Pick Topic
Review Topic
List Experts
Examine Expert
Save Expert
  Site Guide ··   
Spinal Stenosis HELP
Based on 3,302 articles published since 2010
||||

These are the 3302 published articles about Spinal Stenosis that originated from Worldwide during 2010-2020.
 
+ Citations + Abstracts
Pages: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20
1 Guideline The MIST Guidelines: The Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Consensus Group Guidelines for Minimally Invasive Spine Treatment. 2019

Deer, Timothy R / Grider, Jay S / Pope, Jason E / Falowski, Steven / Lamer, Tim J / Calodney, Aaron / Provenzano, David A / Sayed, Dawood / Lee, Eric / Wahezi, Sayed E / Kim, Chong / Hunter, Corey / Gupta, Mayank / Benyamin, Rasmin / Chopko, Bohdan / Demesmin, Didier / Diwan, Sudhir / Gharibo, Christopher / Kapural, Leo / Kloth, David / Klagges, Brian D / Harned, Michael / Simopoulos, Tom / McJunkin, Tory / Carlson, Jonathan D / Rosenquist, Richard W / Lubenow, Timothy R / Mekhail, Nagy. ·Center for Pain Relief, Charleston, West Virginia, U.S.A. · UKHealthCare Pain Services, Department of Anesthesiology, University of Kentucky College of Medicine, Lexington, Kentucky, U.S.A. · Evolve Restorative Clinic, Santa Rosa, California, U.S.A. · Functional Neurosurgery, St. Lukes University Health Network, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, U.S.A. · Division of Pain Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, U.S.A. · Texas Spine and Joint Hospital, Tyler, Texas, U.S.A. · Pain Diagnostics and Interventional Care, Sewickley, Pennsylvania, U.S.A. · University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas, U.S.A. · Summit Pain Alliance, Sonoma, California, U.S.A. · Montefiore Medical Center, SUNY-Buffalo, Buffalo, New York, U.S.A. · Ainsworth Institute of Pain Management, New York, New York, U.S.A. · Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, HCA Midwest Health, Overland Park, Kansas, U.S.A. · Millennium Pain Center, Bloomington, Illinois, U.S.A. · College of Medicine, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Illinois, U.S.A. · Stanford Health Care, Henderson, Nevada, U.S.A. · Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Department of Pain Medicine, Saint Peter's University Hospital, New Brunswick, New Jersey, U.S.A. · Manhattan Spine and Pain Medicine, Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, New York, U.S.A. · Pain Medicine and Orthopedics, NYU Langone Hospitals Center, New York, New York, U.S.A. · Carolina's Pain Institute at Brookstown, Wake Forest Baptist Health, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, U.S.A. · Department of Anesthesiology, Danbury Hospital, Danbury, Connecticut, U.S.A. · Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Amoskeag Anesthesiology, Manchester, New Hampshire, U.S.A. · Department of Anesthesiology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, U.S.A. · Department of Anesthesiology, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.A. · Pain Doctor Inc., Phoenix, Arizona, U.S.A. · Arizona Pain, Midwestern Medical School, Glendale, Arizona, U.S.A. · Pain Management, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, U.S.A. · Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A. · Evidence-Based Pain Management Research and Education, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, U.S.A. ·Pain Pract · Pubmed #30369003.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) can lead to compression of neural elements and manifest as low back and leg pain. LSS has traditionally been treated with a variety of conservative (pain medications, physical therapy, epidural spinal injections) and invasive (surgical decompression) options. Recently, several minimally invasive procedures have expanded the treatment options. METHODS: The Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Consensus Group convened to evaluate the peer-reviewed literature as the basis for making minimally invasive spine treatment (MIST) recommendations. Eleven consensus points were clearly defined with evidence strength, recommendation grade, and consensus level using U.S. Preventive Services Task Force criteria. The Consensus Group also created a treatment algorithm. Literature searches yielded 9 studies (2 randomized controlled trials [RCTs]; 7 observational studies, 4 prospective and 3 retrospective) of minimally invasive spine treatments, and 1 RCT for spacers. RESULTS: The LSS treatment choice is dependent on the degree of stenosis; spinal or anatomic level; architecture of the stenosis; severity of the symptoms; failed, past, less invasive treatments; previous fusions or other open surgical approaches; and patient comorbidities. There is Level I evidence for percutaneous image-guided lumbar decompression as superior to lumbar epidural steroid injection, and 1 RCT supported spacer use in a noninferiority study comparing 2 spacer products currently available. CONCLUSIONS: MISTs should be used in a judicious and algorithmic fashion to treat LSS, based on the evidence of efficacy and safety in the peer-reviewed literature. The MIST Consensus Group recommend that these procedures be used in a multimodal fashion as part of an evidence-based decision algorithm.

2 Guideline ACR Appropriateness Criteria Myelopathy. 2016

Roth, Christopher J / Angevine, Peter D / Aulino, Joseph M / Berger, Kevin L / Choudhri, Asim F / Fries, Ian Blair / Holly, Langston T / Kendi, Ayse Tuba Karaqulle / Kessler, Marcus M / Kirsch, Claudia F / Luttrull, Michael D / Mechtler, Laszlo L / O'Toole, John E / Sharma, Aseem / Shetty, Vilaas S / West, O Clark / Cornelius, Rebecca S / Bykowski, Julie. ·Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. Electronic address: christopher.roth@duke.edu. · Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York, American Association of Neurological Surgeons/Congress of Neurological Surgeons. · Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee. · Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. · Le Bonheur Children's Hospital, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, Tennessee. · Bone, Spine and Hand Surgery, Chartered, Brick, New Jersey, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. · University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, American Association of Neurological Surgeons/Congress of Neurological Surgeons. · Emory University Hospital, Atlanta, Georgia. · University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, Arkansas. · The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio. · Dent Neurologic Institute, Amherst, New York, American Academy of Neurology. · Rush University, Chicago, Illinois, American Association of Neurological Surgeons/Congress of Neurological Surgeons. · Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Saint Louis, Missouri. · Saint Louis University Hospital, Saint Louis, Missouri. · University of Texas at Houston, Houston, Texas. · University of Cincinnati Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio. · University of California San Diego Health Center, San Diego, California. ·J Am Coll Radiol · Pubmed #26653797.

ABSTRACT: Patients presenting with myelopathic symptoms may have a number of causative intradural and extradural etiologies, including disc degenerative diseases, spinal masses, infectious or inflammatory processes, vascular compromise, and vertebral fracture. Patients may present acutely or insidiously and may progress toward long-term paralysis if not treated promptly and effectively. Noncontrast CT is the most appropriate first examination in acute trauma cases to diagnose vertebral fracture as the cause of acute myelopathy. In most nontraumatic cases, MRI is the modality of choice to evaluate the location, severity, and causative etiology of spinal cord myelopathy, and predicts which patients may benefit from surgery. Myelopathy from spinal stenosis and spinal osteoarthritis is best confirmed without MRI intravenous contrast. Many other myelopathic conditions are more easily visualized after contrast administration. Imaging performed should be limited to the appropriate spinal levels, based on history, physical examination, and clinical judgment. The ACR Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed every three years by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and review include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals, and the application of a well-established consensus methodology (modified Delphi) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures by the panel. In those instances in which evidence is lacking or not definitive, expert opinion may be used to recommend imaging or treatment.

3 Guideline Clinical Guideline for Treatment of Symptomatic Thoracic Spinal Stenosis. 2015

Chen, Zhong-qiang / Sun, Chui-guo / Anonymous5550840. ·Department of Orthopaedics, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China. ·Orthop Surg · Pubmed #26311094.

ABSTRACT: Thoracic spinal stenosis is a relatively common disorder causing paraplegia in the population of China. Until nowadays, the clinical management of thoracic spinal stenosis is still demanding and challenging with lots of questions remaining to be answered. A clinical guideline for the treatment of symptomatic thoracic spinal stenosis has been created by reaching the consensus of Chinese specialists using the best available evidence as a tool to aid practitioners involved with the care of this disease. In this guideline, many fundamental questions about thoracic spinal stenosis which were controversial have been explained clearly, including the definition of thoracic spinal stenosis, the standard procedure for diagnosing symptomatic thoracic spinal stenosis, indications for surgery, and so on. According to the consensus on the definition of thoracic spinal stenosis, the soft herniation of thoracic discs has been excluded from the pathological factors causing thoracic spinal stenosis. The procedure for diagnosing thoracic spinal stenosis has been quite mature, while the principles for selecting operative procedures remain to be improved. This guideline will be updated on a timely schedule and adhering to its recommendations should not be mandatory because it does not have the force of law.

4 Guideline An evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (update). 2013

Kreiner, D Scott / Shaffer, William O / Baisden, Jamie L / Gilbert, Thomas J / Summers, Jeffrey T / Toton, John F / Hwang, Steven W / Mendel, Richard C / Reitman, Charles A / Anonymous1970763. ·Ahwatukee Sports and Spine, 4530 E. Muirwood Drive, Suite 110, Phoenix, AZ 85048-7693, USA. skreiner@ahwatukeesportsandspine.com ·Spine J · Pubmed #23830297.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The evidence-based clinical guideline on the diagnosis and treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis by the North American Spine Society (NASS) provides evidence-based recommendations to address key clinical questions surrounding the diagnosis and treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. The guideline is intended to reflect contemporary treatment concepts for symptomatic degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis as reflected in the highest quality clinical literature available on this subject as of July 2010. The goals of the guideline recommendations are to assist in delivering optimum efficacious treatment and functional recovery from this spinal disorder. PURPOSE: Provide an evidence-based educational tool to assist spine care providers in improving quality and efficiency of care delivered to patients with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and evidence-based clinical guideline. METHODS: This report is from the Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Work Group of the NASS's Evidence-Based Clinical Guideline Development Committee. The work group consisted of multidisciplinary spine care specialists trained in the principles of evidence-based analysis. The original guideline, published in 2006, was carefully reviewed. A literature search addressing each question and using a specific search protocol was performed on English language references found in MEDLINE, EMBASE (Drugs and Pharmacology), and four additional, evidence-based, databases to identify articles published since the search performed for the original guideline. The relevant literature was then independently rated by a minimum of three physician reviewers using the NASS-adopted standardized levels of evidence. An evidentiary table was created for each of the questions. Final recommendations to answer each clinical question were arrived at via work group discussion, and grades were assigned to the recommendations using standardized grades of recommendation. In the absence of Levels I to IV evidence, work group consensus statements have been developed using a modified nominal group technique, and these statements are clearly identified as such in the guideline. RESULTS: Sixteen key clinical questions were assessed, addressing issues of natural history, diagnosis, and treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. The answers are summarized in this document. The respective recommendations were graded by the strength of the supporting literature that was stratified by levels of evidence. CONCLUSIONS: A clinical guideline for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis has been updated using the techniques of evidence-based medicine and using the best available clinical evidence to aid both practitioners and patients involved with the care of this condition. The entire guideline document, including the evidentiary tables, suggestions for future research, and all references, will be available electronically at the NASS Web site (www.spine.org) and will remain updated on a timely schedule.

5 Editorial [Spinal canal stenosis]. 2019

Rauschmann, M / Arabmotlagh, M. ·Klinik für Wirbelsäulenorthopädie und Rekonstruktive Orthopädie, Sana Klinikum Offenbach, Starkenburgring 66, 63069, Offenbach am Main, Deutschland. Michael.Rauschmann@sana.de. · Klinik für Wirbelsäulenorthopädie und Rekonstruktive Orthopädie, Sana Klinikum Offenbach, Starkenburgring 66, 63069, Offenbach am Main, Deutschland. ·Orthopade · Pubmed #31559468.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

6 Editorial Lumbar stenosis surgery: Spine surgeons not insurance companies should decide when enough is better than too much. 2017

Epstein, Nancy E. ·Professor of Clinical Neurosurgery, School of Medicine, State University of New York at Stony Brook, and Chief of Neurosurgical Spine and Eduction, NYU Winthrop Hospital, Mineola, New York, USA. ·Surg Neurol Int · Pubmed #29119045.

ABSTRACT: Background: Lumbar surgery for spinal stenosis is the most common spine operation being performed in older patients. Nevertheless, every time we want to schedule surgery, we confront the insurance industry. More often than not they demand patients first undergo epidural steroid injections (ESI); clearly they are not aware of ESI's lack of long-term efficacy. Who put these insurance companies in charge anyway? We did. How? Through performing too many unnecessary or overly extensive spinal operations (e.g., interbody fusions and instrumented fusions) without sufficient clinical and/or radiographic indications. Methods: Patients with lumbar spinal stenosis with/without degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) are being offered decompressions alone and/or unnecessarily extensive interbody and/or instrumented fusions. Furthermore, a cursory review of the literature largely demonstrates comparable outcomes for decompressions alone vs. decompressions/in situ fusions vs. interbody/instrumented fusions. Results: Too many older patients are being subjected to unnecessary lumbar spine surgery, some with additional interbody/non instrumented or instrumented fusions, without adequate clinical/neurodiagnostic indications. Conclusions: The decision to perform spine surgery for lumbar stenosis/DS, including decompression alone, decompression with non instrumented or instrumented fusion should be in the hands of competent spinal surgeons with their patients' best outcomes in mind. Presently, insurance companies have stepped into the "void" left by spinal surgeons' failing to regulate when, what type, and why spinal surgery is being offered to patients with spinal stenosis. Clearly, spine surgeons need to establish guidelines to maximize patient safety and outcomes for lumbar stenosis surgery. We need to remove insurance companies from their present roles as the "spinal police."

7 Editorial Editorial. 2017

Munting, Everard. ·Orthopaedic Department, Clinique Saint Pierre, 1340, Ottignies, Belgium. munting.everard@gmail.com. ·Eur Spine J · Pubmed #28939946.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

8 Editorial Minimally invasive surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. 2016

Moojen, Wouter A / Van der Gaag, Niels A. ·HAGA Teaching Hospital, Leyweg 275, 2545 CH, The Hague, Netherlands. wouter@moojen.eu. · Medical Center Haaglanden, The Hague, Netherlands. wouter@moojen.eu. · Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands. wouter@moojen.eu. · HAGA Teaching Hospital, Leyweg 275, 2545 CH, The Hague, Netherlands. · Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands. ·Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol · Pubmed #27659170.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

9 Editorial Fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis? 2016

Cole, Ashley A. ·Department of Orthopaedics, Northern General Hospital, Sheffield S5 7AU, UK. ·BMJ · Pubmed #27287461.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

10 Editorial Fusion for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis--Safeguard or Superfluous Surgical Implant? 2016

Peul, Wilco C / Moojen, Wouter A. ·From Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden (W.C.P., W.A.M.), and the Haga Teaching Hospital (W.A.M.) and Medical Center Haaglanden (W.C.P., W.A.M.), The Hague - both in the Netherlands. ·N Engl J Med · Pubmed #27074071.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

11 Editorial Editorial: Vascular injury during spinal procedures. 2016

Heary, Robert F / Mummaneni, Praveen V. ·Department of Neurological Surgery, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey; and. · Department of Neurosurgery, University of California, San Francisco, California. ·J Neurosurg Spine · Pubmed #26637066.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

12 Editorial Surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis: informed patient preferences should weigh heavily. 2015

Katz, Jeffrey N. · ·Ann Intern Med · Pubmed #25844999.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

13 Editorial Minimally invasive surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. 2015

Moojen, Wouter A / Peul, Wilco C. ·HAGA Medical Center, Leyweg 275, 2545 CH, The Hague, Netherlands Neurosurgical Cooperative Holland, Medical Center The Hague and Leiden University MC, Leiden, Netherlands wouter@moojen.eu. · Neurosurgical Cooperative Holland, Medical Center The Hague and Leiden University MC, Leiden, Netherlands. ·BMJ · Pubmed #25832624.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

14 Editorial Definitions, diagnosis, and decompression in spinal surgery: problems and solution. 2015

Germon, Timothy J / Hobart, Jeremy C. ·Southwest Neurosurgical Centre, Plymouth UK. Electronic address: tim.germon@nhs.net. · Plymouth University Peninsula Schools of Medicine and Dentistry, Plymouth, UK. ·Spine J · Pubmed #25708140.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

15 Editorial Electrodiagnostic testing before surgery for spinal stenosis. 2014

Cheng, Ivan / Ho, Suehun / Kennedy, David J. ·Department of Orthopaedics, Stanford University, Redwood City, CA(∗)(‡). · Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY(†). · Department of Orthopaedics, Stanford University, Redwood City, CA(∗)(‡). Electronic address: djkenned@standford.edu. ·PM R · Pubmed #25441719.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

16 Editorial Response. 2014

Lee, Soo Eon / Jahng, Tae-Ahn / Kim, Hyun-Jib. · ·J Neurosurg Spine · Pubmed #25392885.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

17 Editorial Degenerative lumbosacral stenosis in dogs: will we see progress in the next 30 years? 2014

da Costa, Ronaldo C. ·Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA. Electronic address: dacosta.6@osu.edu. ·Vet J · Pubmed #25278383.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

18 Editorial Response. 2014

Shaffrey, Christopher I / Smith, Justin S. · ·J Neurosurg Spine · Pubmed #25221798.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

19 Editorial Response. 2014

McGirt, Matthew J / Parker, Scott L. · ·J Neurosurg Spine · Pubmed #25221797.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

20 Editorial Dynamic stabilization. 2014

Shaffrey, Christopher I / Smith, Justin S. ·Department of Neurosurgery, University of Virginia Medical Center, Charlottesville, Virginia. ·J Neurosurg Spine · Pubmed #25084028.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

21 Editorial Epidural glucocorticoid injections in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. 2014

Andersson, Gunnar B J. ·From the Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago. ·N Engl J Med · Pubmed #24988561.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

22 Editorial Depression and outcome. 2014

Shaffrey, Christopher I / Smith, Justin S. ·Department of Neurosurgery, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia. ·J Neurosurg Spine · Pubmed #24836660.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

23 Editorial Medical management. 2014

Shaffrey, Christopher I / Smith, Justin S. ·Department of Neurosurgery, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia. ·J Neurosurg Spine · Pubmed #24785970.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

24 Editorial Editorial: Predicting surgical satisfaction using artificial neural networks. 2014

Rughani, Anand I / Dumont, Travis M / Tranmer, Bruce I. ·Neurosurgery, Maine Medical Center, Portland, Maine; ·J Neurosurg Spine · Pubmed #24438425.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

25 Editorial Surgery for neurogenic claudication and spinal stenosis. 2013

Fairbank, Jeremy. ·Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 7HE, UK. ·BMJ · Pubmed #24259331.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

Next