Clinical outcomes of microendoscopic decompressive laminotomy for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis
- 368 Downloads
The goal of surgical treatment for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is to effectively relieve the neural structures by various decompressive techniques. Microendoscopic decompressive laminotomy (MEDL) is an attractive option because of its minimally invasive nature. The aim of prospective study was to investigate the effectiveness of MEDL by evaluating the clinical outcomes with patient-oriented scoring systems. Sixty consecutive patients receiving MEDL between December 2005 and April 2007 were enrolled. The indications of surgery were moderate to severe stenosis, persistent neurological symptoms, and failure of conservative treatment. The patients with mechanical back pain, more than grade I spondylolisthesis, or radiographic signs of instability were not included. A total of 53 patients (36 women and 17 men, mean age 62.0) were included. Forty-five patients (84.9%) were satisfied with the treatment result after a follow-up period of 15.7 months (12–24). The clinical outcomes were evaluated with the Oswestry disability index (ODI) and the Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score. Of the 50 patients providing sufficient data for analysis, the ODI improved from 64.3 ± 20.0 to 16.7 ± 20.0. The JOA score improved from 9.4 ± 6.1 to 24.2 ± 6.0. The improvement rate was 73.9 ± 30.7% and 40 patients (80%) had good or excellent results. There were 11 surgical complications: dural tear in 5, wrong level operation in 2, and transient neuralgia in 4 patients. No wound-related complication was noted. Although the prevalence of pre-operative comorbidities was very high (69.8%), there was no serious medical complication. There was no post-operative instability at the operated segment as evaluated with dynamic radiographs at final follow-up. We concluded that MEDL is a safe and very effective minimally invasive technique for degenerative LSS. With an appropriate patient selection, the risk of post-operative instability is minimal.
KeywordsMicroendoscopic decompressive laminotomy Minimally invasive surgical procedures Spinal stenosis Treatment outcomes
This study was supported by the grant FEMH-96-C-039 from the Far-Eastern Memorial Hospital.
- 4.Atlas SJ, Deyo RA, Keller RB, Chapin AM, Patrick DL, Long JM, Singer DE (1996) The Maine Lumbar Spine Study, Part III. 1-year outcomes of surgical and nonsurgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 21:1787–1794. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199608010-00012 discussion 1794–1785PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Costa F, Sassi M, Cardia A, Ortolina A, De Santis A, Luccarell G, Fornari M (2007) Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: analysis of results in a series of 374 patients treated with unilateral laminotomy for bilateral microdecompression. J Neurosurg 7:579–586Google Scholar
- 14.Ikuta K, Arima J, Tanaka T, Oga M, Nakano S, Sasaki K, Goshi K, Yo M, Fukagawa S (2005) Short-term results of microendoscopic posterior decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis. Technical note. J Neurosurg 2:624–633Google Scholar
- 18.Kornblum MB, Fischgrund JS, Herkowitz HN, Abraham DA, Berkower DL, Ditkoff JS (2004) Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis: a prospective long-term study comparing fusion and pseudarthrosis. Spine 29:726–733. doi: 10.1097/01.BRS.0000119398.22620.92 discussion 733–724PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Lin SM, Tseng SH, Yang JC, Tu CC (2006) Chimney sublaminar decompression for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. J Neurosurg 4:359–364Google Scholar
- 20.Malmivaara A, Slatis P, Heliovaara M, Sainio P, Kinnunen H, Kankare J, Dalin-Hirvonen N, Seitsalo S, Herno A, Kortekangas P, Niinimaki T, Ronty H, Tallroth K, Turunen V, Knekt P, Harkanen T, Hurri H (2007) Surgical or nonoperative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis? A randomized controlled trial. Spine 32:1–8. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000251014.81875.6d PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 26.Postacchini F, Cinotti G (1992) Bone regrowth after surgical decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 74:862–869Google Scholar
- 28.Thome C, Zevgaridis D, Leheta O, Bazner H, Pockler-Schoniger C, Wohrle J, Schmiedek P (2005) Outcome after less-invasive decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis: a randomized comparison of unilateral laminotomy, bilateral laminotomy, and laminectomy. J Neurosurg 3:129–141Google Scholar
- 32.Weinstein JN, Lurie JD, Tosteson TD, Hanscom B, Tosteson AN, Blood EA, Birkmeyer NJ, Hilibrand AS, Herkowitz H, Cammisa FP, Albert TJ, Emery SE, Lenke LG, Abdu WA, Longley M, Errico TJ, Hu SS (2007) Surgical versus nonsurgical treatment for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. N Engl J Med 356:2257–2270. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa070302 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar