Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

“A decade with micro-tubular decompression”: Peri-operative complications and surgical outcomes in single and multilevel lumbar canal stenosis

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

We present ten years experience with micro-tubular decompression (MTD) performed for single and multilevel lumbar canal stenosis (LCS) assessing the peri-operative complications and mid-term surgical outcome. The aims of this study were to review the incidence of peri-operative complications and classification of complications and define risk factors to prevent it while negotiating the learning curve.

Methods

A retrospective review of prospectively collected data over a period of ten years involving 625 patients who underwent single/multilevel lumbar MTD. Peri-operative clinical-radiological parameters, post-operative complications, clinical outcome (VAS and ODI), and satisfactory outcomes in the form of Wang and Bohlmann’s criteria were evaluated. The peri-operative complications were divided into five broad categories based on their time of occurrence, severity, and system affected. The comparison between the patients with and without complications was done to evaluate the causative risk factors.

Results

The overall incidence of the peri-operative complication was 12.96% over ten years with higher rate (29.8%) during the initial three years of practice and lower rate (8.78%) in the last seven years. The most common peri-operative complications were urinary tract infections (UTI). The risk factors for complications with MTD revealed in statistical analysis were presence of one or more comorbidities, L4–L5 single-level stenosis, bilateral stenosis with ipsilateral and bilateral decompression done through unilateral approach, and multilevel MTD done through single incision for multilevel LCS. More than 95% patients operated with MTD showed excellent to good outcome as per the Wang and Bohlmann’s criteria at the final follow-up.

Conclusion

This study represents 12.96% overall incidence of peri-operative complications with higher rate (29.8%) during the initial three years of practice and lower rate (8.78%) in the last seven years with MTD for single/multilevel LCS with. MTD is an effective procedure with substantial clinical benefits in the form of excellent to good clinico-radiological outcomes at two year follow-up. However, there is a learning curve associated with the adoption of the technique. The described classification for peri-operative complications is helpful to record, to evaluate, and to understand the aetiology and risk factors based on its duration of occurrence in the peri-operative period.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Foley KT, Smith MM (1997) Microendoscopic discectomy. Tech Neurosurg 3:301–307

    Google Scholar 

  2. Poletti CE (1995) Central lumbar stenosis caused by ligamentum flavum: unilateral laminotomy for bilateral ligamentectomy: preliminary report of two cases. Neurosurgery 37:343–347

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Righesso O, Falavigna A, Avanzi O (2007) Comparison of open discectomy with microendoscopic discectomy in lumbar disc herniations: results of randomized controlled trial. Neurosurgery 61:545–549

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ikuta K, Arima J, Tanaka T et al (2005) Short-term results of microendoscopic posterior decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis. J Neurosurg Spine 2:624–633

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Pao JL, Chen WC, Chen PQ (2009) Clinical outcomes of microendoscopic decompressive laminotomy for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Eur Spine J 18:672–678

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Mannion R, Guilfoyle M, Efendy J et al (2012) Minimally invasive lumbar decompression long-term outcome, morbidity and the learning curve from the first 50 cases. J Spinal Disord Tech 25:47–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Patel N, Bagan B, Vadera S et al (2007) Obesity and spine surgery: relation to perioperative complications. J Neurosurg Spine 6:291–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Lebude B, Yadla S, Albert T et al (2010) Defining “complications” in spine surgery. Neurosurgery and Orthopedic Spine Surgeons’ Survey. J Spinal Disord Tech 23:492–500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ibanez FA, Hem S, Ajler P et al (2011) A new classification of complications in neurosurgery. World Neurosurg 75:709–715

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Perez-Cruet MJ, Fessler RG, Perin NI (2002) Review: complications of minimally invasive spinal surgery. Neurosurgery 51(2 Suppl):26–36

    Google Scholar 

  11. Ratliff JK, Lebude B, Albert T et al (2009) Complications in spinal surgery: comparative survey of spine surgeons and patients who underwent spinal surgery. J Neurosurg Spine 10:578–584

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Imagama S, Kawakami N, Tsuji T et al (2011) Perioperative complications and adverse events after lumbar spinal surgery: evaluation of 1012 operations at a single center. J Orthop Sci 16:510–515

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Dekutoski MB, Norvell DC, Dettori JR et al (2010) Surgeons’ perceptions and reported complications in spine surgery. Spine 35(Suppl):S9–S21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Guiot BH, Khoo LT, Fessler RG (2002) A minimally invasive technique for decompression of the lumbar spine. Spine 27:432–438

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Rahman M, Summers LE, Richter B et al (2008) Comparison of techniques for decompressive lumbar laminectomy: the minimally invasive versus the “classic” open approach. Minim Invasive Neurosurg 51:100–105

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Ikuta K, Arima J, Tanaka T et al (2005) Short-term results of microendoscopic posterior decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis. Technical note. J Neurosurg Spine 2:624–633

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Wilby MJ, Seeley H, Laing RJ (2006) Laminectomy for lumbar canal stenosis: a safe and effective treatment. Br J Neurosurg 20:391–395

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Weinstein JN, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD et al (2008) SPORT Investigators. Surgical versus nonsurgical therapy for lumbar spinal stenosis. N Engl J Med 358:794–810

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Bresnahan L, Ogden AT, Natarajan RN et al (2009) A biomechanical evaluation of graded posterior element removal for treatment of lumbar stenosis: comparison of a minimally invasive approach with two standard laminectomy techniques. Spine 34:17–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Khoo L, Fessler RG (2002) Microendoscopic decompressive laminotomy for the treatment of lumbar stenosis. Neurosurgery 51(5 suppl):S146–S154

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Palmer S, Turner R, Palmer R (2002) Bilateral decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis involving a unilateral approach with microscope and tubular retractor system. J Neurosurg 97(Suppl 2):213–217

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Palmer S, Turner R, Palmer R (2002) Bilateral decompressive surgery in lumbar spinal stenosis associated with spondylolisthesis: unilateral approach and use of a microscope and tubular retractor system. Neurosurg Focus 13:E4

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Benz RJ, Garfin SR (2001) Current techniques of decompression of the lumbar spine. Clin Orthop Relat Res 384:75–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Carreon LY, Puno RM, Dimar JR 2nd et al (2003) Perioperative complications of posterior lumbar decompression and arthrodesis in older adults. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85A:2089–2092

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Ragab AA, Fye MA, Bohlman HH (2003) Surgery of the lumbar spine for spinal stenosis in 118 patients 70 years of age or older. Spine 28:348–353

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Availability of data and materials

Data and materials of this study will be made available on request to the authors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Mumbai Institute of Spine Surgery, Bombay Hospital and Medical Research Centre, Marine Lines, Mumbai, 400020, India

    Jwalant Patel & Vishal Kundnani

  2. State Institute of Health and Family Welfare, Baroda, Gujarat, India

    Suraj Kuriya

Authors
  1. Jwalant Patel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Vishal Kundnani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Suraj Kuriya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Each of the authors has equally contributed in this study.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jwalant Patel.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

Ethical approval from the institute was taken.

Consent to participate

Consent from the patients to participate in the study was taken.

Consent for publication

The authors give consent to publish this study.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Patel, J., Kundnani, V. & Kuriya, S. “A decade with micro-tubular decompression”: Peri-operative complications and surgical outcomes in single and multilevel lumbar canal stenosis. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 45, 1881–1889 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-021-05032-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-021-05032-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation