Literature DB >> 9310973

Quantitative outcome and radiographic comparisons between laminectomy and laminotomy in the treatment of acquired lumbar stenosis.

N W Thomas1, G L Rea, B K Pikul, L J Mervis, R Irsik, J M McGregor.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to conduct a comparative quantitative analysis of outcomes, radiographic findings, and magnetic resonance imaging results after laminectomy or laminotomy was performed for patients with lumbar stenosis. Such as analysis had not previously been conducted.
METHODS: Twenty-six patients with no exclusion criteria who were treated surgically for acquired stenosis at the Division of Neurological Surgery at The Ohio State University from 1990 to 1993 were studied retrospectively. At follow-up examinations, each patient completed a detailed questionnaire that included visual analog scales, functional assessments, and the medical outcome study short form health survey, SF-36. Each patient underwent plain static and dynamic radiography that detailed vertebral body sagittal listhesis and rotation and magnetic resonance imaging that evaluated dural sac compression.
RESULTS: The mean follow-up duration was 36.7 months. Good outcome was defined by the presence of three criteria: no greater than mild leg pain (Grades 0-4), the ability to walk more than one block without developing lower extremity pain, and the ability to walk without assistance devices. Fifty-eight percent of the patients who had undergone laminectomies and 50% of the patients who had undergone laminotomies had good outcomes. All were judged to have had adequate decompression. The average maximum postoperative listhesis was 17.3 +/- 9.9% in the laminectomy group and 17.6 +/- 12.5% in the laminotomy group. In contrast to some previous studies, pre- or postoperative listhesis was not statistically related to outcome in either group. Patients in each poor outcome category seemed to have worse comorbid medical conditions than did patients in the good outcome category. The SF-36 measurements of poor functioning because of health factors and bodily pain correlated somewhat with poor outcomes in the patients who had undergone laminectomies. In patients who had undergone laminotomies, the only statistically significant finding among the outcome groups was the effect of poor emotional health on activity for the patients with poor outcomes.
CONCLUSION: This study indicates that laminotomy can adequately decompress lumbar canal stenosis, that laminectomy and laminotomy have the same degree of postoperative listhesis, and that the quantitative outcome of any treatment for lumbar stenosis is dependent not only on surgical factors but also on comorbid physical and psychological factors.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9310973     DOI: 10.1097/00006123-199709000-00011

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neurosurgery        ISSN: 0148-396X            Impact factor:   4.654


  15 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.  Laminotomy in adults: technique and results.

Authors:  Andrea Ruggeri; Angelo Pichierri; Nicola Marotta; Roberto Tarantino; Roberto Delfini
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-05-06       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Laminarthrectomy as a surgical approach for decompressing the spinal canal: assessment of preoperative versus postoperative dural sac cross-sectional areal (DSCSA).

Authors:  Erland Hermansen; Gunnar Moen; Johan Barstad; Rune Birketvedt; Kari Indrekvam
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-03-15       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.  Limited laminectomy and restorative spinoplasty in spinal canal stenosis.

Authors:  Sukhbir Singh Sangwan; Rakesh Garg; Paritosh Gogna; Zile Singh Kundu; Vinay Gupta; Pradeep Kamboj
Journal:  Asian Spine J       Date:  2014-08-19

Review 6.  Effectiveness of posterior decompression techniques compared with conventional laminectomy for lumbar stenosis.

Authors:  Gijsbert Overdevest; Carmen Vleggeert-Lankamp; Wilco Jacobs; Claudius Thomé; Robert Gunzburg; Wilco Peul
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-07-17       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  Does surgical technique influence clinical outcome after lumbar spinal stenosis decompression? A comparative effectiveness study from the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery.

Authors:  Erland Hermansen; Ulla Kristina Romild; Ivar Magne Austevoll; Tore Solberg; Kjersti Storheim; Jens Ivar Brox; Christian Hellum; Kari Indrekvam
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-06-04       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  Spinaplasty following lumbar laminectomy for multilevel lumbar spinal stenosis to prevent iatrogenic instability.

Authors:  Surendra Mohan Tuli; Varun Kapoor; Anil K Jain; Saurabh Jain
Journal:  Indian J Orthop       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 1.251

9.  Minimally invasive surgical treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: Two-year follow-up in 54 patients.

Authors:  Sylvain Palmer; Lisa Davison
Journal:  Surg Neurol Int       Date:  2012-03-24

10.  Bilateral Decompression via Microscopic TubularCrossing Laminotomy (MTCL) for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Technique and Early Surgical Result.

Authors:  Myung-Hoon Shin; Jin-Sung Kim; Kyeong-Sik Ryu; Jung-Woo Hur
Journal:  Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo)       Date:  2015-06-29       Impact factor: 1.742

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.