Minimally invasive laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis in patients with and without preoperative spondylolisthesis: clinical outcome and reoperation rates

2015 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 339-352 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marjan Alimi ◽  
Christoph P. Hofstetter ◽  
Se Young Pyo ◽  
Danika Paulo ◽  
Roger Härtl
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcome ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Lumbar Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Reoperation Rate ◽  
Effective Procedure ◽  
Functional Improvement ◽  
Lumbar Spinal ◽  
Reoperation Rates

OBJECT Surgical decompression is the intervention of choice for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) when nonoperative treatment has failed. Standard open laminectomy is an effective procedure, but minimally invasive laminectomy through tubular retractors is an alternative. The aim of this retrospective case series was to evaluate the clinical and radiographic outcomes of this procedure in patients who underwent LSS and to compare outcomes in patients with and without preoperative spondylolisthesis. METHODS Patients with LSS without spondylolisthesis and with stable Grade I spondylolisthesis who had undergone minimally invasive tubular laminectomy between 2004 and 2011 were included in this analysis. Demographic, perioperative, and radiographic data were collected. Clinical outcome was evaluated using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and visual analog scale (VAS) scores, as well as Macnab's criteria. RESULTS Among 110 patients, preoperative spondylolisthesis at the level of spinal stenosis was present in 52.5%. At a mean follow-up of 28.8 months, scoring revealed a median improvement of 16% on the ODI, 2.75 on the VAS back, and 3 on the VAS leg, compared with the preoperative baseline (p < 0.0001). The reoperation rate requiring fusion at the same level was 3.5%. Patients with and without preoperative spondylolisthesis had no significant differences in their clinical outcome or reoperation rate. CONCLUSIONS Minimally invasive laminectomy is an effective procedure for the treatment of LSS. Reoperation rates for instability are lower than those reported after open laminectomy. Functional improvement is similar in patients with and without preoperative spondylolisthesis. This procedure can be an alternative to open laminectomy. Routine fusion may not be indicated in all patients with LSS and spondylolisthesis.

Long-Term Clinical Outcome and Reoperation Rate for Microsurgical Bilateral Decompression via Unilateral Approach of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

2019 ◽  
Vol 125 ◽  
pp. e465-e472
Author(s):  
İsmail Yüce ◽  
Okan Kahyaoğlu ◽  
Halit Arda Çavuşoğlu ◽  
Halit Çavuşoğlu ◽  
Yunus Aydın
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcome ◽  
Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Lumbar Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Reoperation Rate ◽  
Unilateral Approach ◽  
Lumbar Spinal

Facet-Sparing Decompression of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: The Minimally Invasive Bilateral Crossover Approach

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan Helge Klingler ◽  
Ulrich Hubbe ◽  
Christoph Scholz ◽  
Marie T. Krüger
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Lumbar Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Surgical Decompression ◽  
Walking Distance ◽  
Adjacent Segment ◽  
Facet Joints ◽  
Study Objective ◽  
Lumbar Spinal

Abstract Background and Study Objective One risk of established decompression techniques for lumbar spinal stenosis is the resection of facet joints, especially if they are steeply configured, promoting destabilization. Minimally invasive bilateral crossover decompression aims to preserve the facet joints and thus stability of the spine. The purpose of this study is to demonstrate the feasibility and early results of this technique. Methods This retrospective case series includes 10 consecutive patients with lumbar stenosis and steep-angle (<35 degrees) facet joints who were treated with minimally invasive bilateral crossover decompression. Eleven segments were decompressed, most commonly L3/L4 (63.6%), followed by L1/L2 and L2/L3 (18.2% each). The effectiveness of surgical decompression was assessed by self-reporting questionnaires. Results After a follow-up of 10.5 months, the Symptom Severity Scale and Physical Function Scale of the Swiss Spinal Stenosis Questionnaire improved by 0.9 (p < 0.05) and 0.7 points, respectively. The mean Oswestry Disability Index improved from 53.9 to 34.6 (p < 0.05). Local and radiating pain under strain showed statistically significant improvement on the Visual Analog Scale (8.9 vs. 5.0 and 8.4 vs. 4.6, respectively). Maximum walking distance increased from 190 to 1,029 m. Apart from one patient requiring surgical decompression of an adjacent segment, there were no reoperations, neurological deteriorations, or other complications. Conclusion The results of this study indicate that minimally invasive bilateral crossover decompression is a promising technique for the treatment of spinal canal stenosis. With its design to spare facet joints, it can potentially reduce the risk of spinal instability, especially in patients with steep facet joints.

Minimally Invasive versus Open Thoracolumbar Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis in Patients with Diabetes: A CSORN Study

2021 ◽  
pp. 13
Author(s):  
Kalpesh Hathi
Keyword(s):  
Back Pain ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Lumbar Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Research Network ◽  
Leg Pain ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Patients With Diabetes ◽  
One Year ◽  
Lumbar Spinal

Introduction: This study was aimed at comparing outcomes of minimally invasive (MIS) versus OPEN surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) in patients with diabetes. Methodology: This retrospective cohort study included patients with diabetes who underwent spinal decompression alone or with fusion for LSS within the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network (CSORN) database. Outcomes of MIS and OPEN approaches were compared for two cohorts: (i) patients with diabetes who underwent decompression alone (N = 116; MIS, n = 58, OPEN, n = 58) and (ii) patients with diabetes who underwent decompression with fusion (N = 108; MIS, n = 54, OPEN, n = 54). Mixed measures analyses of covariance compared modified Oswestry Disability Index (mODI) and back and leg pain at one-year post operation. The number of patients meeting minimum clinically important difference (MCID) or minimum pain/disability at one year were compared. Result: MIS approaches had less blood loss (decompression alone difference 99.66 mL, p = 0.002; with fusion difference 244.23, p < 0.001) and shorter LOS (decompression alone difference 1.15 days, p = 0.008; with fusion difference 1.23 days, p = 0.026). MIS compared to OPEN decompression with fusion had less patients experience an adverse event (difference, 13 patients, p = 0.007). The MIS decompression with fusion group had lower one-year mODI (difference, 14.25, p < 0.001) and back pain (difference, 1.64, p = 0.002) compared to OPEN. More patients in the MIS decompression with fusion group exceeded MCID at one year for mODI (MIS 75.9% vs OPEN 53.7%, p = 0.028) and back pain (MIS 85.2% vs OPEN 70.4%, p = 0.017). Conclusion: MIS approaches were associated with more favorable outcomes for patients with diabetes undergoing decompression with fusion for LSS.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document