LAUSR

Recently, Friedly et al. published a study on the effectiveness of epidural injections of steroids (ESIs) for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) [1]. Because of its apparent implications for clinical practice, this study attracted comments both in the professional [2] and lay press [3]. However, the study prompts reflection on a number of issues that extend beyond the conventional appraisal of a study. Those issues pertain to how physicians think about a condition, how it should be treated, and how to best assess the effectiveness of that treatment. The following article addresses those issues in the interest of informing physicians about how contemporary practices are confounded by lack of diagnostic discipline, and how this makes the conduct of controlled trials complicated and, therefore, makes the results difficult to assess. The cardinal issues are the symptoms of LSS; the diagnosis of LSS; the rationale for treatment; the consequent appropriate selection of patients; the outcomes assessment, either in practice or in a study including the reporting of those outcomes; and the need for rigorous control of the technical performance of the therapeutic intervention. Each of these issues has a critical bearing on appraising not only the literature on LSS, but also on how physicians treat this condition in conventional practice. The literature is profuse with heterogeneity in symptomology related to LSS. While there is no consensus in the current literature on acceptable LSS symptoms, the most commonly quoted symptoms are neurogenic claudication, radicular pain, and low back pain (LBP). Additional symptoms commonly mentioned in literature were fatigue and loss of power in the legs, anesthesia, and a feeling of numbness in the sacral dermatomes. In an attempt to achieve consensus, Katz et al. in 1995 published symptoms most strongly associated with the diagnosis of LSS (likelihood ratio ≥ 2), …