STUDY DESIGN: Multicenter retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare reoperation rates at 5-year follow-up of unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (ULBD) versus posterior decompression with instrumented fusion (Fusion) for patients with low-grade degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) in a multicenter database. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Controversy exists regarding whether fusion should be used to augment decompression surgery in patients with LSS with DS. For years, the standard has been fusion with standard laminectomy to prevent postoperative instability. However, this strategy is not supported by Level 1 evidence. Instability and reoperations may be reduced or prevented using less invasive decompression techniques. METHODS: We identified 164 patients with DS and LSS who underwent ULBD between January 2007 and December 2011 in a multicenter database. These patients were propensity score-matched on age, sex, race, and smoking status with patients who underwent Fusion (n = 437). Each patient required a minimum of 5-year follow-up. The primary outcome was 5-year reoperation. Secondary outcome measures included postoperative complication rates, blood loss during surgery, and length of stay. Logistic regression models were used to estimate the odds ratio of the 5-year reoperation rate between the two surgical groups. RESULTS: The reoperation rate at 5-year follow-up was 10.4% in the ULBD group and 17.2% in the Fusion group. ULBD reoperations were more frequent at the index surgical level; Fusion reoperations were more common at an adjacent level. The two types of operations had similar postoperative complication rates, and both groups tended to have fusion reoperations. CONCLUSION: For patients with stable DS and LSS, ULBD is a viable, durable option compared to fusion with decreased blood loss and length stay, as well as a lower reoperation rate at 5-year follow-up. Further prospective studies are required to determine the optimal clinical scenario for ULBD in the setting of DS. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.
STUDY DESIGN: Multicenter retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare reoperation rates at 5-year follow-up of unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (ULBD) versus posterior decompression with instrumented fusion (Fusion) for patients with low-grade degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) in a multicenter database. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Controversy exists regarding whether fusion should be used to augment decompression surgery in patients with LSS with DS. For years, the standard has been fusion with standard laminectomy to prevent postoperative instability. However, this strategy is not supported by Level 1 evidence. Instability and reoperations may be reduced or prevented using less invasive decompression techniques. METHODS: We identified 164 patients with DS and LSS who underwent ULBD between January 2007 and December 2011 in a multicenter database. These patients were propensity score-matched on age, sex, race, and smoking status with patients who underwent Fusion (n = 437). Each patient required a minimum of 5-year follow-up. The primary outcome was 5-year reoperation. Secondary outcome measures included postoperative complication rates, blood loss during surgery, and length of stay. Logistic regression models were used to estimate the odds ratio of the 5-year reoperation rate between the two surgical groups. RESULTS: The reoperation rate at 5-year follow-up was 10.4% in the ULBD group and 17.2% in the Fusion group. ULBD reoperations were more frequent at the index surgical level; Fusion reoperations were more common at an adjacent level. The two types of operations had similar postoperative complication rates, and both groups tended to have fusion reoperations. CONCLUSION: For patients with stable DS and LSS, ULBD is a viable, durable option compared to fusion with decreased blood loss and length stay, as well as a lower reoperation rate at 5-year follow-up. Further prospective studies are required to determine the optimal clinical scenario for ULBD in the setting of DS. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.