The conservative surgical treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis in the elderly

  • Robert Gunzburg
  • Marek Szpalski
Conference paper


Canal stenosis is now the most common indication for lumbar spine surgery in elderly subjects. Degenerative disc disease is by far the most common cause of lumbar spinal stenosis. It is generally accepted that surgery is indicated if a well-conducted conservative management fails. A meta-analysis of the literature showed on average that 64% of surgically treated patients for lumbar spinal stenosis were reported to have good-to-excellent outcomes. In recent years, however, a growing tendency towards less invasive decompressive surgery has emerged. One such procedure, laminarthrectomy, refers to a surgical decompression involving a partial laminectomy of the vertebra above and below the stenotic level combined with a partial arthrectomy at that level. It can be performed through an approach which preserves a maximum of bony and ligamentous structures. Another principle of surgical treatment is interspinous process distraction This device is implanted between the spinous processes, thus reducing extension at the symptomatic level(s), yet allowing flexion and unrestricted axial rotation and lateral flexion. It limits the further narrowing of the canal in upright and extended position. In accordance with the current general tendency towards minimally invasive surgery, such techniques, which preserve much of the anatomy, and the biomechanical function of the lumbar spine may prove highly indicated in the surgical treatment of lumbar stenosis, especially in the elderly.


Lumbar spinal stenosis Surgery 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Amundsen T, Weber H, Nordal HJ et al (2000) Lumbar spinal stenosis: conservative or surgical management? A prospective 10-year study. Spine 25:1424–1436CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aryanpur J, Ducker T (1990) Multilevel lumbar laminotomies: an alternative to laminectomy in the treatment of lumbar stenosis. Neurosurgery 26:429–432CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Atlas SJ, Deyo RA, Keller RB et al (1996) The Maine lumbar spine study, part III. 1-year outcomes of surgical and nonsurgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 21:1787–1795CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Atlas SJ, Keller RB, Robson D et al (2000) Surgical and nonsurgical Management of lumbar spine stenosis. Four-year outcomes from the Maine lumbar spine study. Spine 25:556–562CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Caspar W, Papavero L, Sayler MK et al (1994) Precise and limited decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 131:130–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ciol MA, Deyo RA, Howell E et al (1996) An assessment of surgery for spinal stenosis: time trends, geographic variations, complications and re-operations. J Am Geriatr Soc 44:285–290PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Deyo RA, Cherkin DC, Loeser JD et al (1992) Morbidity and mortality in association with operations on the lumbar spine: the influence of age, diagnosis, and procedure. J Bone Joint Surg Am 4:536–543Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Epstein NE (1998) Decompression in the surgical management of degenerative spondylolisthesis: advantages of a conservative approach in 290 patients. J Spinal Disord 11:116–122PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fraser RD, Hall DJ (1992) Laminectomy combined with posterolateral stabilisation: a muscle-splitting approach to the lumbosacral spine. Eur Spine J 1:249–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fredman B, Arinzon Z, Zohar E et al (2002) Observations on the safety and efficacy of surgical decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis in geriatric patients. Eur Spine J 11:571–574CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Greenough CG, Fraser RD (1992) Lumbar spinal canal morphometry from computed tomography scans: reproducibility, results and clinical implications. Eur Spine J 1:32–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Greenough CG, Fraser RD (1992) Assessment of outcome in patients with low-back pain. Spine 17:36–41PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gunzburg R, Sandhu A, Fraser RD (1989) The value of computerized tomography in determining lumbar facet orientation. J Spinal Disord 2:170–175PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gunzburg R, Szpalski M, Hayez J-P (1996) The surgical approach to the lumbar spine. In: Szpalski M, Gunzburg R, Spengler D, Nachemson A (eds) Instrumented fusion of the lumbar spine: state of the art, questions and controversies. Lippincott-Raven, Philadelphia, pp 17–24Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gunzburg R, Keller TS, Szpalski M et al (2003) A prospective study on CT scan outcomes after conservative decompression surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. J Spinal Disord Techn 16:261–267:2003Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gunzburg R, Keller TS, Szpalski M et al (2003) Clinical and psychofunctional measures of conservative decompression surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis: a prospective cohort study. Eur Spine J 12:197–204CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Herno A, Airaksinen O, Saari T (1994) Computed tomography after laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 19:1975–1978PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Herno A, Saari T, Suomalainen O et al (1999) The degree of decompressive relief and its relation to clinical outcome in patients undergoing surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 24:1010–1014CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Herron LD, Mangelsdorf C (1991) Lumbar spinal stenosis: results of surgical treatment. J Spinal Disord 4:26–33PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Katz JN, Lipson SJ, Larson MG et al (1991) The outcome of decompressive laminectomy for degenerative lumbar stenosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 73:809–816PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Katz JN, Wright EA, Guadagnoli et al (1994) Differences between men and women undergoing major orthopaedic surgery for degenerative arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 37:687–694PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Katz, JN, Lipson SL, Brick GW et al (1995) Clinical correlates of patient satisfaction after laminectomy for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 20:1155–1160PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Katz JN, Lipson SL, Chang LC et al (1996) Seven to 10-year outcome of decompressive surgery for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 21:92–98CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lin PM (1982) Internal decompression for multiple levels of lumbar spinal stenosis: a technical note. Neurosurgery 11:546–549PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Munting E, Druez V, Tsoukas D (2000) Surgical decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis according to Senegas technique. In: Gunzburg R, Szpalski M (eds) Lumbar spinal stenosis. Lippincott-Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp 207–214Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Postacchini F (1996) Management of lumbar spinal stenosis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 78:154–164PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    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 28:348–353CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Swanson KE, Lindsey DP, Hsu KY et al (2003) The effects of an interspinous implant on vertebral disc pressures. Spine 28:26–32CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tsai RY, Yaang R-S, Bray RS (1998) Microscopic laminotomies for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. J Spinal Disord 11:389–394PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Turner JA, Ersek M, Herron L, Deyo R (1992) Surgery for lumbar stenosis: attempted meta-analysis of the literature. Spine 17:1–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Verbiest H (1954) Radicular syndrome from developmental narrowing of the lumbar vertebral canal. J Bone Joint Surg Br 26:230–237Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Weiner BK, Fraser RD, Peterson M (1999) Spinous process osteotomies to facilitate lumbar decompressive surgery. Spine 24:62–66CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wong HK, Bose K (1992) Spinal stenosis-Result of surgical treatment. J West Pac Orthop Assoc 29:37–41Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Young S, Veerapen R, O’Laoire SA (1988) Relief of lumbar canal stenosis using multilevel subarticular fenestrations as an alternative to wide laminectomy: preliminary report. Neurosurgery 23:628–633PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Zucherman JF, Hsu KY, Hartjen CA et al (2003) A prospective randomized multi-center study for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis with the X-STOP interspinous spacer: 1-year results. Eur Spine J (in press)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert Gunzburg
    • 1
  • Marek Szpalski
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of OrthopaedicsEeuwfeestkliniekAntwerpBelgium
  2. 2.Department of OrthopaedicsHôpitaux Iris Sud-Molière LongchampBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations