Literature DB >> 30233944

Minimally Invasive Unilateral Laminectomy for Bilateral Decompression.

Ralph Mobbs1, Kevin Phan1.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Unilateral laminectomy for bilateral decompression (ULBD) is a recently popularized minimally invasive surgical technique for decompression of the spinal canal. STEP 1 POSITIONING INCISION AND INSTRUMENTS REQUIRED: With the patient prone on the spinal table of your choice, use an image intensifier to determine the incision position and then position the retractor of your choice to identify the inferior aspect of the superior lamina. STEP 2 BONE REMOVAL: Begin the laminotomy on the approach side, drilling to identify the ligamentum flavum on the approach side, and remove bone up to the superior attachment of the ligamentum flavum. STEP 3 UNDERCUTTING OF THE SPINOUS PROCESS: To gain access to the contralateral side of the canal for bilateral decompression, remove enough of the spinous process to gain access to the midline and contralateral ligamentum flavum. STEP 4 IDENTIFY THE SUPERIOR ASPECT OF THE LIGAMENTUM ATTACHMENT: The superior aspect of the decompression usually corresponds with the superior ligamentum flavum attachment, except in certain cases such as when a facet joint cyst extends beyond the limits of the ligamentum flavum; removal of the upper limit of the ligamentum flavum provides an important landmark to confirm the superior limit of the decompression. STEP 5 LATERAL RECESS DECOMPRESSION ON THE IPSILATERAL APPROACH SIDE: Detach the ligamentum flavum from the facet joint on the approach side using a combination of angled curets and Kerrison rongeurs; a partial medial facetectomy, or removal of adequate facet hypertrophy, on the approach side is necessary to expose the traversing nerve root. STEP 6 DECOMPRESSION OF THE CONTRALATERAL SIDE OF THE CANAL: Decompression of the thecal sac on the contralateral side of the canal is the potentially dangerous aspect of the procedure, with the highest risk of dural injury and a cerebrospinal fluid leak; thus, create enough room on the ipsilateral side so that instruments can be safely introduced into the canal for the contralateral decompression. STEP 7 HEMOSTASIS: Reducing the paraspinal muscle dissection substantially reduces iatrogenic muscle injury and blood loss, and oozing from the bone removal can be easily controlled with bone wax or a variety of hemostatic agents. STEP 8 CLOSURE: Closure of a unilateral muscle exposure is rapid and the use of wound drainage is very rare, further reducing operative time as well as exposure to complications related to wound drains and subsequent infection risk.
RESULTS: One of us (R.M.) and colleagues5 conducted a prospective randomized trial comparing ULBD with open laminectomy for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis in 54 patients (27 in each arm of the study) treated from 2007 to 2009.

Entities:  

Year:  2017        PMID: 30233944      PMCID: PMC6132588          DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.ST.16.00072

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JBJS Essent Surg Tech        ISSN: 2160-2204


  5 in total

1.  Clinical outcome of microsurgical bilateral decompression via unilateral approach for lumbar canal stenosis: minimum five-year follow-up.

Authors:  Hiromitsu Toyoda; Hiroaki Nakamura; Sadahiko Konishi; Sho Dohzono; Minori Kato; Hideki Matsuda
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2011-03-01       Impact factor: 3.468

2.  Microscopic bilateral decompression by unilateral approach in spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Bastian Storzer; Klaus John Schnake
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Lumbar spinal stenosis in elderly patients: is a unilateral microsurgical approach sufficient for decompression?

Authors:  Matthias Hubert Morgalla; Nicola Noak; Martin Merkle; Marcos Soares Tatagiba
Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine       Date:  2011-01-14

4.  Bilateral versus unilateral interlaminar approach for bilateral decompression in patients with single-level degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: a multicenter retrospective study of 175 patients on postoperative pain, functional disability, and patient satisfaction.

Authors:  Hugo F den Boogert; Joost C Keers; D L Marinus Oterdoom; Jos M A Kuijlen
Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine       Date:  2015-06-19

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

Authors:  Ralph Jasper Mobbs; Jane Li; Praveenan Sivabalan; Darryl Raley; Prashanth J Rao
Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine       Date:  2014-05-30
  5 in total
  9 in total

1.  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

2.  The Effect of State-Level Prescription Opioid Legislation on Patient Outcomes After Lumbar Tubular Microdecompression.

Authors:  Edward C Beck; Jonathan C White; Anirudh K Gowd; Tianyi D Luo; Carl Edge; Ziyad O Knio; Tadhg J O'Gara
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2022-06-16

3.  Percutaneous Endoscopic Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Unilateral Laminotomy for Bilateral Decompression Vs. Open Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Lumbar Spondylolisthesis.

Authors:  Li-Ming He; Jia-Rui Li; Hao-Ran Wu; Qiang Chang; Xiao-Ming Guan; Zhuo Ma; Hao-Yu Feng
Journal:  Front Surg       Date:  2022-05-25

4.  The role of wearable devices and objective gait analysis for the assessment and monitoring of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: systematic review.

Authors:  Ananya Chakravorty; Ralph J Mobbs; David B Anderson; Kaitlin Rooke; Kevin Phan; Nicole Yoong; Monish Maharaj; Wen Jie Choy
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2019-06-15       Impact factor: 2.362

Review 5.  Direct Pars Defect Tubular Decompression and TLIF for the Treatment of Low-Grade Adult Isthmic Spondylolisthesis: Surgical Challenges and Nuances of a Muscle-Sparing Minimally Invasive Approach.

Authors:  Fabio Roberti; Katie Arsenault
Journal:  Minim Invasive Surg       Date:  2020-10-31

6.  Microscopic decompressive laminectomy versus percutaneous endoscopic decompressive laminectomy in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Rong Wang; Xiuxia Li; Xiaogang Zhang; Daping Qin; Guodong Yang; Guodong Gao; Hua Zhang
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2020-09-09       Impact factor: 2.692

7.  Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of conventional and biportal endoscopic decompressive laminectomy in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (ENDO-B trial): a protocol for a prospective, randomized, assessor-blind, multicenter trial.

Authors:  Hyun-Jin Park; Sang-Min Park; Kwang-Sup Song; Ho-Joong Kim; Si-Young Park; Taewook Kang; Min-Seok Kang; Dong-Hwa Heo; Choon-Keun Park; Dong-Geun Lee; Jin-Sub Hwang; Jae-Won Jang; Jun-Young Kim; Jin-Sung Kim; Hong-Jae Lee; Joon-Hyeok Yoon; Chang-Won Park; Ki-Han You
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2021-12-20       Impact factor: 2.362

8.  Minimally invasive bilateral decompressive lumbar laminectomy with unilateral approach: patient series.

Authors:  Megan M Finneran; Anant Naik; John C Hawkins; Emilio M Nardone
Journal:  J Neurosurg Case Lessons       Date:  2022-02-14

9.  Proposed objective scoring algorithm for assessment and intervention recovery following surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis based on relevant gait metrics from wearable devices: the Gait Posture index (GPi).

Authors:  Ralph J Mobbs; Redmond Ross Mobbs; Wen Jie Choy
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2019-09
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.