Literature DB >> 23934439

Clinical and radiological outcomes following microscopic decompression utilizing tubular retractor or conventional microscopic decompression in lumbar spinal stenosis with a minimum of 10-year follow-up.

Gun Woo Lee1, Soo-Jin Jang, Seung Mok Shin, Jae-Ho Jang, Jae-Do Kim.   

Abstract

Satisfactory short- and mid-term results have been observed following microscopic decompression with tubular retractor (MDT) and conventional microscopic decompression (CMD) in lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). It is not yet clear which surgical procedure is the optimal treatment for LSS, especially in long-term follow-up period. To the best of our knowledge, there is no comparative study analyzing the clinical-radiological outcomes of MDT and CMD over a 10-year follow-up periods. The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare clinical and radiological outcomes of MDT and CMD over a 10-year follow-up period in patients with LSS. Of total 121 patients, 102 patients (53 MDT and 49 CMD) were followed for at least 10 years following MDT and CMD for LSS. We retrospectively reviewed surgical results and clinical outcomes based on the visual analogue scale, McNab's criteria, and the Oswestry Disability Index, and radiological analysis results with the parameters, including the change of disk height and intervertebral distance, obtained preoperatively and 3- and 6-month, and 1-, 6-, and 10-year postoperatively. There was no significant difference in patient demographics between the two groups. Five patients (two in MDT, three in CMD) required re-operation for re-stenotic change of the affected segment. The number of patients requiring re-operation was not significantly different between the two groups (p > 0.05). No statistically significant differences were observed between the groups in a long-term follow-up period after a 3-month follow-up (p > 0.05). However, in the acute postoperative phase of <3-month postoperatively, MDT appears to result in less postoperative pain and better clinical outcomes compared with the CMD. In conclusion, despite relatively small sample size with retrospective design, our study suggested that MDT appears to result in less postoperative pain and better clinical outcomes in the acute postoperative period of <3 months, but both MDT and CMD were no significant differences in clinical and radiological outcomes after that time.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23934439     DOI: 10.1007/s00590-013-1287-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol        ISSN: 1633-8065


  18 in total

1.  Perioperative complications of posterior lumbar decompression and arthrodesis in older adults.

Authors:  Leah Y Carreon; Rolando M Puno; John R Dimar; Steven D Glassman; John R Johnson
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 5.284

2.  Preservation of muscles attached to the C2 and C7 spinous processes rather than subaxial deep extensors reduces adverse effects after cervical laminoplasty.

Authors:  Hironobu Sakaura; Noboru Hosono; Yoshihiro Mukai; Takahito Fujimori; Motoki Iwasaki; Hideki Yoshikawa
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2010-07-15       Impact factor: 3.468

3.  Complications associated with minimally invasive decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Vinod K Podichetty; John Spears; Robert E Isaacs; John Booher; Robert S Biscup
Journal:  J Spinal Disord Tech       Date:  2006-05

Review 4.  Minimally invasive operative management for lumbar spinal stenosis: overview of early and long-term outcomes.

Authors:  Farbod Asgarzadie; Larry T Khoo
Journal:  Orthop Clin North Am       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 2.472

5.  Minimally invasive spine technology and minimally invasive spine surgery: a historical review.

Authors:  Jeffrey H Oppenheimer; Igor DeCastro; Dennis E McDonnell
Journal:  Neurosurg Focus       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 4.047

6.  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

Review 7.  Spinal stenosis and neurogenic claudication.

Authors:  R W Porter
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1996-09-01       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  Microdecompression for lumbar spinal canal stenosis.

Authors:  B K Weiner; M Walker; R S Brower; J A McCulloch
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1999-11-01       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  Minimally invasive lumbar spinal decompression in the elderly: outcomes of 50 patients aged 75 years and older.

Authors:  David S Rosen; John E O'Toole; Kurt M Eichholz; Melody Hrubes; Dezheng Huo; Faheem A Sandhu; Richard G Fessler
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 4.654

10.  Bilateral decompressive surgery in lumbar spinal stenosis associated with spondylolisthesis: unilateral approach and use of a microscope and tubular retractor system.

Authors:  Sylvain Palmer; Robert Turner; Rosemary Palmer
Journal:  Neurosurg Focus       Date:  2002-07-15       Impact factor: 4.047

View more
  4 in total

1.  Rationale and Advantages of Endoscopic Spine Surgery.

Authors:  Jae-Won Jang; Dong-Geun Lee; Choon-Keun Park
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2021-12

2.  Are There Differences Between Patients with Extreme Stenosis and Non-extreme Stenosis in Terms of Pain, Function or Complications After Spinal Decompression Using a Tubular Retractor System?

Authors:  Arvind G Kulkarni; Swaroop Das; Tushar S Kunder
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2020-02       Impact factor: 4.755

Review 3.  Long-Term Outcomes of Laminectomy in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Kiavash Sajadi; Amir Azarhomayoun; Seyed Behnam Jazayeri; Vali Baigi; Mohammad Hosein Ranjbar Hameghavandi; Sabra Rostamkhani; Rasha Atlasi; Morteza Faghih Jooybari; Zahra Ghodsi; Alexander R Vaccaro; MirHojjat Khorasanizadeh; Vafa Rahimi-Movaghar
Journal:  Asian J Neurosurg       Date:  2022-08-29

4.  Novel combination of paraspinal keyhole surgery with a tubular retractor system leads to significant improvements in lumbar intraspinal extramedullary schwannomas.

Authors:  Yuandong Zhuang; Gangfeng Cai; Chaofeng Fu; Weiqiang Zhang; Wei Zhao; Rui Wang; Chunhua Wang; Songsheng Shi; Chunmei Chen
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2017-10-18       Impact factor: 2.967

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.