Laminarthrectomy as a surgical approach for decompressing the spinal canal: assessment of preoperative versus postoperative dural sac cross-sectional areal (DSCSA)
- 423 Downloads
Surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is today the most frequently performed procedure in the adult lumbar spine. Long-term benefit of surgery for LSS is well documented both in randomized and in non-randomized trials. In this paper, we present the results from laminarthrectomy as an alternative surgical approach, which have theoretical advantages over other approaches. In this study, we wanted to study the clinical and radiological results of laminarthrectomy. Dural sac cross-sectional areal (DSCSA) is an objective method to quantify the degree of central stenosis in the spinal canal, and was used to measure whether we were able to achieve an adequate decompression of the spinal canal with laminarthrectomy as a surgical approach.
Materials and methods
All patients operated on with this approach consecutively in the period 1 January 2008 to 31 March 2009 were included in the study. All perioperative complications were noted. Clinical results were measured by means of a questionnaire. The patients that agreed to attend the study had an MRI taken of the operated level. DSCSA before and after surgery of the actual level were measured by three observers. We then performed a correlation test between increase of area and clinical results. We also tested for inter- and intra-observer reability.
Fifty-six laminarthrectomy were performed. There were 17 % complications, none of them were life-threatening or disabling. 46 patients attended the study and answered the questionnaire. Thirty-four patients (83 %) reported clinical improvement, whereas six (13 %) patients reported no improvement, and two (4 %) patients reported that they were worse. Mean ODI was 23.0. Mean EQ-5D was 0.77. Mean VAS-score for back-pain was 3.1 and mean VAS-score for leg-pain was 2.8. Mean DSCSA were measured to 80 mm2 before surgery and 161 mm2 after surgery. That gave an increase of DSCSA of 81 mm2 (101 %). We found a significant positive correlation between increase of area and clinical results. We also found consistent inter- and intra-observer reability.
In this study, the clinical results of laminarthrectomy were good, and comparable with other reports for LSS. The rates of complications are also comparable with other reports in spinal surgery. A significant increase in the spinal canal diameter was achieved. Within the limitations a retrospective study gives, we conclude that laminarthrectomy seems to be a safe and effective surgical approach for significant decompressing the adult central spinal canal, and measurement of DSCSA, before and after surgery seems to be a good way to quantify the degree of decompression.
KeywordsLaminarthrectomy Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) Dural sac cross-sectional areal (DSCSA)
We want to thank Ari Bertz, MD, for his illustrations of the surgical procedure.
Conflict of interest
- 2.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 (Phila Pa 1976) 25:1424–1435Google Scholar
- 3.Atlas SJ, Keller RB, Wu YA, Deyo RA, Singer DE (2005) Long-term outcomes of surgical and nonsurgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis: 8 to 10 year results from the maine lumbar spine study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30:936–943Google Scholar
- 5.Gibson JN, Waddell G (2005) Surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylosis: updated Cochrane review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30:2312–2320Google Scholar
- 6.Malmivaara A, Slatis P, Heliovaara M, Sainio P, Kinnunen H, Kankare J, in-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 (Phila Pa 1976) 32:1–8Google Scholar
- 10.Kleeman TJ, Hiscoe AC, Berg EE (2000) Patient outcomes after minimally destabilizing lumbar stenosis decompression: the “Port-Hole” technique. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25:865–870Google Scholar
- 16.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 Spine 3:129–141PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Fu YS, Zeng BF, Xu JG (2008) Long-term outcomes of two different decompressive techniques for lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33:514–518Google Scholar
- 21.Weiner BK, Fraser RD, Peterson M (1999) Spinous process osteotomies to facilitate lumbar decompressive surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 24:62–66Google Scholar
- 22.Schonstrom NS, Bolender NF, Spengler DM (1985) The pathomorphology of spinal stenosis as seen on CT scans of the lumbar spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 10:806–811Google Scholar
- 23.Anon (2010) Klassifikasjon av medisinske prosedyrer og kirurgiske inngrep 2010. p 9–10Google Scholar
- 25.Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB (2000) The Oswestry Disability Index. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25:2940–2952Google Scholar
- 29.Subramaniam V, Chamberlain RH, Theodore N, Baek S, Safavi-Abbasi S, Senoglu M, Sonntag VK, Crawford NR (2009) Biomechanical effects of laminoplasty versus laminectomy: stenosis and stability. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:E573–E578Google Scholar
- 31.Hansson T, Hansson E, Malchau H (2008) Utility of spine surgery: a comparison of common elective orthopaedic surgical procedures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33:2819–2830Google Scholar
- 32.Tafazal SI, Sell PJ (2005) Incidental durotomy in lumbar spine surgery: incidence and management. Eur Spine J 14:287–290.Google Scholar
- 36.Ogikubo O, Forsberg L, Hansson T (2007) The relationship between the cross-sectional area of the cauda equina and the preoperative symptoms in central lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32:1423–1428Google Scholar