Laminectomy For Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Research Articles

Comparison of Bilateral Laminectomy with Unilateral Approach and Open Bilateral Laminectomy in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

Amaç: Lomber spinal kanal darlığı (LSKD), dekompresyon cerrahisi gerektiren sık görülen bir durumdur, ancak tedavide farklı cerrahi yaklaşımlar vardır. Bu çalışmanın amacı, tek seviyeli LSKD için tek taraflı yaklaşımla iki taraflı dekompresif lomber laminektomi (TYİDL) açık iki taraflı dekompresif lomber laminektominin (AiDL) sonuçlarını karşılaştırmaktır. Yöntem: Ekim 2016 ile Mayıs 2023 arasında tek seviyeli LSS için operasyon geçiren 198 ardışık hasta retrospektif olarak değerlendirildi. Seksen hastaya TYİDL, 118 hastaya AiDL uygulandı. Tüm hastalarda ameliyat öncesi ve 6 ay sonrasında Visual Analog Skala (VAS) skorları ve yürüme süreleri kaydedildi. Operasyon süresi, operasyon komplikasyonları, hastanede kalış süresi, operasyon sırasındaki kan kaybı ve iatrojenik spondilolistezis oranları ölçüldü. Bulgular: Çalışmaya dahil edilen hastaların yaş ortalaması 62.38±12.5 yıldı. TYİDL ve AiDL geçiren hastalar arasında VAS skorları, yürüme süreleri, ameliyat süreleri, ameliyat komplikasyonları ve takiplerinde iatrojenik spondilolistezis açısından istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir fark yoktu (p > 0.05). Ancak, TYİDL geçiren hastalarda operasyon sırasındaki toplam kan kaybı ve hastanede kalış süresi, AİDL geçiren hastalara göre anlamlı olarak daha kısaydı (p

Clinical and Radiological Outcomes of Spinous Process-Splitting Laminectomy for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis at 1 Year: A Preliminary Report of a Single-Institution Experience

Objective: This study investigated the clinical and radiological outcomes of lumbar spinous process-splitting laminectomy (LSPSL) performed to treat lumbar spinal stenosis at a single institution in Korea. Methods: A retrospective review was conducted of patients who underwent LSPSL for lumbar spinal stenosis between June 2020 and February 2022, with a minimum 1-year follow-up. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), European quality of life - 5 dimensions - 5 levels (EQ-5D-5L), European quality of life VAS (EQ-VAS), and modified MacNab criteria. One year after surgery, radiological outcomes were evaluated through computed tomography scan to assess the spinolaminar bone union rate and patterns.Results: Out of 38 patients, data from 30 patients (male:female = 17:13) and 36 surgical levels were analyzed. The mean age was 67 years (range, 46–88 years). The preoperative mean leg VAS score and ODI significantly decreased at the 1-year postoperative follow-up (leg VAS, 6.6–3.8; p = 0.001; ODI, 19.3–10.9, p = 0.006). The EQ-5D-5L index and EQ-VAS also significantly improved (0.52–0.77, p < 0.001; 50.8–67.1, p = 0.018; respectively). Using the modified MacNab criteria, the study reported excellent and good outcomes in 80% of patients at the 1-year follow-up, with no serious complications observed. The overall spinolaminar union rate was 77.8% (complete union, 58.3%; partial union 19.4%).Conclusion: LSPSL was found to provide favorable clinical outcomes and a satisfactory rate of posterior bony structure restoration for lumbar spinal stenosis, making it a feasible treatment option.

Unilateral Laminotomy vs. Conventional Laminectomy: Which is Better for Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis?

Objectives: To compare the outcomes of conventional laminectomy and unilateral laminotomy for lumbar spinal stenosis. Materials and Methods: The results of our research were compared between unilateral laminotomy (Group A) and conventional laminectomy (Group B) for lumbar spinal stenosis using a sample of 60 cases (30 in each group) selected through non-probability convenient sampling. We calculated the sample size using OPENEPI and analyzed the data with SPSS 26.0. For qualitative and quantitative data. Results: Mean age of participants was 49.7 years in both groups, The sample consisted of 37 male and 23 female participants made up the patient population. Dural tears (5%), progressive neurological deficit (0%), and surgical site infections (1%), among other postoperative complications, were all treated with antibiotics based on culture and sensitivity. Conclusion: Bilateral decompression via unilateral laminotomy is a less invasive alternative to conventional laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis, with significantly improved pain scores and minimized hospital stay. This technique offers appropriate decompression of neuronal components at the affected level with no increased risk of complications. Keywords: Degenerative, Spinal Stenosis, Unilateral Laminotomy, Conventional Laminectomy

Comparison of the Clinical and Radiological Outcomes of Full-Endoscopic Laminotomy and Conventional Subtotal Laminectomy for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Randomized controlled trial. The primary objective of this study was to compare the short-term clinical and radiological outcomes of full-endoscopic lumbar laminotomy (FEL) with those of subtotal lumbar laminectomy (STL) for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). In this prospective randomized trial a total of 52 patients were enrolled from May 2016 to September 2021 after providing written informed consent. The authors investigated 45 patients who were followed up for more than 6 months. There were significant improvements in visual analogue scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores after the operation in both groups. The FEL group tended to have significantly shorter hospital stay. Interestingly, a statistically significant increase in postoperative lumbar lordosis and segmental angle was observed in the FEL group and both groups, respectively. Spondylolisthesis was exacerbated or newly developed in five of the 21 patients (24%) in the STL group. In contrast, improvement in spondylolisthesis was observed in two of the 24 patients (8%) in the FEL group. There were no complications that resulted in fatal sequelae and no significant difference in the complication rate. The clinical results of FEL were similar to those of STL. In addition, the results of FEL were superior to those of STL in terms of a decrease in the postoperative length of stay and radiologic instability, such as iatrogenic spondylolisthesis. The results of this study indicate that FEL is a comparable surgical method to STL for LSS.

Changes and affecting factors of sagittal alignment after decompressive laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis: Analysis using the EOS imaging system

Changes and affecting factors of sagittal alignment after decompressive laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis: Analysis using the EOS imaging system

Insomnia symptoms and postoperative healthcare utilization in veterans undergoing decompressive laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis.

Lumbar spinal stenosis is an age-related spine condition that contributes to pain and disability. Decompressive laminectomy (DL) is regularly performed to alleviate symptoms. Insomnia symptoms are common among people living with chronic pain and may affect key DL outcomes, such as healthcare utilization. We examined associations of insomnia symptom severity with post-DL healthcare utilization in veterans with lumbar spinal stenosis. Veterans (N = 200) with lumbar spinal stenosis undergoing DL were recruited into a prospective cohort study and self-reported insomnia symptom severity on the Insomnia Severity Index prior to DL. Post-DL, veterans reported on pain and non-pain-related monthly healthcare office visits, emergency room visits, hospitalizations, and mental health visits for 1 year. Incident rate ratios (IRRs) obtained via negative binomial regression evaluated associations of insomnia symptom severity with healthcare utilization rates. Approximately 51% of participants endorsed insomnia symptoms of at least mild severity. Participants who reported at least mild insomnia symptoms had more healthcare office visits (IRR = 1.23, p = .04), general mental health visits (IRR = 3.98, p < .0001), and pain-related mental health visits (IRR = 9.55, p = .01) than those without insomnia symptoms. Adjusting for covariates, rates of mental health visits, overall (IRR = 3.13, p = .001) and pain-related (IRR = 6.93, p = .02), remained statistically significantly higher. Insomnia symptoms are associated with postoperative healthcare utilization lending support for future work to examine the value of assessing and intervening on insomnia symptoms prelaminectomy.

Outcomes after decompressive laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis: comparison between minimally invasive unilateral laminectomy for bilateral decompression versus open laminectomy.

Outcomes after decompressive laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis: comparison between minimally invasive unilateral laminectomy for bilateral decompression versus open laminectomy.

Comparison of posterior decompression techniques and conventional laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis.

ObjectivesTo compare the efficacy of posterior decompression techniques with conventional laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis.MethodsThe Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library databases were searched with no language limitations from inception to January 13, 2022. The main outcomes were functional disability, perceived recovery, leg and back pain, complications. A random effects model was used to pooled data. Risk ratio (RR), mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were used to report results. The study protocol was published in PROSPERO (CRD42022302218).Results14 trials including 1,106 participants were included in the final analysis. Bilateral laminotomy was significantly more efficacious in improve functionality than laminectomy [MD: −2.94; (95% CI, −4.12 to −1.76)]. Low incidence of iatrogenic instability due to bilateral laminectomy compared with laminectomy [RR: 0.11; (95% CI, 0.02 to 0.59)]. In addition, between those who received bilateral laminotomy and those undergoing laminectomy, the result showed significant difference regarding recovery [RR: 1.31; (95% CI, 1.03 to 1.67)].ConclusionsThis study provides evidence that bilateral laminotomy has advantages in functional recovery, postoperative stability, and postoperative rehabilitation outcomes. Further research is needed to determine whether posterior techniques provide a safe and effective option for conventional laminectomy.

Long-Term Outcomes of Laminectomy in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Objective Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) patients suffer from significant pain and disability. To assess long-term safety and efficacy of laminectomy in LSS patients, a systematic review and meta-analysis study was conducted. Methods Literature review in MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases was performed using a predefined search strategy. Articles were included if they met the following characteristics: human studies, LSS, and at least 5 years of follow-up. Outcome measures included patient satisfaction, pain, disability, claudication, reoperation rates, and complications. Results Twelve articles met the eligibility criteria for our study. Overall, there was low-quality evidence that patients undergoing laminectomy, with at least 5 years of follow-up, have significantly more satisfaction, and less pain and disability, compared with the preoperative baseline. Assessment of neurogenic intermittent claudication showed significant improvement in walking abilities. We also reviewed the postoperative complication and adverse events in the included studies. After meta-analysis was performed, the reoperation rate was found to be 14% (95% confidence interval: 13–16%). Conclusion Our study provides low-quality evidence suggesting that patients undergoing laminectomy for LSS have less disability and pain and can be more physically active postoperatively.

0562 Associations of Insomnia Symptoms and Unhealthy Alcohol Use with Post-Operative Healthcare Utilization in Veterans Undergoing Decompressive Laminectomy for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

Abstract Introduction Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) affects 11-39% of adults and contributes to significant pain and disability. Decompressive laminectomy (DL) is a common surgical intervention for LSS but many with medical and psychosocial comorbidities may not improve. Insomnia and unhealthy alcohol use, for example, are common among people living with chronic pain and may affect key laminectomy outcomes, such as healthcare utilization rates. We examined associations of self-reported rates of post-DL healthcare utilization in Veterans with insomnia symptoms and alcohol use. Methods We analyzed data from a multi-site prospective cohort study of Veterans with LSS undergoing DL. Participants (N=200) self-reported prior 12-month alcohol use behavior (Short Michigan Alcohol Screening Test; SMAST) and prior two-week insomnia symptoms (Insomnia Severity Index; ISI) prior to surgery; 12-months of post DL healthcare office visits, ER visits, hospitalizations, and mental health visits were reported over the telephone monthly. Negative binomial regression models via incident rate ratios (IRR) compared healthcare utilization rates between individuals reporting alcohol-related problems only (SMAST &amp;gt;2), insomnia symptoms only (ISI ≥ 8), and both to those reporting neither. Results Approximately 52% of participants reported insomnia symptoms, 75% unhealthy alcohol use, and 39% both. Rates of office, ER, and hospital visits were descriptively highest in those reporting insomnia only; mental health visits were highest in those with both insomnia and unhealthy alcohol use. Those with insomnia only had more ER (IRR=2.39, p=.04) and mental health visits (IRR=4.32, p=.03) than those with neither insomnia nor unhealthy alcohol use; individuals with both insomnia and unhealthy alcohol use also had more mental health visits (IRR=4.22, p=.01). Adjusting for covariates rendered IRRs attenuated and statistically nonsignificant, but magnitudes remained high. Conclusion Most Veterans with LSS reported insomnia symptoms and/or unhealthy alcohol use. Those with insomnia symptoms reported the highest rates of healthcare utilization, including higher rates of ER and mental health visits. Insomnia symptoms may contribute to post-operative healthcare utilization, lending support for assessment and intervention of sleep-related problems pre-laminectomy. Support (If Any) This material is based on work supported by the Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Office of Research and Development, grant # RX000798. Dr. Tighe is supported by Career Development/Capacity Building Award Number IK2 RX003393 from the United States (U.S.) Department of Veterans Affairs Rehabilitation R&amp;D (Rehab RD) Service. Dr. Bachrach is supported by a U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Service (HSR&amp;D) Career Development Award (CDA 20-057).

A randomized controlled trial of the X-Stop interspinous distractor device versus laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis with 2-year quality-of-life and cost-effectiveness outcomes.

Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a common and debilitating condition that is increasing in prevalence in the world population. Surgical decompression is often standard treatment when conservative measures have failed. Interspinous distractor devices (IDDs) have been proposed as a safe alternative; however, the associated cost and early reports of high failure rates have brought their use into question. The primary objective of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness and long-term quality-of-life (QOL) outcomes after treatment of LSS with the X-Stop IDD compared with surgical decompression by laminectomy. A multicenter, open-label randomized controlled trial of 47 patients with LSS was conducted; 21 patients underwent insertion of the X-Stop device and 26 underwent laminectomy. The primary outcomes were monetary cost and QOL measured using the EQ-5D questionnaire administered at 6-, 12-, and 24-month time points. The mean monetary cost for the laminectomy group was £2712 ($3316 [USD]), and the mean cost for the X-Stop group was £5148 ($6295): £1799 ($2199) procedural cost plus £3349 mean device cost (£2605 additional cost per device). Using an intention-to-treat analysis, the authors found that the mean quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gain for the laminectomy group was 0.92 and that for the X-Stop group was 0.81. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was -£22,145 (-$27,078). The revision rate for the X-Stop group was 19%. Five patients crossed over to the laminectomy arm after being in the X-Stop group. Laminectomy was more cost-effective than the X-Stop for the treatment of LSS, primarily due to device cost. The X-Stop device led to an improvement in QOL, but it was less than that in the laminectomy group. The use of the X-Stop IDD should be reserved for cases in which a less-invasive procedure is required. There is no justification for its regular use as an alternative to decompressive surgery. Clinical trial registration no.: ISRCTN88702314 (www.isrctn.com).

Does prophylactic use of topical gelatin-thrombin matrix sealant affect postoperative drainage volume and hematoma formation following microendoscopic spine surgery? A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND CONTEXTMicroendoscopic spinal surgery has demonstrated efficacy and is increasingly utilized as a minimally invasive approach to neural decompression, but there is a theoretical concern that bleeding and postoperative epidural hematoma (PEH) may occur with increased frequency in a contained small surgical field. Hemostatic agents, such as topical gelatin-thrombin matrix sealant (TGTMS), are routinely used in spine surgery procedures, yet there has been no data on whether PEH is suppressed by these agents when administered in microendoscopic spine surgery. PURPOSEThe purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of TGTMS on bleeding and PEH formation in lumbar micoroendoscopic surgery. STUDY DESIGNThis is a randomized controlled trial (RCT) with additional prospective observational cohort. PATIENT SAMPLEPatients were registered from July 2017 to September 2018 and a hundred and three patients undergoing microendoscopic laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis at a single institution were enrolled in this study. OUTCOME MEASURESThe primary outcome was the drainage volume within 48 hours after surgery. Secondary outcomes were the numerical rating scale (NRS) of leg pain on the second (NRS2) and seventh day (NRS7) after surgery and the hematoma area ratio (HAR) in horizontal images on magnetic resonance image (MRI). METHODSIn the RCT, 41 cases that received TGTMS (F group) were compared with 41 control group cases (C group) that did not receive TGTMS at the end of the procedure. Drainage volume, NRS2, NRS7, and HAR on MRI were evaluated. Nineteen cases were excluded from the RCT (I group) due to difficulty of hemostasis during surgery and the intentional use of TGTMS for hemostasis. I group was compared with C group in the drainage volume and NRS of leg pain as a prospective observational study. RESULTSThe RCT demonstrated no statistically significant difference in drainage volume between those receiving TGTMS (117.0±71.7; mean±standard deviation) and controls (125.0±127.0; p=.345). The NRS2 and NRS7 was 3.5±2.6 and 2.8±2.5 in the F group, respectively, and 3.1±2.6 and 2.1±2.3 in the C group, respectively. The HAR on MRI was 0.19±0.19 in the F group and 0.17±0.13 in the C group. There was no significant difference in postoperative leg pain and HAR (p=.644 for NRS2, p=.129 for NRS7, and p=.705 for HAR). In the secondary observational cohort, the drainage volume in the I group was 118.3±151.4, and NRS2 and NRS7 was 3.5±2.0 and 2.6±2.6, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in drainage volume (p=.386) or postoperative NRS of leg pain between these two groups (p=.981 and .477 for NRS2 and NRS7, respectively). CONCLUSIONSThe prophylactic use of TGTMS in patients undergoing microendoscopic laminotomy for lumbar spinal stenosis did not demonstrate any difference in postoperative bleeding or PEH. Nonetheless, for patients that had active bleeding that required the use of TGTMS, there was no evidence of difference in postoperative clinical outcomes relative to controls.

Comparison of Modified Marmot Surgery and Lumbar Spinous Process Splitting Laminectomy in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Two-Year Outcomes.

Introduction Compared with the conventional posterior lumbar decompression surgery, the spinous process splitting approach for lumbar spinal stenosis is less invasive. There are currently two types of the spinous process splitting approach that are performed. First is the lumbar spinous process splitting laminectomy (LSPSL), which involves the detachment of the spinous process from the lamina. Second is the modified Marmot method, which involves leaning of the spinous process without detachment from the lamina. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study comparing the 2-year surgical outcomes of the modified Marmot method and LSPSL in cases of lumbar spinal canal stenosis. Methods We recruited 69 patients who underwent decompression surgery. A total of 32 patients underwent the modified Marmot method (M group), and 37 patients underwent LSPSL (S group). We compared the clinical results, laboratory data of surgical invasion, wound pain, and safety. Results No significant difference was observed in terms of the demographic data and operative time between the two groups. The number of decompressed segments and intraoperative and postoperative blood loss volume in the M group were greater than that in the S group. In the S group, the postoperative Japanese Orthopedic Association scores and recovery rates were significantly greater compared with those in the M group. Perioperative complications did not significantly differ between the two groups. On postoperative day 1, the Postoperative Visual Analog Scale scores at rest in the M group were lower than those in the S group. Conclusions In clinical practice, we believe that posterior lumbar decompression surgery is safe, effective, and minimally invasive. Although the modified Marmot method may be less invasive and result in the reduction of wound pain during early postoperative periods, the clinical results did not exhibit greater long-term improvements with regard to surgical complications and neurological improvement, when compared with LSPSL.

Bilateral laminotomy through a unilateral approach (minimally invasive) versus open laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis

Purpose To compare the outcomes of minimally invasive (MI) bilateral laminotomy via unilateral approach versus open laminectomy in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). Materials and Methods In this prospective study, 62 patients were treated for LSS and were assigned to one of two groups over a 6-month period. Group A comprised 37 patients that underwent MI bilateral laminotomy. Group B comprised 25 patients that underwent open laminectomy. Follow-up duration was 3 years. The primary outcomes were the visual analogue scale (VAS) pain outcome score for back and leg, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and complications. Results MI methods were superior in most primary outcomes compared to open laminectomy. VAS back pain outcome was reduced from close to 7 to 4 in both groups. VAS leg pain was reduced from 6.8 to 3.2 in MI group and from 8.7 to 3.5 in the open group (p > 0.05 between groups, p < 0.05 comparing pre- to post-operative back and leg pain). ODI improved from 56.5 to 13 and 58 to 24 in MI and open groups, respectively (p > 0.05 between groups, p < 0.05 comparing pre- to post-operative disability). Complication and revision rates were lower in the MI technique than open laminectomy (8 versus 56%, p < 0.05; 3 versus 12%, p > 0.05). Length of stay ranges were less in MI than open group (1–3 versus 7–30 days, p > 0.05). Conclusions Bilateral laminotomy through a unilateral approach (minimally invasive) and open laminectomy are both effective in improving pain and disability in LSS. MI procedures have an advantage in shorter hospital stays, sparing of more bony structures and lower complication rates. MI unilateral decompression is at least as good as laminectomy in the treatment of LSS.

Endoscopic modified total laminoplasty for symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis

Context/objective: At present, there is no consensus on the most effective surgical method for treating symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). Total laminectomy, which is frequently used at this time, destroys the posterior midline structure, causing many postoperative complications. We have designed a new surgical approach instead of total laminectomy. In this paper, we aimed to describe the surgical method of endoscopic modified total laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis as well as to explore its early efficacy. Participants: Patients with symptomatic LSS who underwent endoscopic modified total laminoplasty between August 2016 and August 2017 were eligible for our study. Outcome measures: Before surgery and one year after surgery, we measured lower limb pain and back pain by visual analog scale (VAS), disability via Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and severity of back pain according to the Japanese Orthopedic Association Score for Back Pain (JOA), while any complications were also assessed. Results: Endoscopic modified total laminoplasty was performed on 22 LSS patients, including eight males and 14 females(mean age = 59.3 ± 9.6 years). We found statistically significant differences before and one year after surgery for VAS lower limb pain and back pain, ODI and JOA scores(P < 0.001). Complications included intraoperative dural tears(n = 1),and weak fusion between the lamina and the vertebral body (n = 1). Conclusion: Endoscopic modified total laminectomy is a promising surgical approach which reduces patient suffering and improves patient quality of life.

Unilateral Laminectomy by Endoscopy in Central Lumbar Canal Spinal Stenosis: Technical Note and Early Outcomes.

Retrospective study. To evaluate the outcomes and safety of endoscopic laminectomy for central lumbar canal spinal stenosis. .: Spinal endoscopy is mostly used in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation, while endoscopic laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis is rarely reported. From January 2016 to June 2017, 38 patients with central lumbar canal spinal stenosis were treated with endoscopic laminectomy. Clinical symptoms were evaluated at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months and the last follow-up after surgery. Functional outcomes were assessed by using the Japanese Orthopedic Association Scores (JOA) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). The decompression effect was assessed by using the dural sac cross-sectional area (DSCA). Lumbar stability was evaluated using lumbar range of motion (ROM), ventral intervertebral space height (VH), and dorsal intervertebral space height (DH). The mean age of the cases was 60.8 years, the mean operation time was 66.3 minutes, the blood loss was 38.8 mL, and the length of incision was 19.6 mm. The mean time in bed was 22.3 hours, and the mean hospital stay was 8.8 days. JOA scores were improved from 10.9 to 24.1 (P < 0.05), ODI scores were improved from 79.0 to 27.9 (P < 0.05), DSCA was improved from 55.7 to 109.5 mm (P < 0.05), ROM scores were improved from 5.6° to 5.7° (P < 0.05), and DH scores were reduced from 6.6 to 6.5 mm (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in VH before and after operation (P > 0.05). There were no serious complications during the follow-ups. Endoscopic laminectomy had the advantage of a wider view, which was effective, safe, and less invasive for lumbar spinal stenosis. 5.

Improvement of lumbar back pain and change of spondylolisthesis at decompressed level after spinous process-splitting laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis -Comparison of single-level versus multi-level decompression surgery-

Improvement of lumbar back pain and change of spondylolisthesis at decompressed level after spinous process-splitting laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis -Comparison of single-level versus multi-level decompression surgery-

Endoscopic Versus Open Laminectomy for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: An International, Multi-Institutional Analysis of Outcomes and Adverse Events.

Study Design:Retrospective cohort study and systematic review.Objectives:Endoscopic decompression offers a minimally invasive alternative to traditional, open laminectomy. However, comparison of these surgical techniques has been largely limited to small, single-center studies. In this study, we perform the first international, multicenter comparison of both with regard to their associated rates of mortality, complications, readmissions, and reoperations.Methods:The 2017 American College of Surgeons’ National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database, containing data from over 650 hospitals internationally, was queried to evaluate the effect of endoscopic guidance on adverse events. Operative time, length of stay, readmission and reoperation rates, as well as the incidence of peri- and postoperative complications, were compared between endoscopic and open groups. The PubMed/MEDLINE database was queried for studies comparing the techniques.Results:A total of 10 726 single-level lumbar decompression patients were identified and included in this study, 34 (0.32%) of whom were operated upon endoscopically. Apart from 2 (5.88%) readmissions, among which only 1 was unplanned, there were no reported surgical complications within the endoscopic group. The mean length of stay for these patients was 0.86 ± 1.44 days, with procedures lasting an average of 91.89 ± 46.72 minutes. However, these endpoints did not differ significantly from the open group. On literature review, 16 studies met the inclusion criteria, and largely consisted of single-center, retrospective analyses.Conclusions:Endoscopically guided approaches to single-level lumbar decompression did not reduce the incidence of adverse events, length of stay or operative time, perhaps due to advances among certain nonendoscopic techniques, such as microsurgery.

Long-term clinical outcomes after bilateral laminotomy or total laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis: a single-institution experience.

OBJECTIVELumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is the most common spinal disease in the geriatric population, and is characterized by a compression of the lumbosacral neural roots from a narrowing of the lumbar spinal canal. LSS can result in symptomatic compression of the neural elements, requiring surgical treatment if conservative management fails. Different surgical techniques with or without fusion are currently treatment options. The purpose of this study was to provide a description of the long-term clinical outcomes of patients who underwent bilateral laminotomy compared with total laminectomy for LSS.METHODSThe authors retrospectively reviewed all the patients treated surgically by the senior author for LSS with total laminectomy and bilateral laminotomy with a minimum of 10 years of follow-up. Patients were divided into 2 treatment groups (total laminectomy, group 1; and bilateral laminotomy, group 2) according to the type of surgical decompression. Clinical outcomes measures included the visual analog scale (VAS), the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) scores, and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). In addition, surgical parameters, reoperation rate, and complications were evaluated in both groups.RESULTSTwo hundred fourteen patients met the inclusion and exclusion criteria (105 and 109 patients in groups 1 and 2, respectively). The mean age at surgery was 69.5 years (range 58-77 years). Comparing pre- and postoperative values, both groups showed improvement in ODI and SF-36 scores; at final follow-up, a slightly better improvement was noted in the laminotomy group (mean ODI value 22.8, mean SF-36 value 70.2), considering the worse preoperative scores in this group (mean ODI value 70, mean SF-36 value 38.4) with respect to the laminectomy group (mean ODI 68.7 vs mean SF-36 value 36.3), but there were no statistically significant differences between the 2 groups. Significantly, in group 2 there was a lower incidence of reoperations (15.2% vs 3.7%, p = 0.0075).CONCLUSIONSBilateral laminotomy allows adequate and safe decompression of the spinal canal in patients with LSS; this technique ensures a significant improvement in patients' symptoms, disability, and quality of life. Clinical outcomes are similar in both groups, but a lower incidence of complications and iatrogenic instability has been shown in the long term in the bilateral laminotomy group.

Post laminectomy instability

Laminectomy is considered to be the gold standard of decompressive techniques. While the short-term benefits of laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis are widely accepted, concerns surrounding iatrogenic instability persist and the debate on the appropriate indications for concomitant fusion rages on. This review covers the various definitions, biomechanics, and incidence of post laminectomy instability and explores the patient, radiographic, and surgical risk factors that play a role in the development of this condition.