Literature DB >> 25635635

Minimally invasive laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis in patients with and without preoperative spondylolisthesis: clinical outcome and reoperation rates.

Marjan Alimi1, Christoph P Hofstetter, Se Young Pyo, Danika Paulo, Roger Härtl.   

Abstract

OBJECT: Surgical decompression is the intervention of choice for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) when nonoperative treatment has failed. Standard open laminectomy is an effective procedure, but minimally invasive laminectomy through tubular retractors is an alternative. The aim of this retrospective case series was to evaluate the clinical and radiographic outcomes of this procedure in patients who underwent LSS and to compare outcomes in patients with and without preoperative spondylolisthesis.
METHODS: Patients with LSS without spondylolisthesis and with stable Grade I spondylolisthesis who had undergone minimally invasive tubular laminectomy between 2004 and 2011 were included in this analysis. Demographic, perioperative, and radiographic data were collected. Clinical outcome was evaluated using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and visual analog scale (VAS) scores, as well as Macnab's criteria.
RESULTS: Among 110 patients, preoperative spondylolisthesis at the level of spinal stenosis was present in 52.5%. At a mean follow-up of 28.8 months, scoring revealed a median improvement of 16% on the ODI, 2.75 on the VAS back, and 3 on the VAS leg, compared with the preoperative baseline (p < 0.0001). The reoperation rate requiring fusion at the same level was 3.5%. Patients with and without preoperative spondylolisthesis had no significant differences in their clinical outcome or reoperation rate.
CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive laminectomy is an effective procedure for the treatment of LSS. Reoperation rates for instability are lower than those reported after open laminectomy. Functional improvement is similar in patients with and without preoperative spondylolisthesis. This procedure can be an alternative to open laminectomy. Routine fusion may not be indicated in all patients with LSS and spondylolisthesis.

Entities:  

Keywords:  BMI = body mass index; LSS = lumbar spinal stenosis; MCID = minimum clinically important difference; ODI = Oswestry Disability Index; Oswestry Disability Index; VAS = visual analog scale; lumbar spinal stenosis; minimally invasive laminectomy; reoperation; spondylolisthesis; tubular retractors; visual analog scale

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25635635     DOI: 10.3171/2014.11.SPINE13597

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


  28 in total

Review 1.  "One and a half" minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: single level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with adjacent segment unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression for spondylolisthesis with bisegmental stenosis.

Authors:  Christoph Wipplinger; Carolin Melcher; R Nick Hernandez; Sara Lener; Rodrigo Navarro-Ramirez; Sertac Kirnaz; Franziska Anna Schmidt; Eliana Kim; Roger Härtl
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2018-12

2.  Efficacy of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic decompression treatment for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis in elderly patients.

Authors:  Xin-Feng Li; Lin-Yu Jin; Zhen-Dong Lv; Xin-Jin Su; Kun Wang; Hong-Xing Shen; Xiao-Xing Song
Journal:  Exp Ther Med       Date:  2019-12-17       Impact factor: 2.447

3.  Slip progression in degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis following minimally invasive decompression surgery is not associated with increased functional disability.

Authors:  Robert A Ravinsky; Eric J Crawford; Luke A Reda; Y Raja Rampersaud
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2020-02-24       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 4.  Decompression plus fusion versus decompression alone for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Hai-Feng Liang; Shu-Hao Liu; Zi-Xian Chen; Qin-Ming Fei
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-06-24       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Full endoscopic unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression of the cervical spine: surgical technique and early experience.

Authors:  Daniel A Carr; Isaac Josh Abecassis; Christoph P Hofstetter
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2020-06

6.  Clinical Application of Large Channel Endoscopic Systems with Full Endoscopic Visualization Technique in Lumbar Central Spinal Stenosis: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Authors:  Shuo Han; Xiangxu Zeng; Kai Zhu; Xiaoqi Wu; Yanqing Shen; Jialuo Han; Antao Lin; Shengwei Meng; Hao Zhang; Guanghui Li; Xiaojie Liu; Hao Tao; Xuexiao Ma; Chuanli Zhou
Journal:  Pain Ther       Date:  2022-09-03

7.  A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Outcomes and Adverse Events for Juxtafacet Cysts Treatment.

Authors:  Enrico Giordan; Paolo Gallinaro; Altin Stafa; Giuseppe Canova; Roberto Zanata; Elisabetta Marton; Jacopo Del Verme
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2022-02-25

8.  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

9.  Outcomes and Complications of Minimally Invasive Surgery of the Lumbar Spine in the Elderly.

Authors:  Mauricio J Avila; Christina M Walter; Ali A Baaj
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2016-03-05

Review 10.  Spontaneous spinal epidural hematoma management with minimally invasive surgery through tubular retractors: A case report and review of the literature.

Authors:  Chao-Feng Fu; Yuan-Dong Zhuang; Chun-Mei Chen; Gang-Feng Cai; Hua-Bin Zhang; Wei Zhao; Said Idrissa Ahmada; Ramparsad Doorga Devi; Md Golam Kibria
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2016-06       Impact factor: 1.889

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.