Does surgical technique influence clinical outcome after lumbar spinal stenosis decompression? A comparative effectiveness study from the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery
- 684 Downloads
The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcome of spinal process osteotomy with two other midline-retaining methods, bilateral laminotomy and unilateral laminotomy with crossover, among patients undergoing surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis.
This cohort study was based on data from the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery (NORspine). Patients were operated on between 2009 and 2013 at 31 Norwegian hospitals. The patients completed questionnaires at admission for surgery, and after 3 and 12 months. The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were duration of surgery and hospital stay, Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) for back pain and leg pain, and EQ-5D and EQ-VAS. The patients were classified into one of three treatment groups according to the surgery they had received, and a propensity score was utilized to minimize bias. The three treatment groups were divided into subgroups based on Propensity Scores, and the statistical analyses were performed with and within the Propensity Score stratified subgroups.
103 patients had spinal process osteotomy, 966 patients had bilateral laminotomy, and 462 patients had unilateral laminotomy with crossover. Baseline clinical scores were similar in the three groups. There were no differences in improvement after 3 and 12 months between treatment groups. At 12 months, mean ODI improvement was 15.2 (SD 16.7) after spinous process osteotomy, 16.9 (SD 17.0) after bilateral laminotomy, and 16.7 (SD 16.9) after unilateral laminotomy with crossover. There were no differences in the secondary clinical outcomes or complication rates. Mean duration of surgery was greatest for spinal process osteotomy (p < 0.05). Length of stay was 2.1 days (SD 2.1) in the bilateral laminotomy group, 3.5 (SD 2.4) days for unilateral laminotomy, and 6.9 days (SD 4.1) for spinous process osteotomy group (p < 0.05).
In a propensity scored matched cohort, there were no differences in the clinical outcome 12 months after surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis performed using the three different posterior decompression techniques. Bilateral laminotomy had shortest duration of surgery and shortest length of hospital stay. Surgical technique does not seem to affect clinical outcome after three different midline-retaining posterior decompression techniques.
KeywordsLumbar spinal stenosis Laminotomy Posterior decompression Spinal process osteotomy
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
- 4.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 3:129–141CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 9.Arai Y, Hirai T, Yoshii T, Sakai K, Kato T, Enomoto M, Matsumoto R, Yamada T, Kawabata S, Shinomiya K, Okawa A (2014) A Prospective comparative study of 2 minimally invasive decompression procedures for lumbar spinal canal stenosis: unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (ULBD) versus muscle-preserving interlaminar decompression (MILD). Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 39:332–340. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000136 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Yong-Hing K, Kirkaldy-Willis WH (1978) Osteotomy of lumbar spinous process to increase surgical exposure. Clin Orthop Relat Res 134:218–220Google Scholar
- 15.Hermansen E, Moen G, Barstad J, Birketvedt R, Indrekvam K (2013) Laminarthrectomy as a surgical approach for decompressing the spinal canal: assessment of preoperative versus postoperative dural sac cross-sectional areal (DSCSA). Eur Spine J 22:1913–1919. doi: 10.1007/s00586-013-2737-1 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 16.Takaso M, Nakazawa T, Imura T, Okada T, Fukushima K, Ueno M, Saito W, Shintani R, Sakagami H, Takahashi K, Yamazaki M, Ohtori S, Kotani T (2011) Less invasive and less technically demanding decompressive procedure for lumbar spinal stenosis—appropriate for general orthopaedic surgeons? Int Orthop 35:67–73. doi: 10.1007/s00264-010-0986-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 23.Munting E, Roder C, Sobottke R, Dietrich D, Aghayev E (2014) Patient outcomes after laminotomy, hemilaminectomy, laminectomy and laminectomy with instrumented fusion for spinal canal stenosis: a propensity score-based study from the Spine Tango registry. Eur Spine J. doi: 10.1007/s00586-014-3349-0 PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 24.Nerland US, Jakola AS, Solheim O, Weber C, Rao V, Lonne G, Solberg TK, Salvesen O, Carlsen SM, Nygaard OP, Gulati S (2015) Minimally invasive decompression versus open laminectomy for central stenosis of the lumbar spine: pragmatic comparative effectiveness study. BMJ 350:h1603. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h1603 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 25.Rihn JA, Hilibrand AS, Zhao W, Lurie JD, Vaccaro AR, Albert TJ, Weinstein J (2015) Effectiveness of surgery for lumbar stenosis and degenerative spondylolisthesis in the octogenarian population: analysis of the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) data. J Bone Joint Surg Am 97:177–185. doi: 10.2106/jbjs.n.00313 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 26.Gulati S, Nordseth T, Nerland US, Gulati M, Weber C, Giannadakis C, Nygaard OP, Solberg TK, Solheim O, Jakola AS (2015) Does daily tobacco smoking affect outcomes after microdecompression for degenerative central lumbar spinal stenosis?—a multicenter observational registry-based study. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 157:1157–1164. doi: 10.1007/s00701-015-2437-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 27.Copay AG, Glassman SD, Subach BR, Berven S, Schuler TC, Carreon LY (2008) Minimum clinically important difference in lumbar spine surgery patients: a choice of methods using the Oswestry Disability Index, Medical Outcomes Study questionnaire Short Form 36, and pain scales. Spine J 8:968–974CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 29.Parker SL, Adogwa O, Mendenhall SK, Shau DN, Anderson WN, Cheng JS, Devin CJ, McGirt MJ (2012) Determination of minimum clinically important difference (MCID) in pain, disability, and quality of life after revision fusion for symptomatic pseudoarthrosis. Spine J 12:1122–1128. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2012.10.006 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 32.Parker SL, Mendenhall SK, Shau D, Adogwa O, Cheng JS, Anderson WN, Devin CJ, McGirt MJ (2012) Determination of minimum clinically important difference in pain, disability, and quality of life after extension of fusion for adjacent-segment disease. J Neurosurg Spine 16:61–67CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 33.Nerland US, Jakola AS, Giannadakis C, Solheim O, Weber C, Nygaard OP, Solberg TK, Gulati S (2015) The risk of getting worse: predictors of deterioration after decompressive surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis: a multicenter observational study. World Neurosurg 84:1095–1102. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2015.05.055 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 34.Dworkin RH, Turk DC, McDermott MP, Peirce-Sandner S, Burke LB, Cowan P, Farrar JT, Hertz S, Raja SN, Rappaport BA, Rauschkolb C, Sampaio C (2009) Interpreting the clinical importance of group differences in chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain 146:238–244. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2009.08.019 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 35.Dworkin RH, Turk DC, Wyrwich KW, Beaton D, Cleeland CS, Farrar JT, Haythornthwaite JA, Jensen MP, Kerns RD, Ader DN, Brandenburg N, Burke LB, Cella D, Chandler J, Cowan P, Dimitrova R, Dionne R, Hertz S, Jadad AR, Katz NP, Kehlet H, Kramer LD, Manning DC, McCormick C, McDermott MP, McQuay HJ, Patel S, Porter L, Quessy S, Rappaport BA, Rauschkolb C, Revicki DA, Rothman M, Schmader KE, Stacey BR, Stauffer JW, von Stein T, White RE, Witter J, Zavisic S (2008) Interpreting the clinical importance of treatment outcomes in chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. J Pain 9:105–121. doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2007.09.005 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar