Literature DB >> 10888941

Minimum 10-year outcome of decompressive laminectomy for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.

T Iguchi1, A Kurihara, J Nakayama, K Sato, M Kurosaka, K Yamasaki.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: A retrospective follow-up study was conducted in patients who underwent decompressive laminectomy for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.
OBJECTIVES: To describe the long-term outcome of decompressive laminectomy performed for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis, and to investigate preoperative factors that influenced outcomes, especially risk factors predisposing patients to poor results. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The success rate of surgical treatment of decompressive laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis varies. Long-term follow-up investigations have indicated deterioration of outcome; however, the causes of deterioration have not been fully investigated, and there have been no reports with a minimum 10-year follow-up.
METHODS: Of 151 patients who underwent decompressive laminectomy from 1980 through 1989, 37 were followed up for a minimum of 10 years. The mean age at surgery was 60.9 +/- 8. 2 years (range, 43-76), and the average follow-up period was 13.1 +/- 2.1 years (range, 10.1-17.4). The results were evaluated by the criteria of the Japanese Orthopedic Association Lumbar Score, and the outcome was classified as excellent at more than 75% improved score; good, 50-75%; fair, 25-49%; and poor, 0-24% or less. Information about impairment of activities of daily living was also obtained at follow-up. Associations between preoperative clinical and radiographic variables and clinical outcome were evaluated statistically.
RESULTS: In all patients, the average score improvement of 55.2 +/- 31.6% was regarded as acceptable. The postoperative score and percentage of improvement of low back pain were lower than those of leg pain and walking ability. No impairment in activities of daily living was found in 62.2% of the patients. Rate of improvement was evaluated as excellent in 13 (35.1%), good in 8 (21.6%), fair in 8, and poor in 8 patients. Three patients required additional surgery because of disc herniation at the laminectomied segments. The patients with multiple laminectomy (P = 0.034) and more than 10 degrees preoperative sagittal rotation angle (P = 0.018) showed a significantly poorer outcome than the remainder of the patients.
CONCLUSIONS: Long-term follow-up showed that even without spinal fusion, more than half the patients were evaluated as excellent or good. Patients with more than a 10 degrees sagittalrotation angle who need multiple laminectomy, should be given information about the possibility of earlier deterioration of the outcome, and alternative or additional treatment such as concomitant spinal fusion with decompression may be considered.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10888941     DOI: 10.1097/00007632-200007150-00003

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


  39 in total

Review 1.  Role of lumbar interspinous distraction on the neural elements.

Authors:  Alex Alfieri; Roberto Gazzeri; Julian Prell; Christian Scheller; Jens Rachinger; Christian Strauss; Andreas Schwarz
Journal:  Neurosurg Rev       Date:  2012-05-02       Impact factor: 3.042

2.  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

Review 3.  Predictors of surgical outcome and their assessment.

Authors:  Anne F Mannion; Achim Elfering
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2005-12-01       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Patient outcomes after laminotomy, hemilaminectomy, laminectomy and laminectomy with instrumented fusion for spinal canal stenosis: a propensity score-based study from the Spine Tango registry.

Authors:  Everard Munting; Christoph Röder; Rolf Sobottke; Daniel Dietrich; Emin Aghayev
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-05-20       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  A novel strategy of non-fusion instrumentation with coflex interlaminar stabilization after decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Hiroshi Nomura
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2016-06

Review 6.  The role of stem cell therapies in degenerative lumbar spine disease: a review.

Authors:  David Oehme; Tony Goldschlager; Jeffrey V Rosenfeld; Peter Ghosh; Graham Jenkin
Journal:  Neurosurg Rev       Date:  2015-03-07       Impact factor: 3.042

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 prospective randomized multi-center study for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis with the X STOP interspinous implant: 1-year results.

Authors:  J F Zucherman; K Y Hsu; C A Hartjen; T F Mehalic; D A Implicito; M J Martin; D R Johnson; G A Skidmore; P P Vessa; J W Dwyer; S Puccio; J C Cauthen; R M Ozuna
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2003-12-19       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  Can decompression surgery relieve low back pain in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis combined with degenerative lumbar scoliosis?

Authors:  Shunji Tsutsui; Ryohei Kagotani; Hiroshi Yamada; Hiroshi Hashizume; Akihito Minamide; Yukihiro Nakagawa; Hiroshi Iwasaki; Munehito Yoshida
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-04-24       Impact factor: 3.134

10.  Clinical and radiological instability following standard fenestration discectomy.

Authors:  Amrithlal A Mascarenhas; Issac Thomas; Gaurav Sharma; Joe Joseph Cherian
Journal:  Indian J Orthop       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 1.251

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.