Evidence Hub

Predictors for Unsuccessful Outcome of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Surgery: A Secondary Analysis of the 2 Randomized NORDSTEN Trials

Nomeland AA, Brekke EAM, Seip AO, Myklebust TÅ, Ebbs EK, Solberg T, Hermansen E, Indrekvam K et al.

Spine, 2026

704 participants

Abstract

STUDY DESIGN: Observational cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate potential predictors of unsuccessful outcomes after surgery in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: LSS is a common cause of disability in adults and the leading indication for spine surgery in Norway. Despite advances in surgical techniques, nearly one-third of patients report either minor or no improvement or worsening of symptoms after surgery. Identifying predictors of unsuccessful outcomes is essential for improving patient selection and shared decision-making.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: This secondary analysis used data from the 2 NORwegian Degenerative spondylolisthesis and spinal STENosis (NORDSTEN) randomized trials, which included 704 surgically treated patients with LSS, with (n=267) or without (n=437) degenerative spondylolisthesis. The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) was the primary outcome measure. A reduction in ODI score of <30% from baseline to 2 years postoperatively was defined as an unsuccessful outcome. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate whether carefully selected baseline variables were associated with an unsuccessful outcome at 2-year follow-up.

RESULTS: Longer duration of radiating pain (>12 mo; OR: 2.58, 95% CI: 1.54-4.29), psychological distress (HSCL-25 ≥1.75; OR: 1.60, 95% CI: 1.01-2.53), and advanced disc degeneration (Pfirrmann grades 4-5; OR: 1.98, 95% CI: 1.26-3.12) were independently associated with an unsuccessful…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 704 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free