Literature DB >> 19365236

Muscle-preserving interlaminar decompression for the lumbar spine: a minimally invasive new procedure for lumbar spinal canal stenosis.

Yoichiro Hatta1, Tateru Shiraishi, Atsuto Sakamoto, Yoshiyuki Yato, Tomohisa Harada, Yasuo Mikami, Hitoshi Hase, Toshikazu Kubo.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: Outcomes of muscle-preserving interlaminar decompression (MILD) for the lumbar spine are reported.
OBJECTIVE: To verify the clinical findings of lumbar MILD. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: A preliminary short-term follow-up study of lumbar MILD demonstrated satisfactory neural recovery and reduced invasiveness. METHODS.: The initial 105 consecutive patients with lumbar spinal canal stenosis were included in this study. A total of 210 intervertebral levels were decompressed. There were 48 women and 57 men, and the mean patient age was 68.8 years. The postoperative follow-up period ranged from 8 to 44 months (mean 21.3 months). Eighty-one patients showed cauda equina claudication, and 75 patients complained of radicular pain. Preoperative imaging studies demonstrated that all patients had moderate-to-severe spinal canal stenosis, 75 patients had degenerative spinal canal stenosis, and the remaining 30 had degenerative spondylolisthesis. Pre- and postoperative Japanese Orthopedic Association scores, intraoperative blood loss, surgical complications, and postoperative ambulation were recorded. RESULTS.: One hundred five patients underwent lumbar MILD procedure for 210 interspinous levels, 42 patients for 2 levels, 37 patients for 1 level, 17 for 3 levels, 7 for 4 levels, and 2 for 5 levels. Cerebrospinal fluid leakage due to dural tear occurred in 2 patients. Expansion of the operative field was not necessary to repair the dura mater. The mean operation time was 104.9 minutes per level, and mean intraoperative blood loss was 29.4 g per level. Neurologic improvement was demonstrated in all patients. The mean recovery rate calculated with pre- and postoperative Japanese Orthopedic Association scores was 64.9%. Patients started to stand or walk an average of 2.5 days after surgery. None of the patients presented with wound infection. There was no neurologic complication in this series.
CONCLUSION: In MILD for the lumbar spine, damage to the posterior stabilizing structures such as the intervertebral facet joints, paravertebral muscles, thoracolumbar fascia, supra- and interspinous ligaments, can be minimized, while preserving the function of the spinous processes as lever arms for lumbar extension.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19365236     DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318195d943

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


  16 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  Clinical and Radiological Outcomes after Microscopic Bilateral Decompression via a Unilateral Approach for Degenerative Lumbar Disease: Minimum 5-Year Follow-Up.

Authors:  Sho Dohzono; Hiromitsu Toyoda; Akira Matsumura; Hidetomi Terai; Akinobu Suzuki; Hiroaki Nakamura
Journal:  Asian Spine J       Date:  2017-04-12

3.  Tubular surgery with the assistance of endoscopic surgery via midline approach for lumbar spinal canal stenosis: a technical note.

Authors:  Yasuo Mikami; Masateru Nagae; Takumi Ikeda; Hitoshi Tonomura; Hiroyoshi Fujiwara; Toshikazu Kubo
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-05-07       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Development of percutaneously insertable/removable interspinous process spacer for treatment of posture-dependent lumbar spinal-canal stenosis: preclinical feasibility study using porcine model.

Authors:  Kotaro Nishida; Minoru Doita; Kenichiro Kakutani; Koichiro Maeno; Takashi Yurube; Masahiro Kurosaka
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-12-27       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Comparative study of two spinous process (SP) osteotomy techniques for posterior decompression surgery in lumbar spinal stenosis: SP base versus splitting osteotomy.

Authors:  Gun Woo Lee; Myun-Whan Ahn
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2018-02-21       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  Spinous Process splitting Laminectomy: Clinical outcome and Radiological analysis of extent of decompression.

Authors:  Seungcheol Lee; Umesh Srikantha
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2015-06-01

7.  Additional decompression at adjacent segments leads to adjacent segment degeneration after PLIF.

Authors:  Masayuki Miyagi; Osamu Ikeda; Seiji Ohtori; Yoshikazu Tsuneizumi; Yukio Someya; Masataka Shibayama; Yasufumi Ogawa; Gen Inoue; Sumihisa Orita; Yawara Eguchi; Hiroto Kamoda; Gen Arai; Tetsuhiro Ishikawa; Yasuchika Aoki; Tomoaki Toyone; Toshio Ooi; Kazuhisa Takahashi
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-02-13       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  Full-endoscopic (bi-portal or uni-portal) versus microscopic lumbar decompression laminectomy in patients with spinal stenosis: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Saran Pairuchvej; Janisa Andrea Muljadi; Jei-Chen Ho; Alisara Arirachakaran; Jatupon Kongtharvonskul
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2019-12-20

9.  Quantitative analysis of indirect decompression in extreme lateral interbody fusion and posterior spinal fusion with a percutaneous pedicle screw system for lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Hiroshi Nomura; Akihisa Yamashita; Tetsuya Watanabe; Kenzo Shirasawa
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2019-06

10.  The management of thoracolumbar burst fractures: a prospective study between conservative management, traditional open spinal surgery and minimally interventional spinal surgery.

Authors:  Amit Kumar; Randeep Aujla; Christopher Lee
Journal:  Springerplus       Date:  2015-04-30
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.