Literature DB >> 29354735

Functional outcomes of laminectomy and laminotomy for the surgical management lumbar spine stenosis.

Mark G Williams1, Ahmad M Wafai1, Malcolm D Podmore1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: This clinical descriptive study aims to establish if differences exist in functional outcomes, to include both leg and lower back pain (LBP) as well as disability, in patients undergoing laminectomy or laminotomy surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).
METHODS: We conducted a single centre, prospective study of 119 patients undergoing laminectomy or laminotomy surgery for LSS, from 2006 and 2012. Clinical outcomes for back and leg pain were analyses using Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) questionnaires and visual analogue scale (VAS) scores collected preoperatively, at 6 weeks and 1 year. Further analysis subdivided patients into two groups based on initial LBP VAS scores.
RESULTS: Fifty-five percent of patients were females (n=65) and 45% males (n=54), with a mean age of 68.7 years and L4/5 being the level most frequently decompressed. Considering all surgeries, a statistically significant reduction in VAS back pain between pre-op and 6 weeks was seen (4.99 to 3.00, P<0.001). There was a significant (P<0.0001) average reductions in LBP by 1.66 units and leg pain by 3.33 units after 1 year, with minimal difference between laminectomy and laminotomy. In the VAS back ≥5 group, laminectomy patient's pain increased by 0.63 units between 6 weeks and 1 year whilst laminotomy patients experienced a reduction in back pain of 0.51 units (P=0.063). ODI scores significantly improved for laminectomy and laminotomy by an average of 19.1%, 95% CI: 13.4-24.9% and 10.8%, 95% CI: 5.8-15.7%, with no statistically significant difference between groups.
CONCLUSIONS: No statistically significant differences were demonstrated between laminectomy and laminotomy outcomes, for LBP, leg pain or disability in our institute. On the basis of functional outcomes laminectomy remains a feasible approach in the treatment of lumbar spine stenosis. The data presented in this manuscript provides frequency data for subsequent comparative studies.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Laminectomy; back pain; laminotomy; leg pain; surgical decompression

Year:  2017        PMID: 29354735      PMCID: PMC5760430          DOI: 10.21037/jss.2017.10.08

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Spine Surg        ISSN: 2414-4630


  9 in total

1.  Sir Victor Horsley: his life and work.

Authors:  A MACNALTY
Journal:  Br Med J       Date:  1957-04-20

2.  Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis. A prospective study comparing decompression with decompression and intertransverse process arthrodesis.

Authors:  H N Herkowitz; L T Kurz
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1991-07       Impact factor: 5.284

3.  Lumbar spinous process split decompression.

Authors:  Ajoy Prasad Shetty; Rishi Mugesh Kanna; Ashwin Avadhani; S Rajasekaran
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  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.

Authors:  Everard Munting; Christoph Röder; Rolf Sobottke; Daniel Dietrich; Emin Aghayev
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-05-20       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Spinal stenosis in grade I degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: a comparative study of outcomes following laminoplasty and laminectomy with instrumented spinal fusion.

Authors:  Ko Matsudaira; Takashi Yamazaki; Atsushi Seichi; Katsushi Takeshita; Kazuto Hoshi; Junji Kishimoto; Kozo Nakamura
Journal:  J Orthop Sci       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 1.601

6.  Degenerative spondylolisthesis. To fuse or not to fuse.

Authors:  H L Feffer; S W Wiesel; J M Cuckler; R H Rothman
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1985-04       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 7.  Management of lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Jon Lurie; Christy Tomkins-Lane
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2016-01-04

8.  Improvement in low back pain following spinal decompression: observational study of 119 patients.

Authors:  Alistair Daniel Robert Jones; Ahmad Mounir Wafai; Amy Louise Easterbrook
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-08-21       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  [Selective, microsurgical cross-over decompression of multisegmental degenerative lumbar spinal stenoses: the "Slalom" technique].

Authors:  H M Mayer; F Heider
Journal:  Oper Orthop Traumatol       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 1.154

  9 in total
  2 in total

1.  Decompression and Interlaminar Stabilization for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Cohort Study and Two-Dimensional Operative Video.

Authors:  Olivia E Gilbert; Sarah E Lawhon; Twila L Gaston; Jared M Robichaux; Gabriel Claudiu Tender
Journal:  Medicina (Kaunas)       Date:  2022-04-05       Impact factor: 2.948

2.  Lack of Current Recommendations for Resuming Sexual Activity Following Spinal Surgery.

Authors:  Cara Michelle Thomas; Howard Benjamin Levene
Journal:  Asian Spine J       Date:  2019-01-30
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.