53.9%)
1	44 (34.9%)	27 (35.5%)
2	11 (8.7%)	4 (5.3%)
3+	2 (1.6%)	4 (5.3%)

Patients in both groups improved significantly at both early and late follow-up for both cohorts. There existed no significant differences in preoperative or postoperative PROMs or magnitude of improvement for the overall cohort (Table 3), patients with second level Schizas B (Table 4), and patients with second level Schizas C (Table 4). Overall, the > 6-month MCID achievement for VAS-back was significantly greater for the DLD cohort (76% vs 65%, P = 0.016) (Figure 1A). This did not maintain significance in the subgroup analysis (Figure 1B and C). Most patients in both cohorts returned to all activities (driving, working) and discontinued narcotics during their follow-up period. There existed no significant differences between rates and time to return to activities between the SLD and DLD cohorts (Table 3).

Table 3.

Full Cohort PROMs Improvement and Return to Activities.

		SLD (n = 126)	DLD (n = 76)	P-value
ODI	Preoperative	34.8 ± 21.8	36.7 ± 20.7	0.522
	<6 months	23.4 ± 17.9	21.1 ± 18.7	0.412
		<0.001	<0.001
	Δ Change <6 months	−12.5 ± 18.7	−16.9 ± 22.1	0.166
	>6 months	21.9 ± 18.4	19.6 ± 16.6	0.434
		<0.001	<0.001
	Δ Change >6 months	−9.7 ± 22.4	−14.4 ± 24.0	0.203
VAS Back	Preoperative	4.6 ± 3.3	4.8 ± 3.2	0.826
	<6 months	2.8 ± 2.6	2.4 ± 2.5	0.353
		<0.001	<0.001
	Δ Change <6 months	−2.1 ± 3.2	−2.7 ± 3.2	0.192
	>6 months	2.9 ± 2.6	2.6 ± 2.7	0.400
		<0.001	<0.001
	Δ Change >6 months	−1.6 ± 3.2	−2.2 ± 3.4	0.280
VAS Leg	Preoperative	5.5 ± 3.3	5.1 ± 3.1	0.344
	<6 months	2.7 ± 3.1	2.2 ± 3.0	0.260
		<0.001	<0.001
	Δ Change <6 months	−3.0 ± 3.8	−3.3 ± 3.8	0.620
	>6 months	2.8 ± 2.9	2.4 ± 2.6	0.474
		<0.001	<0.001
	Δ Change >6 months	−2.5 ± 3.7	−2.7 ± 4.1	0.721
SF 12 PCS	Preoperative	24.1 ± 15.6	26.1 ± 12.8	0.360
	<6 months	38.1 ± 10.7	39.0 ± 10.5	0.608
		<0.001	<0.001
	Δ Change <6 months	10.5 ± 15.1	9.3 ± 12.2	0.619
	>6 months	39.5 ± 11.2	39.2 ± 11.0	0.845
		<0.001	<0.001
	Δ Change >6 months	11.9 ± 16.7	9.7 ± 12.3	0.389
Return to Driving [n driving preoperatively = 78 (SDL) and 44 (DLD)]	%	98.6%	97.7%	0.310
	Median Days	10 [4-17.5]	14 [7-25]	0.312
Return to Working [n working preoperatively = 42 (SDL) and 23 (DLD)]	%	85.7%	100.0%	0.057
	Median Days	11 [3.25-25.5]	15 [8-35]	0.059
Discontinue Narcotics [n took narcotics postoperatively = 64 (SDL) and 36 (DLD)]	%	92.2%	94.4%	0.671
	Median Days	7 [2-14.5]	5.5 [1.25-13.5]	0.673

Table 4.

PROMs and Magnitude of Improvement in Patients With Adjacent or Second Level Schizas Grade B and C.

		Adjacent Level B			Adjacent Level C
		SLD (n = 94)	DLD (n = 37)	P-value	SLD (n = 32)	DLD (n = 37)	P-value
ODI	Preoperative	33.6 ± 23.0	36.0 ± 23.1	0.620	38.3 ± 17.6	34.1 ± 18.6	0.341
	<6 months	23.3 ± 17.8	20.89 ± 19.9	0.562	23.7 ± 18.5	19.4 ± 17.2	0.351
		<0.001	<0.001		<0.001	<0.001
	Δ Change <6 months	−12.1 ± 18.9	−13.9 ± 23.3	0.702	−13.7 ± 18.6	−18.2 ± 21.1	0.389
	>6 months	20.1 ± 17.4	17.8 ± 15.4	0.555	26.5 ± 20.3	20.2 ± 17.9	0.203
		<0.001	0.001		0.018	0.007
	Δ Change >6 months	−8.8 ± 21.4	−13.7 ± 25.4	0.352	−12.0 ± 25.2	−11.8 ± 23.6	0.985
VAS Back	Preoperative	4.3 ± 3.3	4.5 ± 3.5	0.844	5.5 ± 3.2	4.8 ± 3.1	0.316
	<6 months	2.8 ± 2.8	2.2 ± 2.7	0.337	2.5 ± 2.1	2.5 ± 2.6	0.916
		<0.001	<0.001		<0.001	<0.001
	Δ Change <6 months	−1.7 ± 3.2	−2.7 ± 3.3	0.218	−3.0 ± 3.2	−2.7 ± 3.1	0.747
	>6 months	2.7 ± 2.6	2.7 ± 2.8	0.912	3.5 ± 2.7	2.6 ± 2.8	0.217
		<0.001	0.004		0.006	0.002
	Δ Change >6 months	−1.3 ± 2.9	−1.9 ± 3.4	0.474	−2.2 ± 3.8	−2.1 ± 3.5	0.934
VAS Leg	Preoperative	5.3 ± 3.4	4.3 ± 3.3	0.160	6.3 ± 2.9	5.1 ± 2.9	0.092
	<6 months	2.7 ± 3.1	2.4 ± 3.2	0.631	2.7 ± 3.1	1.8 ± 2.7	0.232
		<0.001	0.001		0.008	<0.001
	Δ Change <6 months	−2.9 ± 3.6	−2.3 ± 4.5	0.497	−3.6 ± 4.2	−3.8 ± 3.1	0.824
	>6 months	2.4 ± 2.5	2.1 ± 2.4	0.589	3.8 ± 3.7	2.7 ± 2.8	0.206
		<0.001	0.001		<0.001	0.003
	Δ Change >6 months	−2.5 ± 3.4	−2.5 ± 4.1	0.981	−2.4 ± 4.3	−2.4 ± 4.1	0.985
SF 12 PCS	Preoperative	24.4 ± 15.5	25.2 ± 14.4	0.805	23.1 ± 16.3	27.4 ± 12.1	0.214
	<6 months	37.8 ± 10.2	38.8 ± 10.2	0.690	38.9 ± 11.9	40.7 ± 10.9	0.544
		<0.001	<0.001		<0.001	<0.001
	Δ Change <6 months	9.4 ± 15.3	10.3 ± 13.9	0.795	13.4 ± 14.3	9.4 ± 11.8	0.249
	>6 months	40.5 ± 11.4	38.8 ± 11.0	0.553	37.2 ± 10.4	39.8 ± 11.7	0.371
		<0.001	0.002		0.002	<0.001
	Δ Change >6 months	11.8 ± 16.4	10.3 ± 12.9	0.705	12.2 ± 17.8	9.2 ± 12.7	0.466

Figure 1.

MCID achievement (A) for the entire cohort, (B) in patients with adjacent or second level Schizas grade (B and C) in patients with adjacent or second level Schizas grade (C).

Rates of intraoperative complications (1.6% vs 4.0%, P = 0.367) and perioperative complications (7.9% vs 13.2%, P = 0.235) were not significantly different between the cohorts. Rates of reoperation at both the same (15.1% vs 11.8%, P = 0.519) or adjacent (6.4% vs 6.6%, P = 0.972) levels were also similar (Table 5).

Table 5.

Intraoperative, Perioperative and Postoperative Complications. POUR (Postoperative Urinary Retention), HTN (Hypertension), AKI (Acute Kidney Injury), UTI (Urinary Tract Infection).

	SLD (n = 126) (%)	DLD (n = 76) (%)	P-value
Intraoperative Complications (all durotomies)	1.6	4.0	0.367
In Hospital Complications	7.9	13.2	0.235
POUR (requiring catheterization)	50	60
HTN	10	0
Hyponatremia	10	0
Headache	10	10
AKI	10	0
New onset sensory/motor deficits	10	0
UTI	0	0
Cardiac Event	0	10
Epidural Hematoma (requiring reoperation)	0	10
Urinary incontinence	0	10
Revision Surgery	21.4	18.4	0.719
Same level	15.1	11.8	0.519
Adjacent level	6.4	6.6	0.972

Discussion

Lumbar spinal stenosis represents is a common pathology that oftentimes requires surgical intervention to improve the associated disability and decreased quality of life. In many patients with multi-level spondylosis, identifying operative levels can be a clinical and surgical conundrum. Since MRI identified stenosis oftentimes does not correlate clinically with patient symptoms, there exists a need for homogenous data regarding outcomes in patients with adjacent level stenosis. In the present study we found patients who underwent SLD with adjacent level stenosis demonstrated similar PROMs, complication rates, and reoperation rates compared with patients who underwent two DLD with similar Schizas graded compression. The added “cost” of the second level likely comes in the form of a longer operative time and a potentially greater risk of operative and perioperative complications. This suggests that even in the presence of significant adjacent level stenosis, decompressing the second level may not provide additional benefit if that level is not a significant contributor to the patient’s symptom profile.

At both early and longer-term follow-up, PROMs for ODI, VAS-Back, VAS-Leg, and SF12-PCS were similar between the single and dual level cohorts. These findings are in line with the recent study by Tronstad et al which similarly found no differences in PROMs, complications, or revisions between 1 and 2-level decompression.⁹ A key limitation of the Tronstad et al study was a difference in the severity of adjacent level stenosis between the two groups. In their DLD cohort, 61 patients had Schizas grade C compression vs only 16 in their SLD group, adding significant bias to the analysis. Without performing a subgroup analysis, our patient cohort also demonstrated that a greater proportion of patients exhibited a higher grade second-level compression in the DLD group compared to the SLD group. This difference is inherent to the retrospective nature of the study as SLD or DLD is performed based on the surgeon’s clinical judgment, with patients exhibiting higher grade adjacent level stenosis being likely to be indicated for a DLD.

In order to address this, our study also performed a subgroup analysis, where we compared cohorts of patients with similar levels of second level compression. On this subgroup analysis, patients demonstrated similar pain score outcomes. By demonstrating similar findings in a cohort with comparable adjacent-level MRI findings classified according to a validated system, our study lends further credence to the notion that the radiologic appearance of stenosis does not necessitate surgical intervention in the absence of convincing clinical symptoms. This concept has been supported by several studies showing a lack of correlation between MRI findings and symptom severity in lumbar stenosis.^6,7 A sub-analysis of the SPORT study published by Park et al demonstrated the number of levels treated was not predictive of outcomes in multilevel LSS.²¹ External validity of these results has been demonstrated by Ulrich et al, Yoshikane et al, Adilay et al, and Yamamoto et al, who all demonstrated equal or greater pain score outcomes in single-level decompression for patients with multilevel LSS.^22-25 Taken together, multilevel LSS likely represents a condition poorly correlated with symptomatology and surgical decision making should focus on addressing symptoms specifically for optimal outcomes.

Patients returned to driving, working, and discontinued narcotics at similar rates regardless of the number of levels. To the best of our knowledge, no comprehensive data has been reported regarding differences in returning to activities following SLD vs DLD. So, the question remains, what is the “cost” of the second level of surgery with regards to operative time and perioperative complications? Why not decompress the adjacent level? While differences in patient outcomes were minimal, there was a notable disparity in operative time between the SLD and DLD cohorts. There was also an approximately 2-fold increase in rates of intraoperative and perioperative complications in the DLD group though we were likely underpowered to find statistical significance. These findings are similar to results published by Adilay et al who reported a 10.4% compilation rate for single level surgery compared with 18.8% for multilevel surgery.²⁴ Urich et al demonstrated a 9.1% complication rate for single level vs 18.5% for multilevel surgery.²² Importantly neither of these results were statistically significant. It is possible the current set of published cohorts are underpowered to show significance, and a pooled analysis is necessary. Regardless, this highlights the importance of considering the incremental risks of more “invasive” procedures, even if the absolute differences are small for any individual patient.

Reoperation rates were similar between our SLD and DLD cohorts, both at the index level and at adjacent segments. This argues against routinely decompressing asymptomatic stenotic levels to prevent revision surgery. Nolte et al and Yamamoto et al both compared single-level decompression vs multilevel surgery in both cases finding single-level decompressions were revised at similar rates.^25,26

Thus, our findings combined with prior data suggest that patients presenting with symptomatic LSS with an adjacent level stenosis of Schizas B or C will equally benefit from either a SLD or a DLD. A caveat to this finding, however, is applying this concept for patients presenting with symptomatic LSS with two levels of equivalent grades of stenosis, particularly when the primary symptoms are neurogenic claudication. As previously described, it is especially difficult to define the “most symptomatic level” among patients with multilevel LSS presenting with neurogenic claudication.^21,25 Therefore, patients presenting with symptoms of LSS with equivalent compression grade at two levels may benefit from a DLD over an SLD to ensure proper symptomatic resolution.

We acknowledge several limitations to our study. The retrospective methodology introduces the possibility of selection bias, as surgeons may have been more likely to perform dual level decompressions on patients with more severe symptoms or greater disability. Although baseline PROMs were comparable between groups, subtle differences in presentation could have influenced decision-making. The cohort size, particularly in the DLD group and radiographic subgroup analysis, limits the power of the study to detect small differences that may still be clinically relevant. Longer term follow-up would be helpful to ensure the durability of our findings, as some patients with untreated stenosis could develop recurrent symptoms over time. Additionally, our results are not necessarily generalizable to patients with different radiographic profiles than those included here. More expansive prospective studies, ideally with randomization, are needed to validate our findings and guide management across a range of clinical scenarios. Finally, the present study was not equipped to study the financial implications associated with SLD and DLD which may be necessary in the effort for optimal value-based care.

Conclusion

SLD and DLD provided equivalent outcomes among patients presenting with symptomatic LSS with two levels of Schizas B or C stenosis. There were no clear protective benefits of adjacent level surgery with regards to PROMs, complications, or reoperation rates at minimum 1-year follow-up. Surgeons should weigh the potential benefits of addressing radiologic abnormalities against the added time and small incremental risk associated with more levels of surgery. Shared decision making with patients should emphasize the primacy of their presenting complaints. Larger prospective studies with longer-term follow-ups are needed to clarify the optimal management of this common clinical scenario. Additionally, financial cost effectiveness studies comparing SLD and DLD procedural cost and costs of perioperative complications/reoperations may be helpful to better quantify the tradeoffs involved.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: State: HS2, LLC Ownership/Equity/Investment Innovasis Research Support (either personally or through HSS) Globus Medical, Inc. Speakers’ Bureau Intrinsic Therapeutics Inc. Other Bioventus Consulting HSS AND ASC Development Network Ownership/Equity/Investment. Sheeraz Qureshi has the following disclosures: AMOpportunities: Other financial or material support; Annals of Translational Medicine: Editorial or governing board; Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons: Board or committee member; Cervical Spine Research Society: Board or committee member; Contemporary Spine Surgery: Editorial or governing board; Globus Medical: IP royalties; Paid consultant; Paid presenter or speaker; Hospital Special Surgery Journal: Editorial or governing board; HS2, LLC: Stock or stock Options; International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery (ISASS) - Program Committee member: Board or committee member; Lifelink.com: Other financial or material support; Lumbar Spine Research Society: Board or committee member; Minimally Invasive Spine Study Group: Board or committee member; North American Spine Society: Board or committee member; Simplify Medical, Inc.: Other financial or material support; Society of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery (SMISS) - Program Committee member: Board or committee member; Spinal Simplicity: Other financial or material support; SpineGuard, Inc.: Paid consultant; Stryker: IP royalties; Paid consultant; Surgalign: Paid consultant; Tissue Differentiation Intelligence: Stock or stock Options; Viseon, Inc.: Paid consultant; Research support. Sravisht Iyer has the following disclosures: Globus Medical: Paid presenter or speaker; Stryker: Paid presenter or speaker; Vertebral Columns/International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery (ISASS): Editorial or governing board.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Pratyush Shahi

Gregory S. Kazarian

Austin C. Kaidi

Kasra Araghi

Maximilian K. Korsun

Joshua Zhang

Avani S. Vaishnav

Eric T. Kim

Francis C. Lovecchio

Sheeraz A. Qureshi

Sravisht Iyer

References

Lai

MKL

Cheung

PWH

Samartzis

Cheung

JPY

. Prevalence and definition of multilevel lumbar developmental spinal stenosis. Global Spine J. 2022;12(6):2192568220975384. doi:10.1177/2192568220975384

Weinstein

Lurie

Tosteson

, et al. Surgical versus nonsurgical treatment for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(22):2257-2270. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa070302

Subramanian

Shahi

Araghi

, et al. Using artificial intelligence to answer common patient-focused questions in minimally invasive spine surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2023;105:1649-1653. doi:10.2106/jbjs.23.00043

Maayan

Shahi

Merrill

, et al. Ninety percent of patients are satisfied with their decision to undergo spine surgery for degenerative conditions. Spine. 2024;49(8):561-568. doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000004714

Singh

Shahi

Asada

, et al. Poor muscle health and low preoperative ODI are independent predictors for slower achievement of MCID after minimally invasive decompression. Spine J. 2023;23(23):1152-1160. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2023.04.004

Burgstaller

Schüffler

Buhmann

, et al.

Is there an association between pain and magnetic resonance imaging parameters in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis?

Spine. 2016;41(17):E1053-E1062. doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000001544

Geisser

Haig

Tong

, et al. Spinal canal size and clinical symptoms among persons diagnosed with lumbar spinal stenosis. Clin J Pain. 2007;23(9):780-785. doi:10.1097/AJP.0b013e31815349bf

Tomkins-Lane

Battié

Macedo

. Pathoanatomical characteristics of clinical lumbar spinal stenosis. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 2014;27(2):223-229. doi:10.3233/BMR-130440

Tronstad

Haug

Myklebust

TÅ

, et al. Do patients with lumbar spinal stenosis benefit from decompression of levels with adjacent moderate stenosis? A prospective cohort study from the NORDSTEN study. Spine J. 2024;24(6):1015-1021. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2024.01.010

10.

Shahi

Subramanian

Maayan

, et al. Outcomes of minimally invasive decompression alone versus fusion for predominant back pain. HSS Journal®. 2024;28:15563316231223503. doi:10.1177/15563316231223503

11.

Harris

Taylor

Minor

, et al. The REDCap consortium: building an international community of software platform partners. J Biomed Inform. 2019;95:103208. doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103208

12.

Harris

Taylor

Thielke

Payne

Gonzalez

Conde

. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42(2):377-381. doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010

13.

Subramanian

Maayan

Shahi

, et al. Early experiences with single-position prone lateral lumbar interbody fusion: safety and outcomes. HSS Journal® 2023;20(4):15563316231183379. doi:10.1177/15563316231183379

14.

Subramanian

Merrill

Shahi

, et al. Predictors of subsidence and its clinical impact after expandable cage insertion in minimally invasive transforaminal interbody fusion. Spine. 2023;48(23):1670-1678. doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000004619

15.

Shahi

Subramanian

Araghi

, et al. Comparison of robotics and navigation for clinical outcomes after minimally invasive lumbar fusion. Spine. 2023;48(19):1342-1347. doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000004721

16.

Asada

Simon

Singh

, et al. Limited improvement with minimally invasive lumbar decompression alone for degenerative scoliosis with cobb angle over 20°: the impact of decompression location. Spine. 2024;49:1037-1045. doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000004968

17.

Copay

Glassman

Subach

Berven

Schuler

Carreon

. Minimum clinically important difference in lumbar spine surgery patients: a choice of methods using the oswestry disability index, medical outcomes study questionnaire short form 36, and pain scales. Spine J. 2008;8(6):968-974. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2007.11.006

18.

Shahi

Subramanian

Maayan

, et al. Preoperative disability influences effectiveness of MCID and PASS in predicting patient improvement following lumbar spine surgery. Clin Spine Surg. 2023;36(10):E506-E511. doi:10.1097/BSD.0000000000001517

19.

Shahi

Maayan

Subramanian

, et al. Preoperative disability influences effectiveness of minimal clinically important difference and patient acceptable symptom state in predicting patient improvement following cervical spine surgery. Global Spine J. 2023;20:21925682231215765. doi:10.1177/21925682231215765

20.

Shahi

Shinn

Singh

, et al. ODI <25 denotes patient acceptable symptom state after minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery. Spine. 2023;48(3):196-202. doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000004479

21.

Park

Lurie

, et al. Does multilevel lumbar stenosis lead to poorer outcomes? A subanalysis of the spine patient outcomes research trial (SPORT) lumbar stenosis study. Spine. 2010;35(4):439-446. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181bdafb9

22.

Ulrich

Burgstaller

Held

, et al. The influence of single-level versus multilevel decompression on the outcome in multisegmental lumbar spinal stenosis: analysis of the lumbar spinal outcome study (LSOS) data. Clin Spine Surg. 2017;30(10):E1367-E1375. doi:10.1097/BSD.0000000000000469

23.

Yoshikane

Kikuchi

Okazaki

. Clinical outcomes of selective single-level lumbar endoscopic unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression of multilevel lumbar spinal stenosis and risk factors of reoperation. Global Spine J. 2023;13(5):1350-1357. doi:10.1177/21925682211033575

24.

Adilay

Guclu

. Comparison of single-level and multilevel decompressive laminectomy for multilevel lumbar spinal stenosis. World Neurosurg. 2018;111:e235-e240. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2017.12.033

25.

Yamamoto

Yagi

Suzuki

, et al. Multilevel decompression surgery for degenerative lumbar spinal canal stenosis is similarly effective with single-level decompression surgery. Spine. 2022;47(24):1728-1736. doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000004447

26.

Nolte

Louie

Basques

, et al. Patients undergoing 3-Level-or-Greater decompression-only surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis have similar outcomes to those undergoing single-level surgery at 2 years. Int J Spine Surg. 2021;15(5):945-952. doi:10.14444/8124

Outcomes of One Versus Two Level MIS Decompression With Adjacent Level Stenosis

Abstract

Study Design

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keywords

Introduction

Methods

Study Design and Patient Cohort

Data Collection

Single and Dual Level Decompression Cohorts

PROMs Analysis

Statistical Analysis

Results

Discussion

Conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

ORCID iDs

References