Literature DB >> 19127157

A biomechanical evaluation of graded posterior element removal for treatment of lumbar stenosis: comparison of a minimally invasive approach with two standard laminectomy techniques.

Lacey Bresnahan1, Alfred T Ogden, Raghu N Natarajan, Richard G Fessler.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: A validated finite element model of the intact lumbar spine (L1-S1) was modified to study the biomechanical changes as a result of surgical alteration for treatment of stenosis at L3-L4 and L4-L5 using 2 established techniques and 1 new minimally invasive technique.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of graded posterior element removal associated with new surgical techniques on postoperative segmental motion and loading in the annulus. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Several studies have shown that laminectomy increases and produces segmental instability unless fusion is performed. However, no data exist comparing the biomechanical impact of completely preserving the contralateral anatomy and what effect this has compared to traditional approaches.
METHODS: The effect of graded removal of posterior elements because of iatrogenic change associated with the 3 approaches was investigated using an 800 N compressive preload using the follower load technique and application of 8 Nm flexion, 6 Nm extension, 4 Nm torsion, and 6 Nm lateral bending moments.
RESULTS: This study shows that removal of posterior elements for treatment of stenosis at L3-L4 and L4-L5 results in increased flexion-extension and axial rotation at the surgical site. This study also shows that the segmental motion following a traditional laminectomy is greater than the minimally invasive approach in flexion, extension, left and right axial rotation. Moderate preservation of the posterior elements which occurs in the intralaminar approach generates greater segmental motion that the minimally invasive approach in extension, left and right axial rotation.
CONCLUSION: Minimization of bone and ligament removal associated with minimally invasive procedures results in greater preservation of the normal motion of the lumbar spine after surgery. This study suggests that preservation of the posterior spinal elements associated with minimally invasive surgery could minimize the risk of developing de novo postoperative changes in spinal alignment and/or acceleration of facet and disc degeneration.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19127157     DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318191438b

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


  33 in total

Review 1.  Paradigm changes in spine surgery: evolution of minimally invasive techniques.

Authors:  Zachary A Smith; Richard G Fessler
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurol       Date:  2012-06-19       Impact factor: 42.937

Review 2.  Temporary stabilization of unstable spine fractures.

Authors:  Aaron P Danison; Darrin J Lee; Ripul R Panchal
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2017-06

3.  Minimal-invasive revision of adjacent level disease after MIS deformity surgery.

Authors:  Nils Hansen-Algenstaedt; Melanie Liem; SalahAddeen O Khalifah; Johannes Holz; Alf Giese
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Limited laminectomy and restorative spinoplasty in spinal canal stenosis.

Authors:  Sukhbir Singh Sangwan; Rakesh Garg; Paritosh Gogna; Zile Singh Kundu; Vinay Gupta; Pradeep Kamboj
Journal:  Asian Spine J       Date:  2014-08-19

5.  Relationship between sagittal balance and adjacent segment disease in surgical treatment of degenerative lumbar spine disease: meta-analysis and implications for choice of fusion technique.

Authors:  Kevin Phan; Alexander Nazareth; Awais K Hussain; Adam A Dmytriw; Mithun Nambiar; Damian Nguyen; Jack Kerferd; Steven Phan; Chet Sutterlin; Samuel K Cho; Ralph J Mobbs
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2018-05-28       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 6.  Effectiveness of posterior decompression techniques compared with conventional laminectomy for lumbar stenosis.

Authors:  Gijsbert Overdevest; Carmen Vleggeert-Lankamp; Wilco Jacobs; Claudius Thomé; Robert Gunzburg; Wilco Peul
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-07-17       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  Finite element analysis for comparison of spinous process osteotomies technique with conventional laminectomy as lumbar decompression procedure.

Authors:  Ho-Joong Kim; Heoung-Jae Chun; Kyoung-Tak Kang; Hwan-Mo Lee; Bong-Soon Chang; Choon-Ki Lee; Jin-S Yeom
Journal:  Yonsei Med J       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 2.759

8.  Full endoscopic unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression of the cervical spine: surgical technique and early experience.

Authors:  Daniel A Carr; Isaac Josh Abecassis; Christoph P Hofstetter
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2020-06

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.  Early clinical and radiological results of unilateral posterior pedicle instrumentation through a Wiltse approach with lateral lumbar interbody fusion.

Authors:  Jerry Y Du; Paul D Kiely; Eric Bogner; Motasem Al Maaieh; Alexander Aichmair; Stephan N Salzmann; Russel C Huang
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2017-09
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.