Tag Archives: Oswestry Disability Index
Functional and Radiographic Predictors of Success in Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Prospective Study of Lumbar Canal Stenosis
Vol 10 | Issue 2 | July-December 2024 | page: 48-52 | Abhishek Kothari, Chetan Pradhan, Atul Patil, Chetan Puram, Darshan Sonawane, Ashok Shyam, Parag Sancheti
https://doi.org/10.13107/jmt.2024.v10.i02.254
Author: Abhishek Kothari [1], Chetan Pradhan [1], Atul Patil [1], Chetan Puram [1], Darshan Sonawane [1], Ashok Shyam [1], Parag Sancheti [1]
[1] Department of Orthopaedics, Sancheti Institute of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Pune, Maharashtra, India.
Address of Correspondence
Dr. Abhishek Kothari,
Sancheti institute for orthopedics and rehabilitation PG College, 16, Shivajinagar, pune -411005, Maharashtra
E-mail: dr.abhishekkothari@gmail.com
Abstract
Background: Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) is commonly used to treat degenerative lumbar conditions that produce mechanical back pain, radiculopathy or instability. The procedure aims to decompress neural elements, restore disc height and provide segmental stability while limiting neural retraction. This study prospectively evaluates clinical and radiographic outcomes after TLIF in a tertiary centre, and examines how spinopelvic alignment change relates to patient-reported outcomes.
Methods: Consecutive patients with symptomatic lumbar canal stenosis and low-grade spondylolisthesis treated with TLIF between October 2019 and December 2021 were enrolled. Baseline assessment included VAS for back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and SF-36. Radiographs and MRI were used for preoperative planning; standing lateral films were used to calculate pelvic incidence (PI), pelvic tilt (PT), sacral slope (SS) and PI–LL mismatch. Standardised surgical techniques, postoperative care and follow-up at 6 and 12 months were used for outcome assessment.
Results: Of 48 enrolled, 40 patients completed one-year follow-up. Significant improvements were seen in VAS, ODI and SF-36 domains at one year. Many patients showed measurable correction of PI–LL mismatch. Clinical gains were frequent; however, the magnitude of radiographic change did not uniformly predict the degree of symptomatic improvement.
Conclusion: TLIF produced consistent clinical benefit at one year with low complication rates. While sagittal alignment correction often accompanied improved function, imaging gains alone did not guarantee greater symptomatic relief, highlighting the multifactorial nature of recovery after fusion.
Keywords: TLIF, Lumbar canal stenosis, Spondylolisthesis, Oswestry Disability Index, Spinopelvic alignment
Introduction:
Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) has become a widely used technique for addressing degenerative lumbar disorders that produce neural compression, segmental instability or chronic mechanical back pain. TLIF permits direct posterior decompression while allowing placement of an interbody graft or cage through a unilateral transforaminal corridor, thereby reducing the need for extensive neural retraction that characterized earlier posterior interbody techniques. This technical advantage helped TLIF gain popularity as an option that balances safe neural decompression with restoration of anterior column support and segmental stability. [1-6]
Historically, surgeons relied on posterolateral fusion and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) for many degenerative indications; however, PLIF involves greater bilateral neural manipulation and has been associated with certain approach-related risks. Modern outcome assessment emphasises patient-reported measures such as VAS, ODI and SF-36 because radiographic fusion alone does not fully capture the patient’s functional recovery and quality of life. At the same time, restoration of sagittal balance — often summarized by spinopelvic parameters such as pelvic incidence (PI), pelvic tilt (PT), sacral slope (SS) and PI–LL mismatch — has gained attention for its association with long-term function and adjacent-segment health. Surgeons now balance the goals of neural decompression and fusion with alignment objectives to optimise both short- and long-term outcomes. [2][4][6]
The available literature suggests TLIF is effective and broadly safe in selected patients, yet questions remain about how well radiographic correction predicts patient-centred improvement. This study was designed to prospectively evaluate clinico-radiological outcomes after TLIF in patients with lumbar canal stenosis and low-grade spondylolisthesis, and to explore the relationship between changes in spinopelvic parameters and clinical recovery. [1-6]
Review of Literature
Multiple comparative studies and meta-analyses have examined TLIF relative to other fusion strategies (PLIF, ALIF and posterolateral fusion). Overall, these syntheses report broadly similar fusion rates across interbody techniques but note differences in approach-related morbidity, operative times and the capacity to restore segmental lordosis. Several series show TLIF may carry a lower risk of neural retraction-related complications compared with PLIF while achieving comparable clinical outcomes and fusion efficacy. [7-13]
Randomized trials and cohort studies focusing on degenerative spondylolisthesis have shown that adding fusion to decompression can offer better medium-term improvements in pain and function for selected patients, although the balance between benefit and the risk of reoperation depends on careful patient selection. Not all patients with lumbar stenosis require fusion — the decision rests on instability, deformity, and individual symptom profiles. Meta-analyses highlight that minimally invasive variants of TLIF reduce blood loss and early morbidity while maintaining similar fusion and symptomatic results when compared with open techniques in appropriate hands. [7][8][9]
The role of sagittal balance and spinopelvic parameters in predicting outcomes after lumbar fusion has been increasingly studied. Excessive PI–LL mismatch and sagittal malalignment have been associated with worse health-related outcomes and a higher incidence of adjacent-segment disease in some series, prompting surgeons to incorporate alignment goals into surgical planning. However, multiple reports caution that radiographic correction alone does not uniformly translate into proportional improvements in pain or disability; clinical recovery is mediated by neurological status, chronicity of symptoms, paraspinal muscle condition, comorbidities and psychosocial factors. Thus, integrated assessment of clinical and radiographic outcomes is essential when evaluating the true benefit of fusion procedures. [14- 20]
Materials and Methods
This single-centre prospective study enrolled consecutive patients who underwent TLIF for symptomatic lumbar canal stenosis with or without low-grade degenerative spondylolisthesis from October 2019 through December 2021. Institutional ethics approval and written informed consent were obtained. Inclusion criteria were age >20 years, clinical and MRI confirmation of neural compression and failure of conservative care (physiotherapy and medication) for at least six weeks. Exclusion criteria included active spinal infection, metastatic disease, high-grade spondylolisthesis, severe osteoporosis and inability to comply with follow-up.
Preoperative evaluation included detailed clinical assessment, neurological examination, VAS for back and leg pain, ODI and SF-36. Imaging included standing AP and lateral radiographs incorporating femoral heads (for spinopelvic measurements), flexion–extension films and MRI for neural element assessment. Spinopelvic parameters measured on standing lateral films included pelvic incidence (PI), pelvic tilt (PT), sacral slope (SS) and lumbar lordosis (LL) to calculate PI–LL mismatch. Baseline comorbidities, smoking status and medication history were recorded.
Surgical technique: All procedures were performed under general anaesthesia via a midline posterior approach. Unilateral facetectomy and foraminotomy were performed on the symptomatic side to decompress nerve roots. Discectomy and endplate preparation were followed by insertion of an interbody cage packed with local autograft; pedicle screw fixation was applied bilaterally and rods contoured to achieve segmental correction. Fluoroscopic guidance confirmed implant position. Perioperative antibiotics and standard thromboprophylaxis were used.
Postoperative care included early mobilisation, drain removal as per output, staged physiotherapy and outpatient follow-up at 6 and 12 months. Outcome analysis compared preoperative and follow-up VAS, ODI and SF-36 scores using paired tests; radiographic changes in spinopelvic parameters were evaluated, and correlations between radiographic and clinical changes explored. Statistical significance was set at p<0.05.
Results
Forty-eight patients were enrolled; 40 completed one-year follow-up and formed the analysis cohort. The mean age was 52 years (range 38–72) with a modest female predominance. The majority underwent single-level fusion, most commonly at L4–L5. Common comorbidities included well-controlled hypertension and type-2 diabetes in a subset. Preoperative neurological deficits were present in several patients; most showed partial or full recovery by one year.
Clinical outcomes: Median VAS back pain decreased from 7 (preop) to 1 at one year; leg pain VAS showed a similar fall. Mean ODI improved markedly from roughly 68% preoperatively to about 18% at one year, indicating substantial reduction in disability. SF-36 physical and bodily pain domains improved significantly across the cohort.
Radiographic outcomes: Standing lateral films at one year demonstrated measurable changes in spinopelvic parameters in many patients, with a general tendency toward reduction in PI–LL mismatch after fusion. Complications were infrequent and consistent with published TLIF series: a small number of transient dural tears, one case of superficial wound infection managed conservatively, and no perioperative mortalities. Overall, the majority of patients achieved meaningful clinical improvement at one year.
Discussion
In this series, patients treated with TLIF for lumbar canal stenosis and low-grade spondylolisthesis experienced clear and sustained improvement in pain, disability and quality of life at one year. The reductions in VAS scores and the marked fall in ODI mirror findings reported in other clinical series, supporting TLIF’s role in achieving neural decompression, restoring disc height and providing segmental stability that together reduce mechanical back pain and radicular symptoms. [14][15]
Radiographs showed that many patients had measurable improvement in sagittal parameters, particularly a reduction in PI–LL mismatch. Restoration of a more favourable sagittal alignment is encouraging because several studies associate better alignment with improved long-term function and a lower risk of adjacent-segment problems. However, we also observed that imaging and symptoms do not always move in lockstep: several patients reported large functional gains despite only modest radiographic change, and a few with good radiographic correction reported only modest symptomatic relief. This mismatch highlights that radiographic correction is important but not by itself determinative of patient experience. [18][19][20]
There are several plausible reasons for this discordance. Duration and chronicity of preoperative symptoms, severity of preoperative neurological deficit, condition of the paraspinal muscles, and patient comorbidities (for example diabetes or peripheral neuropathy) influence neural recovery and pain perception. Psychosocial factors and expectations also shape reported outcomes, as do rehabilitation and return-to-activity practices after surgery. Classic descriptions of the multifactorial nature of low back pain remind us that structural correction addresses a single domain within a broader biopsychosocial context. [16][17]
Clinically, these observations suggest a balanced approach: aim for reasonable sagittal correction during fusion, but prioritise individualized goals based on the patient’s overall health, symptom history and functional needs rather than pursuing perfect radiographic numbers alone. Careful patient selection, meticulous surgical technique, prompt mobilisation and a structured rehabilitation programme appear to contribute substantially to favourable recovery. Limitations of our study include single-centre design, modest sample size and one-year follow-up, which constrain assessment of long-term fusion durability and late adjacent-level disease. Larger, longer studies would help identify which preoperative and intraoperative factors most reliably predict when radiographic improvement will translate into durable, patient-centred benefit. [18][19][20]
Conclusion
TLIF produced consistent and meaningful improvements in pain, disability and quality of life at one year in this cohort of patients with lumbar canal stenosis and low-grade spondylolisthesis. Radiographic correction of sagittal alignment often accompanied clinical gains, yet imaging improvement alone did not guarantee a larger symptomatic benefit for every patient. Recovery after TLIF is multifactorial: careful patient selection, realistic and individualized alignment goals, meticulous surgical technique, and a structured rehabilitation plan are all important contributors to favourable outcomes. The low complication rates observed suggest TLIF is a reliable option in experienced hands. Further research with larger cohorts and longer follow-up is needed to better characterise predictors of sustained clinical benefit and the long-term relationship between alignment, fusion status and adjacent-segment health.
References
1. Resnick DK, Choudhri TF, Dailey AT, Groff MW, Khoo L, Matz PG, et al. Guidelines for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 7: intractable low-back pain without stenosis or spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg Spine. 2005 Jun; 2(6):670–2.
2. Eck JC, Hodges S, Humphreys SC. Minimally invasive lumbar spinal fusion. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2007 Jun; 15(6):321–9.
3. Mobbs RJ, Sivabalan P, Li J. Minimally invasive surgery compared to open spinal fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spine pathologies. J Clin Neurosci. 2012 Jun; 19(6):829–35.
4. Zhao J, Zhang S, Li X, He B, Ou Y, Jiang D. Comparison of Minimally Invasive and Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Med Sci Monit. 2018 Dec 1; 24:8693–8.
5. Mobbs RJ, Phan K, Malham G, Seex K, Rao PJ. Lumbar interbody fusion: techniques, indications and comparison of interbody fusion options including PLIF, TLIF, MI-TLIF, OLIF/ATP, LLIF and ALIF. J Spine Surg. 2015 Dec;1(1):2–18.
6. Uçar BY, Özcan Ç, Polat Ö, Aman T. Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion For Lumbar Degenerative Disease: Patient Selection And Perspectives. Orthop Res Rev. 2019 Nov; 11:183–9.
7. Macki M, Bydon M, Weingart R, Sciubba D, Wolinsky J-P, Gokaslan ZL, et al. Posterolateral fusion with interbody for lumbar spondylolisthesis is associated with less repeat surgery than posterolateral fusion alone. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2015 Nov; 138:117–23.
8. Lan T, Hu S-Y, Zhang Y-T, Zheng Y-C, Zhang R, Shen Z, et al. Comparison Between Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. World Neurosurg. 2018 Apr; 112:86–93.
9. Harms JG, Jeszenszky D. Die posteriore, lumbale, interkorporelle Fusion in unilateraler transforaminaler Technik. Oper Orthop Traumatol. 1998 Jun 1; 10(2):90–102.
10. de Kunder SL, van Kuijk SMJ, Rijkers K, Caelers IJMH, van Hemert WLW, de Bie… [Entry continues in dissertation].
11. Yavin D, et al. [Systematic review/meta-analysis on comparative safety and efficacy of lumbar fusion, decompression alone or nonoperative care]. Spine J. 2017.
12. Ghogawala Z, et al. Laminectomy plus fusion versus laminectomy alone for symptomatic lumbar grade I degenerative spondylolisthesis: randomized trial. 2016.
13. Frymoyer JW, Pope MH, Clements JH, Wilder DG, MacPherson B, Ashikaga T. Risk factors in low-back pain. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1983 Feb; 65(2):213–8.
14. Dillane JB, Fry J, Kalton G. Acute back syndrome—a study from general practice. Br Med J. 1966 Jul 9; 2(5505):82–4.
15. Kelsey JL, White AA. Epidemiology and impact of low-back pain. Spine. 1980 Apr; 5(2):133–42.
16. Kirkaldy-Willis WH, Wedge JH, Yong-Hing K, Reilly J. Pathology and pathogenesis of lumbar spondylosis and stenosis. Spine. 1978 Dec; 3(4):319–28.
17. Mixter WF, Barr JS. Rupture of the Intervertebral Disc and Its Association with Lumbar and Leg Pain. N Engl J Med. 1934.
18. Mac-Thiong J-M, Wang Z, de Guise JA, Labelle H. Postural Model of Sagittal Spino-Pelvic Alignment and Its Relevance for Lumbosacral Developmental Spondylolisthesis. Spine. 2008 Oct; 33(21):2316–25.
19. Le Huec JC, Charosky S, Barrey C, Rigal J, Aunoble S. Sagittal imbalance cascade for simple degenerative spine and consequences: algorithm of decision for appropriate treatment. Eur Spine J. 2011 Sep; 20(S5):699–703.
20. Barrey C, Roussouly P, Perrin G, Le Huec J-C. Sagittal balance disorders in severe degenerative spine. Eur Spine J. 2011 Sep; 20(S5):626–33.
| How to Cite this Article: Kothari A, Pradhan C, Patil A, Puram C, Sonawane D, Shyam A, Sancheti P. Functional and Radiographic Predictors of Success in Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Prospective Study of Lumbar Canal Stenosis. Journal of Medical Thesis. 2024 July-December; 10(2): 48-51. |
Institute Where Research was Conducted: Department of Orthopaedics, Sancheti Institute of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Shivajinagar, Pune, Maharashtra, India.
University Affiliation: Maharashtra University of Health Sciences (MUHS), Nashik, Maharashtra, India
Year of Acceptance of Thesis: 2019
Full Text HTML | Full Text PDF
Optimizing Thoracolumbar Fracture Management: Hypothesis – Superiority of Long-Segment Posterior Pedicle Screw Fixation for Long-Term Stability
Vol 9 | Issue 2 | July-December 2023 | page: 26-30 | Sangmeshwar Siddheshwar, Shailesh Hadgaonkar, Ajay Kothari, Siddharth Aiyer, Pramod Bhilare, Darshan Sonawane, Ashok Shyam, Parag Sancheti
https://doi.org/10.13107/jmt.2023.v09.i02.218
Author: Sangmeshwar Siddheshwar [1], Shailesh Hadgaonkar [1], Ajay Kothari [1], Siddharth Aiyer [1], Pramod Bhilare [1], Darshan Sonawane [1], Ashok Shyam [1], Parag Sancheti [1]
[1] Department of Orthopaedics, Sancheti Institute of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Pune, Maharashtra, India.
Address of Correspondence
Dr. Sangmeshwar Siddheshwar,
Department of Orthopaedics, Sancheti Institute of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Pune, Maharashtra, India.
E-mail: dr.sangamms@gmail.com
Abstract
Background: Multilevel degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis commonly causes progressive leg pain, numbness and reduced walking capacity that interfere with daily activities and independence. This prospective study reports the one-year clinical and functional outcomes of 99 consecutive patients treated surgically between October 2016 and October 2017 after failing conservative management. Surgical approaches were tailored to each patient and included decompression alone, decompression with stabilization, or decompression combined with instrumented fusion when instability was present.
Hypothesis: We hypothesised that individualized decompression, with selective addition of stabilization or fusion when indicated by symptoms or imaging, would produce consistent and durable improvements in pain, disability and health-related quality of life across patients with stenosis at two or more lumbar levels.
Clinical importance: By one year most patients recorded meaningful gains. Most patients returned to routine activities within months. Mean disability scores fell from levels indicating marked functional limitation to scores compatible with mild residual disability, and median pain scores declined substantially. Broad improvements were evident in physical functioning, role limitation, bodily pain and social participation. Complication rates were acceptable; intraoperative dural tears were the most frequent event and were managed without lasting neurological deficit in the majority. A small number of patients developed adjacent segment problems or required further intervention, but these did not negate the overall functional gains achieved.
Future research: Larger prospective studies and randomized trials should examine which clinical and radiological features best identify patients who benefit from fusion in addition to decompression, evaluate long-term durability beyond one year, and assess cost-effectiveness and patient-centred outcomes such as return-to-work and persistent analgesic use. Registries and standardized outcome reporting will strengthen evidence and guide clearer decision-making.
Keywords: Multilevel lumbar stenosis, Decompression, Instrumented fusion, Oswestry Disability Index, Quality of life, Dural tear.
Background
Degenerative narrowing of the lumbar spinal canal is a leading cause of walking difficulty, leg pain and lost independence in older adults. Over decades the spinal motion segments lose disc height, facet joints hypertrophy and the ligamentum flavum thickens and buckles; these changes reduce space for the nerve roots and the dural sac and create the classic picture of lumbar spinal stenosis. Symptoms usually include leg pain, numbness or weakness that worsen with standing and walking and improve with sitting or forward flexion of the spine — a pattern that distinguishes it from vascular claudication. Accurate diagnosis depends on combining the clinical story with imaging, since many people have degenerative changes on MRI without troubling symptoms. Verbiest and later clinical reviews set out the classic descriptions still used today. [1–3]
Multilevel involvement — where two or more levels show compressive change — becomes more common with age and often produces a mixture of axial low back discomfort and diffuse leg symptoms. That mixture can make it hard to localize a single symptomatic level on exam, and it makes imaging and functional assessment central to surgical planning. MRI is the preferred modality for showing soft-tissue causes of compression such as ligamentum flavum hypertrophy and facet overgrowth, while standing radiographs and dynamic films help reveal instability or slippage (spondylolisthesis) that may change the operation required. Grading systems and morphological descriptions on axial MRI help surgeons weigh where and how much decompression is needed. [2–4]
Conservative care is the first line for most patients: patient education, analgesics, structured physiotherapy, walking programs and selective epidural injections frequently yield meaningful improvement and delay or avoid surgery. Surgery is considered when symptoms — most importantly, walking limitation and leg pain — remain disabling despite adequate conservative management. Surgical options span from focused microsurgical decompression (unilateral or bilateral laminotomy, over-the-top decompression) to more extensive multilevel laminectomy. When instability is present or anticipated because decompression would remove stabilizing structures, instrumented fusion is added to restore or preserve alignment. Minimally invasive methods try to free nerves while preserving posterior elements and Para spinal muscles, with the goal of faster recovery and less postoperative back pain. [5–8]
A key practical question for surgeons is when to add fusion to decompression. Fusion stabilizes the segment, prevents progression of deformity and increases the chance of durable mechanical integrity when instability is present; however, it also increases operative time, blood loss, cost and the potential for implant-related complications. Several comparative studies show that fusion improves radiographic stability, but consistent clinical advantage for routine fusion in stable stenosis is not firmly established. Thus, careful patient selection and individualized planning are essential; fusion is generally reserved for clear instability, high-grade spondylolisthesis or cases where decompression would itself destabilize the spine. [9–12]
Patient-reported measures such as the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for pain and general quality-of-life instruments are standard tools to judge surgical benefit. Most contemporary series report meaningful improvement in leg symptoms and walking tolerance after surgical decompression, whether fusion is performed or not, provided the operation and selection are appropriate. Common perioperative problems include dural tears, infection, wound healing problems, and in the long term, adjacent-segment degeneration. Careful surgical technique, perioperative optimization and rehabilitation reduce these risks and improve outcomes. The current thesis offers a prospective dataset of consecutive patients treated for multilevel stenosis, with standardized preoperative assessment and 6- and 12-month follow-up to evaluate these issues. [13–25]
Hypothesis.
Primary hypothesis
When patients with multilevel lumbar spinal stenosis are selected for surgery based on clear clinical-radiologic correlation, and the operative approach is tailored to the presence or absence of instability (decompression alone for stable segments versus decompression plus instrumented fusion when instability or deformity exists), most patients will experience substantial and clinically meaningful improvement in pain, function and quality of life at one year.
Why this matters
The clinical problem is practical and common: many older patients have multilevel degenerative changes, but not all of them are disabled by those changes. Surgery that is too limited may leave persistent compression; surgery that is too aggressive may create instability or needlessly expose patients to the extra risks of fusion. The surgeon’s task is to match the invasiveness of the operation to the mechanical and symptomatic needs of the patient. Existing literature suggests clear benefit from fusion when there is demonstrable instability, and good relief from decompression alone when the spine is stable; however, the evidence is mixed for borderline cases. A prospective cohort where selection criteria and outcomes are systematically recorded helps clarify real-world results. [9–12, 25]
Specific aims
1. To measure change in disability (ODI) from baseline to one year as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes include changes in VAS pain scores and SF-36 quality-of-life domains, perioperative complications, reoperation rates and radiographic fusion status where fusion was performed.
2. To compare clinical outcomes and complication profiles among three operative strategies used in the cohort: decompression alone; decompression plus posterolateral stabilization; and decompression plus instrumented interbody fusion.
3. To examine whether the number of levels treated (two, three, or four and above) or the MRI severity of stenosis influences functional outcome or complication risk.
4. To identify perioperative predictors of less favorable outcomes (older age, greater comorbidity, larger blood loss, dural tear, and extent of decompression) to support shared decision-making.
Operational testable statements
• H1: Mean ODI and VAS will improve significantly at six months and be maintained at one year after appropriate surgery.
• H2: In patients with radiographic instability, adding fusion will yield comparable or better functional outcomes but with higher intraoperative resource use (longer operating time, more blood loss).
• H3: Higher-grade morphological stenosis on MRI predicts larger absolute symptomatic benefit from decompression, while the number of levels treated will not independently predict worse functional outcomes when operations are appropriately chosen.
• H4: Advanced age and increased comorbidity raise complication risk but do not necessarily prevent meaningful clinical gains in those who recover without severe complications.
Study approach and measures
A prospective cohort design of consecutive patients with two or more levels operated for symptomatic stenosis, with standardized collection of ODI, VAS and SF-36 at baseline, six months and one year, together with detailed perioperative data and radiographs/MRI, provides the necessary structure to test these hypotheses and to develop risk-stratified guidance for practice. [25]
Discussion
What the outcomes usually show
When surgery is chosen for patients with disabling symptoms and concordant imaging, decompression reliably reduces leg pain and improves walking capacity. In most cohorts, including the present thesis cohort, patients report large early gains in leg pain and functional ability by six months that tend to persist at one year. The magnitude of benefit commonly relates to how closely symptoms and imaging match — patients with clear neurogenic claudication and compressive lesions on MRI gain the most. [13–15]
Fusion: when it helps and when it does not
Instrumented fusion restores stability and alignment when clear instability exists, and it reduces the chance of postoperative mechanical failure where wide decompression would otherwise destabilize the spine. That mechanical benefit is evident radiographically and in some series leads to better long-term outcomes for selected patients. At the same time, fusion increases operative time, blood loss and implant-related complexity, and in otherwise stable stenosis it does not consistently produce better patient-reported outcomes than decompression alone. Therefore, fusion is best reserved for cases with objective instability, high-grade spondylolisthesis or deformity that needs correction; routine fusion for all multilevel disease is not supported by the balance of evidence. [9–12, 16–18]
Surgical technique and tissue preservation
Wherever possible, techniques that decompress the neural elements while preserving midline structures and paraspinal musculature reduce early postoperative back pain and may hasten recovery, especially in older or frail patients. Muscle-sparing and minimally invasive decompression approaches can achieve adequate neural decompression in many cases, leaving fusion for those with instability or unavoidable destabilizing resections. Proper selection minimizes the overall physiological burden without compromising decompression. [5–8, 19–21]
Complications and mitigation
Dural breaches during decompression are a common intraoperative event; careful microsurgical technique and prompt repair keep long-term consequences uncommon. Infection, thromboembolism and wound problems are important perioperative concerns and are reduced by standard prophylactic measures (antibiotics, early mobilization, and DVT prophylaxis as appropriate) and by optimizing medical comorbidities before surgery. Fusion adds risk of implant-related issues and potential future adjacent-segment degeneration; this underlines the need for precise indications and for long-term follow-up in registries and trials. [22–25]
Limitations and remaining questions
Most single-center cohorts have relatively short follow-up, making it hard to judge long-term adjacent-segment problems and fusion durability over many years. Randomized trials directly comparing decompression alone and decompression plus fusion in multilevel stenosis with borderline instability are limited. Future research should focus on longer follow-up, standardized imaging metrics, and pragmatic comparative designs that reflect real-world patient selection. These efforts would help surgeons and patients choose the operation that best balances relief of symptoms and procedural risk. [12, 24, 25]
Clinical importance
Multilevel lumbar spinal stenosis causes real and reversible disability for many older adults. When symptoms and imaging agree and conservative measures have failed, carefully planned surgery can restore walking capacity and reduce pain in most patients. The key to good results is matching the technical plan to the mechanical needs of the spine: perform muscle-sparing decompression when the spine is stable, and reserve fusion for segments with true instability or deformity. Using standardized outcome measures supports honest, evidence-based counseling about expected benefits and risks, and thorough perioperative optimization reduces complications. Personalized decision-making preserves function while avoiding unnecessary surgical burden.
Future directions
1. Set up large, long-term patient registries that follow people for five to ten years after surgery so we can see how often fusion holds up, how often adjacent segments fail, and which patients need repeat operations.
2. Run practical, real-world clinical trials that focus on patients with borderline or uncertain instability to find out when adding a fusion truly improves pain, function and quality of life.
3. Build simple, usable risk scores that combine the MRI picture, dynamic X-rays and basic patient factors (age, health, activity level) so surgeons and patients can make clearer, personalized choices before operating.
4. Study muscle-sparing and less invasive decompression methods in older and medically frail patients to see whether they speed recovery, reduce early pain and lower the need for further surgery — and include cost and rehab outcomes so hospitals can plan better.
References
1. Verbiest H. A radicular syndrome from developmental narrowing of the lumbar vertebral canal. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1954; 36-B (2):230–237.
2. Postacchini F. Management of lumbar spinal stenosis. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1996; 78(1):154–164.
3. Arbit E, Pannullo S. Lumbar stenosis: a clinical review. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001; 384:137–143.
4. Möller H, Hedlund R. Surgery versus conservative management in adult isthmic spondylolisthesis — a prospective randomized study: part 1. Spine. 2000; 25(17):1711–1716.
5. Tsai RY, Yang RS, Bray RS Jr. Microscopic laminotomies for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. J Spinal Disord. 1998; 11(5):389–394.
6. Young S, Veerapen R. Relief of lumbar canal stenosis using multilevel subarticular fenestrations as an alternative to wide laminectomy. Neurosurgery. 1988; 23(5):628–633.
7. Steven Young et al. Multilevel fenestration technique. Neurosurgery. 1988; 23(5):628–633.
8. Herron LD, Mangelsdorf C. Lumbar spinal stenosis: results of surgical treatment. J Spinal Disord. 1991; 4(3):263–273.
9. Roy-Camille R, Saillant G, Mazel C. Internal fixation of the lumbar spine with pedicle screw plating. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1986; 203:7–17.
10. Krag MH, Beynnon BD, Pope MH, et al. An internal fixator for posterior application to short segments of the thoracic, lumbar, or lumbosacral spine: design and testing. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1986; 203:75–98.
11. France JC, Yaszemski MJ, Lauerman WC, et al. A randomized prospective study of posterolateral lumbar fusion: outcomes with and without pedicle screw instrumentation. Spine. 1999; 24(5):553–560.
12. Fritzell P, Hägg O, Wessberg P, Nordwall A. Lumbar fusion versus nonsurgical treatment for chronic low back pain: Swedish Lumbar Spine Study. Spine. 2001; 26(23):2521–2534.
13. Park DK, an HS, Lurie JD, et al. Does multilevel lumbar stenosis lead to poorer outcomes? Subanalysis of the SPORT trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010; 35(10):439–444.
14. Whitecloud TS 3rd, Roesch WW, Ricciardi JE. Transforaminal interbody fusion versus anteroposterior interbody fusion of the lumbar spine: a financial analysis. J Spinal Disord. 2001; 14(2):100–103.
15. Mummaneni PV, Kaiser MG. Cervical spine surgery in patients older than 65 years: outcomes and complications. Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2008; 19(4):581–592.
16. Postacchini F, Cinotti G. Bone regrowth after surgical decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1992; 74-B (1):86–92.
17. Solini A, Paschero B, Ruggieri N, Paladini Molgora A. Lumbar stenosis surgery: “recalibrage” according to Senegas. Chir Organi Mov. 1992; 77(1):55–59.
18. Murthy H, Reddy TVS. VAS score assessment for outcome of posterior lumbar interbody fusion in cases of lumbar canal stenosis. Int J Res Orthop. 2016; 2(3):164–169.
19. Hur JW, Kim SH, Lee JW, Lee HK. Clinical analysis of postoperative outcome in elderly patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2007; 41(3):157–160.
20. Herron LD. Surgical considerations in lumbar stenosis: techniques and outcomes. Spine J. 2002; 2(6):123–129.
21. Getty R. Degenerative lumbar pathology — clinical overview. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1980; 62(4):481–?
22. Aryanpur J, Ducker T. Multilevel laminotomies — an alternative to laminectomy in the treatment of lumbar stenosis. Spine. 1990; 15(3):429–433.
23. Roy-Camille R. Spine instrumentation: evolution and current concepts. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990; 257:15–28.
24. Herron LD, Mangelsdorf C. Outcome predictors after lumbar decompression. J Spinal Disord Tech. 1998; 11(4):300–307.
25. To study functional outcome of surgical treatment of multilevel lumbar spinal stenosis.
_
Institute Where Research was Conducted: Department of Orthopaedics, Sancheti Institute of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Shivajinagar, Pune, Maharashtra, India.
University Affiliation: MUHS, Nashik, Maharashtra, India.
Year of Acceptance of Thesis: 2019
| How to Cite this Article: Siddheshwar S, Hadgaonkar S, Kothari A, Aiyer S, Bhilare P, Sonawane D, Shyam A, Sancheti P. Optimizing Thoracolumbar Fracture Management: Hypothesis - Superiority of Long-Segment Posterior Pedicle Screw Fixation for Long-Term Stability. Journal of Medical Thesis. July-December 2023; 9(2):26-30. |
Full Text HTML | Full Text PDF
Functional Recovery Following Surgical Intervention for Multilevel Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Prospective Cohort Analysis
Vol 7 | Issue 2 | July-December 2021 | page: 1-4 | Sangmeshwar Siddheshwar, Shailesh Hadgaonkar, Ajay Kothari, Siddhart Aiyer, Pramod Bhilare, Darshan Sonawane, Ashok Shyam, Parag Sancheti
https://doi.org/10.13107/jmt.2021.v07.i02.160
Author: Sangmeshwar Siddheshwar [1], Shailesh Hadgaonkar [1], Ajay Kothari [1], Siddhart Aiyer [1], Pramod Bhilare [1], Darshan Sonawane [1], Ashok Shyam [1], Parag Sancheti [1]
[1] Sancheti Institute of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation PG College, Sivaji Nagar, Pune, Maharashtra, India.
Address of Correspondence
Dr. Darshan Sonawane,
Sancheti Institute of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation PG College, Sivaji Nagar, Pune, Maharashtra, India.
Email : researchsior@gmail.com.
Abstract
Background: Multilevel degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis produces neurogenic claudication and radicular pain with marked functional limitation. This prospective study evaluates outcomes after tailored surgical care — decompression alone, decompression with stabilization, or decompression with instrumented interbody fusion — selected after careful clinico-radiological correlation.
Methods: Ninety-nine consecutive patients with two or more levels of stenosis who failed nonoperative therapy were treated surgically at our tertiary centre. Selection for decompression alone or decompression plus stabilization/interbody fusion was based on clinical features, dynamic radiographs and axial T2 MRI morphological grading. Functional outcomes were measured using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and Short Form-36 (SF-36) preoperatively and at six months and one year.
Results: Patients demonstrated substantial reduction in disability and pain scores with improved SF-36 domains at follow-up. Complications were infrequent and manageable.
Conclusion: When selected carefully, decompression with or without stabilization leads to durable symptom relief and functional improvement in multilevel lumbar canal stenosis. Perioperative measures included antibiotic prophylaxis, thromboprophylaxis, early mobilization and a structured rehabilitation plan to support recovery and reduce complications. Institutional ethical approval and written informed consent were obtained for all participants prior to enrolment.
Keywords: Lumbar spinal stenosis, Decompression, Fusion, Oswestry Disability Index, Neurogenic claudication
Introduction
Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis most commonly results from progressive disc degeneration, facet joint hypertrophy, ligamentum flavum thickening and osteophyte formation that, in combination, narrow the spinal canal and encroach upon neural elements [1]. Multilevel involvement typically affects adjacent motion segments and is frequently encountered in routine clinical practice; patients often present with neurogenic claudication characterized by leg pain and paresthesia provoked by walking or standing and relieved by sitting or forward flexion [2]. Symptoms may be unilateral or bilateral and are commonly accompanied by variable low back pain and intermittent motor or sensory deficits. Radiological assessment with high-resolution axial T2 magnetic resonance imaging is central to diagnosis and permits morphological grading of canal compromise to help correlate clinical findings with imaging [3]. Plain radiographs including flexion–extension views are important when assessing segmental instability and sagittal alignment [4]. Conservative measures such as activity modification, analgesia, physiotherapy and selective epidural injections are the initial approach, but patients with progressive, disabling or function-limiting symptoms despite adequate nonoperative care are candidates for surgical intervention [5]. The primary surgical objective is durable neural decompression to relieve neurogenic symptoms while minimising the risk of postoperative instability. Traditional wide laminectomy achieves extensive decompression but may disrupt posterior stabilising elements and paraspinal musculature, potentially predisposing to late instability and unsatisfactory outcomes [6]. For this reason, techniques that limit collateral damage — unilateral or bilateral laminotomy, selective fenestration, microscopic decompression and minimally invasive approaches — have been developed to preserve stabilisers while providing effective neural decompression [7]. Surgical decision-making balances the extent of decompression with the need to preserve anatomical stabilisers; when dynamic radiographs or intraoperative findings indicate instability or facet destruction, instrumented fusion with interbody support may be required to restore stability and promote long-term functional benefit. Patient factors such as age and comorbidity influence planning and expected recovery. Standardized outcome instruments (ODI, VAS, SF-36) were used to quantify disability, pain and quality of life at defined intervals.
Aims and objectives
The primary aim was to evaluate functional outcome following surgical management of multilevel lumbar canal stenosis. Specific objectives were to
(1) Quantify change in ODI, VAS and SF-36 at six months and one year;
(2) Record perioperative and early postoperative complications; and
(3) Analyse the relationship of functional recovery with morphological MRI grade, number of levels and patient age to better inform surgical selection and patient counselling at a tertiary referral centre in India.
Review of literature
The surgical literature emphasises balancing adequate neural decompression with preservation of posterior stabilising structures [8]. Early series established degenerative changes as the principal cause of symptomatic stenosis and cautioned that excessive posterior element removal may produce iatrogenic instability and restenosis [9]. Instrumentation such as pedicle screw constructs and interbody techniques improved fusion reliability and provided stabilisation when fusion was indicated [10]. Technical descriptions of internal fixators and pedicle plating informed subsequent stabilisation strategies [11]. Clinical analyses indicate that elderly patients can achieve meaningful symptom relief when procedures are selected carefully and perioperative care is optimised, though complication rates increase with age [12]. Cost and resource pressures have encouraged less invasive fusion strategies alongside targeted decompression approaches [13]. Comparative trials suggest that increased radiographic fusion with instrumentation does not uniformly translate into superior symptomatic benefit, supporting selective fusion for documented instability [14]. Minimally invasive and muscle-sparing techniques such as microdecompression reduce paraspinal muscle trauma while achieving effective neural decompression [15]. Microdecompression and microscopic laminotomy have been reported to deliver similar short-term outcomes with reduced soft-tissue disruption compared with wide laminectomy in selected series [16]. Alternative decompressive procedures such as multilevel subarticular fenestrations and laminoplasty were proposed to preserve stabilisers and reduce late instability [17]. Earlier clinical series documented reasonable outcomes with fenestration techniques as an alternative to extensive laminectomy [18]. Long-term issues after decompression and fusion include bone regrowth, implant-related difficulties and adjacent segment degeneration, which require ongoing surveillance [19]. Overall, careful patient selection, tailored decompression and selective fusion remain the foundation of contemporary management of multilevel lumbar canal stenosis [20], and these topics remain under study worldwide.
Materials and Methods
This prospective study enrolled ninety-nine consecutive patients between October 2016 and October 2017 who presented with clinical and radiological evidence of lumbar canal stenosis affecting two or more levels and who failed conservative treatment. Inclusion criteria were age >30 years, symptomatic neurogenic claudication limiting walking distance despite adequate nonoperative care, and MRI evidence of multilevel canal compromise. Exclusion criteria included prior lumbar surgery, active infection, malignancy and acute fracture. Clinical evaluation comprised detailed neurological examination, assessment of claudication distance and straight leg raise testing. Baseline investigations included standing lumbosacral radiographs with flexion–extension views to detect dynamic instability and MRI axial T2 sequences for morphological grading. Treatment was individualised: decompression alone was performed when clinical and radiological features showed no instability; decompression with posterolateral fusion or decompression with instrumented transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) was used where dynamic films or facet destruction indicated instability. Procedures were performed under general anaesthesia with standard positioning and prophylactic antibiotics. Meticulous microsurgical technique was used to preserve posterior tension bands while achieving neural release; pedicle screw constructs and interbody cages were employed where indicated. Perioperative data were recorded and complications tracked. Postoperative care was standardised: thromboembolism prophylaxis, analgesia and a short course of intravenous antibiotics followed by oral therapy were used; early in-bed exercises began within 24 hours and ambulation with support was encouraged by 48 hours. Suture removal occurred at about two weeks and a structured rehabilitation programme was commenced and continued regularly. Functional outcomes (ODI, VAS, SF-36) were recorded preoperatively and at six months and one year. Statistical analysis consisted of paired comparisons of preoperative and postoperative scores and subgroup analyses by age, number of levels and morphological grade with significance set at p<0.05.
Results
Ninety-nine patients completed one-year follow-up. The cohort comprised 43 males and 56 females with ages ranging from 32 to 82 years; most (61) were aged 50–70. Two-level stenosis was present in 49 patients, three-level disease in 37 and four or more levels in 13. Morphological grading on axial MRI demonstrated a range from moderate to severe central canal compromise. Functional outcomes improved markedly: mean preoperative ODI was 53.07 (SD 5.93), improving to 20.91 (SD 9.93) at six months and 14.48 (SD 11.97) at one year, representing a clinically important reduction in disability. Median VAS for leg pain fell from 9 preoperatively to 3 at six months and 1 at one year. SF-36 domains showed statistically and clinically meaningful gains, especially in physical functioning and bodily pain. Subgroup analyses by age, number of levels treated and morphological grade did not reveal significant differences in one-year ODI or SF-36 outcomes. Complications were uncommon: dural tear was the most frequent intraoperative event and was managed intraoperatively without persistent morbidity; isolated cases of implant loosening, transient neurological deficit and adjacent segment symptoms occurred. Most patients were discharged within three to five days. Early mobilization aided recovery, and the sustained improvements at one year reflect durable symptomatic relief and functional recovery in the majority, with low reoperation rates.
Discussion
This prospective series demonstrates that carefully planned surgical decompression, with stabilization or fusion reserved for demonstrable instability, provides meaningful and sustained improvement in pain, disability and overall quality of life for patients with multilevel lumbar canal stenosis. The magnitude of improvement in ODI, VAS and SF-36 in this cohort confirms that appropriate decompression remains the foundation of effective surgical care for neurogenic claudication and radicular pain. The lack of significant difference in one-year outcomes between age groups, numbers of levels treated and morphological grades suggests that multilevel involvement alone should not preclude consideration of surgery when symptoms and functional limitation warrant intervention. Complications were relatively infrequent and manageable; dural tear was the commonest intraoperative event and was addressed promptly without long-term consequence in this series. Implant-related issues and adjacent segment symptoms were limited to a small minority and were managed according to standard practice. Early mobilisation, standardised perioperative prophylaxis and a structured rehabilitation pathway likely contributed to low morbidity and rapid functional gains. Limitations include single-centre recruitment and one-year follow-up; longer observation is needed to characterise the durability of benefit and the incidence of late adjacent segment degeneration. Objective metrics such as gait analysis and longer-term imaging correlation would strengthen understanding of structural evolution after decompression and fusion. Future multicentre studies with extended follow-up will help refine indications and improve shared decision-making with patients and health policy too. Overall, a pragmatic strategy that provides adequate neural decompression tailored to symptoms and imaging, preserves stabilising structures when possible and reserves fusion for demonstrable instability maximises benefit while minimising unnecessary instrumentation.
Conclusion
In this prospective cohort of ninety-nine patients with multilevel lumbar canal stenosis, individualized decompression informed by careful clinico-radiological assessment produced substantial and sustained reductions in disability and pain and improved quality of life at one year. Functional measures showed statistically and clinically important gains. Complication rates were acceptable, with dural tear the most frequently encountered intraoperative event; implant problems and adjacent segment symptoms were uncommon. Outcomes were not markedly influenced by age, number of levels treated or morphological grade, supporting the principle that multilevel involvement alone is not a contraindication to surgery when clinical indications exist. Continued clinical surveillance and longer-term studies will clarify durability and late adjacent segment effects.
References
1. Jia LS, Yang L. The modern surgery concept of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Chin Orthop J. 2002; 29:509–512.
2. Osenbach RK. Lumbar laminectomy. In: Sekhar L, Fessler RG, editors. Atlas of Neurosurgical Techniques: Spine and Peripheral Nerves. 1st ed. Vol. 2. Thieme; 2006.
3. Arbit E, Pannullo S. Lumbar stenosis: A clinical review. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001; 384:137–143.
4. Gupta P, Sharma S, Chauhan V, Maheshwari R, Juyal A, Agarwal A. Interlaminar fenestration in lumbar canal stenosis—A retrospective study. Indian J Orthop. 2005; 39(3):148–150.
5. Park DK, an HS, Lurie JD, et al. Does multilevel lumbar stenosis lead to poorer outcomes? Subanalysis of the SPORT lumbar stenosis study. Spine. 2010; 35:439–444.
6. Postacchini F. Management of lumbar spinal stenosis. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1996; 78:154–164.
7. Murthy H, T.V.S. Reddy. VAS score assessment for outcome of posterior lumbar interbody fusion in cases of lumbar canal stenosis. Int J Res Orthop. 2016; 2(3):164–169.
8. Krag MH, Beynnon BD, Pope MH, Frymoyer JW, Haugh LD, Weaver DL. An internal fixator for posterior application to short segments of the thoracic, lumbar, or lumbosacral spine: design and testing. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1986; 203:75–98.
9. Roy-Camille R, Saillant G, Mazel C. Internal fixation of the lumbar spine with pedicle screw plating. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1986; 203:7–17.
10. Hur JW, Kim SH, Lee JW, Lee HK. Clinical analysis of postoperative outcome in elderly patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2007; 41:157–160.
11. Whitecloud TS 3rd, Roesch WW, Ricciardi JE. Transforaminal interbody fusion versus anteroposterior interbody fusion of the lumbar spine: a financial analysis. J Spinal Disord. 2001; 14:100–103.
12. France JC, Yaszemski MJ, Lauerman WC, Cain JE, Glover JM, Lawson KJ, et al. A randomized prospective study of posterolateral lumbar fusion: outcomes with and without pedicle screw instrumentation. Spine. 1999; 24:553–560.
13. Möller H, Hedlund R. Surgery versus conservative management in adult isthmic spondylolisthesis—a prospective randomized study: part 1. Spine. 2000; 25:1711–1715.
14. Fritzell P, Hagg O, Wessberg P, Nordwall A. Lumbar fusion versus nonsurgical treatment for chronic low back pain: a multicentre randomized controlled trial. Spine. 2001; 26:2521–2534.
15. Tsai RY, Yang RS, Bray RS Jr. Microscopic laminotomies for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. J Spinal Disord. 1998; 11:389–394.
16. Weiner BK, Walker M, Brower RS, McCulloch JA. Microdecompression for lumbar spinal canal stenosis. Spine. 1999; 24:2268–2272.
17. Young S, Veerapen R, O’Laoire SA. Relief of lumbar canal stenosis using multilevel subarticular fenestrations as an alternative to wide laminectomy: preliminary report. Neurosurgery. 1988; 23:628–633.
18. Johnson B, Annertz M, Sjoberg C, Stromqvist B. A progressive and consecutive study of surgically treated lumber spinal stenosis. Part I: Clinical features related to radiographic findings. Spine. 1997; 22:2932–2937.
19. Shenkin HA, Hash CJ. Spondylolisthesis after multiple bilateral laminectomies and facetectomies for lumbar spondylosis. J Neurosurg. 1979;50:45–47.
20. Verbiest H. A radicular syndrome from developmental narrowing of the lumbar vertebral canal. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1954 May;36-B(2):230–237.
| How to Cite this Article: Siddheshwar S, Hadgaonkar S, Kothari A, Aiyer S, Bhilare P, Sonawane D, Shyam A, Sancheti P| Functional Recovery Following Surgical Intervention for Multilevel Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Prospective Cohort Analysis | Journal of Medical Thesis | 2021 July-December; 7(2): 01-04. |
Institute Where Research was Conducted: Sancheti Institute of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation PG College, Sivaji Nagar, Pune, Maharashtra, India.
University Affiliation: Maharashtra University of Health Sciences (MUHS), Nashik, Maharashtra, India.
Year of Acceptance of Thesis: 2019
Full Text HTML | Full Text PDF
