Literature DB >> 24840246

Patient outcomes after laminotomy, hemilaminectomy, laminectomy and laminectomy with instrumented fusion for spinal canal stenosis: a propensity score-based study from the Spine Tango registry.

Everard Munting1, Christoph Röder, Rolf Sobottke, Daniel Dietrich, Emin Aghayev.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare patient outcomes and complication rates after different decompression techniques or instrumented fusion (IF) in lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).
METHODS: The multicentre study was based on Spine Tango data. Inclusion criteria were LSS with a posterior decompression and pre- and postoperative COMI assessment between 3 and 24 months. 1,176 cases were assigned to four groups: (1) laminotomy (n = 642), (2) hemilaminectomy (n = 196), (3) laminectomy (n = 230) and (4) laminectomy combined with an IF (n = 108). Clinical outcomes were achievement of minimum relevant change in COMI back and leg pain and COMI score (2.2 points), surgical and general complications, measures taken due to complications, and reintervention on the index level based on patient information. The inverse propensity score weighting method was used for adjustment.
RESULTS: Laminotomy, hemilaminectomy and laminectomy were significantly less beneficial than laminectomy in combination with IF regarding leg pain (ORs with 95% CI 0.52, 0.34-0.81; 0.25, 0.15-0.41; 0.44, 0.27-0.72, respectively) and COMI score improvement (ORs with 95% CI 0.51, 0.33-0.81; 0.30, 0.18-0.51; 0.48, 0.29-0.79, respectively). However, the sole decompressions caused significantly fewer surgical (ORs with 95% CI 0.42, 0.26-0.69; 0.33, 0.17-0.63; 0.39, 0.21-0.71, respectively) and general complications (ORs with 95% CI 0.11, 0.04-0.29; 0.03, 0.003-0.41; 0.25, 0.09-0.71, respectively) than laminectomy in combination with IF. Accordingly, the likelihood of required measures was also significantly lower after laminotomy (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.17-0.46), hemilaminectomy (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.15-0.53) and after laminectomy (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.22-0.68) in comparison with laminectomy with IF. The likelihood of a reintervention was not significantly different between the treatment groups. DISCUSSION: As already demonstrated in the literature, decompression in patients with LSS is a very effective treatment. Despite better patient outcomes after laminectomy in combination with IF, caution is advised due to higher rates of surgical and general complications and consequent required measures. Based on the current study, laminotomy or laminectomy, rather than hemilaminectomy, is recommendable for minimum relevant pain relief.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24840246     DOI: 10.1007/s00586-014-3349-0

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


  27 in total

1.  Variation in surgical decision making for degenerative spinal disorders. Part I: lumbar spine.

Authors:  Zareth N Irwin; Alan Hilibrand; Michael Gustavel; Robert McLain; William Shaffer; Mark Myers; John Glaser; Robert A Hart
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2005-10-01       Impact factor: 3.468

2.  Long-term results of surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis: a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Pär Slätis; Antti Malmivaara; Markku Heliövaara; Päivi Sainio; Arto Herno; Jyrki Kankare; Seppo Seitsalo; Kaj Tallroth; Veli Turunen; Paul Knekt; Heikki Hurri
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-01-15       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Nationwide trends in the surgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Hyun W Bae; Sean S Rajaee; Linda E Kanim
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2013-05-15       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  Clinical outcomes after posterolateral lumbar fusion in workers' compensation patients: a case-control study.

Authors:  Leah Y Carreon; Steven D Glassman; Neha R Kantamneni; Mark O Mugavin; Mladen Djurasovic
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2010-09-01       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  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

6.  Predictors of surgical, general and follow-up complications in lumbar spinal stenosis relative to patient age as emerged from the Spine Tango Registry.

Authors:  Rolf Sobottke; Emin Aghayev; Christoph Röder; Peer Eysel; Stephan K Delank; Thomas Zweig
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-09-14       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  Lumbar laminectomy alone or with instrumented or noninstrumented arthrodesis in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Patient selection, costs, and surgical outcomes.

Authors:  J N Katz; S J Lipson; R A Lew; L J Grobler; J N Weinstein; G W Brick; A H Fossel; M H Liang
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1997-05-15       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 8.  Surgery versus conservative treatment for symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Francisco M Kovacs; Gerard Urrútia; José Domingo Alarcón
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2011-09-15       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.  The quality of spine surgery from the patient's perspective: part 2. Minimal clinically important difference for improvement and deterioration as measured with the Core Outcome Measures Index.

Authors:  A F Mannion; F Porchet; F S Kleinstück; F Lattig; D Jeszenszky; V Bartanusz; J Dvorak; D Grob
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-03-19       Impact factor: 3.134

View more
  21 in total

1.  The Michel Benoist and Robert Mulholland yearly European spine journal review: a survey of the "surgical and research" articles in the European spine journal, 2015.

Authors:  Robert C Mulholland
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-01-05       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  The Michel Benoist and Robert Mulholland yearly European Spine Journal review: a survey of the "medical" articles in the European Spine Journal, 2015.

Authors:  Michel Benoist
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-11-23       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Incidental durotomy in decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: incidence, risk factors and effect on outcomes in the Spine Tango registry.

Authors:  Christian Herren; Rolf Sobottke; Anne F Mannion; Thomas Zweig; Everard Munting; Philippe Otten; Tim Pigott; Jan Siewe; Emin Aghayev
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-06-20       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  [Biomechanical changes of sheep cervical spine after unilateral hemilaminectomy and different degrees of facetectomy].

Authors:  C Wu; Z Y Wang; G Z Lin; T Yu; B Liu; Y Si; Y B Zhang; Y C Li
Journal:  Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban       Date:  2019-08-18

5.  Reversibility of nerve root sedimentation sign in lumbar spinal stenosis patients after decompression surgery.

Authors:  Christian Barz; Markus Melloh; Lukas P Staub; Sarah J Lord; Harry R Merk; Thomas Barz
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-02-04       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  Fusion surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis?

Authors:  Fay E A Greenway; Marios C Papadopoulos
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2016-06

7.  Superior outcomes of decompression with an interlaminar dynamic device versus decompression alone in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis and back pain: a cross registry study.

Authors:  C Röder; B Baumgärtner; U Berlemann; E Aghayev
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-07-18       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  Predictors of improvement in quality of life and pain relief in lumbar spinal stenosis relative to patient age: a study based on the Spine Tango registry.

Authors:  Rolf Sobottke; Christian Herren; Jan Siewe; Anne F Mannion; Christoph Röder; Emin Aghayev
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-07-03       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  A comparison between different outcome measures based on "meaningful important differences" in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Maria M Wertli; Franziska Christina Buletti; Ulrike Held; Eva Rasmussen-Barr; Sherri Weiser; Jakob M Burgstaller; Johann Steurer
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-05-13       Impact factor: 3.134

10.  [Influencing factors on the length of stay in lumbar spine surgery : analysis of the German spine registry].

Authors:  C Herren; E Aghayev; T Kaulhausen; C Roeder; F Meyer; J Siewe; R Sobottke
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 1.087

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.