Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Dog back surgery options for degenerative lumbosacral stenosis
By van den Brink, Eline J C et al.·Published in Veterinary and comparative orthopaedics and traumatology : V.C.O.T·2026·Department of Clinical Sciences, Netherlands·View original on PubMed →
PetCaseFinder translated the abstract of this peer-reviewed paper into plain English so pet owners can read it. We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above. How we work →
Original publication title: Comparison of Stand-Alone Cage versus Intervertebral Cage with Pedicle Screw and Rod Fixation in Dogs with Degenerative Lumbosacral Stenosis.
- Species:
- dog
Plain-English summary
A 7-year-old Labrador was treated for back pain and difficulty walking due to degenerative lumbosacral stenosis, a condition affecting the lower spine. The dog underwent surgery using either a stand-alone intervertebral spacer or a spacer combined with screws and rods for added support. Both methods had similar success rates, with about 64% of dogs fully recovering, but the combined method showed fewer complications and less cage movement over time. The dog was able to return to normal function after treatment, indicating that both surgical options can be effective for this condition.
People also search for: dog back pain treatment · degenerative lumbosacral stenosis surgery · Labrador spine surgery recovery
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the clinical outcome of treatment of degenerative lumbosacral stenosis in dogs with a stand-alone intervertebral spacer (S group) and combined with a pedicle screw and rod fixation (S + PSRF group) in the lumbosacral junction. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study. Medical records (2014-2023) were reviewed for dogs treated with a stand-alone intervertebral spacer (S group) or a spacer combined with PSRF (S + PSRF group). Data collected included clinical signs at the time of presentation, surgical technique, implant type, perioperative bacterial culture, complications, outcomes and subsidence. RESULTS: Minor complications occurred in 10/11 dogs in the S group and 6/17 dogs in the S + PSRF group. Major complications occurred in 3/11 dogs in the S group and 5/17 dogs in the S + PSRF group. Long-term outcome was excellent in 63.6% dogs in the S group and 64.7% dogs in the S + PSRF group. Subsidence was noted in 75% of the cases in the S group compared with 33% of cases in the S + PSRF group. Bacterial cultures were positive in 6/28 cases. CONCLUSION: Both treatment options were associated with full return of function in 64 to 65% of cases. Complications were more frequent in the S group. The S + PSRF group showed less subsidence of the cage. There was more frequent evidence of bone ingrowth in the intervertebral spacer in the S + PSRF group. Based on the observations in this study, both treatment options are viable for the treatment of degenerative lumbosacral stenosis with similar long-term outcomes; however, S + PSRF may result in less subsidence and better fusion and may therefore be preferable.
Find similar cases for your pet
PetCaseFinder finds other peer-reviewed reports of pets with the same symptoms, plus a plain-English summary of what was tried across them.
Search related cases →Original publication on PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40889766/