Abstract
Introduction
Decompression surgery represents the standard operative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis, but this procedure is often combined with fusion surgery. It is still discussed whether minimal-invasive decompression procedures are sufficient and if they compromise spinal stability as well. The aim of this study was to analyze the effects of different minimal-invasive decompression procedures on the range of motion (ROM) of the decompressed and adjacent segments under preload conditions.
Methods
Fourteen fresh frozen human cadaver lumbar spines (L2–L5) were tested in a spinal testing device with a moment of 7.5 N m in flexion/extension, lateral bending and rotation with and without a preload. The ROM of the decompressed segment L3/4 and the adjacent segments L2/L3 and L4/L5 was measured intact and after creating a gradual defect with resection of the interspinous ligament (ISL), bilateral undercutting decompression, detachment of the supraspinous ligament (SSL) and bilateral medial facetectomy.
Results
The resection of the ISL had no significant effect on the ROM of all segments. Undercutting decompression showed a significant increase in the ROM of all segments during flexion/extension and lateral bending. The detachment of the SSL caused a significant increase of ROM during flexion/extension in the instrumented and adjacent segments. After bilateral medial facetectomy, a decrease of ROM was observed in all directions of motion except flexion/extension with preload.
Conclusions
The results support minimal-invasive procedures for the preservation of spinal stability. Therefore, surgeons can determine which grade of decompression procedure can be performed in the individual patient without requiring additional fusion to maintain spinal stability.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Taylor VM, Deyo RA, Cherkin DC et al (1994) Low back pain hospitalization: recent United States trends and regional variations. Spine 19(11):1207–1212
Deyo RA, Gray DT, Kreuter W et al (2005) United States trends in lumbar fusion surgery for degenerative conditions. Spine 30(12):1441–1445
Irwin ZN, Hilibrand A, Gustavel M et al (2005) Variation in surgical decision making for degenerative spinal disorders. Part I: lumbar spine. Spine 30(19):2208–2213
Katz JN, Lipson SJ, Lew RA et al (1997) Lumbar laminectomy alone or with instrumented or noninstrumented arthrodesis in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: patient selection, costs, and surgical outcomes. Spine 22(10):1123–1131
Airaksinen O, Herno A, Turunen V et al (1997) Surgical outcome of 438 patients treated surgically for lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 22:2278–2282
Atlas SJ, Deyo RA, Keller RB et al (1996) The Maine Lumbar Spine Study, Part III. 1-year outcomes of surgical and nonsurgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 21:1787–1795
Iguchi T, Kurihara A, Nakayama J et al (2000) Minimum 10-year outcome of decompressive laminectomy for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 25:1754–1759
Katz JN, Lipson SJ, Larson MG et al (1991) The outcome of decompressive laminectomy for degenerative lumbar stenosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 73:809–816
Johnsson KE, Willner S, Johnsson K (1986) Postoperative instability after decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 11:107–110
Nakai O, Ookawa A, Yamaura I (1991) Long-term roentgenographic and functional changes in patients who were treated with wide fenestration for central lumbar stenosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 73:1184–1191
Detwiler PW, Spetzler CB, Taylor SB et al (2003) Biomechanical comparison of facet-sparing laminectomy and Christmas tree laminectomy. J Neurosurg 99(2 Suppl):214–220
Hamasaki T, Tanaka N, Kim J et al (2009) Biomechanical assessment of minimally invasive decompression for lumbar spinal canal stenosis: a cadaver study. J Spinal Disord Tech 22(7):486–491
Quint U, Wilke HJ, Loer F et al (1998) Functional sequelae of surgical decompression of the lumbar spine—a biomechanical study in vitro. Z Orthop 136(4):350–357
Sharma M, Langrana NA, Rodriguez J (1995) Role of ligaments and facets in lumbar spinal stability. Spine 20:887–900
Zander T, Rohlmann A, Klöckner C et al (2003) Influence of graded facetectomy and laminectomy on spinal biomechanics. Eur Spine J 12(4):427–434
Deyo RA, Nachemson A, Mirza SK (2004) Spinal-fusion surgery—the case for restraint. N Engl J Med 350:722–726
Ciol MA, Deyo RA, Howell E et al (1996) An assessment of surgery for spinal stenosis: time trends, geographic variations, complications, and reoperations. J Am Geriatr Soc 44(3):285–290
Fischgrund JS, Mackay M, Herkowitz HN et al (1997) Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis: a prospective, randomized study comparing decompressive laminectomy and arthrodesis with and without spinal instrumentation. Spine 22(24):2807–2812
Fritzell P, Hagg O, Nordwall A, Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group (2003) Complications in lumbar fusion surgery for chronic low back pain: comparison of three surgical techniques used in a prospective randomized study. Eur Spine J 12(2):178–189
Ekman P, Möller H, Shalabi A, Yu YX, Hedlund R (2009) A prospective randomised study on the long-term effect of lumbar fusion on adjacent disc degeneration. Eur Spine J 18(8):1175–1186
Lee CS, Hwang CJ, Lee SW, Ahn YJ, Kim YT, Lee DH, Lee MY (2009) Risk factors for adjacent segment disease after lumbar fusion. Eur Spine J 18(11):1637–1643
Yang JY, Lee JK, Song HS (2008) The impact of adjacent segment degeneration on the clinical outcome after lumbar spinal fusion. Spine 33:503–507
Delank KS, Eysel P, Zöllner J et al (2002) Undercutting decompression versus laminectomy. Clinical and radiological results of a prospective controlled trial. Orthopade 31(11):1048–1056
Kleeman TJ, Hiscoe AC, Berg EE (2000) Patient outcomes after minimally destabilizing lumbar stenosis decompression: the “Port-Hole” technique. Spine 25:865–870
Thomé C, Zevgaridis D, Leheta O et al (2005) Outcome after less-invasive decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis: a randomized comparison of unilateral laminotomy, bilateral laminotomy, and laminectomy. J Neurosurg Spine 3(2):129–141
Tsai RY, Yang RS, Bray RS Jr (1998) Microscopic laminotomies for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. J Spinal Disord 11:389–394
Weiner BK, Walker M, Brower RS et al (1999) Microdecompression for lumbar spinal canal stenosis. Spine 24:2268–2272
Yamazaki K, Yoshida S, Ito T et al (2002) Postoperative outcome of lumbar spinal canal stenosis after fenestration: correlation with changes in intradural and extradural tube on magnetic resonance imaging. J Orthop Surg 10:136–143
Guiot BH, Khoo LT, Fessler RG (2002) A minimally invasive technique for decompression of the lumbar spine. Spine 27:432–438
Kong DS, Kim ES, Eoh W (2007) One-year outcome evaluation after interspinous implantation for degenerative spinal stenosis with segmental instability. J Korean Med Sci 22:330–335
Wilke HJ, Drumm J, Häussler K et al (2008) Biomechanical effect of different lumbar interspinous implants on flexibility and intradiscal pressure. Eur Spine J 17(8):1049–1056
Abumi K, Panjabi MM, Kramer KM et al (1990) Biomechanical evaluation of lumbar spinal stability after graded facetectomies. Spine 15(11):1142–1147
Fuchs PD, Lindsey DP, Hsu KY et al (2005) The use of an interspinous implant in conjunction with a graded facetectomy procedure. Spine 30(11):1266–12672
Schulte TL, Hurschler C, Haversath M et al (2008) The effect of dynamic, semi-rigid implants on the range of motion of lumbar motion segments after decompression. Eur Spine J 17:1057–1065
Hartmann F, Gercek E, Dietz SO et al (2011) Development of a multisegmental test body to calibrate and validate studies with spinal testing devices with follower load. Biomed Tech (Berl) 56(2):99–105
Hartmann F, Dietz SO, Hely H et al (2011) Biomechanical effect of different interspinous devices on lumbar spinal range of motion under preload conditions. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 131(7):917–926
Goel VK, Panjabi MM, Patwardhan AG et al (2006) American Society for Testing and Materials. Test protocols for evaluation of spinal implants. J Bone Joint Surg Am 88(Suppl 2):103–109
Wilke HJ, Wenger K, Claes L (1998) Testing criteria for spinal implants: recommendations for the standardization of in vitro stability testing of spinal implants. Eur Spine J 7:148–154
Panjabi MM (1988) Biomechanical evaluation of spinal fixation devices: I. A conceptual framework. Spine 13(10):1129–1134
Dreischarf M, Zander T, Bergmann G et al (2010) A non-optimized follower load path may cause considerable intervertebral rotations. J Biomech 43(13):2625–2628
Patwardhan AG, Havey RM, Meade KP et al (1999) A follower load increases the load-carrying capacity of the lumbar spine in compression. Spine 24(10):1003–1009
Anasetti F, Galbusera F, Aziz HN et al (2010) Spine stability after implantation of an interspinous device: an in vitro and finite element biomechanical study. J Neurosurg Spine 13(5):568–575
Tai CL, Hsieh PH, Chen WP et al (2008) Biomechanical comparison of lumbar spine instability between laminectomy and bilateral laminotomy for spinal stenosis syndrome—an experimental study in porcine model. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 9:84
Lee KK, Teo EC, Qiu TX et al (2004) Effect of facetectomy on lumbar spinal stability under sagittal plane loadings. Spine 29(15):1624–1631
Chen LH, Lai PL, Tai CL, Niu C, Fu TS, Chen WJ (2006) The effect of interspinous ligament integrity on adjacent segment instability after lumbar instrumentation and laminectomy—an experimental study in porcine model. Biomed Mater Eng 16:261–267
Sanderson PL, Getty CJM (1996) Long-term results of partial undercutting facetectomy for lumbar lateral recess stenosis. Spine 1:1352–1356
Goel VK, Winterbottom JM, Weinstein JN et al (1987) Load sharing among spinal elements of a motion segment in extension and lateral bending. J Biomech Eng 109(4):291–297
Little JS, Khalsa PS (2005) Human lumbar spine creep during cyclic and static flexion: creep rate, biomechanics, and facet joint capsule strain. Ann Biomed Eng 33(3):391–401
Serhan HA, Varnavas G, Dooris AP et al (2007) Biomechanics of the posterior lumbar articulating elements. Neurosurg Focus 22(1):E1
Natarajan RN, Andersson GB, Patwardhan AG et al (1999) Study on effect of graded facetectomy on change in lumbar motion segment torsional flexibility using three-dimensional continuum contact representation for facet joints. J Biomech Eng 121(2):215–221
Schmidt H, Heuer F, Claes L et al (2008) The relation between the instantaneous center of rotation and facet joint forces—a finite element analysis. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 23(3):270–278
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the Institute of Medical Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics of the University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz for their help with the statistical analysis in this study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hartmann, F., Janssen, C., Böhm, S. et al. Biomechanical effect of graded minimal-invasive decompression procedures on lumbar spinal stability. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 132, 1233–1239 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-012-1543-2
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-012-1543-2