scholarly journals Comparable increases in dural sac area after three different posterior decompression techniques for lumbar spinal stenosis: radiological results from a randomized controlled trial in the NORDSTEN study

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (9) ◽  
pp. 2254-2261
Author(s):  
Erland Hermansen ◽  
Ivar Magne Austevoll ◽  
Christian Hellum ◽  
Kjersti Storheim ◽  
Tor Åge Myklebust ◽  
...  

Abstract Purpose To investigate changes in dural sac area after three different posterior decompression techniques in patients undergoing surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. Summary of background data Decompression of the nerve roots is the main surgical treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis. The aim of this study was to radiologically investigate three commonly used posterior decompression techniques. Methods The present study reports data from one of two multicenter randomized trials included in the NORDSTEN study. In the present trial, involving 437 patients undergoing surgery, we report radiological results after three different midline retaining posterior decompression techniques: unilateral laminotomy with crossover (UL) (n = 146), bilateral laminotomy (BL) (n = 142) and spinous process osteotomy (SPO) (n = 149). MRI was performed before and three months after surgery. The increase in dural sac area and Schizas grade at the most stenotic level was evaluated. Three different predefined surgical indicators of substantial decompression were used: (1) postoperative dural sac area of > 100 mm2, (2) increase in the dural sac area of at least 50% and (3) postoperative Schizas grade A or B. Results No differences between the three surgical groups were found in the mean increase in dural sac area. Mean values were 66.0 (SD 41.5) mm2 in the UL-group, 71.9 (SD 37.1) mm2 in the BL-group and 68.1 (SD 41.0) mm2 in the SPO-group (p = 0.49). No differences in the three predefined surgical outcomes between the three groups were found. Conclusion For patients with lumbar spinal stenosis, the three different surgical techniques provided the same increase in dural sac area. Clinical trial registration The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov reference on November 22th 2013 under the identifier NCT02007083.

2006 ◽  
Vol 5 (5) ◽  
pp. 404-409 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ko Ikuta ◽  
Osamu Tono ◽  
Takayuki Tanaka ◽  
Junichi Arima ◽  
Soichiro Nakano ◽  
...  

Object The incidence of postoperative spinal epidural hematoma (SEH) is low, and to the best of the authors’ knowledge, no researchers have evaluated its actual incidence and clinical features. The purpose of this study was to investigate the clinical consequences of SEH after microendoscopic posterior decompression (MEPD) in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Methods Data obtained in 30 patients undergoing MEPD for lumbar spinal stenosis were reviewed. At 1 week after surgery, magnetic resonance (MR) imaging documented SEHs in 10 patients (33% [Group 1]) and no evidence of SEHs in 20 patients (67% [Group 2]). The authors compared MR imaging findings, postoperative morbidities, and clinical outcomes between the groups. Three Group 1 patients had symptomatic SEHs. All symptoms were mild without associated neurological deterioration and spontaneously subsided within 3 weeks of surgery. Magnetic resonance imaging demonstrated spontaneous regression of the SEH in all patients at 3 months after surgery. In Group 1 patients, however, the authors observed less expansion of the dural sac after 1 year despite sufficient widening of the osseous spinal canal. Low-back pain within 1 week of surgery was moderate in Group 1 and mild in Group 2. Improvements at the final follow up were greater in Group 2 patients. Conclusions The incidence of postoperative SEHs may be greater than reported. Postoperative SEHs caused poor expansion of the dural sac despite its spontaneous regression. In addition, postoperative SEHs caused a delay in the patient’s recovery and led to a poor clinical improvement. The prevention of postoperative SEHs might be required to prevent not only neurological deterioration but also a delay in the patient’s recovery.


2016 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 197-203 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carlo Ammendolia ◽  
Pierre Côté ◽  
Y. Raja Rampersaud ◽  
Danielle Southerst ◽  
Brian Budgell ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 26 (10) ◽  
pp. 2676-2677
Author(s):  
Yvonne Yan On Lau ◽  
Ryan Ka Lok Lee ◽  
James Francis Griffith ◽  
Carol Lai Yee Chan ◽  
Sheung Wai Law ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document