Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Advance Online Publication
    • Archive
  • About Us
    • About ISASS
    • About the Journal
    • Author Instructions
    • Editorial Board
    • Reviewer Guidelines & Publication Criteria
  • More
    • Advertise
    • Subscribe
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Join Us
  • Reprints & Permissions
  • Sponsored Content
  • Other Publications
    • ijss

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
International Journal of Spine Surgery
  • My alerts
International Journal of Spine Surgery

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Advance Online Publication
    • Archive
  • About Us
    • About ISASS
    • About the Journal
    • Author Instructions
    • Editorial Board
    • Reviewer Guidelines & Publication Criteria
  • More
    • Advertise
    • Subscribe
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Join Us
  • Reprints & Permissions
  • Sponsored Content
  • Follow ijss on Twitter
  • Visit ijss on Facebook
Research ArticleLumbar Spine

The Influence of Spinous Process Union on Clinical Outcomes After Spinous Process Osteotomy for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis After 2 Years: A Secondary Analysis From the NORDSTEN-Study

Sondre Hagerup, Jens Ivar Brox, Hasan Banitalebi, Kari Indrekvam, Tor Åge Myklebust and Erland Hermansen
International Journal of Spine Surgery February 2024, 8576; DOI: https://doi.org/10.14444/8576
Sondre Hagerup
1 Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Ålesund Hospital, Møre and Romsdal Hospital Trust, Norway, Europe
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: sohare97@gmail.com
Jens Ivar Brox
2 Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway, Europe
3 Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Oslo University Hospital, Norway, Europe
MD, PHD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Hasan Banitalebi
2 Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway, Europe
4 Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Akershus University Hospital, Norway, Europe
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kari Indrekvam
5 Kysthospitalet i Hagevik, Orthopedic Clinic, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway, Europe
6 Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway, Europe
MD, PHD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Tor Åge Myklebust
7 Department of Research and Innovation, Møre and Romsdal Hospital Trust, Ålesund, Norway, Europe
8 Department of Registration, Cancer Registry of Norway, Oslo, Norway, Europe
PHD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Erland Hermansen
1 Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Ålesund Hospital, Møre and Romsdal Hospital Trust, Norway, Europe
5 Kysthospitalet i Hagevik, Orthopedic Clinic, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway, Europe
6 Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway, Europe
MD, PHD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Figure 1
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1

    Illustration of a spinous process osteotomy. The red zone illustrates the focus of decompression.

  • Figure 2
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 2

    Transverse and sagittal computed tomography images of the lumbar spine. A nonunion is shown in the top 2 images and a union in the bottom 2 images.

  • Figure 3
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 3

    Flowchart of the patients in the current study.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1

    Eligibility criteria for the Spinal Stenosis Trial of the NORDSTEN-study.

    Inclusion Criteria
    1. Clinical symptoms of lumbar spinal stenosis, neurogenic claudication, or bilateral radiating pain.
    2. Not responding to at least 3 mo of nonsurgical treatment.
    3. Radiological findings corresponding to the clinical symptoms: central stenosis or lateral recess stenosis.
    4. Able to give informed consent and to answer the questionnaires.
    5. Age >18 y.
    6. Able to understand the Norwegian language, both oral and written.
    Exclusion Criteria
    1. Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with a slip ≥3 mm verified on standing plain x-rays in lateral view.
    2. Not willing to participate in the trial.
    3. Former surgery in the level of stenosis.
    4. Fracture or former fusion in the thoracolumbar region.
    5. Age >80 y.
    6. ASA classification of 4 or 5.
    7. Cauda equina syndrome (bowel or bladder dysfunction) or fixed complete motor deficit.
    8. Lumbosacral scoliosis >20°, verified on anteroposterior view.
    9. Stenosis in >3 levels.
    10. Distinct symptoms in one or both of their legs due to other diseases, such as polyneuropathy, vascular claudication, or osteoarthritis.
    • Abbreviation: ASA, American Society of Anesthesiologists.

    • View popup
    Table 2

    Demographics and baseline pain and function scores in the 3 degree of union groups.

    VariableTotal (n = 102)Nonunion (n = 10)Partial Union (n = 15)Complete Union (n = 77) P
    Age, y, mean (SD)66.2 (8.4) (n = 102)66.5 (7.2) (n = 10)65.1 (11.6) (n = 15)66.3 (8.0) (n = 77)0.87
    Smokers, %18.6% (n = 19)20% (n = 2)40% (n = 6)14.3% (n = 11)0.51
    Men, %64.7% (n = 66)40% (n = 4)80% (n = 12)65% (n = 50)0.12
    BMI, mean (SD)27.4 (4.3) (n = 97)27.4 (3.8) (n = 10)28.1 (3.6) (n = 14)27.3 (4.5) (n = 73)0.82
    ODI, mean (SD)35.7 (14.5) (n = 101)41.0 (17.8) (n = 10)38.6 (17.5) ( n = 15)34.4 (13.4) (n = 76)0.28
    ZCQ-S, mean (SD)3.3 (0.5) (n = 98)3.5 (0.3) (n = 10)3.3 (0.5) (n = 15)3.2 (0.5) (n = 73)0.20
    ZCQ-F, mean (SD)2.5 (0.54) (n = 99)2.6 (0.4) (n = 10)2.5 (0.5) (n = 15)2.4 (0.6) (n = 74)0.51
    LP NRS, mean (SD)6.3 (1.9) (n = 97)6.6 (1.8) (n = 10)6.4 (2.5) (n = 14)6.3 (1.9) (n = 73)0.86
    LBP NRS, mean (SD)5.8 (2.2) (n = 98)7.1 (1.9) (n = 10)4.9 (2.2) (n = 14)5.8 (2.2) (n = 74)0.04
    EQ5D, mean (SD)0.41 (0.30) (n = 100)0.29 (0.30) (n = 10)0.43 (0.29) (n = 15)0.43 (0.30) (n = 75)0.37
    • Abbreviations: EQ5D, EuroQol health related quality of life index; LBP, low back pain; LP, leg pain; NRS, numeric rating scale; ODI, Oswestry Disability Index; ZCQ-S/F, Zürich Claudication Questionnaire Symptoms/Function.

    • View popup
    Table 3

    Primary outcome of change from baseline to follow-up in the 3 degree of union groups

    Outcome MeasureTotal (n = 101)Nonunion (n = 10)Partial Union (n = 15)Complete Union (n = 76) P
    ODI, mean (SD)−20.1 (17.0) (n = 100)−25.6 (15.9) (n = 10)−17.3 (20.7) (n = 14)−19.9 (16.5) (n = 76)0.49
    Success74% (n = 100)90% (n = 10)64.3% (n = 14)73.7% (n = 76)0.39
    • Abbreviation: ODI, Oswestry Disability Index.

    • Note: Success ≥30% improvement in ODI.

    • View popup
    Table 4

    Secondary outcome measures change from baseline to follow-up, mean (SD).

    Outcome MeasureTotal (n = 101)Nonunion (n = 10)Partial Union (n = 15)Complete Union (n = 76) P
    ZCQ-S−1.1 (0.9) (n = 98)−1.4 (0.7) (n = 10)−1.0 (0.8) (n = 15)−1.0 (0.9) (n = 73)0.45
    ZCQ-F−0.9 (0.8) (n = 98)−0.9 (0.7) (n = 9)−0.7 (0.7) (n = 15)−0.9 (0.7) (n = 74)0.55
    LP NRS−3.6 (3.1) (n = 95)−3.6 (3.1) (n = 10)−3.2 (3.3) (n = 13)−3.6 (3.0) (n = 72)0.93
    LBP NRS−2.8 (2.5) (n = 97)−3.6 (2.6) (n = 10)−1.7 (2.3) (n = 14)−2.9 (2.5) (n = 73)0.15
    EQ5D0.34 (0.33) (n = 93)0.4 (0.3) (n = 10)0.23 (0.38) (n = 14)0.34 (0.32) (n = 69)0.29
    • Abbreviations: EQ5D, EuroQol health related quality of life index; LBP, low back pain; LP, leg pain; NRS, numeric rating scale; ZCQ-S/F, Zürich Claudication Questionnaire Symptoms/Function.

    • View popup
    Table 5

    Primary and secondary outcome measures: change from baseline to follow-up, comparing the complete union group and not complete union group made from merging the nonunion group and partial union group.

    Outcome MeasureNot Complete Union (n = 24)Complete Union (n = 76) P
    ODI−20.8 (19.0) (n = 24)−19.9 (16.5) (n = 76)0.83
    Success, %a 75% (n = 18)74% (n = 56)0.90
    ZCQ-S−1.2 (0.8) (n = 25) −1.0 (0.9) (n = 73)0.55
    ZCQ-F−0.8 (0.7) (n = 24)−0.9 (0.7) (n = 74)0.46
    LP NRS−3.4 (3.1) (n = 23)−3.6 (3.0) (n = 72)0.79
    LBP NRS−2.5 (2.6) (n = 24)−2.9 (2.5) (n = 73)0.51
    EQ5D0.32 (0.35) (n = 24)0.34 (0.32) (n = 69)0.79
    • Abbreviations: EQ5D, EuroQol health related quality of life index; LBP, Lower Back Pain; LP, leg pain; ODI, Oswestry Disability Index; ZCQ-S/F, Zürich Claudication Questionnaire Symptoms/Function.

    • Note: Data presented as mean (SD) unless otherwise indicated.

    • ↵a Success ≥30% improvement in ODI.

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

International Journal of Spine Surgery: 19 (S2)
International Journal of Spine Surgery
Vol. 19, Issue S2
1 Apr 2025
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on International Journal of Spine Surgery.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
The Influence of Spinous Process Union on Clinical Outcomes After Spinous Process Osteotomy for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis After 2 Years: A Secondary Analysis From the NORDSTEN-Study
(Your Name) has sent you a message from International Journal of Spine Surgery
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the International Journal of Spine Surgery web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
The Influence of Spinous Process Union on Clinical Outcomes After Spinous Process Osteotomy for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis After 2 Years: A Secondary Analysis From the NORDSTEN-Study
Sondre Hagerup, Jens Ivar Brox, Hasan Banitalebi, Kari Indrekvam, Tor Åge Myklebust, Erland Hermansen
International Journal of Spine Surgery Feb 2024, 8576; DOI: 10.14444/8576

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
The Influence of Spinous Process Union on Clinical Outcomes After Spinous Process Osteotomy for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis After 2 Years: A Secondary Analysis From the NORDSTEN-Study
Sondre Hagerup, Jens Ivar Brox, Hasan Banitalebi, Kari Indrekvam, Tor Åge Myklebust, Erland Hermansen
International Journal of Spine Surgery Feb 2024, 8576; DOI: 10.14444/8576
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusion
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Comparison of Stand-Alone Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion, 360° Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion, and Arthroplasty for Recurrent Lumbar Disc Herniation: Focus on Nerve Decompression and Painful Spinal Instability Resolution
  • Recovery Trajectories After Lumbar Fusion Stratified by Baseline Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function Disability Levels
  • Association Between Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs Use and Surgical Outcomes Following Posterior Lumbar Fusion: A Medical Claims Database Analysis
Show more Lumbar Spine

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • spinous process osteotomy
  • lumbar spinal stenosis
  • laminotomy
  • posterior decompression

Content

  • Current Issue
  • Latest Content
  • Archive

More Information

  • About IJSS
  • About ISASS
  • Privacy Policy

More

  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Feedback

Other Services

  • Author Instructions
  • Join ISASS
  • Reprints & Permissions

© 2025 International Journal of Spine Surgery

International Journal of Spine Surgery Online ISSN: 2211-4599

Powered by HighWire