Comparison of Spinous Process-Splitting Laminectomy versus Conventional Laminectomy for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.

Abstract

Study DesignSeventy-five patients who had been treated for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) were reviewed retrospectively.PurposeInvasion into the paravertebral muscle can cause major problems after laminectomy for LSS. To address these problems, we performed spinous process-splitting laminectomy. We present a comparative study of decompression of LSS using 2 approaches.Overview of LiteratureThere are no other study has investigated the lumbar spinal instability after spinous process-splitting laminectomy.MethodsThis study included 75 patients who underwent laminectomy for the treatment of LSS and who were observed through follow-ups for more than 2 years. Fifty-five patients underwent spinous process-splitting laminectomy (splitting group) and 20 patients underwent conventional laminectomy (conventional group). We evaluated the clinical and radiographic results of each surgical procedure.ResultsJapanese Orthopaedic Association score improved significantly in both groups two years postoperatively. The following values were all significantly lower, as shown with p-values, in the splitting group compared to the conventional group: average operating time (p=0.002), postoperative C-reactive protein level (p=0.006), the mean postoperative number of days until returning to normal body temperature (p=0.047), and the mean change in angulation 2 years postoperatively (p=0.007). The adjacent segment degeneration occurred in 6 patients (10.9%) in the splitting group and 11 patients (55.0%) in the conventional group.ConclusionsIn this study, the spinous process-splitting laminectomy was shown to be less invasive and more stable for patients with LSS, compared to the conventional laminectomy.