[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"health-studies-list:{\"conditionNormalized\":\"degenerative-lumbar-spinal-stenosis\",\"overallStatus\":[\"RECRUITING\",\"AVAILABLE\",\"NOT_YET_RECRUITING\"],\"orderBy\":\"LastUpdateSubmitDate:desc\",\"size\":25,\"offset\":0}":3,"health-study-condition:degenerative-lumbar-spinal-stenosis":28},{"pageToken":4,"total":5,"offset":6,"count":5,"results":7},null,7,0,[8,43,75,104,131,153,181],{"id":9,"slug":10,"hasResults":11,"nctId":12,"briefTitle":13,"officialTitle":14,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":15,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":16,"minAge":17,"maxAge":18,"enrollmentInfo":19,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":22,"phases":23,"briefSummary":25,"conditions":26,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":30,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":31,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":32,"startDateStruct":35,"completionDateStruct":37,"leadSponsor":39,"locationsCount":42},"100328210","phase-3-tranexamic-acid-in-adult-spinal-deformity-surgery-100328210",false,"NCT03553186","Tranexamic Acid in Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery","Topical Tranexamic Acid as a Adjunct to Intravenous Tranexamic Acid in Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Age 18-80\n* Scheduled to undergo posterior long segment ( ≥ 5 levels) posterior spinal fusion for adult scoliosis or degenerative joint diseae\n* \\+ fusion to pelvis\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Surgical factors:\n\n  * Anterior Approach\n  * Presence or history of dural tear without repair as evidenced by pseudomeningocele on MRI imaging or by intraoperative exploration\n  * Patients donating autologous blood preoperatively\n\nPatient factors:\n\n* Diagnosis of renal (Cr\\>1.5 or CrCl \\\u003C30ml\u002Fmin) or hepatic insufficiency (AST, ALT 2x upper limit of normal)\n* Diagnosis of seizure disorder or prior seizure\n* History of thromboembolic events (CVA, TIA, DVT, PE) if within 1 year of surgery\n* Hypercoagulability (e.g. antiphospholipid syndrome)\n* History of coronary artery disease (stent, MI, +stress test) within 1 year of surgery\n* Atrial fibrillation\n* Concurrent anticoagulation therapy that cannot be discontinued within 3 days before surgery (Coumadin, plavix, LVX)\n* Concurrent anticoagulation with ASA 325 that cannot be discontinued 10 days before surgery\n* Bleeding disorder or abnormal preoperative coagulation profile (as identified by a preoperative platelet count of \\\u003C100,000\u002Fmm3, an international normalized ratio of \\>1.4, or a prolonged partial thromboplastin time \\>1.4 times normal)\n* Preexisting anemia \\\u003C10 g\u002FdL\n* Color blindness or disturbance of color vision\n* Leukemia or active cancer\n* Religious restrictions on blood transfusion\n* Pregnancy or women who are lactating\u002Fbreastfeeding","ALL","18 Years","80 Years",{"count":20,"type":21},100,"ESTIMATED","INTERVENTIONAL",[24],"PHASE3","Posterior spinal surgery for adult deformity is associated with high incidence of blood loss and need for blood transfusion and intraoperative blood salvage, with associated increased cost and risk for perioperative complications. Tranexamic acid (TXA) is relatively inexpensive anti-fibrinolytic agent that has been proven effective for decreasing intraoperative blood loss in various surgical specialties. Intravenous TXA (ivTXA) is routinely used at our institution for adult spinal deformity cases. Meanwhile, topical TXA (tTXA) is an attractive alternative\u002Fadjunct to ivTXA used with good results in orthopedic arthroplasty and cardiac surgery. To the investigators' knowledge, no data exists in the literature on the use of tTXA in either adult or pediatric spinal deformity surgery. The goal of this study is to determine the role tTXA has an adjunct to ivTXA in decreasing perioperative blood loss, drainage, transfusion requirements and length of stay following adult deformity spine surgery.",[27,28,29],"Spinal Deformity","Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis","Blood Loss, Surgical","RECRUITING","2026-04-23",{"date":33,"type":34},"2026-04-28","ACTUAL",{"date":36,"type":34},"2018-07-11",{"date":38,"type":21},"2027-03",{"name":40,"class":41},"Hospital for Special Surgery, New York","OTHER",1,{"id":44,"slug":45,"hasResults":11,"nctId":46,"briefTitle":47,"officialTitle":48,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":49,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":16,"minAge":50,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":51,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":22,"phases":53,"briefSummary":55,"conditions":56,"keywords":57,"overallStatus":65,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":66,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":67,"startDateStruct":69,"completionDateStruct":71,"leadSponsor":73,"locationsCount":4},"100634620","segmental-decompression-versus-wide-decompression-with-fixation-for-degenerative-lumbar-canal-stenosis-100634620","NCT07542054","Segmental Decompression Versus Wide Decompression With Fixation for Degenerative Lumbar Canal Stenosis","Segmental Decompression Versus Wide Decompression With Fixation in Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Canal Stenosis","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Age greater than 40 years\n* Both males and females\n* Multilevel lumbar canal stenosis with failed routine conservative treatment at least 3 months\n* X-ray dynamic views of the lumbar spine showing no evidence of instability\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Age less than 40 years\n* Recurrent cases and screw revision cases\n* Degenerative scoliosis","40 Years",{"count":52,"type":21},56,[54],"NA","The purpose of this study is to compare two different surgical techniques for treating degenerative lumbar canal stenosis, a condition where the lower spinal canal narrows and puts pressure on the spinal nerves. For patients who continue to experience significant back and leg pain after at least three months of non-surgical treatments, surgery is often recommended to relieve the pressure.\n\nCurrently, there is an ongoing debate among spine surgeons regarding the most effective surgical approach. This study will evaluate and compare the outcomes of two established methods:\n\n1. Segmental Decompression Alone: A procedure focused purely on removing the bone and tissue that is pressing on the spinal nerves.\n2. Wide Decompression with Fixation: A more extensive removal of compressive structures, combined with adding spinal hardware (pedicle screws and rods) to stabilize the spine.\n\nResearchers will observe 56 patients over an 18-month period. The primary goal is to determine if one technique offers better functional recovery and pain relief than the other. Researchers will measure success by tracking changes in patients' daily physical function (using the Oswestry Disability Index), reductions in lower back and leg pain, improvements in walking distance, and the time it takes to perform the surgery.\n\nEligible participants are adult males and females over the age of 40 with symptomatic multilevel stenosis, provided their dynamic x-rays do not show existing spinal instability.",[28],[58,59,60,61,62,63,64],"Lumbar Canal Stenosis","Degenerative Spine Disease","Neurogenic Claudication","Sciatica","Low Back Pain","Segmental Decompression","Wide Decompression","NOT_YET_RECRUITING","2026-04-14",{"date":68,"type":34},"2026-04-21",{"date":70,"type":21},"2026-05",{"date":72,"type":21},"2027-06",{"name":74,"class":41},"Assiut University",{"id":76,"slug":77,"hasResults":11,"nctId":78,"briefTitle":79,"officialTitle":80,"acronym":81,"eligibilityCriteria":82,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":16,"minAge":50,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":83,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":22,"phases":85,"briefSummary":86,"conditions":87,"keywords":88,"overallStatus":30,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":93,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":94,"startDateStruct":96,"completionDateStruct":98,"leadSponsor":100,"locationsCount":103},"100393768","efficacy-and-tolerance-study-of-b-dyn-versus-conventional-fusion-in-the-treatment-of-lumbar-stenosis-on-the-degree-of-post-operative-functional-incapacity-bdynclin-100393768","NCT04407338","Efficacy and Tolerance Study of B-DYN Versus Conventional Fusion in the Treatment of Lumbar Stenosis on the Degree of Post-operative Functional Incapacity (BDYNCLIN)","Study of the Efficacy and Tolerance of the B-Dyn Medical Device Compared to a Conventional Bolted Fusion With or Without Cage in the Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Stenosis, With or Without Grade I Spondylolisthesis on the Degree of Postoperative Functional Disability, Preservation of Mobility and Prevention of the Adjacent Syndrome\". Interventional, Prospective, Comparative, Randomized, Non-inferiority, Single Blind, International, Multicenter Clinical Study","BDYNCLIN","Inclusion Criteria:\n\nDisease related criteria:\n\n1. Stenosis on 1, 2 or 3 disc levels (grade B or C or D according to Schizas classification or central stenosis of grade A according to Schizas classification with a lateral stenosis (postero-lateral overhang or disc protrusion)) on MRI (lumbar spine MRI )\n2. Spondylolisthesis grade 1 or no the upper surgical (treated) level\n3. Neurological impairment or neurogenic claudication on one or both legs (VAS score \\> 30)\n4. Subjects who have failed well-managed medical treatment that has not resulted in long-lasting symptom relief (duration of symptoms \\> 3 months);\n5. Subjects with no contraindication to fusion or the application of B-Dyn®.\n\nPopulation-related criteria\n\n1. Subjects of both sexes, 40 years of age and older\n2. Subjects who have given free, informed and written consent to participate in the study;\n3. Subjects who are able to respond to questionnaires and who can communicate in the language of the study country ;\n4. Subjects affiliated to a social security scheme or entitled to a social security scheme.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\nDisease related criteria:\n\n1. Spondylolisthesis of grade \\> 1 on the upper surgical (treated) level\n2. Intervention required on more than 3 disc levels\n3. Degenerative Scoliosis (Cobb angle \\> 20°);\n4. Stenosis located only on the L5-S1 level\n5. History of instrumented lumbar surgery (cage, rod, etc.) on the upper or lower level, except in the case of instrumentation of the lower level with an intra-spinous device.\n6. Stenosis not caused by from degenerative changes.\n7. Isolated disc herniation\n8. Other specific vertebral damage (for example: ankylosing spondylitis, cancer or neurological disorders)\n9. History of vertebral compression fractures at the instrumented level\n10. History of osteoporotic fractures\n11. Psychological disorders (e.g. dementia ….etc) or drug addiction that lead to an inability to participate in the study\n12. Chronic infection\n\nPopulation related criteria:\n\n1. Withdrawal of consent;\n2. Pregnant or Breastfeeding woman\n3. Participation in a clinical trial in the 3 months prior to the initial visit;\n4. Predicted unavailability during study. Patient deprived of liberty or under guardianship.\n\nMedical Device related criteria:\n\n1\\. Allergy to any of the components of the medical device.",{"count":84,"type":21},216,[54],"Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis (LSS) is an extremely common condition affecting more than 102 million people each year. It is a narrowing of the spinal canal in the lower back. It causes pain and even disorders of the lower limbs. When the symptoms get worse and the individual feels functional discomfort despite medical treatment, surgical intervention is recommended. Two surgical options are available: Rigid Stabilization Devices as conventional fusion with or without cage, or dynamic stabilization system as B-DYN device, this system is called \"dynamic\" because it allows the stabilization of the operated part while preserving a certain mobility.\n\nThe main objective of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and tolerance of B-Dyn versus conventional bolted fusion (with or without cage) in the treatment of degenerative lumbar stenosis (DLS) on the degree of postoperative functional incapacity. So the investigator's hypothesis is that the use of the B-DYN device in the treatment of DLS could lead to the maintenance of functional disability related to low back pain (maintenance of walking and mobility).\n\nAnother important point to be demonstrated in this study is the preservation of the mobility of the stage overlying the assembly performed by B-Dyn. Indeed, the continued degeneration of segments adjacent to lumbar vertebral fusions is a concern for surgeons For B-Dyn, which is a dynamic stabilization, the combination of rigid and flexible parts allows the mobility of the overlying stage to be preserved and could also lead to a decrease in adjacent syndrome in the long-term compared to the use of conventional fusion.\n\nThe duration of patient follow-up is 60 months. The inclusion period is 56 months to recruit the necessary number of subjects for the study (a total of 216 patients is expected).",[28],[89,90,91,92],"Spine","Arthrodesis","Dynamic stabilisation","BDYN","2025-03-18",{"date":95,"type":34},"2025-03-19",{"date":97,"type":34},"2020-06-01",{"date":99,"type":21},"2029-11-01",{"name":101,"class":102},"Quanta Medical","INDUSTRY",2,{"id":105,"slug":106,"hasResults":11,"nctId":107,"briefTitle":108,"officialTitle":109,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":110,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":16,"minAge":17,"maxAge":111,"enrollmentInfo":112,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":22,"phases":114,"briefSummary":115,"conditions":116,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":30,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":122,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":123,"startDateStruct":125,"completionDateStruct":127,"leadSponsor":129,"locationsCount":103},"100540750","mid--or-high-flex-rods-versus-low-flex-rods-of-spineshape-system-iv-for-treatment-of-degenerative-lumbar-spine-diseases-100540750","NCT06320899","Mid- or High-flex Rods Versus Low-flex Rods of SpineShape System IV for Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Spine Diseases","Mid- or High-flex Rods Versus Low-flex Rods of SpineShape System IV for Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Spine Diseases - a Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized Controlled Non-inferiority Study","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* degenerative symptoms in 1 to 2 segments in the lumbar spine L1-S1\n* signed informed consent of participant\n* confirmation of the participant that the attendance of follow-up visits are intended\n* Body-Mass-Index \\\u003C 32\n* Pedicle screw axis distance \\\u003C 30mm\n* one or more of the following indications:\n\n  * (dynamic) stenosis in the spinal canal\n  * neuroforaminal stenosis\n  * facet joint syndrome \u002F spondylarthrosis\n  * discopathy (recurrent disc hernia)\n  * degenerative spondylolisthesis (Meyerding \\\u003C1)\n  * instability (hypermobility with antelishtesis, hypomobility with retrolisthesis if decompressed)\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* missing bone structure, e.g. due to congenital anomalies or sever anatomical deformities that make anchoring of the implant impossible\n* damaged structural tissue, e.g. due to a bone fracture\n* application to the thoracic or cervical spine\n* pronounced idiopathic scoliosis\n* spondylolisthesis \\> Meyerding grad 1\n* isthmic spondolylysis\n* bone tumor\n* osteochondrosis modic type I, II or III\n* osteoporosis, which could impair screw anchoring\n* history with third party implants\n* patients with an active local or systemic infection\n* known allergy to titatnium alloys\n* skeleton in growth (epiphyseal joints not closed)\n* severe muscular neuronal or vascular disease\n* immunosuppresive therapy\n* long-term therapy with cortisone\n* heavy smokers (regular consumption of more than six cigarettes per day), drug addicts and alcoholics\n* chronic pain patients\n* incapable of judgment or emergency situation\n* implantation during pregnancy","99 Years",{"count":113,"type":21},126,[54],"The purpose of this multi-center, randomized, clinical study is to show that the treatment of degenerative lumbar spine with high- or mid-flex rods is not inferior to the treatment with low-flex rods in terms of clinical and safety-related results.\n\nThe primary aim is to compare the reduction in back pain after the treatment with high- or mid-flex rods with that after treatment with low-flex rods. Secondary, the functionality after treatment with high- or mid-flex rods will be compared to that after treatment with low-flex rods.",[28,117,118,119,120,121],"Facet Joint Arthrosis","Spondylarthritis","Discopathy","Degenerative Spondylolisthesis","Instability Lumbar Spine","2024-06-21",{"date":124,"type":34},"2024-06-25",{"date":126,"type":34},"2024-06-04",{"date":128,"type":21},"2031-08-31",{"name":130,"class":102},"SpineSave AG",{"id":132,"slug":133,"hasResults":11,"nctId":134,"briefTitle":135,"officialTitle":135,"acronym":136,"eligibilityCriteria":137,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":16,"minAge":138,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":139,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":22,"phases":141,"briefSummary":142,"conditions":143,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":65,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":144,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":145,"startDateStruct":147,"completionDateStruct":149,"leadSponsor":151,"locationsCount":4},"100524233","effectiveness-and-safety-of-the-facet-fixation-ffx-implant-in-the-treatment-of-degenerative-lumbar-spinal-stenosis-100524233","NCT06106061","Effectiveness and Safety of the Facet Fixation (FFX®) Implant in the Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis","FFX® RCT","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Age ≥ 50 years.\n* Radiographic confirmation of clinical symptoms of at least moderate degenerative spinal stenosis, of 1 to 3 adjacent segments in the L1-S1 region with the need for surgical decompression.\n* Radiographic confirmation of no translational instability in main segment as well as in adjacent segments (dynamic translational instability ≤3 mm);\n* Visual analogue scale (VAS) back pain score ≥ 50 mm (on a 100-mm scale).\n* Minimum of 3 months of conservative therapy without improvement of symptoms.\n* Mental \\& physical ability of the subject to follow the protocol (i.e., compliance with time schedule \\& treatment plan, able to fill in questionnaire \\& to undergo further study procedures).\n* Personally signed and dated informed consent document prior to any study-related procedures indicating that the subject has been informed of all pertinent aspects of the clinical investigation.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Prior lumbar spine surgery.\n* Radiographically confirmed damage of a vertebral body (e.g., osteoporotic compression fracture or because of tumours), at any lumbar level.\n* Isthmic or degenerative spondylolisthesis (anterolisthesis; retrolisthesis ≥ grade II) or spondylolysis (pars fracture).\n* Degenerative lumbar scoliosis (Cobb angle \\> 25°).\n* Adipositas (obesity); defined as a body mass index (BMI) \\>40.\n* Pregnancy, or wish to get pregnant during the course of the study, or breastfeeding.\n* Known allergy or sensitivity to titanium, titanium alloys, or MRI contrast agents.\n* Active or chronic infection-systemic or local.\n* History of significant peripheral neuropathy.\n* Significant peripheral vascular disease (e.g., with diminished dorsalis pedis or posterior tibial pulses).\n* Paget disease, osteomalacia or other metabolic bone disorders.\n* Cauda equina syndrome.\n* Known or documented history of transmissible disease, including AIDS, HIV and active hepatitis.\n* More than 3 vertebral levels requiring surgery.\n* Disc herniation at any lumbar level requiring surgical intervention.\n* Known osteoporosis (bone mineral density, BMD \\\u003C 120 mg\u002Fcm3).\n* Chronically taking medications or any drug known to potentially interfere with bone\u002Fsoft tissue healing (e.g., steroids), not including a Medrol (methylprednisolone) dose pack.\n* Fixed and complete motor, sensory, or reflex deficit.\n* Rheumatoid arthritis or other autoimmune diseases.\n* Active malignancy: a subject with a history of any invasive malignancy (except non-melanoma skin cancer) unless he\u002Fshe has been treated with curative intent and there has been no clinical signs or symptoms of the malignancy for at least 5 years. Subjects with a primary bony tumour are excluded as well.\n* Subject with a history of substance abuse (e.g., recreational drugs, narcotics, or alcohol).\n* Bone destruction, demineralisation or any affection potentially affecting fixation of an implant.\n* Spondylodiscitis or spine tumour.\n* Currently seeking or receiving workman's compensation.\n* In active spinal litigation.\n* Subjects who participate(d) in another clinical trial (within the last 4 weeks) that might influence the safety \\& effectiveness assessment of this trial.\n* Subjects who are lawfully kept in an institution.\n* Subject who, in the opinion of the investigator, will be inappropriate for inclusion in this clinical trial or who will not comply with requirements of the study.\n* Subject under supervision or legal guardianship, or judicial protection.\n* Subject deprived of liberty by judicial or administrative decision.\n* Subject not covered by a social security scheme.","50 Years",{"count":140,"type":21},320,[54],"This is a prospective, multicentric, comparative, randomised-controlled study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the Facet Fixation implant.\n\nThe main objective is to evaluate the effectiveness of spinal decompression associated with FFX® implants compared to spinal decompression alone in treating lumbar spinal stenosis after 2 years of treatment.",[28],"2023-10-24",{"date":146,"type":34},"2023-10-30",{"date":148,"type":21},"2023-11",{"date":150,"type":21},"2026-11",{"name":152,"class":102},"SC Medica",{"id":154,"slug":155,"hasResults":11,"nctId":156,"briefTitle":157,"officialTitle":158,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":159,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":16,"minAge":17,"maxAge":18,"enrollmentInfo":160,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":22,"phases":162,"briefSummary":163,"conditions":164,"keywords":167,"overallStatus":30,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":172,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":173,"startDateStruct":175,"completionDateStruct":177,"leadSponsor":179,"locationsCount":42},"100398534","preventive-effect-of-limited-decompression-on-adjacent-segment-following-posterior-lumbar-interbody-fusion-100398534","NCT04469387","Preventive Effect of Limited Decompression on Adjacent Segment Following Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion","Preventive Effect of Limited Decompression on Adjacent Segment With Pre-existing Spinal Canal Stenosis Following Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: a Prospective Interventional Study","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* A clear diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis, and surgical level of L4-S1 (The levels to be operated on were decided by matching the clinical symptomatology with the radiological findings of the spinal levels that needed decompression);\n* Patients have asymptomatic pre-existing spinal canal stenosis (cerebrospinal fluid occlusion grade=1) at adjacent segment.\n* Failed at least eight weeks conservative treatment;\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Unstable factors (slip, rotation, lateral bending, etc.) in adjacent segment L3\u002F4;\n* Preoperative sagittal and coronal imbalance of the spine;\n* Lumbar infection and\u002For tumor diseases;\n* A previous history of lumbar fusion surgery.",{"count":161,"type":21},200,[54],"This is a prospective single-center study. Patients requiring posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) for degenerative disease are prospectively enrolled and followed. Patients enrolled in this study have asymptomatic pre-existing spinal canal stenosis at adjacent segment. This study will focus on the effects of preventative limited decompression at adjacent segment.",[28,165,166],"Degenerative Disc Disease","Degeneration Spine",[168,169,170,171],"Adjacent segment degeneration","Adjacent segment disease","Pre-existing degeneration","Limited decompression","2020-09-16",{"date":174,"type":34},"2020-09-18",{"date":176,"type":34},"2020-09-01",{"date":178,"type":21},"2032-08-01",{"name":180,"class":41},"Peking University Third Hospital",{"id":182,"slug":183,"hasResults":11,"nctId":184,"briefTitle":185,"officialTitle":186,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":187,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":16,"minAge":17,"maxAge":18,"enrollmentInfo":188,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":190,"phases":4,"briefSummary":191,"conditions":192,"keywords":193,"overallStatus":30,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":198,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":199,"startDateStruct":201,"completionDateStruct":203,"leadSponsor":205,"locationsCount":42},"100398423","effect-of-pre-existing-adjacent-segment-degeneration-on-long-term-effectiveness-after-lumbar-fusion-surgery-100398423","NCT04467944","Effect of Pre-existing Adjacent Segment Degeneration on Long-term Effectiveness After Lumbar Fusion Surgery","Effect of Pre-existing Adjacent Segment Degeneration on Long-term Effectiveness After Lumbar Fusion Surgery: a Prospective Cohort Study","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* A clear diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis, and surgical level of L4- S1 (The levels to be operated on were decided by matching the clinical symptomatology with the radiological findings of the spinal levels that needed decompression);\n* Failed at least eight weeks conservative treatment;\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Unstable factors (slip, rotation, lateral bending, etc.) in adjacent segment L3\u002F4;\n* Preoperative sagittal and coronal imbalance of the spine;\n* Lumbar infection and\u002For tumor diseases;\n* A previous history of lumbar fusion surgery.",{"count":189,"type":21},210,"OBSERVATIONAL","This is a prospective single-center study. Patients requiring posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) for lumbar degenerative disease are prospectively enrolled and followed. Important adjacent pre-existing degeneration factors include discs degenerated, facets and ligamentum flavum tropism which could lead to spinal canal stenosis (SCS). This study will focus on the effects of pre- existing adjacent degeneration (disc factors and spinal canal stenosis factors) on long-term postoperative outcomes.",[28,165,166],[194,170,195,168,169,196,197],"Cerebrospinal fluid occlusion","Spinal canal stenosis","High-intensity zone","Vacuum sign","2020-07-08",{"date":200,"type":34},"2020-07-13",{"date":202,"type":34},"2018-01-01",{"date":204,"type":21},"2032-12-31",{"name":180,"class":41}]