Literature DB >> 7755690

Outcome after laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis. Part I: Clinical correlations.

G F Tuite1, J D Stern, S E Doran, S M Papadopoulos, J E McGillicuddy, D I Oyedijo, S V Grube, C Lundquist, H S Gilmer, M A Schork.   

Abstract

All patients who underwent decompressive lumbar laminectomy in the Washtenaw County, Michigan metropolitan area during a 7-year period were studied for the purpose of defining long-term outcome, clinical correlations, and the need for subsequent fusion. Outcome was determined by questionnaire and physical examination from a cohort of 119 patients with an average follow-up evaluation interval of 4.6 years. Patients graded their outcome as much improved (37%), somewhat improved (29%), unchanged (17%), somewhat worse (5%), and much worse (12%) compared to their condition before surgery. Poor outcome correlated with the need for additional surgery, but there were few additional significant correlations. No patient had a lumbar fusion during the study interval. The outcome after laminectomy was found to be less favorable than previously reported, based on a patient questionnaire administered to an unbiased patient population. Further randomized, controlled trials are therefore necessary to determine the efficacy of lumbar fusion as an adjunct to decompressive lumbar laminectomy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1994        PMID: 7755690     DOI: 10.3171/jns.1994.81.5.0699

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurosurg        ISSN: 0022-3085            Impact factor:   5.115


  10 in total

1.  Midterm outcome after unilateral approach for bilateral decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis: 5-year prospective study.

Authors:  Halit Cavuşoğlu; Ramazan Alper Kaya; Osman Nuri Türkmenoglu; Cengiz Tuncer; Ibrahim Colak; Yunus Aydin
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2007-08-22       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Magnetic resonance imaging predictors of surgical outcome in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Banu Alicioglu; Baris Yilmaz; Nail Bulakbasi; Cem Copuroglu; Erol Yalniz; Bilal Aykac; Devrim Ulas Urut
Journal:  Jpn J Radiol       Date:  2012-09-04       Impact factor: 2.374

3.  Facet-sparing lumbar decompression with a minimally invasive flexible MicroBlade Shaver® versus traditional decompression: quantitative radiographic assessment.

Authors:  Carl Lauryssen; Sigurd Berven; Ronnie Mimran; Christopher Summa; Michael Sheinberg; Larry E Miller; Jon E Block
Journal:  Clin Interv Aging       Date:  2012-07-20       Impact factor: 4.458

4.  De novo spine surgery as a predictor of additional spine surgery at the same or distant spine regions.

Authors:  M Sami Walid; Joe Sam Robinson; Moataz Abbara; Abdullah Tolaymat; Joe Sam Robinson
Journal:  Ger Med Sci       Date:  2011-04-21

5.  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

6.  A comparison of the degree of lateral recess and foraminal enlargement with facet preservation in the treatment of lumbar stenosis with standard surgical tools versus a novel powered filing instrument: a cadaver study.

Authors:  Murat Cosar; Larry T Khoo; Christopher A Yeung; Anthony T Yeung
Journal:  SAS J       Date:  2007-11-01

7.  Central decompressive laminoplasty for treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis : technique and early surgical results.

Authors:  Young-Joon Kwon
Journal:  J Korean Neurosurg Soc       Date:  2014-09-30

8.  Perioperative Results and Complications after Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Spinal Stenosis in Geriatric Patients over than 70 Years Old.

Authors:  Jong Min Choi; Man Kyu Choi; Sung Bum Kim
Journal:  J Korean Neurosurg Soc       Date:  2017-10-25

9.  Bone-Preserving Decompression Procedures Have a Minor Effect on the Flexibility of the Lumbar Spine.

Authors:  Francesco Costa; Claudia Ottardi; David Volkheimer; Alessandro Ortolina; Tito Bassani; Hans-Joachim Wilke; Fabio Galbusera
Journal:  J Korean Neurosurg Soc       Date:  2018-10-30

10.  The efficacy of physical therapy and physical therapy plus calcitonin in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Fusun Sahin; Figen Yilmaz; Nurdan Kotevoglu; Banu Kuran
Journal:  Yonsei Med J       Date:  2009-10-21       Impact factor: 2.759

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.