Acta Neurochirurgica

, Volume 157, Issue 7, pp 1165–1171 | Cite as

Microsurgical decompression for central lumbar spinal stenosis: a single-center observational study

  • Charalampis GiannadakisEmail author
  • Lars-Egil Hammersbøen
  • Casper Feyling
  • Ole Solheim
  • Asgeir S. Jakola
  • Ulf S. Nerland
  • Øystein P. Nygaard
  • Tore K. Solberg
  • Sasha Gulati
Clinical Article - Spine



To assess outcomes and complications in patients undergoing microsurgical decompression for central lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) without radiologic instability.


Prospective data for patients operated at the Department of Neurosurgery, St. Olavs University Hospital, Norway, were obtained from the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery (NORspine) from 2007 to 2012. The primary outcome was change in Oswestry disability index (ODI) at 1 year. The secondary endpoint was perioperative complications. Complications were graded according to the Ibanez classification system.


For all patients (n = 125), the mean improvement in ODI at 1 year was 16.9 points (95 % CI 13.5–20.2, p < 0.001). Seventy-six (71.7 %) patients achieved a minimal clinically important difference in ODI (defined as ≥8 points improvement). The total number of complications within 3 months of surgery was 22 (17.6 %). There were 14 medical and eight surgical complications, and all were Ibanez grade I or II (mild or moderate) complications. Four (3.2 %) complications occurred while being admitted to the hospital and 18 (14.4 %) occurred within 3 months following hospital discharge. The most common complication was urinary tract infection (n = 11, 8.8 %).


Microsurgical decompression for central LSS in the absence of radiological instability is an effective and safe treatment.


Spinal stenosis Neurosurgical procedures Single-center study Microdecompression Patient reported outcomes Quality of life 



The authors thank the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery (NORspine). The NORspine registry receives funding from the University of Northern Norway and Norwegian health authorities. We thank all patients and surgeons participating in NORspine registration.

Funding statement

This study received a grant (Grant for quality improvement and patient safety) from the Norwegian Medical Association. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Conflict of interest


Authors’ contributions

All authors read and approved the final manuscript. CG: Collection of data, statistics and writing. LEH: Collection of data, statistics and writing. CF: Collection of data, statistics and writing. OS: Statistics and writing. ASJ: Statistics and writing. USN: Collection of data and writing. ØPN: Collection of data and writing. TKS: Collection of data and writing. SG: Study design, statistics and writing.


  1. 1.
    Alimi M, Hofstetter CP, Pyo SY, Paulo D, Hartl R (2015) Minimally invasive laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis in patients with and without preoperative spondylolisthesis: clinical outcome and reoperation rates. J Neurosurg Spine 22:339–352PubMedCrossRefGoogle 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 25:1424–1435, discussion 1435–1426PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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 25:556–562PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    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 30:936–943PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brox JI, Reikeras O, Nygaard O, Sorensen R, Indahl A, Holm I, Keller A, Ingebrigtsen T, Grundnes O, Lange JE, Friis A (2006) Lumbar instrumented fusion compared with cognitive intervention and exercises in patients with chronic back pain after previous surgery for disc herniation: a prospective randomized controlled study. Pain 122:145–155PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR (1987) A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 40:373–383PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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 44:285–290PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dekutoski MB, Norvell DC, Dettori JR, Fehlings MG, Chapman JR (2010) Surgeon perceptions and reported complications in spine surgery. Spine 35:S9–S21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Desai A, Ball PA, Bekelis K, Lurie J, Mirza SK, Tosteson TD, Weinstein JN (2011) SPORT: does incidental durotomy affect long-term outcomes in cases of spinal stenosis? Neurosurgery 69:38–44, discussion 44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Desai A, Bekelis K, Ball PA, Lurie J, Mirza SK, Tosteson TD, Zhao W, Weinstein JN (2013) Variation in outcomes across centers after surgery for lumbar stenosis and degenerative spondylolisthesis in the spine patient outcomes research trial. Spine 38:678–691PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Deyo RA (2010) Treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: a balancing act. Spine J 10:625–627PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fairbank JC, Couper J, Davies JB, O’Brien JP (1980) The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy 66:271–273PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Grotle M, Brox JI, Vollestad NK (2003) Cross-cultural adaptation of the Norwegian versions of the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and the Oswestry Disability Index. J Rehabil Med 35:241–247PubMedCrossRefGoogle 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–S180PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hellum C, Johnsen LG, Storheim K, Nygaard OP, Brox JI, Rossvoll I, Ro M, Sandvik L, Grundnes O, Norwegian Spine Study G (2011) Surgery with disc prosthesis versus rehabilitation in patients with low back pain and degenerative disc: two-year follow-up of randomised study. BMJ 342:d2786PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jakola AS, Sorlie A, Gulati S, Nygaard OP, Lydersen S, Solberg T (2010) Clinical outcomes and safety assessment in elderly patients undergoing decompressive laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis: a prospective study. BMC Surg 10:34PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Knutsson B, Michaelsson K, Sanden B (2013) Obesity is associated with inferior results after surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis: a study of 2633 patients from the Swedish spine register. Spine 38:435–441PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Landriel Ibanez FA, Hem S, Ajler P, Vecchi E, Ciraolo C, Baccanelli M, Tramontano R, Knezevich F, Carrizo A (2011) A new classification of complications in neurosurgery. World Neurosurg 75:709–715, discussion 604–711PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    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, Finnish Lumbar Spinal Research G (2007) Surgical or nonoperative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis? A randomized controlled trial. Spine 32:1–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    McCutcheon BA, Ciacci JD, Marcus LP, Noorbakhsh A, Gonda DD, McCafferty R, Taylor W, Chen CC, Carter BS, Chang DC (2014) 30-day perioperative outcomes in spinal fusion by specialty within the NSQIP database. Spine Sep 8 Epub ahead of printGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mobbs RJ, Li J, Sivabalan P, Raley D, Rao PJ (2014) Outcomes after decompressive laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis: comparison between minimally invasive unilateral laminectomy for bilateral decompression and open laminectomy: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 21:179–186PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    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:h1603PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nota SP, Braun Y, Ring D, Schwab JH (2014) Incidence of surgical site infection after spine surgery: what is the impact of the definition of infection? Clin Orthop Relat Res 473:1612–1619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Palmer S, Davison L (2012) Minimally invasive surgical treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: two-year follow-up in 54 patients. Surg Neurol Int 3:41PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pearson A, Lurie J, Tosteson T, Zhao W, Abdu W, Weinstein JN (2012) Who should have surgery for spinal stenosis? Treatment effect predictors in SPORT. Spine 37:1791–1802PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rolston JD, Han SJ, Lau CY, Berger MS, Parsa AT (2014) Frequency and predictors of complications in neurological surgery: national trends from 2006 to 2011. J Neurosurg 120:736–745PubMedCrossRefGoogle 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.
    Schizas C, Theumann N, Burn A, Tansey R, Wardlaw D, Smith FW, Kulik G (2010) Qualitative grading of severity of lumbar spinal stenosis based on the morphology of the dural sac on magnetic resonance images. Spine 35:1919–1924PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Smith ZA, Fessler RG (2012) Paradigm changes in spine surgery: evolution of minimally invasive techniques. Nat Rev Neurol 8:443–450PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    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
  31. 31.
    Solberg TK, Sorlie A, Sjaavik K, Nygaard OP, Ingebrigtsen T (2011) Would loss to follow-up bias the outcome evaluation of patients operated for degenerative disorders of the lumbar spine? Acta Orthop 82:56–63PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    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
  33. 33.
    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, Investigators S (2008) Surgical versus nonsurgical therapy for lumbar spinal stenosis. N Engl J Med 358:794–810PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Whitmore RG, Stephen JH, Vernick C, Campbell PG, Yadla S, Ghobrial GM, Maltenfort MG, Ratliff JK (2014) ASA grade and Charlson comorbidity index of spinal surgery patients: correlation with complications and societal costs. Spine J 14:31–38PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Wien 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Charalampis Giannadakis
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Lars-Egil Hammersbøen
    • 3
  • Casper Feyling
    • 3
  • Ole Solheim
    • 1
    • 2
    • 4
  • Asgeir S. Jakola
    • 1
    • 5
  • Ulf S. Nerland
    • 1
    • 2
  • Øystein P. Nygaard
    • 1
    • 2
    • 6
  • Tore K. Solberg
    • 7
    • 8
  • Sasha Gulati
    • 1
    • 2
    • 6
    • 9
  1. 1.Department of NeurosurgerySt. Olavs University HospitalTrondheimNorway
  2. 2.Department of NeuroscienceNorwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU)TrondheimNorway
  3. 3.The Faculty of MedicineNorwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU)TrondheimNorway
  4. 4.National Advisory Unit in Ultrasound and Image-Guided SurgeryTrondheimNorway
  5. 5.Department of NeurosurgerySahlgrenska University HospitalGothenburgSweden
  6. 6.National Advisory Unit on Spinal Surgery Center for Spinal DisordersSt. Olavs University HospitalTrondheimNorway
  7. 7.Department of NeurosurgeryUniversity Hospital of Northern Norway (UNN)TromsøNorway
  8. 8.The Norwegian National Registry for Spine Surgery (NORspine)University Hospital of Northern Norway (UNN)TromsøNorway
  9. 9.Norwegian Centre of Competence in Deep Brain Stimulation for Movement DisordersSt. Olavs University HospitalTrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations