Literature DB >> 20229149

Less invasive and less technically demanding decompressive procedure for lumbar spinal stenosis--appropriate for general orthopaedic surgeons?

Masashi Takaso1, Toshiyuki Nakazawa, Takayuki Imura, Takamitsu Okada, Kensuke Fukushima, Masaki Ueno, Wataru Saito, Ryousuke Shintani, Hiroyuki Sakagami, Kazuhisa Takahashi, Masashi Yamazaki, Seiji Ohtori, Toshiaki Kotani.   

Abstract

This article presents the clinical and radiological results of the modified spinous process osteotomy decompressive procedure (MSPO), which affords excellent visualisation and provides wide access for Kerrison rongeur use and angulation while minimising destruction of tissues not directly involved in the pathological process. A total of 50 patients with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis underwent MSPO between 2002 and 2005. The minimum follow-up period was five years. Patient's walking distance ability was 85.4 m (5-180 m) preoperatively and 2,560 m (1500-8000 m) at the last follow-up. Leg pain improved in 100% of the patients and back pain improved in 89% at the last follow-up. The overall results were good to excellent in 90% of the patients, fair in 16% and all patients were satisfied with the outcome at the last follow-up. The osteotomised spinous process eventually united with the retained laminar bridge in all patients within nine months after surgery. Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis can be adequately decompressed with less violation of the integrity of the posterior elements using MSPO. The described technique of MSPO yielded promising results with few complications. The authors believe MSPO is less technically demanding and appropriate for general orthopaedic surgeons, occasional spine surgeons and chief residents.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20229149      PMCID: PMC3014485          DOI: 10.1007/s00264-010-0986-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Orthop        ISSN: 0341-2695            Impact factor:   3.075


  20 in total

1.  The outcome of decompressive laminectomy for degenerative lumbar stenosis.

Authors:  J N Katz; S J Lipson; M G Larson; J M McInnes; A H Fossel; M H Liang
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1991-07       Impact factor: 5.284

Review 2.  Lumbar spinal fusion. Surgical rates, costs, and complications.

Authors:  J N Katz
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1995-12-15       Impact factor: 3.468

3.  Morbidity and mortality in association with operations on the lumbar spine. The influence of age, diagnosis, and procedure.

Authors:  R A Deyo; D C Cherkin; J D Loeser; S J Bigos; M A Ciol
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1992-04       Impact factor: 5.284

4.  Measurement properties of a self-administered outcome measure in lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  G Stucki; L Daltroy; M H Liang; S J Lipson; A H Fossel; J N Katz
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1996-04-01       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  Relief of lumbar canal stenosis using multilevel subarticular fenestrations as an alternative to wide laminectomy: preliminary report.

Authors:  S Young; R Veerapen; S A O'Laoire
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  1988-11       Impact factor: 4.654

6.  Osteotomy of lumbar spinous process to increase surgical exposure.

Authors:  K Yong-Hing; W H Kirkaldy-Willis
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1978 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 7.  The indications for lumbar spinal fusion with and without instrumentation.

Authors:  E N Hanley
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1995-12-15       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  Surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis in old people.

Authors:  P L Sanderson; P L Wood
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  1993-05

9.  Lumbar spinal fusion. A cohort study of complications, reoperations, and resource use in the Medicare population.

Authors:  R A Deyo; M A Ciol; D C Cherkin; J D Loeser; S J Bigos
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1993-09-01       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  Surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. Attempted meta-analysis of the literature.

Authors:  J A Turner; M Ersek; L Herron; R Deyo
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1992-01       Impact factor: 3.468

View more
  8 in total

1.  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

2.  Only walking matters-assessment following lumbar stenosis decompression.

Authors:  S Budithi; Rohit Dhawan; Andrew Cattell; Birender Balain; David Jaffray
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-11-30       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  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

4.  Evaluations of computed tomography images and lumbar specimens in mimic operations of transverse rotation laminoplasty for lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Xian-Wu Pei; Yong-Hui Liang; Hui Zhang; Zi-Shun Gong; Hong-Xing Song
Journal:  Chin Med J (Engl)       Date:  2015-01-20       Impact factor: 2.628

5.  Learning Curve Associated with Complications in Biportal Endoscopic Spinal Surgery: Challenges and Strategies.

Authors:  Dae-Jung Choi; Chang-Myong Choi; Je-Tea Jung; Sang-Jin Lee; Yong-Sang Kim
Journal:  Asian Spine J       Date:  2016-08-16

6.  Efficacy of Biportal Endoscopic Spine Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.

Authors:  Dae-Jung Choi; Ju-Eun Kim
Journal:  Clin Orthop Surg       Date:  2019-02-18

7.  The limited area decompression, intervertebral fusion, and pedicle screw fixation for treating degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis with instability: Follow-up at least 12 months an observational study.

Authors:  Fengguang Yang; Enhui Ren; Liang Yang; Yonggang Wang; Xuchang Hu; Yong Yang; Xuewen Kang
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2019-12       Impact factor: 1.817

8.  Axial low back pain: one painful area--many perceptions and mechanisms.

Authors:  Matti Förster; Friederike Mahn; Ulrich Gockel; Mathias Brosz; Rainer Freynhagen; Thomas R Tölle; Ralf Baron
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-07-02       Impact factor: 3.240

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.