Literature DB >> 35086871

Comparison of Applied Anatomy at L4-L5 and L5-S1 in Context of Tubular Decompression for Lumbar Canal Stenosis.

Arvind G Kulkarni1, Sanjeev Asati2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Tubular over-the-top decompression is getting popular in the management of lumbar canal stenosis (LCS). While L4-L5 is the most common level affected and operated for LCS, it is not uncommon to encounter patients with stenosis at L5-S1. No previous study has described the technical challenges of tubular decompression at the L5-S1 level as compared to at the L4-L5 level.
METHODS: This observational study was done on 40 consecutive patients older than 45 years who underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for back-related issues. The following radiological parameters: interlaminar angle, tube angle, laminar thickness ratio at the isthmus, and the laminar length ratio were evaluated at the L4-L5 level (group A) and the L5-S1 level (group B). The hypothesis behind the study was that if these patients were subjected to tubular decompression, then there will be technical differences between doing the surgery at the L4-L5 and L5-S1 levels.
RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 56.8 years (46-72) and the male to female ratio was 3:2. The mean interlaminar angle in group A was 71° and in group B was 102°. The tube angle in group A and group B was 36.8° and 49.7°, respectively. The laminar thickness ratio (L4:L5) was 1.34:1 and the laminar length ratio (L4:L5) was 1:1.42 in group A and B, respectively.
CONCLUSION: Tubular decompression at the L5-S1 level has its own challenges because of the different anatomy of the L5 lamina compared to that of the L4 lamina. The wide interlaminar angle of L5 as compared to L4 dictates more oblique tube docking (tube angle) and more extensive table tilting to reach the contralateral lateral recess, thus making it challenging. The authors recommend that surgeons be conscious of this fact while performing tubular decompression at the L5-S1 level. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This article provides information regarding technical challenges of doing surgery at L5-S1 level as compared to L4-L5 level. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3. This manuscript is generously published free of charge by ISASS, the International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery.
Copyright © 2021 ISASS. To see more or order reprints or permissions, see http://ijssurgery.com.

Entities:  

Keywords:  interlaminar angle; lumbar canal stenosis; microendoscopic decompression; spinal surgery; tube angle

Year:  2021        PMID: 35086871      PMCID: PMC9469022          DOI: 10.14444/8145

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Spine Surg        ISSN: 2211-4599


  9 in total

Review 1.  Minimally Invasive Versus Open Laminectomy for Lumbar Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Kevin Phan; Ralph J Mobbs
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 3.468

2.  United States trends in lumbar fusion surgery for degenerative conditions.

Authors:  Richard A Deyo; Darryl T Gray; William Kreuter; Sohail Mirza; Brook I Martin
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2005-06-15       Impact factor: 3.468

3.  Analysis of anatomic morphometry of the pedicles and the safe zone for through-pedicle procedures in the thoracic and lumbar spine.

Authors:  Shiu-Bii Lien; Nien-Hsien Liou; Shing-Sheng Wu
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2006-12-19       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Lumbar morphometry: a study of lumbar vertebrae from a pakistani population using computed tomography scans.

Authors:  Muhammad M Alam; Muhammad Waqas; Hussain Shallwani; Gohar Javed
Journal:  Asian Spine J       Date:  2014-08-19

Review 5.  Minimally Invasive Spinal Surgery in the Elderly: Does It Make Sense?

Authors:  Mohammed F Shamji; Christina L Goldstein; Michael Wang; Juan S Uribe; Michael G Fehlings
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 4.654

6.  Bilateral decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis involving a unilateral approach with microscope and tubular retractor system.

Authors:  Sylvain Palmer; Robert Turner; Rosemary Palmer
Journal:  J Neurosurg       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 5.115

7.  Lumbar vertebra morphometry and stereological assesment of intervertebral space volumetry: a methodological study.

Authors:  Hamit S Karabekir; Nuket Gocmen-Mas; Mete Edizer; Tolga Ertekin; Canan Yazici; Derya Atamturk
Journal:  Ann Anat       Date:  2011-04-02       Impact factor: 2.698

8.  Pathoanatomical characteristics of clinical lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Christy C Tomkins-Lane; Michele C Battié; Richard Hu; Luciana Macedo
Journal:  J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 1.398

9.  Microendoscopic Decompression Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Canal Stenosis via the Paramedian Approach: Preliminary Results.

Authors:  Kazunori Nomura; Munehito Yoshida
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2012-06
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.