Literature DB >> 10751299

Patient outcomes after minimally destabilizing lumbar stenosis decompression: the "Port-Hole" technique.

T J Kleeman1, A C Hiscoe, E E Berg.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: A prospective evaluation of the outcome of a decompressive procedure for lumbar spinal stenosis designed to preserve spinal stability.
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether decompression could be achieved without subsequent fusion for spinal stenosis with and without degenerative spondylolisthesis. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The traditional surgical decompression of spinal stenosis involves removal of the posterior elements. Success occurs in 64% of cases, on the average, with results deteriorating over time. Concomitant spinal fusion is associated with higher costs and complication rates.
METHODS: This prospective study included 54 consecutive patients treated surgically by one surgeon. Patients were contacted 21/2 and 4 years, on the average, after surgery. Patients with spondylolisthesis were evaluated for worsening of the listhesis after surgery.
RESULTS: At a mean of 4 years after surgery, all patients were satisfied with their treatment. Concerning their symptoms, 80% reported relief of back pain; 96% had improvement of leg pain; 93% experienced relief of leg numbness; and 97% had relief of lower extremity weakness. Before surgery, only 1 patient could walk for longer than 15 minutes. After surgery, 98% (47/48) could walk for more than 15 minutes. Overall clinical results were graded as good to excellent (88%), fair (8%), or poor (4%). Clinical outcomes were comparable between those with and without degenerative spondylolisthesis (P = 0.08). Patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis showed no change in the amount of slip in 13/15 patients (87%).
CONCLUSIONS: Degenerative spinal stenosis, even with nonlytic spondylolisthesis, can be decompressed effectively without violating the integrity of the posterior elements.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10751299     DOI: 10.1097/00007632-200004010-00016

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)        ISSN: 0362-2436            Impact factor:   3.468


  17 in total

1.  Cost-effectiveness of three treatment strategies for lumbar spinal stenosis: Conservative care, laminectomy, and the Superion interspinous spacer.

Authors:  Scott L Parker; Louise H Anderson; Teresa Nelson; Vikas V Patel
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2015-07-09

2.  Midterm outcome after unilateral approach for bilateral decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis: 5-year prospective study.

Authors:  Halit Cavuşoğlu; Ramazan Alper Kaya; Osman Nuri Türkmenoglu; Cengiz Tuncer; Ibrahim Colak; Yunus Aydin
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2007-08-22       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: current strategies in diagnosis and treatment.

Authors:  Claudius Thomé; Wolfgang Börm; Frerk Meyer
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2008-05-16       Impact factor: 5.594

Review 4.  The evolution of partial undercutting facetectomy in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Derek T Cawley; Ravi Shenoy; Adam Benton; Senthil Muthian; Susanne Selvadurai; John R Johnson; Sean Molloy
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2018-06

5.  Laminarthrectomy as a surgical approach for decompressing the spinal canal: assessment of preoperative versus postoperative dural sac cross-sectional areal (DSCSA).

Authors:  Erland Hermansen; Gunnar Moen; Johan Barstad; Rune Birketvedt; Kari Indrekvam
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-03-15       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 6.  [Lumbar spinal stenosis].

Authors:  T L Schulte; V Bullmann; T Lerner; M Schneider; B Marquardt; U Liljenqvist; T A Pietilä; L Hackenberg
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 1.087

7.  Clinical outcomes of microendoscopic decompressive laminotomy for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Jwo-Luen Pao; Wein-Chin Chen; Po-Quang Chen
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-02-24       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  A predictive model for outcome after conservative decompression surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  K F Spratt; T S Keller; M Szpalski; K Vandeputte; R Gunzburg
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2003-12-05       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  Spinal canal morphology and clinical outcomes of microsurgical bilateral decompression via a unilateral approach for lumbar spinal canal stenosis.

Authors:  Won-Seok Choi; Chang Hyun Oh; Gyu Yeul Ji; Sung Chan Shin; Jang-Bo Lee; Dong-Hyuk Park; Tai-Hyoung Cho
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-12-01       Impact factor: 3.134

10.  A less invasive surgical approach in the lumbar lateral recess stenosis: direct approach to the medial wall of the pedicle.

Authors:  Ahmet Colak; Kivanç Topuz; Murat Kutlay; Serdar Kaya; Hakan Simşek; Ahmet Cetinkal; Mehmet N Demircan
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2008-10-01       Impact factor: 3.134

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.