Clinical outcomes of microendoscopic decompressive laminotomy for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis

  • Jwo-Luen Pao
  • Wein-Chin Chen
  • Po-Quang ChenEmail author
Original Article


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.


Microendoscopic 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.


  1. 1.
    Amundsen T, Weber H, Nordal HJ, Magnaes B, Abdelnoor M, Lilleas F (2000) Lumbar spinal stenosis: conservative or surgical management? A prospective 10-year study. Spine 25:1424–1435. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200006010-00016 discussion 1435–1426PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Asgarzadie F, Khoo LT (2007) Minimally invasive operative management for lumbar spinal stenosis: overview of early and long-term outcomes. Orthop Clin North Am 38:387–399. doi: 10.1016/j.ocl.2007.02.006 abstract vi–viiPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Athiviraham A, Yen D (2007) Is spinal stenosis better treated surgically or nonsurgically? Clin Orthop Relat Res 458:90–93PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 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
  5. 5.
    Atlas SJ, Keller RB, Robson D, Deyo RA, Singer DE (2000) Surgical and nonsurgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis: four-year outcomes from the maine lumbar spine study. Spine 25:556–562. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200003010-00005 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cavusoglu H, Kaya RA, Turkmenoglu ON, Tuncer C, Colak I, Aydin Y (2007) Midterm outcome after unilateral approach for bilateral decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis: 5-year prospective study. Eur Spine J 16:2133–2142. doi: 10.1007/s00586-007-0471-2 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. 8.
    Deyo RA, Ciol MA, Cherkin DC, Loeser JD, Bigos SJ (1993) Lumbar spinal fusion. A cohort study of complications, reoperations, and resource use in the Medicare population. Spine 18:1463–1470. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199318110-00010 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB (2000) The Oswestry Disability Index. Spine 25:2940–2952. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200011150-00017 discussion 2952PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fu YS, Zeng BF, Xu JG (2008) Long-term outcomes of two different decompressive techniques for lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 33:514–518PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gibson JN, Waddell G (2005) Surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylosis: updated Cochrane Review. Spine 30:2312–2320. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000182315.88558.9c PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Guiot BH, Khoo LT, Fessler RG (2002) A minimally invasive technique for decompression of the lumbar spine. Spine 27:432–438. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200202150-00021 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Iguchi T, Kurihara A, Nakayama J, Sato K, Kurosaka M, Yamasaki K (2000) Minimum 10-year outcome of decompressive laminectomy for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 25:1754–1759. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200007150-00003 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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
  15. 15.
    Jolles BM, Porchet F, Theumann N (2001) Surgical treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. Five-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg 83:949–953. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.83B7.11722 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Khoo LT, Fessler RG (2002) Microendoscopic decompressive laminotomy for the treatment of lumbar stenosis. Neurosurgery 51:S146–S154PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kleeman TJ, Hiscoe AC, Berg EE (2000) Patient outcomes after minimally destabilizing lumbar stenosis decompression: the “Port-Hole” technique. Spine 25:865–870. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200004010-00016 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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. 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. 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
  21. 21.
    Martin BI, Mirza SK, Comstock BA, Gray DT, Kreuter W, Deyo RA (2007) Are lumbar spine reoperation rates falling with greater use of fusion surgery and new surgical technology? Spine 32:2119–2126. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318145a56a PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Niggemeyer O, Strauss JM, Schulitz KP (1997) Comparison of surgical procedures for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: a meta-analysis of the literature from 1975 to 1995. Eur Spine J 6:423–429. doi: 10.1007/BF01834073 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nowitzke AM (2005) Assessment of the learning curve for lumbar microendoscopic discectomy. Neurosurgery 56:755–762. doi: 10.1227/01.NEU.0000156470.79032.7B discussion 755–762PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Oertel MF, Ryang YM, Korinth MC, Gilsbach JM, Rohde V (2006) Long-term results of microsurgical treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis by unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression. Neurosurgery 59:1264–1269 discussion 1269–1270PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Palmer S, Turner R, Palmer R (2002) Bilateral decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis involving a unilateral approach with microscope and tubular retractor system. J Neurosurg 97:213–217PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 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
  27. 27.
    Rosen DS, O’Toole JE, Eichholz KM, Hrubes M, Huo D, Sandhu FA, Fessler RG (2007) Minimally invasive lumbar spinal decompression in the elderly: outcomes of 50 patients aged 75 years and older. Neurosurgery 60:503–509 discussion 509–510PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 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
  29. 29.
    Truumees E (2005) Spinal stenosis: pathophysiology, clinical and radiologic classification. Instr Course Lect 54:287–302PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Turner JA, Ersek M, Herron L, Deyo R (1992) Surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. Attempted meta-analysis of the literature. Spine 17:1–8. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199201000-00001 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Vibert BT, Sliva CD, Herkowitz HN (2006) Treatment of instability and spondylolisthesis: surgical versus nonsurgical treatment. Clin Orthop Relat Res 443:222–227. doi: 10.1097/01.blo.0000200233.99436.ea PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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
  33. 33.
    Wiltse LL, Kirkaldy-Willis WH, McIvor GW (1976) The treatment of spinal stenosis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 115:83–91PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Orthopedic Surgery, Department of SurgeryFar Eastern Memorial HospitalTaipeiTaiwan
  2. 2.Department of OrthopedicsMin-Sheng General Hospital, Jin-Kuo CampusTaoyuanTaiwan
  3. 3.Department of Orthopedic SurgeryNational Taiwan University HospitalTaipeiTaiwan
  4. 4.College of Medicine, Fu-Jen UniversityTaipeiTaiwan

Personalised recommendations