Search

A prospective cohort study that used a Swedish nationwide occupational surveillance program for construction workers (period of registration from 1971 to 1992). In all, 364,467 participants (mean age at baseline 34 yr) were included in the study.To determine whether overweight and obesity are associated with a higher risk of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).During recent decades, LSS has become the most common indication for spine surgery, a change that coincides with a higher prevalence of obesity.A diagnosis of LSS was collected through individual linkage to the Swedish National Patient Register through December 31, 2011. Poisson regression models were employed to estimate multivariable-adjusted incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for LSS.At baseline, 65% had normal weight (BMI [body mass index]: 18.5-24.99 kg/m), 29% were overweight (BMI: 25-29.99 kg/m), 5% were obese (BMI ≥30 kg/m), and 2% were underweight (BMI18.5 kg/m). During 11,190,944 person-years of follow-up, with a mean of 31 years, 2381 participants were diagnosed with LSS. Compared with normal weight individuals, obese workers had an IRR of 2.18 (95% confidence interval, 1.87-2.53) for LSS and overweight workers had an IRR of 1.68 (95% confidence interval, 1.54-1.83). Workers who were underweight halved their risk of LSS (IRR: 0.52, 95% confidence interval, 0.30-0.90).Obese and overweight persons are at a higher risk of developing LSS. Furthermore, our results indicate that obesity might be a novel explanation for the increased number of patients with clinical LSS.3.

Study Design. SWESPINE, the Swedish Spine Register, was used for this cohort study. Objective. Our primary aim was to determine weight change in obese patients after surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). Our secondary aim was to study any possible associations between weight loss after surgery and improvement in patient-related outcome measures (PROMs). Summary of Background Data. Only meager evidence is available as to how surgery for LSS affects weight and whether weight loss is associated with improvement in PROMs after surgery for LSS. Methods. All obese patients who underwent surgery for LSS from January 1, 2006 through June 30, 2008 with a completed 2-year follow-up in SWESPINE were included. Data for weight were collected before surgery and then 1 and 2 years after surgery. The cohort was divided into 3 subclasses (weight stable, weight loss, or weight gain). Results. Totally, 538 obese patients were enrolled. Mean weight loss was 1.9 kg (95% confidence interval, 1.5–2.3) 1 year after surgery and 2.0 kg (95% confidence interval, 1.5–2.4) after 2 years after surgery. Only 8% of the patients reported a clinically important weight loss (≥10%). No significant differences in PROMs were observed. The weight-stable group reported a mean improvement of 0.22 (standard deviation, 0.36) in EQ-5D, 14 (18) units in the Oswestry Disability Index, 18 (33) units in back pain (visual analogue scale), and 23 (36) units in leg pain (visual analogue scale). The corresponding changes in the weight-loss group were 0.23 (0.35) in EuroQol 5D, 15 (19) in Oswestry Disability Index, 27 (29) in back pain, and 31 (36) in leg pain. Conclusion. Modest weight loss was reported 1 and 2 years postsurgery; a small proportion (8%) of these patients reported a clinically important weight loss at the 2-year follow-up. The weight loss was unrelated to changes in PROMs. Conclusion. Level of Evidence: 3

Study design A cohort study based on the Swedish Spine Register. Objective To determine the association between body mass index (BMI) and outcome of lumbar spine surgery for spinal stenosis. Summary of background data Several small studies have sought to evaluate the importance of obesity in relation to results after surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS), but the findings are inconsistent and relatively weak. Methods All patients who underwent surgery for LSS from January 1, 2006, to June 30, 2008, with a completed 2-year follow-up in the Swedish Spine Register were included. Logistic regression was used to assess the association between BMI and different outcomes. Results Of the 2633 patients enrolled, 819 (31%) had normal weight, 1208 (46%) were overweight, and 606 (23%) were obese. On average, all 3 BMI groups achieved significant improvements after surgery. A higher BMI, however, was associated with greater odds of dissatisfaction after surgery and inferior results at the 2-year follow-up. After adjusting for differences in baseline characteristics, the obese group demonstrated inferior function and quality of life as measured by the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the EuroQol Group Index (EQ-5D), respectively. At the 2-year follow-up, obese patients had a mean ODI of 33 (95% confidence interval [CI], 31-34) and mean EQ-5D of 0.56 (95% CI, 0.54-0.59) compared with a mean ODI of 25 (95% CI, 24-26) and mean EQ-5D of 0.64 (95% CI, 0.62-0.66) in the normal weight group. When compared with the normal weight patients, the adjusted odds ratio for dissatisfaction was 1.73 in the obese group (95% CI, 1.36-2.19). Differences between the normal weight and overweight groups were modest and therefore could not be considered clinically relevant. Conclusion Obese patients achieved significant pain reduction, better walking ability, and improved quality of life after surgical treatment of LSS. Nevertheless, obesity was associated with a higher degree of dissatisfaction and poorer outcomes after surgery for LSS.