Although the efficiency of conservative management for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) has been examined, different conservative management approaches have not been compared. We have performed the first comparative trial of three types of conservative management (medication with acetaminophen, exercise, and acupuncture) in Japanese patients with LSS. Patients with L5 root radiculopathy associated with LSS who visited our hospital for surgical treatment were enrolled between December 2011 and January 2014. In this open-label study, patients were assigned to three treatment groups (medication, exercise, acupuncture) according to the visit time. The primary outcomes were Zurich claudication questionnaire (ZCQ) scores before and after 4 weeks of treatment. Least square mean analysis was used to assess the following dependent variables in the treatment groups: changes in symptom severity and physical function scores of the ZCQ and the ZCQ score of patient’s satisfaction after treatment. Thirty-eight, 40, and 41 patients were allocated to the medication, exercise, and acupuncture groups, respectively. No patient underwent surgical treatment during the study period. The symptom severity scores of the ZCQ improved significantly after treatment in the medication (p = 0.048), exercise (p = 0.003), and acupuncture (p = 0.04) groups. The physical function score improved significantly in the acupuncture group (p = 0.045) but not in the medication (p = 0.20) and exercise (p = 0.29) groups. The mean reduction in the ZCQ score for physical function was significantly greater for acupuncture than for exercise. The mean ZCQ score for treatment satisfaction was significantly greater for acupuncture than for medication. Acupuncture was significantly more effective than physical exercise according to the physical function score of the ZCQ and than medication according to the satisfaction score. The present study provides new important information that will aid decision making in LSS treatment. This study was registered with the UMIN Clinical Trials Registry ( UMIN000006957 ).

Study Design: A case-control study. Object: This study aimed to evaluate the minimally clinically important differences (MCIDs) of the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ) after microendoscopic laminectomy in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). Summary of Background Data: The ZCQ is a self-administered tool used to evaluate symptom severity and physical function in patients with LSS. It has been used in many studies worldwide. However, the MCIDs of the ZCQ have not yet been determined. Materials and Methods: The study sample consisted of 514 patients who underwent microendoscopic laminectomy for LSS at our hospital between March 2012 and May 2014. The ZCQ, which includes 7 items for symptom severity (scored from 1 to 5) and 5 items for functional disability (scored from 1 to 4), was administered preoperatively and 1-year postoperatively. The MCID was calculated by 4 approaches, including average change, minimum detectable change, change difference, and receiver operating characteristic curve. The authors calculated the area under the curve (AUC) to evaluate the accuracy of the receiver operating characteristic curve. The responsiveness of each measurement was then analyzed. Results: The authors were able to administer the ZCQ at 1-year postoperatively in 349 patients. The ZCQ score was statistically significantly improved 1-year postoperatively. The MCID of ZCQ for symptom severity varied from 0.75 to 0.84, whereas the MCID of the ZCQ score for functional disability varied from 0.60 to 0.76. The AUC of the ZCQ for symptom severity was 0.81 and that for functional disability was 0.80. Conclusions: This study showed that the MCID of the ZCQ for symptom severity varied from 0.75 to 0.84 and the MCID for functional disability varied from 0.60 to 0.76. In addition, each AUC was over 0.80, indicating that MCIDs of the ZCQ were found to have a high diagnostic performance.

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is a widely applied and useful procedure for spinal surgeries. However, posterior fixation has not yet been decided. We compared the radiographic and clinical outcomes of unilateral versus bilateral instrumented one-level LLIF for degenerative lumbar disease. We conducted a prospective cohort study of 100 patients, who underwent unilateral (group U) or bilateral (group B) instrumented one-level LLIF for degenerative lumbar disease. Forty-one patients in group U were undergoing unilateral pedicle screw instrumentation, and 59 patients in group B were undergoing bilateral pedicle screw instrumentation. Clinical characteristic and demographic data before surgery were compared. The intraoperative data, including operative time with changes in positions, intraoperative blood loss, and X-ray exposure time, as well as the perioperative data, including postoperative hospital stay and clinical and radiographic data were compared. As a result, Group U required a significantly shorter operating time than group B. The subsidence grade and fusion rates exhibited no significant differences in the postoperative radiographic evaluation. Group U had better results in clinical assessments than group B. However, group U required more additional surgeries owing to complications.

Stereotactic body radiotherapy has been a treatment choice for lung cancer, especially in medically inoperable patients. However, the acute and late toxicity to adjacent organs have been reported as an uncommon but severe adverse effect. A 65-year-old male was presented with his back pain and pyrexia. He had been followed up for non-small-cell lung cancer, which was treated by the stereotactic body radiotherapy 4 years prior to the current visit. The endoscopy revealed an esophageal perforation on its left side in the upper thoracic locus. Because of his poor lung function, he was managed by the conservative treatment. After 3 months, his back pain recurred with developing paraplegia in the lower extremities. The MRI revealed an abscess formation at the posterior side of the upper thoracic esophagus which destroyed the vertebral body and compressed the spinal cord. Laminectomy and two-stage operation—the first stage, nontransthoracic esophagectomy, cervical and transhiatal approach using mediastinoscope and laparoscope, and the second stage, esophageal reconstruction—were performed. This complex disease status was successfully managed by the orthopedic surgery followed by a two-stage esophagectomy without transthoracic approach.

Background and objectives: Minimally invasive surgery has become popular for posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). Microendoscope-assisted PLIF (ME-PLIF) utilizes a microendoscope within a tubular retractor for PLIF procedures; however, there are no published reports that compare Microendoscope-assisted to open PLIF. Here we compare the surgical and clinical outcomes of ME-PLIF with those of open PLIF. Materials and Methods: A total of 155 consecutive patients who underwent single-level PLIF were registered prospectively. Of the 149 patients with a complete set of preoperative data, 72 patients underwent ME-PLIF (ME-group), and 77 underwent open PLIF (open-group). Clinical and radiographic findings collected one year after surgery were compared. Results: Of the 149 patients, 57 patients in ME-group and 58 patients in the open-group were available. The ME-PLIF procedure required a significantly shorter operating time and involved less intraoperative blood loss. Three patients in both groups reported dural tears as intraoperative complications. Three patients in ME-group experienced postoperative complications, compared to two patients in the open-group. The fusion rate in ME-group at one year was lower than that in the open group (p = 0.06). The proportion of patients who were satisfied was significantly higher in the ME-group (p = 0.02). Conclusions: ME-PLIF was associated with equivalent post-surgical outcomes and significantly higher rates of patient satisfaction than the traditional open PLIF procedure. However, the fusion rate after ME-PLIF tended to be lower than that after the traditional open method.