Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The conservative surgical treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis in the elderly

  • Review
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

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. a
Fig. 2. a

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Amundsen T, Weber H, Nordal HJ et al (2000) Lumbar spinal stenosis: conservative or surgical management? A prospective 10-year study. Spine 25:1424–1436

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Aryanpur J, Ducker T (1990) Multilevel lumbar laminotomies: an alternative to laminectomy in the treatment of lumbar stenosis. Neurosurgery 26:429–432

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 21:1787–1795

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 25:556–562

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Caspar W, Papavero L, Sayler MK et al (1994) Precise and limited decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 131:130–136

    Google Scholar 

  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 44:285–290

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 4:536–543

    Google Scholar 

  8. Epstein NE (1998) Decompression in the surgical management of degenerative spondylolisthesis: advantages of a conservative approach in 290 patients. J Spinal Disord 11:116–122

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Fraser RD, Hall DJ (1992) Laminectomy combined with posterolateral stabilisation: a muscle-splitting approach to the lumbosacral spine. Eur Spine J 1:249–253

    Google Scholar 

  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 11:571–574

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Greenough CG, Fraser RD (1992) Lumbar spinal canal morphometry from computed tomography scans: reproducibility, results and clinical implications. Eur Spine J 1:32–37

    Google Scholar 

  12. Greenough CG, Fraser RD (1992) Assessment of outcome in patients with low-back pain. Spine 17:36–41

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Gunzburg R, Sandhu A, Fraser RD (1989) The value of computerized tomography in determining lumbar facet orientation. J Spinal Disord 2:170–175

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 17–24

  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 16:261–267:2003

    Google Scholar 

  16. GunzburgR, 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 12:197–204

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Herno A, Airaksinen O, Saari T (1994) Computed tomography after laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 19:1975–1978

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 24:1010–1014

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Herron LD, Mangelsdorf C (1991) Lumbar spinal stenosis: results of surgical treatment. J Spinal Disord 4:26–33

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Katz JN, Lipson SJ, Larson MG et al (1991) The outcome of decompressive laminectomy for degenerative lumbar stenosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 73:809–816

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Katz JN, Wright EA, Guadagnoli et al (1994) Differences between men and women undergoing major orthopaedic surgery for degenerative arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 37:687–694

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Katz, JN, Lipson SL, Brick GW et al (1995) Clinical correlates of patient satisfaction after laminectomy for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 20:1155–1160

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Katz JN, Lipson SL, Chang LC et al (1996) Seven to 10-year outcome of decompressive surgery for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 21:92–98

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Lin PM (1982) Internal decompression for multiple levels of lumbar spinal stenosis: a technical note. Neurosurgery 11:546–549

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 207–214

  26. Postacchini F (1996) Management of lumbar spinal stenosis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 78:154–164

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 28:348–353

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Swanson KE, Lindsey DP, Hsu KY et al (2003) The effects of an interspinous implant on vertebral disc pressures. Spine 28:26–32

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Tsai RY, Yaang R-S, Bray RS (1998) Microscopic laminotomies for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. J Spinal Disord 11:389–394

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Turner JA, Ersek M, Herron L, Deyo R (1992) Surgery for lumbar stenosis: attempted meta-analysis of the literature. Spine 17:1–8

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Verbiest H (1954) Radicular syndrome from developmental narrowing of the lumbar vertebral canal. J Bone Joint Surg Br 26:230–237

    Google Scholar 

  32. Weiner BK, Fraser RD, Peterson M (1999) Spinous process osteotomies to facilitate lumbar decompressive surgery. Spine 24:62–66

    Google Scholar 

  33. Wong HK, Bose K (1992) Spinal stenosis–Result of surgical treatment. J West Pac Orthop Assoc 29:37–41

    Google Scholar 

  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 23:628–633

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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)

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Prof. René Louis for preparation of the surgical drawings.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedics, Eeuwfeestkliniek, Harmoniestraat 68, 2018, Antwerp, Belgium

    Robert Gunzburg

  2. Department of Orthopaedics, Hôpitaux Iris Sud–Molière Longchamp, 142 rue Marconi, 1190, Brussels, Belgium

    Marek Szpalski

Authors
  1. Robert Gunzburg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marek Szpalski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert Gunzburg.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gunzburg, R., Szpalski, M. The conservative surgical treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis in the elderly. Eur Spine J 12 (Suppl 2), S176–S180 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-003-0611-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-003-0611-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation