Asian Spine J Search

CLOSE


Asian Spine J > Volume 20(4); 2026 > Article
Uomi, Sakai, Watanabe, Matsui, Sato, Adachi, Takeichi, and Tanaka: Neuropathic pain and sarcopenia based on skeletal muscle mass assessment following lumbar spinal stenosis surgery: a prospective observational study in Japan

Abstract

Study Design

Prospective cohort study.

Purpose

To investigate the relationship between neuropathic pain (NeP) and skeletal muscle mass following lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) surgery.

Overview of Literature

Sarcopenia generally worsens clinical outcomes in degenerative diseases. Although a high prevalence of sarcopenia is observed in patients with LSS, it is reported that sarcopenia does not significantly affect the clinical symptoms of lumbar degenerative diseases; thus, its role must be reconsidered in LSS alongside other factors such as spinal alignment and degree of stenosis.

Methods

We prospectively evaluated improvements in leg pain and lower limb skeletal muscle mass in 421 patients who underwent surgical treatment for LSS. Bilateral limb muscle mass was compared in 260 patients with unilateral leg pain. The association between postoperative muscle mass increase and improvement in leg pain (Visual Analog Scale [VAS] score <3) was assessed using multivariate logistic regression analysis.

Results

Preoperatively, the affected limb exhibited significantly reduced muscle mass compared to the unaffected limb. Postoperatively, the affected side gained muscle mass, which was significantly greater than the unaffected side. Leg pain VAS score <3 and the epidural sac area were significantly associated with increased muscle mass postoperatively. Patients with postoperative improvement in leg pain showed a significant increase in muscle mass compared to those without improvement.

Conclusions

In unilateral LSS, the affected limb undergoes significant muscle mass loss, which improves postoperatively with rehabilitation. The increase in muscle mass correlates with improvements in leg pain, indicating a potential relationship between NeP and sarcopenia.

Key Points
  • Patients with lumbar spinal stenosis presenting with unilateral neuropathic pain experience loss of skeletal muscle mass on the affected side.

  • Postoperatively, the affected side significantly regains skeletal muscle mass, accompanied by improvement in leg pain, indicating a potential relationship between neuropathic pain and sarcopenia.

  • The increase in skeletal muscle mass is greater with greater improvement in pain, indicating that treatment strategies targeting the skeletal muscle may effectively address pain.

Graphical Abstract

Introduction

Neuropathic pain (NeP) is one of the most incapacitating types of pain caused by primary lesions or diseases of the somatosensory system. According to the International Association for the Study of Pain, NeP affects 6.9%–10% of the global population, significantly diminishing an individual’s health and quality of life (QoL) and putting immense strain on their families and healthcare resources [1]. Classical etiologies of peripheral NeP include painful peripheral neuropathies, postherpetic neuralgia, and traumatic nerve injuries. Many patients present with mixed pain syndromes involving both neuropathic and nonneuropathic mechanisms, such as lumbar or cervical spondylotic radiculopathy, which represent a frequent cause of peripheral NeP in the general population. The first-line pharmacological treatment for NeP includes gabapentinoids, which interact with α2δ subunits of voltage-gated calcium channels; however, the economic burden and side effects of gabapentinoid use on the patient’s daily life are not commensurate with treatment effectiveness [2], prompting the need for developing new therapies.
Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a condition characterized by degenerative changes in the lumbar spine. Degenerative thickening of the spinal joints and ligaments in LSS increases pressure on the neurovascular structures within the spinal canal, which may cause compression of the exiting nerve roots or the cauda equina, leading to neural ischemia, nerve damage, and NeP development. In LSS, the leg pain component is caused through the NeP mechanisms, whereas back pain is caused by nociceptive mechanisms; approximately 20% of patients with low back pain in LSS have an NeP component [3]. As a result, LSS is the most common reason for lumbar spine surgery in middle-aged to older populations. Although generally favorable results are anticipated from surgery, some studies show increased adverse events and reoperation [4]. To address the shortcomings associated with surgical treatments, a comprehensive examination of factors influencing the chances of postoperative NeP improvement is essential. Predicting the likelihood of postoperative recovery is challenging; therefore, other causes should be identified before surgery [5].
Park et al. [6] reported a high prevalence of sarcopenia in patients with LSS. Interestingly, a recent systematic review and meta-analysis concluded that sarcopenia does not significantly influence the symptoms of lumbar degenerative disease and is unlikely to act as the sole moderator of leg pain intensity in individuals with LSS; it is rather associated with worse clinical outcomes, such as QoL [7]. However, it is noteworthy that this systematic review and meta-analysis included only two studies involving participants without lumbar pathology as controls, and matched controls likely shared risk factors, like sedentary lifestyle and age-related comorbidities, resulting in no significant differences in sarcopenia prevalence between groups with and without LSS [7]. Furthermore, clinical symptoms of LSS, such as pain, are influenced by multiple factors, including spinal alignment and the degree of stenosis, suggesting that the conclusions from two-group comparisons may not be adequately representative. Therefore, a longitudinal analysis of NeP and an imaging-based objective quantification of skeletal muscle mass is essential to elucidate this association.
In this study, we aimed to assess the cross-sectional relationship between NeP and skeletal muscle mass by comparing the lower limb skeletal muscle mass between the affected and unaffected sides in patients with unilateral lower limb symptoms in LSS. Additionally, we aimed to examine causality through a prospective longitudinal analysis of NeP improvement and skeletal muscle mass changes following treatment.

Materials and Methods

Ethical considerations

The prospective cohort study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the National Center for Geriatrics and Gerontology (approval number: 2021). This study adhered to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines were followed throughout the study. All participants were informed of the study objectives and provided written informed consent prior to enrollment.

Study design and participants

For this prospective cohort study, we screened 524 nonparalyzed patients treated surgically for LSS between April 2018 and March 2023. After excluding four cases of death within 1 year of surgery, 20 of reoperation, five of postoperative infection, and 74 of missed follow-up, a total of 421 patients (mean age=74.68±5.60 years; 231 males, 190 females) were included in the study. These 421 patients were prospectively tracked for lower limb skeletal muscle mass to evaluate the causal relationship between NeP and skeletal muscle mass (Fig. 1).
For most cases, a posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) was performed for cases with vertebral slippage and/or segmental instability; in the absence of these pathologies, a partial laminectomy with ligamentum flavum resection for decompression was done. Adequate decompression of the affected intervertebral space was achieved in both procedures. The patient was usually able to ambulate on the second postoperative day and underwent lower limb muscle strengthening and gait training as part of a standard postoperative rehabilitation program.
Two board-certified spinal surgeons diagnosed NeP and unilateral LSS based on symptoms of neurogenic claudication, regardless of the presence of low back pain, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings, neurological examination, and bilateral or unilateral lower limb neurological symptoms. NeP was diagnosed according to the diagnostic algorithm established by the International Association for the Study of Pain [8], which states that the pain distribution should be neuroanatomically plausible, and objective diagnostic tests should be able to confirm the lesion or disease as corresponding to the somatosensory nervous system. For unilateral LSS, skeletal muscle mass was compared between the affected and unaffected sides. Exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) previous lumbar surgery; (2) inability to walk; (3) patients with lower limb muscle strength of grade ≤4; (4) gabapentin use; (5) vertebral fractures; (6) systemic diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis, infections, and malignancies; and (7) dementia.

Physical findings

In the physical examination, walking ability (independent or requiring assistance), leg and lower back pain (using the Visual Analog Scale [VAS]), and pre-LSS independence in activities of daily living (ADLs) (using the Barthel index [9]) were evaluated. In unilateral LSS, the affected sides were identified, and LSS severity was evaluated using the Japanese Orthopaedic Surgery Association score [10]. Health and clinical outcomes were assessed using the EuroQol 5-Dimension questionnaire [11], the Geriatric Depression Scale [12], and the Central Sensitization Inventory [13].
Patients were followed up for 1 year; based on the cutoff of VAS ≤4, which indicates pain-free status [14], patients were categorized into the improvement or nonimprovement groups if they had VAS scores of <3 or ≥3, respectively.

Blood sample analysis

Venous blood samples were obtained from patients using standard venipuncture techniques before surgery. The samples were used to assess complete blood cell counts and albumin, total cholesterol, hemoglobin A1c, fasting insulin, fasting plasma glucose, D-dimer, and vitamin D (25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D]) levels in the peripheral blood. Serum 25(OH)D levels were determined using electrochemiluminescence immunoassay. Insulin resistance was calculated using the standard formula, which is the homeostatic model assessment for insulin resistance [15].

Radiographic findings

Lateral radiographs of the lumbar spine were obtained with the participants standing naturally, with forearms crossed, and hands on the chest. Spinopelvic parameters of lumbar lordosis (L1–S1), sacral tilt, lumbar range of motion (L1–S1), sagittal vertical axis, thoracic kyphosis, pelvic tilt, and pelvic incidence minus LL were evaluated on whole-spine standing lateral radiographs. Radiographic assessments were performed by two board-certified orthopedic surgeons in Japan.

MRI findings

To evaluate LSS severity, the cross-sectional area of the dural sac from L1/2 to L5/S1 was measured on T2 sagittal images using the SYNAPSE image analysis software (Fujifilm Medical, Tokyo, Japan). The minimum dural sac area was used as the target for evaluating the narrowest spinal level.

Body composition analysis

We used dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (Lunar iDXA; GE Healthcare, Chicago, IL, USA) before surgery and 1-year post-surgery to assess body composition. Bone mineral density was evaluated in g/cm2 and T-score for the lumbar vertebrae (L2–L4) and femoral neck. Skeletal muscle mass of the extremities was measured separately for bilateral lower limbs, and the skeletal muscle mass index was calculated by dividing the muscle mass of the upper and lower limbs by the square of the height [16]. Body fat was calculated as the percentage of total body fat divided by body weight.

Statistical analysis

Power analyses were performed using G*Power ver. 3.1.9.7 (Heinrich-Heine-Universität, Düsseldorf, Germany). A linear multiple regression was performed using F-testing with fixed mode and R2 deviation from zero (effect size=0.05, α error probability=0.05, power [1–β error probability]=0.9, and number of predictors=10); accordingly, the minimum sample size required was calculated as 420 patients (actual power=0.9001023).
Statistical analyses were performed using EZR (Saitama Medical Center, Jichi Medical University, Saitama, Japan). The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used for normality testing. Proportions and means (with standard deviations) were calculated for covariates and demographic information as applicable. Categorical variables were expressed as frequencies or percentages, and compared using chi-square or Fisher’s exact tests. Mean values were compared using an independent t-test. A p-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant. The muscle mass between the unaffected and affected sides in unilateral LSS was compared using a paired t-test.
A multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to detect the risk factors for muscle mass reduction 1-year postoperatively. In addition to the factors that showed a significant difference (p<0.05) between postoperative change in muscle mass, we introduced age, sex, and factors considered clinically relevant to changes in lower limb skeletal muscle mass. Multicollinearity was examined by calculating the variance inflation factor (VIF); by convention, a VIF value of >5 suggests the presence of multicollinearity.

Results

Among the 421 patients with LSS, 260 had unilateral symptoms, and 161 had bilateral. Surgical treatment included PLIF in 180 patients (64 bilateral and 97 unilateral) and decompression in 241 patients (97 bilateral and 144 unilateral). Table 1 presents a comparison of clinicodemographic characteristics between LSS patients with unilateral versus bilateral symptoms. Except for a significant reduction in the MRI-detected dural canal cross-sectional area, compared with bilateral LSS, the unilateral symptom group showed no significant differences in terms of body composition (including skeletal muscle mass), spinal alignment, preonset ADL, clinical symptoms, ADL at onset, or QOL. Since patients with unilateral LSS symptoms showed no significant clinical differences compared to bilateral cases, the unilateral group (n=260) was subjected to further analysis regarding NeP and lower limb skeletal muscle mass.

Comparison of skeletal muscle mass between the affected and unaffected sides

In terms of preoperative skeletal muscle mass of the bilateral upper and lower limbs for patients with unilateral symptoms, the mean upper limb muscle mass was 2,116.4 g on the affected side and 2,120.4 g on the unaffected side, with no statistically significant difference. In comparison, the mean lower limb muscle mass was 5,917.1 g on the affected side, which was significant lesser compared to 6,001.3 g on the unaffected side (p<0.05) (Fig. 2). When we compared preoperative and 1-year postoperative lower limb skeletal muscle mass, although the differences were not statistically significant, there was a tendency toward increased muscle mass in the affected side (p=0.6296), whereas no change was observed on the unaffected side. The difference in change in skeletal muscle mass between the affected and unaffected sides was statistically significant (p<0.05) (Fig. 3).

Factors affecting the change in postoperative lower limb skeletal muscle mass

To assess the factors affecting change in postoperative skeletal muscle mass, we calculated the difference in preoperative versus postoperative skeletal muscle mass for the entire cohort (n=421). The data were normally distributed (Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, p=0.177) with a mean of 0.967±819.7 g and a median of 34.5 g (−2,979.0 to 2,872.0 g) (Appendix 1). Accordingly, patients demonstrating a postoperative skeletal muscle mass change of >0 were grouped as the muscle mass gain group and those with a change value of <0 as the muscle mass loss group (Kolmogorov-Smirnov test) (Appendix 1). Table 2 shows a comparison between the lower limb muscle mass gain and loss groups.
Differences between the two groups were statistically significant only for the postoperative lower limb VAS score and the frequency of postoperative lower limb pain VAS score of <3. The muscle mass gain group showed a reduction in postoperative leg pain VAS scores. Thus, we added the following explanatory variables considered clinically relevant to skeletal muscle mass increase in the subsequent multivariate logistic regression analysis: duration of illness, preonset Barthel index, vitamin D levels, insulin resistance, dural sac area, and body fat percentage. Additionally, the lower limb pain VAS score of <3, which showed a significant difference between the groups, and age and sex were included. Of these variables, a lower limb pain VAS score of <3 and the dural sac area were found to be significantly associated with increased lower limb skeletal muscle mass after LSS surgery (Table 3).

Association between improvement in postoperative leg pain and increased lower limb muscle mass

In the 260 cases with unilateral LSS, postoperative changes in lower limb muscle mass were compared between two groups: postoperative leg pain VAS <3 (n=177) and VAS ≥3 (n=83). In patients with postoperative leg pain VAS <3, a significant increase in lower limb muscle mass was observed postoperatively in both the affected and unaffected limbs. Furthermore, in this group, a comparison between the affected and unaffected limbs revealed a significant increase in muscle mass in the affected limb compared to that in the unaffected limb (Fig. 4).

Discussion

Patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain with neuropathic components generally report higher pain intensity, whereas physically active individuals exhibit lower chronic pain incidence [17]. A previous study on the pathophysiology of chronic pain reported that increasing muscle pain leads to decreased motor unit firing rates [18]. However, several physiological mechanisms, including reductions in supraspinal excitatory drive, α-motoneuron excitability, motor unit recruitment, and rate coding, have been proposed to explain age-related loss of muscle strength [19]. These findings suggest potential connections between NeP, skeletal muscle loss, and muscle weakness with aging [20]. In this context, the present study demonstrated a cross-sectional association between NeP and lower limb skeletal muscle mass by longitudinally comparing the unaffected and affected lower limbs of patients with unilateral LSS.
Skeletal muscle mass is a crucial component for sarcopenia diagnosis and requires body size adjustments. The Asian Working Group of Sarcopenia 2025 consensus update recommends adjusting the skeletal muscle mass measurements by dividing them by height squared or body mass index [21]. However, the impact of this adjusted definition on the decline in ADL ability of older adults remains unclear. Otsuka et al. [22] longitudinally analyzed appropriate methods for adjusting skeletal muscle mass in older Japanese adults for predicting mortality and disability, and concluded that unadjusted appendicular lean mass is the primary variable measurable regardless of sex. This also supports the fact that comparing skeletal muscle mass between individuals is challenging due to body size differences. Given the current difficulty in defining the optimal skeletal muscle mass for ADL independence, using the unilateral LSS framework provides a suitable model for evaluating the relationship between NeP and skeletal muscle mass while avoiding body size adjustments using the nonpainful side comparison method. Based on this model, our results revealed that NeP reduced skeletal muscle mass in the lower limbs.
Despite many studies reporting positive findings regarding the relationship between NeP and skeletal muscle mass, pathophysiological mechanisms underlying its causality have not been elucidated [8,20]. It is known that age-related changes in peripheral nerves and neuromuscular junctions elicit a partial denervation response within motor units [23]. In addition, the gradual decline in axonal sprouting capacity in old age leads to the progressive loss of motor end plates, accelerating the process of muscle fiber loss [24]. However, a peripheral nerve injury activates microglia in the dorsal horn, releasing inflammatory and proinflammatory mediators, such as interleukin (IL)-1β, IL-6, and tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α, that sensitize neurons, leading to NeP [25,26]. Spinal microglia further promote NeP by releasing several glial mediators that sensitize spinal neurons [26]. Presumably, this inflammatory signal from microglia acts on spinal dorsal horn neurons, increasing excitatory synaptic transmission and contributing to pain generation. Based on this mechanism, the concept of “microgliopathic pain” has been proposed, which describes a pain syndrome mediated by dysfunctional microglia [27]. Although senescence and NeP represent distinct pathologies, the effects of neuroinflammation on skeletal muscles may serve as a suitable foundation to explain sarcopenia in both pathologies. Notably, Imagama et al. [28] reported that skeletal muscle loss increases the risk of NeP based on a 5-year study of healthy older adults, aligning with the geriatric pain hypothesis, which suggests that chronic inflammation seen with aging underlies the pathogenesis of chronic pain and sarcopenia [29].
While clinical evidence linking muscle loss to NeP remains inconclusive, the findings of the present study demonstrate that surgical treatment of LSS increases lower limb muscle mass through pain alleviation, and highlight the need to address sarcopenia in NeP treatment. While the results of this study hint at a potential correlation between increased postoperative lower-limb muscle mass and improved lower-limb pain in LSS, the exact influence of maintaining or enhancing skeletal muscle mass to accelerate NeP improvement following LSS treatment must be examined. Nevertheless, the findings of this study suggest that NeP and sarcopenia may be causally related; consequently, modifying conventional approaches, such as exercise therapy and nutritional guidance, targeting skeletal muscles, could serve as important modalities in the treatment of NeP. Conversely, developing pain management strategies targeting peripheral nerves, neuromuscular junctions, or the dorsal horn of the spinal cord may prove useful for sarcopenia treatment.
While a significant strength of this study is its longitudinal assessment of skeletal muscle mass, enabling the identification of a possible causal relationship between NeP improvement and increased muscle mass. However, the evaluation period of 1 year may be relatively short and may not adequately reflect age-related changes in muscle mass. The sample size in this study provided sufficient statistical power for detection; however, analyzing larger changes in skeletal muscle mass that could potentially influence ADL independence in older adults would require a larger sample size and reassessment of skeletal muscle mass affecting ADL decline. Furthermore, this study analyzed postoperative outcomes and muscle mass changes at a single institution, potentially introducing selection bias regarding LSS treatment methods and data collection. As this was not a randomized controlled prospective trial, the choice of surgical procedure reflects the attending surgeon’s preference. Another limitation was that the standard screening tools for NeP were not used during the diagnostic process for LSS, and the possibility of coexisting nociceptive pain could not be completely excluded. Given that the study included different surgical procedures, such as decompression and PLIF, the differences in postoperative mobility, skeletal muscle recovery, activity levels, and nutritional status resulting from the degree of invasiveness in each surgery may influence postoperative skeletal muscle mass. Regarding postoperative changes in skeletal muscle mass, we did not assess osteoporosis medication use [30], which is known to affect skeletal muscle mass; hence, the interpretation of the results concerning changes in lower limb skeletal muscle mass is limited. Finally, it is important to acknowledge that this study included patients who experienced difficulty walking or maintaining a seated posture due to leg pain; consequently, the inability to fulfill the diagnostic criteria for sarcopenia, such as grip strength and walking speed, was a significant limitation of the study.

Conclusions

This study provides strong cross-sectional evidence demonstrating skeletal muscle loss due to NeP by comparing skeletal muscle mass in the unaffected and affected lower limbs of patients with unilateral LSS, with particularly reduced skeletal muscle mass in the affected limb. Improvement in leg pain was associated with increased lower limb muscle mass following LSS surgery. By longitudinally proving that leg pain improvement associated with LSS surgery leads to increased lower limb skeletal muscle mass, we verified the relationship between NeP and sarcopenia.

Data Availability

The data that support the findings of this study are not publicly available as they contained information that could compromise the privacy of the research participants; however, they are available from the corresponding author (Yoshihito Sakai) upon reasonable request.

Notes

Conflict of Interest

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Declaration of Generative AI in Scientific Writing

During the preparation of this work, the corresponding author, whose native language is Japanese, used DeepL Translate to assist in translating short passages of the text. After using this tool, the authors reviewed and edited the content as needed and take full responsibility for the content of the publication.

Acknowledgments

We express our sincere gratitude to all the patients who participated in the study, the staff who delivered the intervention, and the surgeons who assisted with patient recruitment. We appreciate the administrative support provided by Junko Suzuki, Miki Morita, and Reina Yamamoto.

Funding

This study was supported by the National Center for Geriatrics and Gerontology (26–10). The funders were not involved in the design or conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, or interpretation of the data; or in the preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript. The funders were not involved in the design or conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, or interpretation of the data; or in the preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript.

Author Contributions

YS and KU conceived the idea for the work, designed the study, interpreted the data, and wrote the final version of the article. YS was involved in data analysis and data management. TW, HM, RS, YA, YT, and TT collected data, prepared all tables and figures, and revised the manuscript. All authors provided input into the editing of the manuscript for publication. The corresponding author had full access to all data in the study and final responsibility for publication.

Fig. 1
Schematic diagram illustrating enrollment of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) and 1-year postoperative follow-up. This study comprises a prospective analysis of 524 cases involving surgical treatment for LSS and a longitudinal analysis of 421 patients who underwent 1-year postoperative follow-up. The final analysis included 260 patients with LSS and clear unilateral symptoms. PLIF, posterior lumbar interbody fusion.
asj-2026-0244f1.jpg
Fig. 2
Comparison of muscle mass in upper and lower extremity between affected and contralateral limbs. A comparison of skeletal muscle mass between the affected and unaffected sides showed no significant difference in the upper limb muscle mass, whereas the lower limb muscle mass exhibited a significant reduction on the affected side. a)By unpaired t-test.
asj-2026-0244f2.jpg
Fig. 3
Comparison of pre- and postoperative muscle mass in lower extremity between affected and contralateral limbs. Comparison of the lower limb skeletal muscle mass before and after surgery showed no significant differences. However, there was a tendency toward increased muscle mass on the affected side, whereas no change was observed on the unaffected side. A significant difference was found between the changes on the affected and unaffected sides (p<0.0001). a)By paired t-test. b)By repeated measure analysis of variance.
asj-2026-0244f3.jpg
Fig. 4
(A–C) Changes in skeletal muscle mass of the lower limbs according to postoperative lower limb pain improvement. Changes in lower-limb skeletal muscle mass before and after surgery in 260 patients with unilateral lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). In 177 patients whose postoperative lower limb pain improved to Visual Analog Scale (VAS) <3, a significant increase in lower limb muscle mass was observed in both affected and unaffected limbs. The increase in postoperative lower-limb skeletal muscle mass was significantly greater in the affected limb than in the unaffected limb. a)By paired t-test. b)By repeated measure analysis of variance.
asj-2026-0244f4.jpg
Appendix 1
Frequency distribution of differences in lower limb skeletal muscle mass before and after lumbar spine surgery. SD, standard deviation.
asj-2026-0244f5.jpg
asj-2026-0244f6.jpg
Table 1
Comparison between bilateral and unilateral LSS
Characteristic Bilateral (n=161) Unilateral (n=260) 95% CI p-value
Age (yr) 75.04±5.27 74.42±5.81 −0.460 to 1.748 0.2699
Male (%) 53.42 55.38 NA 0.6880
Body mass index (kg/m2) 24.72±3.40 24.23±3.30 −0.155 to 1.161 0.1374
DM (yes, %) 20.75 20.77 NA 0.9999
ASCVD (yes, %) 16.77 16.92 NA 0.9999
Procedure (PLIF, %) 35.56 44.62 NA 0.3620
LL (°) 30.67±13.65 31.73±11.96 −3.555 to 1.424 0.4005
SS (°) 26.34±9.25 26.51±8.83 −1.938 to 1.608 0.8545
Lumbar ROM (°) 27.60±9.85 28.05±10.50 −2.474 to 1.569 0.6605
TK (°) 34.48±11.98 35.46±10.91 −3.551 to 1.595 0.4552
SVA (mm) 61.93±40.90 63.25±46.65 −11.431 to 8.795 0.7978
PT (°) 22.86±9.82 23.28±10.30 −2.730 to 1.867 0.7120
PI–LL 19.25±13.77 18.01±14.41 −1.979 to 4.456 0.4495
Dural sac CSA (mm2) 98.13±59.63 130.37±63.92 −44.728 to −19.750 <0.0001
BMD (L2–4 T-score) 0.32±2.03 0.15±2.06 −0.229 to 0.577 0.3958
Muscle mass (upper) (kg) 4.35±1.14 4.32±1.17 −0.195 to 0.258 0.7817
Muscle mass (lower) (kg) 12.19±2.82 11.91±2.55 −0.271 to 0.775 0.3436
SMI (kg/m2) 6.71±1.02 6.57±0.93 −0.057 to 0.325 0.1678
Body fat ratio (%) 28.62±8.02 27.92±7.64 −0.834 to 2.235 0.3700
VAS (leg pain) 6.32±2.83 6.27±2.69 −0.409 to 0.557 0.8432
VAS (LBP) 5.01±2.76 4.98±3.03 −0.556 to 0.606 0.9325
Duration of illness (wk) 261.73±473.73 222.87±408.24 −51.997 to 127.600 0.3939
Barthel index 91.17±17.07 91.94±16.02 −3.290 to −0.231 0.6401
EQ5D 0.52±0.20 0.53±0.19 −0.0.53 to 0.025 0.4815
JOA score 16.76±3.700 16.63±4.16 −0.656 to 0.918 0.7404
GDS 5.82±3.87 16.63±3.84 −0.821 to 0.706 0.8473
CSI 27.92±16.15 27.58±10.78 −5.060 to 5.735 0.9014

Values are presented as mean±standard deviation or % unless otherwise stated.

LSS, lumbar spinal stenosis; CI, confidence interval; NA, not applicable; DM, diabetes mellitus; ASCVD, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease; PLIF, posterior lumbar interbody fusion; LL, lumbar lordosis; SS, sacral slope; ROM, range of motion; TK, thoracic kyphosis; SVA, sagittal vertical axis; PT, pelvic tilt; PI, pelvic incidence; PI–LL, pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis; CSA, cross-sectional area; BMD, bone mineral density; SMI, skeletal muscle mass index; VAS, Visual Analog Scale; EQ5D, EuroQol 5-dimensional questionnaire; JOA, Japanese Orthopedic Association; GDS, geriatric depression scale; CSI, central sensitization inventor.

Table 2
Comparison between postoperative increase and decrease in lower limb muscle mass
Characteristic Muscle (+) (n=219) Muscle (–) (n=202) 95% CI p-value
Age (yr) 74.54±5.57 74.82±5.64 −1.354 to 0.797 0.6111
Male (%) 53.42 55.94 NA 0.6251
Body mass index (kg/m2) 24.60±3.26 24.22±3.43 −0.270 to 1.012 0.2555
VAS (preoperative) 6.47±2.49 6.45±2.38 −0.455 to 0.486 0.9498
VAS (postoperative) 2.46±2.83 3.18±3.13 −1.370 to −0.073 0.0294
Postoperative VAS <3 154 (70.3) 123 (60.9) NA 0.0416
Duration of illness (wk) 227.44±431.79 247.31±438.05 −106.942 to 67.206 0.6540
Barthel index (preoperative) 97.52±7.68 97.33±7.94 −1.312 to 1.681 0.8085
EQ5D 0.51±0.20 0.55±0.20 −0.070 to 0.006 0.0956
JOA score 16.51±4.03 16.86± −1/119 to 0.410 0.3628
GDS 5.89±3.95 5.86±3.75 −0.718 to 0.769 0.9463
CSI 26.75±12.13 28.80±14.07 −7.308 to 3.199 0.4396
Unilateral LSS (%) 37.44 39.11 NA 0.7637
Procedure (PLIF, %) 41.55 44.06 NA 0.6230
DM (%) 18.35 23.38 NA 0.2286
ASCVD (yes, %) 17.35 16.35 NA 0.7690
HOMA-IR 3.65±4.10 4.59±6.64 −2.064 to 0.176 0.0982
25(OH)D 19.21±9.77 17.72±7.66 −0.628 to 3.621 0.1667
L2–4 BMD 0.80±0.17 0.78±0.15 −0.015 to 0.085 0.1744
Femoral neck BMD 0.80±0.16 0.78±0.15 −0.009 to 0.051 0.1677
Body fat ratio (%) 28.81±7.43 27.50±8.11 −0.184 to 2.794 0.0858
Dural sac CSA (mm2) 122.63±63.38 113.04±34.84 −2.906 to 22.089 0.1321
Scoliosis (°) 4.92±5.40 5.64±6.40 −1.853 to 0.411 0.2111
LL (°) 61.55±43.42 64.15±45.78 −1.557 to 3.287 0.4830
SS (°) 26.92±8.74 26.92±15.99 −0.736 to 2.709 0.2609
SVA (mm) 61.55±43.42 64.15±45.78 −12.467 to 7.261 0.6057
L-ROM (°) 27.19±9.83 28.63±10.65 −3.405 to 0.519 0.1489
TK (°) 35.77±11.77 34.27±10.75 −1.006 to 4.014 0.2392
PT (°) 24.03±10.22 22.06±9.90 −0.261 to 4.209 0.0832
PI–LL (°) 19.47±14.30 18.71±21.73 −1.001 to 5.272 0.1814

Values are presented as mean±standard deviation, %, or number (%) unless otherwise stated. Muscle (+): Postoperative increase in lower limb skeletal muscle mass. Muscle (−): Postoperative decrease in lower limb skeletal muscle mass.

CI, confidence interval; NA, not applicable; VAS, Visual Analog Scale; EQ5D, EuroQol 5-dimensional questionnaire; JOA, Japanese Orthopedic Association; GDS, geriatric depression scale; CSI, central sensitization inventor; LSS, lumbar spinal stenosis; PLIF, posterior lumbar interbody fusion; DM, diabetes mellitus; ASCVD, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease; HOMA-IR, HOMA-IR, homeostatic model assessment for insulin resistance; 25(OH)D, 25-hydroxyvitamin D (CLIA method); BMD, bone mineral density; CSA, cross-sectional are; LL, lumbar lordosis; SS, sacral slope; SVA, sagittal vertical axis; ROM, range of motion; TK, thoracic kyphosis; PT, pelvic tilt; PI, pelvic incidence; PI–LL, pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis.

Table 3
Logistic regression analysis for the risk of postoperative sarcopenia
Variable Estimate p-value OR (95% CI) VIF
Age −0.001 0.960 0.999 (0.947 to 1.053) 1.127
Sex (male) 0.697 0.176 2.010 (0.739 to 5.576) 3.194
Duration of illness 0.001 0.551 1.000 (0.999 to 1.000) 1.078
Postoperative VAS <3 −0.600 0.047 0.549 (1.008 to 3.534) 1.083
Barthel index (preoperative) −0.090 0.130 0.914 (0.975 to 1.231) 1.060
25(OH)D 0.026 0.123 1.030 (0.942 to 1.007) 1.105
HOMA-IR −0.016 0.572 0.984 (0.960 to 1.073) 1.048
Dural sac CSA 0.005 0.029 1.010 (0.990 to 0.999) 1.115
Body fat ratio −0.006 0.814 0.994 (0.955 to 1.056) 1.390

OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; VIF, variance inflation factor; VAS, Visual Analog Scale; 25(OH)D, 25-hydroxyvitamin D (CLIA method); HOMA-IR, homeostatic model assessment for insulin resistance; CSA, cross-sectional area.

References

1. Jensen TS, Baron R, Haanpaa M, et al. A new definition of neuropathic pain. Pain 2011;152:2204–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2011.06.017
crossref pmid pmc
2. Lian J, Wang H, Cui R, Zhang C, Fu J. Status of analgesic drugs and quality of life results for diabetic peripheral neuropathy in China. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) 2022;12:813210. https://doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2021.813210
crossref pmid pmc
3. Freynhagen R, Baron R. The evaluation of neuropathic components in low back pain. Curr Pain Headache Rep 2009;13:185–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11916-009-0032-y
crossref pmid
4. Ma XL, Zhao XW, Ma JX, Li F, Wang Y, Lu B. Effectiveness of surgery versus conservative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis: a system review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int J Surg 2017;44:329–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2017.07.032
crossref pmid
5. Kwon JW, Moon SH, Park SY, et al. Lumbar spinal stenosis: review update 2022. Asian Spine J 2022;16:789–98. https://doi.org/10.31616/asj.2022.0366
crossref pmid pmc
6. Park S, Kim HJ, Ko BG, et al. The prevalence and impact of sarcopenia on degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:1093–8. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.98B8.37623.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
7. Wu WT, Lee TM, Han DS, Chang KV. The prevalence of sarcopenia and its impact on clinical outcomes in lumbar degenerative spine disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Med 2021;10. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10040773
crossref pmid pmc
8. Treede RD, Jensen TS, Campbell JN, et al. Neuropathic pain: redefinition and a grading system for clinical and research purposes. Neurology 2008;70:1630–5. https://doi.org/10.1212/01.wnl.0000282763.29778.59
crossref pmid
9. Mahoney FI, Barthel DW. Functional evaluation: the Barthel index. Md State Med J 1965;14:61–5.

10. Japanese Orthopaedic Association. Criteria on the evaluation of the treatment of low back pain. J Jpn Orthop Assoc 1986;60:391–4.

11. Rabin R, de Charro F. EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Ann Med 2001;33:337–43. https://doi.org/10.3109/07853890109002087
crossref pmid
12. Yesavage JA, Sheikh JI. Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS): recent evidence and development of a shorter version. Clin Gerontol 1986;5:165–73. https://doi.org/10.1300/J018v05n01_09
crossref
13. Mayer TG, Neblett R, Cohen H, et al. The development and psychometric validation of the central sensitization inventory. Pain Pract 2012;12:276–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-2500.2011.00493.x
crossref pmid pmc
14. Hawker GA, Mian S, Kendzerska T, French M. Measures of adult pain: Visual Analog Scale for Pain (VAS Pain), Numeric Rating Scale for Pain (NRS Pain), McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ), Chronic Pain Grade Scale (CPGS), Short Form-36 Bodily Pain Scale (SF-36 BPS), and Measure of Intermittent and Constant Osteoarthritis Pain (ICOAP). Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2011;63(Suppl 11):S240–52. https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.20543
crossref pmid pmc
15. Matthews DR, Hosker JP, Rudenski AS, Naylor BA, Treacher DF, Turner RC. Homeostasis model assessment: insulin resistance and beta-cell function from fasting plasma glucose and insulin concentrations in man. Diabetologia 1985;28:412–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00280883
crossref pmid pmc
16. Fielding RA, Vellas B, Evans WJ, et al. Sarcopenia: an undiagnosed condition in older adults: current consensus definition: prevalence, etiology, and consequences. International Working Group on Sarcopenia. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2011;12:249–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2011.01.003
crossref pmid pmc
17. Bonanni R, Cariati I, Tancredi V, Iundusi R, Gasbarra E, Tarantino U. Chronic pain in musculoskeletal diseases: do you know your enemy? J Clin Med 2022;11:9609. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11092609
crossref pmid pmc
18. Farina D, Arendt-Nielsen L, Merletti R, Graven-Nielsen T. Effect of experimental muscle pain on motor unit firing rate and conduction velocity. J Neurophysiol 2004;91:1250–9. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00620.2003
crossref pmid
19. Clark BC, Manini TM. Sarcopenia =/= dynapenia. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2008;63:829–34. https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/63.8.829
crossref pmid
20. Kim HJ, Ban MG, Yoon KB, Jeon W, Kim SH. Neuropathic-like pain symptoms and their association with muscle strength in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. J Clin Med 2022;11:5471. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11185471
crossref pmid pmc
21. Chen LK, Hsiao FY, Akishita M, et al. A focus shift from sarcopenia to muscle health in the Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia 2025 Consensus Update. Nat Aging 2025;5:2164–75. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43587-025-01004-y
crossref pmid
22. Otsuka R, Matsui Y, Tange C, et al. What is the best adjustment of appendicular lean mass for predicting mortality or disability among Japanese community dwellers? BMC Geriatr 2018;18:8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-017-0699-6
crossref pmid pmc
23. Tam SL, Gordon T. Mechanisms controlling axonal sprouting at the neuromuscular junction. J Neurocytol 2003;32:961–74. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:NEUR.0000020635.41233.0f
crossref pmid
24. Aagaard P, Suetta C, Caserotti P, Magnusson SP, Kjaer M. Role of the nervous system in sarcopenia and muscle atrophy with aging: strength training as a countermeasure. Scand J Med Sci Sports 2010;20:49–64. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0838.2009.01084.x
crossref pmid
25. Kohno K, Shirasaka R, Yoshihara K, et al. A spinal microglia population involved in remitting and relapsing neuropathic pain. Science 2022;376:86–90. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abf6805
crossref pmid
26. Clark AK, Yip PK, Malcangio M. The liberation of fractalkine in the dorsal horn requires microglial cathepsin S. J Neurosci 2009;29:6945–54. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0828-09.2009
crossref pmid pmc
27. Inoue K. A state-of-the-art perspective on microgliopathic pain. Open Biol 2018;8:180154. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsob.180154
crossref pmid pmc
28. Imagama S, Ando K, Kobayashi K, et al. Risk factors for neuropathic pain in middle-aged and elderly people: a five-year longitudinal cohort in the Yakumo Study. Pain Med 2020;21:1604–10. https://doi.org/10.1093/pm/pnaa036
crossref pmid
29. Sakai Y, Wakao N, Matsui H, Watanabe T, Iida H, Watanabe K. Clinical characteristics of geriatric patients with non-specific chronic low back pain. Sci Rep 2022;12:1286. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-05352-2
crossref pmid pmc
30. Mocini E, Piciocchi C, Defeudis G, Migliaccio S. Sarcopenia and osteoporosis. Gerontology. 2025 Jun 19 [Epub]. https://doi.org/10.1159/000546501
crossref pmid


ABOUT
ARTICLE CATEGORY

Browse all articles >

BROWSE ARTICLES
EDITORIAL POLICY
FOR CONTRIBUTORS
Editorial Office
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine
88, Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul 05505, Korea
Tel: +82-2-3010-3530    Fax: +82-2-3010-8555    E-mail: asianspinejournal@gmail.com                
Korean Society of Spine Surgery
82, Gumi-ro 173beon-gil, Bundang-gu, Seongnam-si, Gyeonggi-do, 13620, Korea
Tel: +82-31-966-3413    Fax: +82-2-831-3414    E-mail: office@spine.or.kr                

Copyright © 2026 by Korean Society of Spine Surgery.

Developed in M2PI

Close layer
prev next