Literature DB >> 19238459

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

Jwo-Luen Pao1, Wein-Chin Chen, Po-Quang Chen.   

Abstract

The goal of surgical treatment for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is to effectively relieve the neural structures by various decompressive techniques. Microendoscopic decompressive laminotomy (MEDL) is an attractive option because of its minimally invasive nature. The aim of prospective study was to investigate the effectiveness of MEDL by evaluating the clinical outcomes with patient-oriented scoring systems. Sixty consecutive patients receiving MEDL between December 2005 and April 2007 were enrolled. The indications of surgery were moderate to severe stenosis, persistent neurological symptoms, and failure of conservative treatment. The patients with mechanical back pain, more than grade I spondylolisthesis, or radiographic signs of instability were not included. A total of 53 patients (36 women and 17 men, mean age 62.0) were included. Forty-five patients (84.9%) were satisfied with the treatment result after a follow-up period of 15.7 months (12-24). The clinical outcomes were evaluated with the Oswestry disability index (ODI) and the Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score. Of the 50 patients providing sufficient data for analysis, the ODI improved from 64.3 +/- 20.0 to 16.7 +/- 20.0. The JOA score improved from 9.4 +/- 6.1 to 24.2 +/- 6.0. The improvement rate was 73.9 +/- 30.7% and 40 patients (80%) had good or excellent results. There were 11 surgical complications: dural tear in 5, wrong level operation in 2, and transient neuralgia in 4 patients. No wound-related complication was noted. Although the prevalence of pre-operative comorbidities was very high (69.8%), there was no serious medical complication. There was no post-operative instability at the operated segment as evaluated with dynamic radiographs at final follow-up. We concluded that MEDL is a safe and very effective minimally invasive technique for degenerative LSS. With an appropriate patient selection, the risk of post-operative instability is minimal.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19238459      PMCID: PMC3234002          DOI: 10.1007/s00586-009-0903-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Spine J        ISSN: 0940-6719            Impact factor:   3.134


  33 in total

Review 1.  The Oswestry Disability Index.

Authors:  J C Fairbank; P B Pynsent
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2000-11-15       Impact factor: 3.468

2.  Surgical treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. Five-year follow-up.

Authors:  B M Jolles; F Porchet; N Theumann
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2001-09

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

Authors:  Yi-Shan Fu; Bing-Fang Zeng; Jian-Guang Xu
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2008-03-01       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  Lumbar spinal stenosis: conservative or surgical management?: A prospective 10-year study.

Authors:  T Amundsen; H Weber; H J Nordal; B Magnaes; M Abdelnoor; F Lilleâs
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2000-06-01       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  A minimally invasive technique for decompression of the lumbar spine.

Authors:  Bernard H Guiot; Larry T Khoo; Richard G Fessler
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2002-02-15       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  Surgical and nonsurgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis: four-year outcomes from the maine lumbar spine study.

Authors:  S J Atlas; R B Keller; D Robson; R A Deyo; D E Singer
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2000-03-01       Impact factor: 3.468

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

Authors:  T Iguchi; A Kurihara; J Nakayama; K Sato; M Kurosaka; K Yamasaki
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2000-07-15       Impact factor: 3.468

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

Authors:  T J Kleeman; A C Hiscoe; E E Berg
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2000-04-01       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  Are lumbar spine reoperation rates falling with greater use of fusion surgery and new surgical technology?

Authors:  Brook I Martin; Sohail K Mirza; Bryan A Comstock; Darryl T Gray; William Kreuter; Richard A Deyo
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2007-09-01       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: analysis of results in a series of 374 patients treated with unilateral laminotomy for bilateral microdecompression.

Authors:  Francesco Costa; Marco Sassi; Andrea Cardia; Alessandro Ortolina; Antonio De Santis; Giovanni Luccarell; Maurizio Fornari
Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine       Date:  2007-12
View more
  35 in total

Review 1.  The Michel Benoist and Robert Mulholland yearly European Spine Journal Review: a survey of the "medical" articles in the European Spine Journal, 2009.

Authors:  Michel Benoist
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-12-17       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Unilateral tubular approach for bilateral laminotomy: effect on ipsilateral and contralateral buttock and leg pain.

Authors:  Marjan Alimi; Christoph P Hofstetter; Jose M Torres-Campa; Rodrigo Navarro-Ramirez; Guang-Ting Cong; Innocent Njoku; Roger Härtl
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-06-08       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 3.  The Michel Benoist and Robert Mulholland yearly European Spine Journal Review: a survey of the "surgical and research" articles in the European Spine Journal, 2009.

Authors:  Robert C Mulholland
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-12-19       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 4.  Microscopy-assisted interspinous tubular approach for lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  José-Antonio Soriano-Sánchez; Javier Quillo-Olvera; Sergio Soriano-Solis; Miroslava-Elizabeth Soriano-Lopez; Claudia-Angélica Covarrubias-Rosas; Javier Quillo-Reséndiz; Carlos-Francisco Gutiérrez-Partida; Manuel Rodríguez-García
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2017-03

5.  Clinical outcomes after microendoscopic laminotomy for lumbar spinal stenosis: a 5-year follow-up study.

Authors:  Akihito Minamide; Munehito Yoshida; Hiroshi Yamada; Yukihiro Nakagawa; Hiroshi Hashizume; Hiroshi Iwasaki; Shunji Tsutsui
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-10-24       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 6.  Minimally invasive techniques for lumbar decompressions and fusions.

Authors:  Ankur S Narain; Fady Y Hijji; Jonathan S Markowitz; Krishna T Kudaravalli; Kelly H Yom; Kern Singh
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2017-12

7.  Image changes of paraspinal muscles and clinical correlations in patients with unilateral lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Yan-Yu Chen; Jwo-Luen Pao; Chen-Kun Liaw; Wei-Li Hsu; Rong-Sen Yang
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-01-07       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 8.  [Minimally invasive decompression techniques for spinal cord stenosis].

Authors:  A Korge; C Mehren; S Ruetten
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2019-10       Impact factor: 1.087

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

Review 10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.