Microsurgical decompression for central lumbar spinal stenosis: a single-center observational study
- 551 Downloads
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.
KeywordsSpinal 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.
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
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.
- 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
- 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
- 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.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.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.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
- 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.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