Literature DB >> 24878273

Outcomes after decompressive laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis: comparison between minimally invasive unilateral laminectomy for bilateral decompression and open laminectomy: clinical article.

Ralph Jasper Mobbs1, Jane Li, Praveenan Sivabalan, Darryl Raley, Prashanth J Rao.   

Abstract

OBJECT: The development of minimally invasive surgical techniques is driven by the quest for better patient outcomes. There is some evidence for the use of minimally invasive surgery for degenerative lumbar spine stenosis (LSS), but there are currently no studies comparing outcomes with matched controls. The object of this study was to compare outcomes following minimally invasive unilateral laminectomy for bilateral decompression (ULBD) to a standard "open" laminectomy for LSS.
METHODS: The authors conducted a prospective, 1:1 randomized trial comparing ULBD to open laminectomy for degenerative LSS. The study enrolled 79 patients between 2007 and 2009, and adequate data for analysis were available in 54 patients (27 in each arm of the study). Patient demographic characteristics and clinical characteristics were recorded and clinical outcomes were obtained using pre- and postoperative Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores, visual analog scale (VAS) scores for leg pain, patient satisfaction index scores, and postoperative 12-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12) scores.
RESULTS: Significant improvements were observed in ODI and VAS scores for both open and ULBD interventions (p < 0.001 for both groups using either score). In addition, the ULBD-treated patients had a significantly better mean improvement in the VAS scores (p = 0.013) but not the ODI scores (p = 0.055) compared with patients in the open-surgery group. ULBD-treated patients had a significantly shorter length of postoperative hospital stay (55.1 vs. 100.8 hours, p = 0.0041) and time to mobilization (15.6 vs. 33.3 hours, p < 0.001) and were more likely to not use opioids for postoperative pain (51.9% vs. 15.4%, p = 0.046).
CONCLUSIONS: Based on short-term follow-up, microscopic ULBD is as effective as open decompression in improving function (ODI score), with the additional benefits of a significantly greater decrease in pain (VAS score), postoperative recovery time, time to mobilization, and opioid use.

Entities:  

Keywords:  IV = intravenous; LSS = lumbar spinal stenosis; MIS = minimally invasive surgery; ODI = Oswestry Disability Index; PSI = patient satisfaction index; SF-12 = 12-Item Short Form Health Survey; ULBD = unilateral laminectomy for bilateral decompression; VAS = visual analog scale; degenerative; laminectomy; lumbar; minimally invasive surgery; stenosis

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24878273     DOI: 10.3171/2014.4.SPINE13420

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine        ISSN: 1547-5646


  54 in total

1.  Predicting clinical outcome and length of sick leave after surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis in Sweden: a multi-register evaluation.

Authors:  Hanna Iderberg; Carl Willers; Fredrik Borgström; Rune Hedlund; Olle Hägg; Hans Möller; Ewald Ornstein; Bengt Sandén; Holger Stalberg; Hans Torevall-Larsson; Tycho Tullberg; Peter Fritzell
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2018-12-03       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Perioperative outcomes in minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery: A systematic review.

Authors:  Branko Skovrlj; Patrick Belton; Hekmat Zarzour; Sheeraz A Qureshi
Journal:  World J Orthop       Date:  2015-12-18

3.  Technical note: unilateral hemilaminotomy for intradural lesions (UHIL).

Authors:  Ralph J Mobbs; Kyle Sheldrick; Kevin Phan
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2017-03

4.  Minimally invasive spinal decompression surgery in diabetic patients: perioperative risks, complications and clinical outcomes compared with non-diabetic patients' cohort.

Authors:  G J Regev; R Lador; K Salame; L Mangel; A Cohen; Z Lidar
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2018-08-11       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Lumbar microdecompression in elderly versus general adult patients: Comparable outcomes and costs despite group differences.

Authors:  Ziyad O Knio; Samuel Rosas; Michael S Schallmo; Suman Medda; Tadhg J O'Gara
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2019-09-11

6.  Surgery for spinal stenosis: more thought, less metal?

Authors:  Ralph J Mobbs; Kevin Phan
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2016-06

Review 7.  Minimally invasive techniques for lumbar decompressions and fusions.

Authors:  Ankur S Narain; Fady Y Hijji; Jonathan S Markowitz; Krishna T Kudaravalli; Kelly H Yom; Kern Singh
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2017-12

Review 8.  [Operative treatment of degenerative diseases of the lumbar spine].

Authors:  M Czabanka; C Thomé; F Ringel; B Meyer; S-O Eicker; V Rohde; M Stoffel; P Vajkoczy
Journal:  Nervenarzt       Date:  2018-06       Impact factor: 1.214

9.  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

10.  [Percutaneous full-endoscopic bilateral decompression via unilateral posterior approach for lumbar spinal stenosis].

Authors:  Zhijun Xin; Menghan Cai; Wenjun Ji; Lin Chen; Weijun Kong; Jin Li; Jianpu Qin; Ansu Wang; Jun Ao; Wenbo Liao
Journal:  Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi       Date:  2019-07-15
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.