Literature DB >> 18317196

Long-term outcomes of two different decompressive techniques for lumbar spinal stenosis.

Yi-Shan Fu1, Bing-Fang Zeng, Jian-Guang Xu.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: A prospective study to evaluate the outcomes of 2 different decompressive techniques for lumbar spinal stenosis.
OBJECTIVE: To explore a more effective and less invasive decompression technique without instrument and fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The traditional surgical decompression of spinal stenosis involves laminectomy or unilateral laminotomy. Even in unilateral laminotomy cases, 85.3% had an excellent-to-fair operative result, and the incidence of complications was 9.8%. Although the addition of instrumentation does not increase the complication rate, but compared to the efficiency, the higher costs was controversial. Minimal invasion and destabilization are recommended.
METHODS: This prospective study included 152 consecutive patients, sequentially divided into 2 groups, underwent Windows technique (group A) and decompressive laminectomy (group B) by 2 groups of surgeons.
RESULTS: The evaluation of the back pain, leg pain, walking tolerance, and neurologic recovery were performed before surgery and after surgery. In group A, at the final evaluation, the overall results were good to excellent in 89% (68/76) of the patients, fair 11% (8/76), and poor 0%. In group B, at the final evaluation, the overall results were good to excellent in 63% (48/76) of the patients, fair 30% (23/76), and poor 7% (5/76).
CONCLUSION: Degenerative spinal stenosis can be decompressed adequately with preserving the posterior elements. The "Windows technique" laminoforaminotomy, which obtained satisfactory long-term outcomes with few complications and low cost, can be a standard procedure for the surgical treatment of the degenerative spinal stenosis even with slight congenital spinal stenosis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18317196     DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181657dde

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


  23 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

Review 2.  Economic impact of minimally invasive lumbar surgery.

Authors:  Christoph P Hofstetter; Anna S Hofer; Michael Y Wang
Journal:  World J Orthop       Date:  2015-03-18

3.  Predictors of walking performance and walking capacity in people with lumbar spinal stenosis, low back pain, and asymptomatic controls.

Authors:  Christy C Tomkins-Lane; Sara Christensen Holz; Karen S Yamakawa; Vaishali V Phalke; Doug J Quint; Jennifer Miner; Andrew J Haig
Journal:  Arch Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  2012-02-23       Impact factor: 3.966

4.  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

5.  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

6.  Clinical outcomes following sublaminar-trimming laminoplasty for extensive lumbar canal stenosis.

Authors:  Wen-Jiunn Liu; Shih-Wun Hong; Da-Yon Liou; Tung-Wu Lu
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-07-13       Impact factor: 3.134

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

Review 8.  The clinical course of pain and disability following surgery for spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies.

Authors:  Carolina G Fritsch; Manuela L Ferreira; Christopher G Maher; Robert D Herbert; Rafael Z Pinto; Bart Koes; Paulo H Ferreira
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-07-21       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  Time spent per patient in lumbar spinal stenosis surgery.

Authors:  Ludovic Kaminski; Xavier Banse
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-02-09       Impact factor: 3.134

10.  Does surgical technique influence clinical outcome after lumbar spinal stenosis decompression? A comparative effectiveness study from the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery.

Authors:  Erland Hermansen; Ulla Kristina Romild; Ivar Magne Austevoll; Tore Solberg; Kjersti Storheim; Jens Ivar Brox; Christian Hellum; Kari Indrekvam
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-06-04       Impact factor: 3.134

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.