Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Response to comments on “Microsurgical decompression for central lumbar spinal stenosis: a single-center observational study”

  • Letter to the Editor (by Invitation) - Spine
  • Published:
Acta Neurochirurgica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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

References

  1. Giannadakis C, Hammersbøen LE, Feyling C, Solheim O, Jakola AS, Nerland US, Nygaard ØP, Solberg TK, Gulati S (2015) Microsurgical decompression for central lumbar spinal stenosis: a single-center observational study. Acta Neurochir (Wein) 157(7):1165–1171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ishimoto Y, Yoshimura N, Muraki S, Yamada H, Nagata K, Hashizume H, Takiguchi N, Minamide A, Oka H, Kawaguchi H, Nakamura K, Akune T, Yoshida M (2012) Prevalence of symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis and its association with physical performance in a population-based cohort in Japan: the Wakayama Spine Study. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 20(10):1103–1108

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bae HW, Rajaee SS, Kanim LE (2013) Nationwide trends in the surgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38(11):916–926

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 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 (Phila Pa 1976) 25(11):1424–1435, discussion 1435–1426

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. 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 (Phila Pa 1976) 25(5):556–562

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. 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 (Phila Pa 1976) 30(8):936–943

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 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 (2007) Surgical or nonoperative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis? A randomized controlled trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32(1):1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 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(8):794–810

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. 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(2):179–186

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. 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(2):129–141

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Deyo RA, Mirza SK, Martin BI, Kreuter W, Goodman DC, Jarvik JG (2010) Trends, major medical complications, and charges associated with surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis in older adults. JAMA 303(13):1259–1265

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Deyo RA (2010) Treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: a balancing act. Spine J 10(7):625–627

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Deyo RA, Nachemson A, Mirza SK (2004) Spinal-fusion surgery—the case for restraint. N Engl J Med 350(7):722–726

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Martin CR, Gruszczynski AT, Braunsfurth HA, Fallatah SM, O’Neil J, Wai EK (2007) The surgical management of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: a systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32(16):1791–1798

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Forsth P, Olafsson G, Carlsson T, Frost A, Borgstrom F, Fritzell P, Ohagen P, Michaelsson K, Sanden B (2016) A randomized, controlled trial of fusion surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. N Engl J Med 374(15):1413–1423

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Ghogawala Z, Dziura J, Butler WE, Dai F, Terrin N, Magge SN, Coumans JV, Harrington JF, Amin-Hanjani S, Schwartz JS, Sonntag VK, Barker FG 2nd, Benzel EC (2016) Laminectomy plus fusion versus laminectomy alone for lumbar spondylolisthesis. N Engl J Med 374(15):1424–1434

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Forsth P, Michaelsson K, Sanden B (2016) Fusion surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. N Engl J Med 375(6):599–600

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Shaffer WO, Sprat KF, Weinstein J, Lehmann TR, Goel V (1990) 1990 Volvo Award in clinical sciences. The consistency and accuracy of roentgenograms for measuring sagittal translation in the lumbar vertebral motion segment. An experimental model. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 15(8):741–750

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Cabraja M, Mohamed E, Koeppen D, Kroppenstedt S (2012) The analysis of segmental mobility with different lumbar radiographs in symptomatic patients with a spondylolisthesis. Eur Spine J 21(2):256–261

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Neurosurgery, St. Olavs University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway

    Sasha Gulati & Charalampis Giannadakis

  2. Department of Neuroscience, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway

    Sasha Gulati & Charalampis Giannadakis

  3. National Advisory Unit on Spinal Surgery, Centre for Spinal Disorders, St. Olavs University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway

    Sasha Gulati

Authors
  1. Sasha Gulati
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Charalampis Giannadakis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Charalampis Giannadakis.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

All authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organisation or entity with any financial interest (such as honoraria; educational grants; participation in speakers’ bureaus; membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest; and expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements), or non-financial interest (such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs) in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gulati, S., Giannadakis, C. Response to comments on “Microsurgical decompression for central lumbar spinal stenosis: a single-center observational study”. Acta Neurochir 158, 2233–2234 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-016-2963-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-016-2963-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation