European Spine Journal

, Volume 22, Issue 8, pp 1913–1919 | Cite as

Laminarthrectomy as a surgical approach for decompressing the spinal canal: assessment of preoperative versus postoperative dural sac cross-sectional areal (DSCSA)

  • Erland Hermansen
  • Gunnar Moen
  • Johan Barstad
  • Rune Birketvedt
  • Kari Indrekvam
Original Article

Abstract

Introduction

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.

Results

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.

Discussion

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.

Keywords

Laminarthrectomy Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) Dural sac cross-sectional areal (DSCSA) 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We want to thank Ari Bertz, MD, for his illustrations of the surgical procedure.

Conflict of interest

None

References

  1. 1.
    Ciol MA, Deyo RA, Howell E, Kreif S (1996) An assessment of surgery for spinal stenosis: time trends, geographic variations, complications, and reoperations. J Am Geriatr Soc 44:285–290PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 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. 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
  4. 4.
    Chang Y, Singer DE, Wu YA, Keller RB, Atlas SJ (2005) The effect of surgical and nonsurgical treatment on longitudinal outcomes of lumbar spinal stenosis over 10 years. J Am Geriatr Soc 53:785–792PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gibson JN, Waddell G (2005) Surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylosis: updated Cochrane review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30:2312–2320Google Scholar
  6. 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
  7. 7.
    Weinstein JN, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD, Tosteson AN, Blood E, Hanscom B, Herkowitz H, Cammisa F, Albert T, Boden SD, Hilibrand A, Goldberg H, Berven S, An H (2008) Surgical versus nonsurgical therapy for lumbar spinal stenosis. N Engl J Med 358:794–810PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Aryanpur J, Ducker T (1990) Multilevel lumbar laminotomies: an alternative to laminectomy in the treatment of lumbar stenosis. Neurosurgery 26:429–432PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Delank KS, Eysel P, Zollner J, Drees P, Nafe B, Rompe JD (2002) Undercutting decompression versus laminectomy. Clinical and radiological results of a prospective controlled trial. Orthopade 31:1048–1056PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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
  11. 11.
    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 59:1264–1269PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Celik SE, Celik S, Goksu K, Kara A, Ince I (2010) Microdecompressive laminatomy with a 5-year follow-up period for severe lumbar spinal stenosis. J Spinal Disord Tech 23:229–235PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Postacchini F, Cinotti G, Perugia D, Gumina S (1993) The surgical treatment of central lumbar stenosis. Multiple laminotomy compared with total laminectomy. J Bone Joint Surg Br 75:386–392PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rompe JD, Eysel P, Zollner J, Nafe B, Heine J (1999) Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Long-term results after undercutting decompression compared with decompressive laminectomy alone or with instrumented fusion. Neurosurg Rev 22:102–106PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Thomas NW, Rea GL, Pikul BK, Mervis LJ, Irsik R, McGregor JM (1997) Quantitative outcome and radiographic comparisons between laminectomy and laminotomy in the treatment of acquired lumbar stenosis. Neurosurgery 41:567–574PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 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. 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
  18. 18.
    Gunzburg R, Keller TS, Szpalski M, Vandeputte K, Spratt KF (2003) A prospective study on CT scan outcomes after conservative decompression surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. J Spinal Disord Tech 16:261–267PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gunzburg R, Szpalski M (2003) The conservative surgical treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis in the elderly. Eur Spine J 12(Suppl 2):S176–S180PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Spratt KF, Keller TS, Szpalski M, Vandeputte K, Gunzburg R (2004) A predictive model for outcome after conservative decompression surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. Eur Spine J 13:14–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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. 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. 23.
    Anon (2010) Klassifikasjon av medisinske prosedyrer og kirurgiske inngrep 2010. p 9–10Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Davidson M, Keating JL (2002) A comparison of five low back disability questionnaires: reliability and responsiveness. Phys Ther 82:8–24PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB (2000) The Oswestry Disability Index. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25:2940–2952Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nord E (1991) EuroQol: health-related quality of life measurement. Valuations of health states by the general public in Norway. Health Policy 18:25–36PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rabin R, de Charro F (2001) EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Ann Med 33:337–343PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Solberg TK, Olsen JA, Ingebrigtsen T, Hofoss D, Nygaard OP (2005) Health-related quality of life assessment by the EuroQol-5D can provide cost-utility data in the field of low-back surgery. Eur Spine J 14:1000–1007PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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
  30. 30.
    Jansson KA, Nemeth G, Granath F, Jonsson B, Blomqvist P (2009) Health-related quality of life (EQ-5D) before and one year after surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 91:210–216PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 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. 32.
    Tafazal SI, Sell PJ (2005) Incidental durotomy in lumbar spine surgery: incidence and management. Eur Spine J 14:287–290.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sirvanci M, Bhatia M, Ganiyusufoglu KA, Duran C, Tezer M, Ozturk C, Aydogan M, Hamzaoglu A (2008) Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: correlation with Oswestry Disability Index and MR imaging. Eur Spine J 17:679–685PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sigmundsson FG, Kang XP, Jonsson B, Stromqvist B (2011) Correlation between disability and MRI findings in lumbar spinal stenosis: a prospective study of 109 patients operated on by decompression. Acta Orthop 82:204–210PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Boden SD, Davis DO, Dina TS, Patronas NJ, Wiesel SW (1990) Abnormal magnetic-resonance scans of the lumbar spine in asymptomatic subjects. A prospective investigation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 72:403–408PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 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
  37. 37.
    Rapala K, Chaberek S, Truszczynska A, Lukawski S, Walczak P (2010) Digital computed tomography evaluation of spinal canal and dural sac before and after surgical decompression of lumbar stenosis. Ortop Traumatol Rehabil 12:120–135PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Erland Hermansen
    • 1
  • Gunnar Moen
    • 2
  • Johan Barstad
    • 3
  • Rune Birketvedt
    • 4
  • Kari Indrekvam
    • 4
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Orthopedic SurgeryÅlesund Hospital, Møre and Romsdal Hospital TrustÅlesundNorway
  2. 2.Radiologic DepartmentHaukeland University HospitalBergenNorway
  3. 3.Ålesund Hospital, Møre and Romsdal Hospital TrustÅlesundNorway
  4. 4.Kysthospitalet in Hagevik, Orthopedic ClinicHaukeland University HospitalBergenNorway
  5. 5.Department of Surgical SciencesUniversity of BergenBergenNorway

Personalised recommendations