Advertisement

European Spine Journal

, Volume 26, Issue 2, pp 420–427 | Cite as

Does surgical technique influence clinical outcome after lumbar spinal stenosis decompression? A comparative effectiveness study from the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery

  • Erland HermansenEmail author
  • Ulla Kristina Romild
  • Ivar Magne Austevoll
  • Tore Solberg
  • Kjersti Storheim
  • Jens Ivar Brox
  • Christian Hellum
  • Kari Indrekvam
Original Article

Abstract

Introduction

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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).

Conclusion

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.

Keywords

Lumbar spinal stenosis Laminotomy Posterior decompression Spinal process osteotomy 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Gibson JN, Waddell G (2005) Surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylosis: updated Cochrane review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30:2312–2320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jacobs WC, Rubinstein SM, Willems PC, Moojen WA, Pellise F, Oner CF, Peul WC, van Tulder MW (2013) The evidence on surgical interventions for low back disorders, an overview of systematic reviews. Eur Spine J 22:1936–1949. doi: 10.1007/s00586-013-2823-4 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Overdevest GM, Jacobs W, Vleggeert-Lankamp C, Thome C, Gunzburg R, Peul W (2015) Effectiveness of posterior decompression techniques compared with conventional laminectomy for lumbar stenosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 3:CD010036. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010036.pub2 Google Scholar
  4. 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
  5. 5.
    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 31:1048–1056CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fu YS, Zeng BF, Xu JG (2008) Long-term outcomes of two different decompressive techniques for lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33:514–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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
  8. 8.
    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
  9. 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
  10. 10.
    Dalgic A, Uckun O, Ergungor MF, Okay O, Daglioglu E, Hatipoglu G, Pasaoglu L, Caglar YS (2010) Comparison of unilateral hemilaminotomy and bilateral hemilaminotomy according to dural sac area in lumbar spinal stenosis. Minim Invasive Neurosurg 53:60–64CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hong SW, Choi KY, Ahn Y, Baek OK, Wang JC, Lee SH, Lee HY (2011) A comparison of unilateral and bilateral laminotomies for decompression of L4–L5 spinal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36:E172–E178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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
  13. 13.
    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 16:261–267CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gunzburg R, Szpalski M (2003) The conservative surgical treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis in the elderly. Eur Spine J 12(Suppl 2):S176–S180CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 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. 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
  17. 17.
    Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB (2000) The Oswestry Disability Index. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25:2940–2952CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    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 14:1000–1007CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nord E (1991) EuroQol: health-related quality of life measurement. Valuations of health states by the general public in Norway. Health Policy 18:25–36CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rabin R, Charro FD (2001) EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Ann Med 33:337–343CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB (1983) The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 70:41–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Carreon LY, Glassman SD, Kantamneni NR, Mugavin MO, Djurasovic M (2010) Clinical outcomes after posterolateral lumbar fusion in workers’ compensation patients: a case–control study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35:1812–1817. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181c68b75 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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
  28. 28.
    Hagg O, Fritzell P, Oden A, Nordwall A (2002) Simplifying outcome measurement: evaluation of instruments for measuring outcome after fusion surgery for chronic low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 27:1213–1222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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
  30. 30.
    Hagg O, Fritzell P, Nordwall A (2003) The clinical importance of changes in outcome scores after treatment for chronic low back pain. Eur Spine J 12:12–20PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hagg O, Fritzell P, Ekselius L, Nordwall A (2003) Predictors of outcome in fusion surgery for chronic low back pain. A report from the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study. Eur Spine J 12:22–33PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 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. 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. 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. 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
  36. 36.
    Solberg T, Johnsen LG, Nygaard OP, Grotle M (2013) Can we define success criteria for lumbar disc surgery?: estimates for a substantial amount of improvement in core outcome measures. Acta Orthop 84:196–201. doi: 10.3109/17453674.2013.786634 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ohrn A, Olai A, Rutberg H, Nilsen P, Tropp H (2011) Adverse events in spine surgery in Sweden: a comparison of patient claims data and national quality register (Swespine) data. Acta Orthop 82:727–731. doi: 10.3109/17453674.2011.636673 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Erland Hermansen
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • Ulla Kristina Romild
    • 4
  • Ivar Magne Austevoll
    • 2
    • 3
  • Tore Solberg
    • 5
    • 6
  • Kjersti Storheim
    • 7
  • Jens Ivar Brox
    • 8
  • Christian Hellum
    • 9
  • Kari Indrekvam
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Orthopedic SurgeryÅlesund Hospital, Møre and Romsdal Hospital TrustÅlesundNorway
  2. 2.Kysthospitalet in Hagevik, Orthopedic ClinicHaukeland University HospitalBergenNorway
  3. 3.Department of Clinical MedicineUniversity of BergenBergenNorway
  4. 4.Department of ResearchLevanger Hospital, Nord-Trøndelag Hospital TrustLevangerNorway
  5. 5.Department of NeurosurgeryUniversity Hospital of North NorwayTromsøNorway
  6. 6.Norwegian National Registry for Spine SurgeryUniversity Hospital of North NorwayTromsøNorway
  7. 7.Communication and Research Unit for Musculoskeletal Disorders (FORMI)Oslo University Hospital, University of OsloOsloNorway
  8. 8.Department of Physical Medicine and RehabilitationOslo University HospitalOsloNorway
  9. 9.Department of OrthopedicsOslo University HospitalOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations