Literature DB >> 23494757

Laminarthrectomy as a surgical approach for decompressing the spinal canal: assessment of preoperative versus postoperative dural sac cross-sectional areal (DSCSA).

Erland Hermansen1, Gunnar Moen, Johan Barstad, Rune Birketvedt, Kari Indrekvam.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is today the most frequently performed procedure in the adult lumbar spine. Long-term benefit of surgery for LSS is well documented both in randomized and in non-randomized trials. In this paper, we present the results from laminarthrectomy as an alternative surgical approach, which have theoretical advantages over other approaches. In this study, we wanted to study the clinical and radiological results of laminarthrectomy. Dural sac cross-sectional areal (DSCSA) is an objective method to quantify the degree of central stenosis in the spinal canal, and was used to measure whether we were able to achieve an adequate decompression of the spinal canal with laminarthrectomy as a surgical approach.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients operated on with this approach consecutively in the period 1 January 2008 to 31 March 2009 were included in the study. All perioperative complications were noted. Clinical results were measured by means of a questionnaire. The patients that agreed to attend the study had an MRI taken of the operated level. DSCSA before and after surgery of the actual level were measured by three observers. We then performed a correlation test between increase of area and clinical results. We also tested for inter- and intra-observer reability.
RESULTS: Fifty-six laminarthrectomy were performed. There were 17% complications, none of them were life-threatening or disabling. 46 patients attended the study and answered the questionnaire. Thirty-four patients (83%) reported clinical improvement, whereas six (13%) patients reported no improvement, and two (4%) patients reported that they were worse. Mean ODI was 23.0. Mean EQ-5D was 0.77. Mean VAS-score for back-pain was 3.1 and mean VAS-score for leg-pain was 2.8. Mean DSCSA were measured to 80 mm(2) before surgery and 161 mm(2) after surgery. That gave an increase of DSCSA of 81 mm(2) (101%). We found a significant positive correlation between increase of area and clinical results. We also found consistent inter- and intra-observer reability. DISCUSSION: In this study, the clinical results of laminarthrectomy were good, and comparable with other reports for LSS. The rates of complications are also comparable with other reports in spinal surgery. A significant increase in the spinal canal diameter was achieved. Within the limitations a retrospective study gives, we conclude that laminarthrectomy seems to be a safe and effective surgical approach for significant decompressing the adult central spinal canal, and measurement of DSCSA, before and after surgery seems to be a good way to quantify the degree of decompression.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23494757      PMCID: PMC3731479          DOI: 10.1007/s00586-013-2737-1

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


  36 in total

1.  Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Long-term results after undercutting decompression compared with decompressive laminectomy alone or with instrumented fusion.

Authors:  J D Rompe; P Eysel; J Zöllner; B Nafe; J Heine
Journal:  Neurosurg Rev       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 3.042

Review 2.  The Oswestry Disability Index.

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

Review 3.  EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group.

Authors:  R Rabin; F de Charro
Journal:  Ann Med       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 4.709

4.  EuroQol: health-related quality of life measurement. Valuations of health states by the general public in Norway.

Authors:  E Nord
Journal:  Health Policy       Date:  1991-06       Impact factor: 2.980

5.  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

6.  The pathomorphology of spinal stenosis as seen on CT scans of the lumbar spine.

Authors:  N S Schonstrom; N F Bolender; D M Spengler
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1985-11       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  Multilevel lumbar laminotomies: an alternative to laminectomy in the treatment of lumbar stenosis.

Authors:  J Aryanpur; T Ducker
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  1990-03       Impact factor: 4.654

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.  The surgical treatment of central lumbar stenosis. Multiple laminotomy compared with total laminectomy.

Authors:  F Postacchini; G Cinotti; D Perugia; S Gumina
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  1993-05

10.  Correlation between disability and MRI findings in lumbar spinal stenosis: a prospective study of 109 patients operated on by decompression.

Authors:  Freyr G Sigmundsson; Xiao P Kang; Bo Jönsson; Björn Strömqvist
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2011-03-24       Impact factor: 3.717

View more
  6 in total

1.  Impact and clinical significance of pedicle length on spinal canal and intervertebral foramen area.

Authors:  Chenxi Yuan; Hai Zhu; Dawei Song; Wang Wei; Ruofu Zhu; Xin Mei; Jun Zou; Huilin Yang
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Med       Date:  2014-01-15

2.  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

3.  Postoperative expansion of dural sac cross-sectional area after unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression: correlation with clinical symptoms.

Authors:  Seok-Won Chung; Min-Soo Kang; Yong-Hwan Shin; Oon-Ki Baek; Sang-Ho Lee
Journal:  Korean J Spine       Date:  2014-12-31

4.  Study-protocol for a randomized controlled trial comparing clinical and radiological results after three different posterior decompression techniques for lumbar spinal stenosis: the Spinal Stenosis Trial (SST) (part of the NORDSTEN Study).

Authors:  Erland Hermansen; Ivar Magne Austevoll; Ulla Kristina Romild; Frode Rekeland; Tore Solberg; Kjersti Storheim; Oliver Grundnes; Jørn Aaen; Jens Ivar Brox; Christian Hellum; Kari Indrekvam
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2017-03-21       Impact factor: 2.362

5.  Comparison of 3 Different Minimally Invasive Surgical Techniques for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Erland Hermansen; Ivar Magne Austevoll; Christian Hellum; Kjersti Storheim; Tor Åge Myklebust; Jørn Aaen; Hasan Banitalebi; Masoud Anvar; Frode Rekeland; Jens Ivar Brox; Eric Franssen; Clemens Weber; Tore K Solberg; Håvard Furunes; Oliver Grundnes; Helena Brisby; Kari Indrekvam
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2022-03-01

6.  Navigated minimally invasive unilateral laminotomy with crossover for intraoperative prediction of outcome in degenerative lumbar stenosis.

Authors:  Salvatore Massimiliano Cardali; Fabio Cacciola; Giovanni Raffa; Alfredo Conti; Maria Caffo; Antonino Germanò
Journal:  J Craniovertebr Junction Spine       Date:  2018 Apr-Jun
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.