Literature DB >> 27272621

Unilateral tubular approach for bilateral laminotomy: effect on ipsilateral and contralateral buttock and leg pain.

Marjan Alimi1, Christoph P Hofstetter1, Jose M Torres-Campa1, Rodrigo Navarro-Ramirez1, Guang-Ting Cong2, Innocent Njoku2, Roger Härtl3.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Tubular laminotomy is an effective procedure for treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) and lateral recesses stenosis. Most surgeons familiar with the procedure agree that the tubular approach appears to afford a more complete decompression of the contralateral thecal sac and nerve root, as compared to the ipsilateral approach. With this study we sought to answer the question whether this is reflected in clinically significant differences between the ipsilateral and contralateral side pain improvements.
METHODS: In a retrospective case study, patients with LSS and lateral recesses stenosis who started out with VAS scores that were similar on the right and left side were included. All patients underwent a tubular (MIS) "over the top" laminotomy from a unilateral approach and through one incision. Surgeries were performed by a single surgeon in a single center. At the last follow-up, the extent of VAS score improvement on the approach (ipsilateral) side was compared to that of the contralateral side.
RESULTS: Thirty-three patients were included in. At the latest follow-up of 25.8 ± 3.4 months, there were statistically significant improvements in ODI and back VAS scores (p = 0.002 and p < 0.0001, respectively). In addition, buttock VAS scores were significantly improved both on the ipsilateral and the contralateral side (p < 0.001, and p = 0.001, respectively). Similarly, leg VAS scores were improved significantly on both sides (p < 0.001, and p = 0.001, respectively). There were no statistically significant differences between the extent of pain improvement on the ipsilateral and the contralateral side.
CONCLUSIONS: MIS tubular laminotomy through a unilateral approach results in clinically effective bilateral decompression of LSS and lateral recesses, regardless of the approach side.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Contralateral approach; Laminectomy; Laminotomy; Lumbar spinal stenosis; Minimally invasive

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27272621     DOI: 10.1007/s00586-016-4594-1

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


  38 in total

1.  A comparison of unilateral and bilateral laminotomies for decompression of L4-L5 spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Soon-Woo Hong; Ki Young Choi; Yong Ahn; Oon Ki Baek; Jeffrey C Wang; Sang-Ho Lee; Ho-Yeon Lee
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2011-02-01       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 2.  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

3.  Bilateral spinal decompression of lumbar central stenosis with the full-endoscopic interlaminar versus microsurgical laminotomy technique: a prospective, randomized, controlled study.

Authors:  Martin Komp; Patrick Hahn; Semih Oezdemir; Athanasios Giannakopoulos; Roderich Heikenfeld; Richard Kasch; Harry Merk; Georgios Godolias; Sebastian Ruetten
Journal:  Pain Physician       Date:  2015 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 4.965

4.  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

5.  Clinical outcomes of microendoscopic decompressive laminotomy for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Jwo-Luen Pao; Wein-Chin Chen; Po-Quang Chen
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-02-24       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  Minimally invasive compared with open lumbar laminotomy: no functional benefits at 6 or 24 months after surgery.

Authors:  Chia-Liang Ang; Benjamin Phak-Boon Tow; Stephanie Fook; Chang-Ming Guo; John Li-Tat Chen; Wai-Mun Yue; Seang-Beng Tan
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2013-10-04       Impact factor: 4.166

7.  Spinal canal morphology and clinical outcomes of microsurgical bilateral decompression via a unilateral approach for lumbar spinal canal stenosis.

Authors:  Won-Seok Choi; Chang Hyun Oh; Gyu Yeul Ji; Sung Chan Shin; Jang-Bo Lee; Dong-Hyuk Park; Tai-Hyoung Cho
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-12-01       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  Midterm outcome after microendoscopic decompressive laminotomy for lumbar spinal stenosis: 4-year prospective study.

Authors:  Manuel Castro-Menéndez; Jose A Bravo-Ricoy; Roberto Casal-Moro; Moisés Hernández-Blanco; Francisco J Jorge-Barreiro
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 4.654

9.  Comparison of techniques for decompressive lumbar laminectomy: the minimally invasive versus the "classic" open approach.

Authors:  M Rahman; L E Summers; B Richter; R I Mimran; R P Jacob
Journal:  Minim Invasive Neurosurg       Date:  2008-04

Review 10.  Measuring the functional status of patients with low back pain. Assessment of the quality of four disease-specific questionnaires.

Authors:  A J Beurskens; H C de Vet; A J Köke; G J van der Heijden; P G Knipschild
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1995-05-01       Impact factor: 3.468

View more
  8 in total

1.  Contralateral facet-sparing sublaminar endoscopic foraminotomy for the treatment of lumbar lateral recess stenosis: technical note.

Authors:  Guntram Krzok; Albert E Telfeian; Ralf Wagner; Christoph P Hofstetter; Menno Iprenburg
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2017-06

2.  Interlaminar endoscopic lateral recess decompression-surgical technique and early clinical results.

Authors:  Zeinab Birjandian; Samuel Emerson; Albert E Telfeian; Christoph P Hofstetter
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2017-06

3.  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

4.  AOSpine Consensus Paper on Nomenclature for Working-Channel Endoscopic Spinal Procedures.

Authors:  Christoph P Hofstetter; Yong Ahn; Gun Choi; J N A Gibson; S Ruetten; Yue Zhou; Zhen Zhou Li; Christoph J Siepe; Ralf Wagner; Jun-Ho Lee; Koichi Sairyo; Kyung Chul Choi; Chien-Min Chen; A E Telfeian; Xifeng Zhang; Arun Banhot; Pramod V Lokhande; N Prada; Jian Shen; F C Cortinas; N P Brooks; Peter Van Daele; Vit Kotheeranurak; Saqib Hasan; Gun Keorochana; Mohammed Assous; Roger Härtl; Jin-Sung Kim
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2020-05-28

5.  Defining the MIS-TLIF: A Systematic Review of Techniques and Technologies Used by Surgeons Worldwide.

Authors:  Sara Lener; Christoph Wipplinger; R Nick Hernandez; Ibrahim Hussain; Sertac Kirnaz; Rodrigo Navarro-Ramirez; Franziska Anna Schmidt; Eliana Kim; Roger Härtl
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2020-05-28

6.  Percutaneous Total Endoscopic Resection of Partial Articular Processes for Treatment of Lateral Crypt Stenosis and Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Technical Report and Efficacy Analysis.

Authors:  Fujun Wu; Weijun Kong; Wenbo Liao; Jun Ao; Sheng Ye; Qian Du; Ansu Wang
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2018-10-18       Impact factor: 3.411

7.  Comparative Study Between Uniportal Full-Endoscopic Interlaminar and Tubular Approach in the Treatment of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Pilot Study.

Authors:  Angela Carrascosa-Granada; Willian Velazquez; Ralf Wagner; Anwar Saab Mazzei; Andrés Vargas-Jimenez; Manuela Jorquera; Juan Antonio Barcia Albacar; Kita Sallabanda
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2020-05-28

8.  Minimally Invasive Lumbar Spinal Decompression in Elderly Patients with Magnetic Resonance Imaging Morphological Analysis.

Authors:  Seungman Ha; Youngho Hong; Seungcheol Lee
Journal:  Asian Spine J       Date:  2018-04-16
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.