Cervical Decompression for Tandem Spinal Stenosis: The Impact on Low Back Pain

Matthew D. Alvin, MBA, MS, MA1,2; Vincent J. Alentado, BS1,2; Daniel Lubelski, BA2,3;
Edward C. Benzel, MD2,3,4; Thomas E. Mroz MD2,3,4*

1
Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
2
Cleveland Clinic Center for Spine Health, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
3
Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
4
Department of Neurological Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA

*Corresponding Author: Thomas E. Mroz, MD

IRB Approval #12-1240. No grants, technical or corporate support were received in conducting
this study or writing this manuscript. No conflicts of interest existed relative to the present study.
___________________________________________________________________

This is the author's manuscript of the article published in final edited form as:
Alvin, M. D., Alentado, V. J., Lubelski, D., Benzel, E. C., & Mroz, T. E. (2018). Cervical spine surgery for tandem spinal stenosis: The
impact on low back pain. Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery, 166, 50–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clineuro.2018.01.024
Abstract

Study Design. Retrospective analysis.

Objective. To determine the impact of cervical spine surgery on both neck and low back pain in
patients with symptomatic tandem spinal stenosis

Summary of Background Data. Tandem spinal stenosis (TSS) can present similarly to cervical
spondylotic myelopathy, but often has a worse prognosis. Few studies have investigated
outcomes and compared treatment approaches for patients with TSS.

Methods. Eighty-four patients with clinical and imaging evidence of TSS were identified
between 2008 and 2013. Of those identified, 48 underwent cervical spine surgery alone, 20
underwent both cervical and lumbar spine surgery, and 16 received conservative treatment alone
(conservative cohort). Quality of life (QOL) scores including the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS)
for arm, neck, and back, Pain Disability Questionnaire (PDQ), Patient Health Questionnaire-9
(PHQ-9), and EuroQOL-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) were acquired via an institutional prospectively
collected database.

Results. Average follow-up for all three cohorts was twelve months. The average duration of
symptoms prior to treatment for all patients was 17 months (range: 1-120 months). 90% of
patients underwent cervical fusion and 88% received multi-level operations. All patients
presented with myelopathic symptoms. Both surgical cohorts showed significant (p<0.01) pre- to
postoperative improvement for VAS neck and arm scores at 1-year post-op and significantly
greater improvements than the conservative cohort. In addition, the cohort undergoing cervical
spine surgery alone experienced significant improvement in the EQ-5D score whereas those
undergoing both cervical and lumbar spine surgery did not. Low back pain stayed the same or
worsened for both surgical cohorts at both the initial postoperative visit as well as through the
final follow-up.

Conclusions. Cervical spine surgery with or without follow-up lumbar spine surgery
significantly improves neck pain in patients with TSS. In contrast, cervical spine surgery in these
patients does not improve low back pain. Rather, it may unmask lumbar symptoms leading to
subsequent lumbar spine surgery. In our cohort of TSS patients, lumbar surgery also did not
improve low back pain or quality of life. Future prospective studies are necessary to confirm
these findings and examine the impact of lumbar decompression alone on cervical spine
symptoms in patients with TSS.

Key words. tandem spinal stenosis, quality of life, outcomes, spinal stenosis, fusion
Introduction

Symptomatic tandem spinal stenosis (TSS) is a clinical entity in which both the cervical and
lumbar portion of the spinal canal is narrowed. TSS occurs in 5-28%2 of all people. Patients
usually present with a triad of neurologic signs of both upper and lower motor neuron
dysfunction, neurogenic claudication, and progressive gait disturbances. Commonly, either
cervical (myelopathy) or lumbar (claudication) symptoms initially predominate. When these
initial symptoms are treated surgically, complaints related to the secondary site of stenosis arise.
Patients undergoing treatment for TSS may undergo staged (cervical prior to lumbar or vice
versa) or simultaneous surgery.

Previous studies have shown similar positive outcomes for staged and simultaneous surgical
approaches for treatment of patients with TSS.3-5 When using a staged approach, the initial
decompression is the more symptomatic site. Alternatively, if both sites are equally
symptomatic, the cervical spine may be decompressed first, as there are patient reports of post-
operative reduction of the lumbar symptoms in addition to the cervical symptoms.6

Studies have shown that cervical decompression with or without fusion can improve symptoms
of neck pain or radiculopathy in patients with either cervical stenosis alone or TSS.3-5 However,
the effects of cervical decompression on lower back pain in patients with TSS have only been
minimally investigated. Moreover, there have been no controlled studies investigating these
proposed effects. Accordingly, in the present study, we hypothesized that cervical decompression
surgery can lead to improvement of both neck and lower back pain as well as overall quality of
life.

Methods

Electronic medical records were retrospectively reviewed to identify patients with TSS using
both current procedural terminology (CPT) and international classification of diseases (ICD-9)
codes for patients with radiculopathy or neck pain undergoing cervical spine decompression with
or without fusion. Once identified, demographic and clinical information on each patient was
collected. Diagnosis of tandem spinal stenosis was made both clinically and radiographically via
magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Patients needed to have both clinical and imaging evidence
to be included.

Patients were divided into three cohorts: those that underwent cervical spine surgery, those that
underwent cervical spine surgery and subsequent lumbar spine surgery, and those that did not
undergo surgery (conservative cohort). Patients were excluded if they were younger than 18
years or older than 80 years, had previous spine surgery, non-spondylotic causes of radicular
pain (e.g., tumor, infection), neuromuscular disease (e.g., multiple sclerosis), or a workers'
compensation claim.

Quality of life (QOL) scores including the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for arm, neck, and
back, Pain Disability Questionnaire (PDQ), Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), and
EuroQOL-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) were acquired via the institutional Knowledge Program (KP).
The KP is a patient derived outcome assessment tool that is embedded in our electronic medical
record. For all measures, except the EQ-5D, a decrease in score represents improvement. These
data have been systematically collected since 2009, in a prospective fashion, at the time of the
patient visits. The minimum clinically important difference (MCID) used for each questionnaire
in a 1-year time frame was as follows: VAS (2.6), PDQ (26), PHQ-9 (5), and EQ-5D (0.1).7-9
Demographic variables (categorical data) between cohorts were compared using Fisher’s exact
tests. Quality of life outcomes (continuous data) between cohorts were compared using the
Student's t-test and one-way ANOVA analyses with post hoc paired t-tests and Tukey
simulations. All p-values ≤ 0.01 were considered statistically significant to adjust for multiple
comparisons.

Results

Demographics

Eighty-four patients with clinical and MRI evidence of TSS were identified. Included patients
exhibited signs and symptoms of both cervical and lumbar stenosis. Sixty-eight underwent
surgery while 16 did not (Table 1). The average age of patients for the three cohorts was 61.2,
63.9, and 53.8, respectively (p=0.01), with a significantly greater percentage of males in the
surgical cohorts (64.6% and 65% vs. 25%; p=0.01). The average duration of symptoms
(myelopathy and low back pain) prior to the date of hospital presentation was 17 months and
ranged from 1 month to 120 months for all three cohorts. In the surgical cohorts combined, 90%
of patients underwent cervical fusion and 88% received multi-level operations (average 2.6
levels). The number of levels operated did not impact outcomes. No patient received
simultaneous cervical and lumbar operations. Six neurosurgeons and five orthopaedic surgeons,
all fellowship trained in spine surgery, performed all operations (with equal distributions of the
surgical approaches and levels). After undergoing cervical fusion (90%) or cervical
decompression only (10%), 20 patients (29%) subsequently underwent lumbar surgery. The
average follow-up for the three cohorts (cervical, cervical/lumbar, conservative) was 10.9, 11.6,
and 15.1 months, respectively.

Health-related Outcomes

The average pre- to postoperative change in scores for each questionnaire (cervical,
cervical/lumbar, conservative cohorts, respectively) were: VAS Arm (-3.3, -4.4, 0.50), VAS
Neck (-3.1, -4.4, 0.19), VAS Low Back (0.02, -1.2, -0.27), PDQ (-8.8, -5.7, -0.85), PHQ-9 (-1.2,
1.1, 1.9), and EQ-5D (0.13, 0.03, 0.02). At 1-year post-op, both surgical cohorts had statistically
significant (p<0.01) and clinically significant (Change score>MCID) improvement in VAS arm
and neck scores while the conservative cohort had no improvement. In addition, the cohort
undergoing cervical surgery alone had statistically and clinically significant improvement in the
EQ-5D. Low back pain VAS scores did not improve after cervical surgery alone, but did
improve non-significantly after lumbar surgery. On the contrary, cervical spine surgery was
associated with worsening low back pain VAS scores. Lumbar spine surgery performed after
cervical spine surgery did not lead to greater improvement in quality of life in any outcome
measure other than the low back pain VAS score as compared with cervical spine surgery alone.
For the low back pain VAS score, the improvement after both cervical and lumbar surgery did
not surpass the cohort’s baseline low back pain VAS score.
Discussion

Epstein et al.10 reported outcomes of 20 patients with TSS who underwent cervical
decompression, and found that 12 patients (60%) experienced improvement of lower extremity
symptoms, as well as relief of spasticity and myelopathy. No QOL outcomes or statistical
analysis was performed. The authors suggested that the improvement in the lower extremity
symptoms might have been due to relief of the posterior column and corticospinal tracts in the
cervical spine. At two-year follow-up, none of the patients required lumbar decompression.
However, the other eight patients, who experienced initial improvement for 6-9 months
postoperatively, developed significant lumbar complaints impairing ambulation and required
subsequent lumbar laminectomy. The patients that required a second surgery were an average of
10 years older than the rest of the cohort. In the present study, patients requiring subsequent
lumbar surgery were no different in age than those requiring only cervical surgery. In addition,
lumbar symptoms worsened rather than improved after the initial cervical surgery.

Dagi et al.11 retrospectively reviewed 19 patients who underwent staged surgery for TSS and had
22-month follow-up. Nine patients (50%) reported subjective improvement, five (25%)
worsened, and five (25%) remained unchanged (no QOL outcome measures or p-values
reported). Improvement correlated inversely with symptom duration. Three patients that
underwent cervical decompression initially did not require subsequent lumbar decompression
while the other sixteen patients required both cervical and lumbar surgery. In the present study,
we used multiple objective QOL outcome measures and found no relationship between symptom
duration and improvement. Those requiring subsequent lumbar surgery had no improvement in
overall quality of life (EQ-5D) after the initial cervical surgery while those that only underwent
cervical surgery experienced significant improvement in overall quality of life.

There have been few additional studies investigating TSS the literature. LaBan and Green2
performed a 10-year review of 460,964 hospital admissions and found only 54 patients (36 men,
18 women) were diagnosed with MRI-confirmed TSS (0.12%), which were identified via ICD
diagnosis codes. Fifty-one patients (94%) were over the age of 51, indicating the disease is more
prevalent in the older age group. The authors did not review surgical outcomes. Similarly, our
patient cohort was comprised of an older and male-dominated group of patients. Other case
reports have been performed that show improvement after either staged or simultaneous surgery.
To compare simultaneous versus staged surgery, Eskander et al.3 evaluated 43 patients with TSS
(21 simultaneous; 22 staged) over a mean follow-up of seven years and found significant
improvements in Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI)
scores for both cohorts. No significant differences existed between cohorts for JOA or ODI
scores, as well as frequency of major or minor complications.

While TSS is a relatively rare clinical entity, it is currently unclear how to best treat patients with
concurrent cervical and lumbar symptoms. Krishnan et al.14 retrospectively analyzed 53 patients
who underwent single-stage simultaneous surgery for TSS. Quality of life outcomes recorded
with 36-month follow-up included modified JOA (mJOA), ODI, patient satisfaction index, and
Nurick’s grade. Statistically significant postoperative improvement was seen for all measures
(p<0.01). Patients older than 60 were more likely to experience complications. In the present
study, we used different QOL outcome measures with approximately 12 month follow-up and
found significant improvement in quality of life after cervical surgery alone but not after lumbar
surgery, indicating that subsequent lumbar surgery is likely unnecessary for improvement in
quality of life in patients with TSS.

Rather than improving after cervical surgery as expected given prior study findings, low back
pain stayed the same or even trended to a worsening state for some patients. There may be a
physiological manner in which decompressing the cervical spine could relieve impingement on
descending pathways that cause pain in the lumbar region.6 However, it is also possible that
decreasing one source of pain (cervical) may unmask a second source (lumbar) that was initially
unrecognized. Patients requiring subsequent lumbar surgery had lower improvement in QOL and
reported worsened low back pain compared to the visit prior to cervical spine surgery. However,
these patients had the same improvement in neck pain as did the cohort that underwent cervical
surgery alone.

We acknowledge certain limitations in the present study. First, the retrospective nature of the
design opens the study to bias and limited inclusion only to those patients with complete data
sets. Second, our patient population varied relative to surgeon, type of surgery, age, and follow-
up time. However, all of these factors were statistically analyzed separately and found to not
impact the conclusions reached in our study. Despite these limitations, this study includes the
largest sample size of patients with TSS to date, is the first controlled study to compare surgery
with conservative management, and is the first study to show that subsequent lumbar surgery
provides no benefit to patients with TSS who underwent cervical surgery.

Conclusion

Cervical spine surgery with or without follow-up lumbar spine surgery significantly improves
neck pain in patients with TSS. Cervical spine surgery in these patients, however, does not
improve their low back pain. On the contrary, it may unmask lumbar symptoms leading to
subsequent lumbar spine surgery. In our cohort of TSS patients, lumbar spine surgery did not
improve low back pain or quality of life. Future prospective studies are necessary to validate
these findings and examine the impact of lumbar decompression alone on cervical spine
symptoms in patients with TSS.

References

1. Teng P and Papatheodorou C. Combined cervical and lumbar spondylosis. Arch Neurol
1964;10:298-308.
2. LaBan MM and Green ML. Concurrent (tandem) cervical and lumbar spinal stenosis: a
10-yr review of 54 hospitalized patients. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2004;83:187-90.
3. Eskander MS, Aubin ME, Balsis SM, et al. Is there a difference between simultaneous or
staged decompression for combined cervical and lumbar stenosis. J Spinal Disord Tech
2011;24:409-13.
4. Hsieh CH, Huang TJ, Hsu RW. Tandem spinal stenosis: clinical diagnosis and surgical
treatment. Changgeng Yi Xue Za Zhi 1998;21:429-35.
5. Kikuike K, Miyamoto K, Hosoe H, Shimizu K. One-staged combined cervical and
lumbar decompression for patients with tandem spinal stenosis on cervical and lumbar
spine: analyses of clinical outcomes with minimum 3 years follow-up. J Spinal Disord
Tech 2009;22:593-601.
6. Langfitt TW and Elliott FA. Pain in the back and legs caused by cervical spinal cord
compression. JAMA 1967;200:382-5.
7. Parker SL, McGirt MJ. Determination of the minimum improvement in pain, disability,
and health state associated with cost-effectiveness: introduction of the concept of
minimum cost-effective difference. Neurosurgery 2012; 71:1149-55.
8. Parker SL, Godil S, Shau DN, Mendenhall SK, McGirt MJ. Assessment of the minimum
clinically important difference in pain, disability, and quality of life after anterior cervical
discectomy and fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 2013; 18:154-160.
9. Wilson HD. Minimum clinical important differences of health outcomes in a chronic pain
population: Are they predictive of poor outcomes? UT Arlington Dissertation 2008.
10. Epstein WE, Epstein JA, Carras R, et al. Coexisting lumbar and cervical spinal stenosis”
diagnosis and management. Neurosurgery 1984;15:489-96.
11. Dagi TF, Trakington MA, Leech JJ. Tandem lumbar and cervical spinal stenosis: natural
history, prognostic indices, and results after surgical decompression. J Neurosurg
1987;66:842-9.
12. Naderi S and Mertol T. Simultaneous cervical and lumbar surgery for combined
symptomatic cervical and lumbar spinal stenosis. J Spinal Disord Tech 2002;15:229-32.
13. Aydogan M, Ozturk C, Mirzanli C, et al. Treatment approach in tandem (concurrent)
cervical and lumbar spinal stenosis. Acta Orthop Belg 2007;73:234-7.
14. Krishnan A, Dave BR, Kambar AK, Ram H. Coexisting lumbar and cervical stenosis
(tandem spinal stenosis): an infrequent presentation. Retrospective analysis of single-
stage surgery (53 cases). Eur Spine J 2014;23:64-73.
15. Krieg SM and Meyer B. Quest for level I evidence in the treatment of cervical
spondylotic myelopathy. World Neurosurg. 2014;81:501-2.
16. Alvin MD, Lubelski D, Benzel EC, Mroz TE. Ventral fusion versus dorsal fusion:
determining the optimal treatment for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Neurosurg Focus.
2013;35:E5.