Radiologic Efficacy and Patient Satisfaction after Minimally Invasive Unilateral Laminotomy and Bilateral Decompression in Patients with Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Retrospective Analysis

Abstract

Background and Study Aims Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is the most common spinal disease in older adults. Although surgical modalities are recommended in patients who are unresponsive to conservative treatment, the most appropriate minimally invasive surgical procedure for patients with LSS remains controversial. Moreover, few previous studies have focused on patient-centered outcomes with radiologic correlation. In the present study, we aimed to investigate radiologic efficacy and patient satisfaction following bilateral decompression via unilateral laminotomy.

Materials and Methods We performed a retrospective analysis of radiologic efficacy and patient satisfaction in a series of surgical patients treated at our institution. We classified patients into two groups based on the primary pathology (i.e., central or lateral recess stenosis). Medical records were analyzed retrospectively for radiologic outcomes and clinical parameters including pain and changes in quality of life. Data related to outcomes were collected at 2 weeks, 3 months, and 12 months after surgery in the outpatient clinic.

Results Among the 122 patients enrolled in this study, 51 had central spinal stenosis; 71 had lateral recess stenosis. Radiologically, we observed significant improvements in the anteroposterior diameter and cross-sectional area of the dural sac (central stenosis) and the lateral width of the central canal and depth of the lateral recess (lateral recess stenosis). Two weeks and 12 months after the surgical procedure, we observed significant improvements in the extent of symptoms, patient satisfaction, and quality of life (including physical function).

Conclusion Our findings suggest that bilateral decompression via a unilateral approach shows improved radiologic outcomes, varying based on the type of stenosis. Furthermore, patient satisfaction significantly improved regardless of the type of disease.

Keywords

spinal stenosis - decompressive laminectomy - minimally invasive spinal surgery - unilateral laminotomy and bilateral decompression

Publication History

Received: 31 May 2019

Accepted: 03 July 2019

Article published online:
15 May 2020

• References

• 1 Fessler RG. Minimally invasive spine surgery. Neurosurgery 2002; 51 (5 Suppl): Siii-Siv
• 2 Khoo LT, Fessler RG. Microendoscopic decompressive laminotomy for the treatment of lumbar stenosis. Neurosurgery 2002; 51 (5 Suppl): S146-S154
• 3 Fujimoto T, Taniwaki T, Tahata S, Nakamura T, Mizuta H. Patient outcomes for a minimally invasive approach to treat lumbar spinal canal stenosis: is microendoscopic or microscopic decompressive laminotomy the less invasive surgery?. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2015; 131: 21-25
• 4 Lawton CD, Smith ZA, Barnawi A, Fessler RG. The surgical technique of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. J Neurosurg Sci 2011; 55 (03) 259-264
• 5 Ogden AT, Bresnahan L, Smith JS, Natarajan R, Fessler RG. Biomechanical comparison of traditional and minimally invasive intradural tumor exposures using finite element analysis. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2009; 24 (02) 143-147
• 6 Palmer S, Turner R, Palmer R. Bilateral decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis involving a unilateral approach with microscope and tubular retractor system. J Neurosurg 2002; 97 (2 Suppl): 213-217
• 7 Palmer S, Davison L. Minimally invasive surgical treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: two-year follow-up in 54 patients. Surg Neurol Int 2012; 3: 41
• 8 Ikuta K, Arima J, Tanaka T. et al. Short-term results of microendoscopic posterior decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis. Technical note. J Neurosurg Spine 2005; 2 (05) 624-633
• 9 Ogden M, Yuksel U, Bakar B, Akkaya S, Kamasak K, Dagli AT. The effects of microdecompression on patients with lumbar degenerative spinal stenosis with or without degenerative spondylolisthesis. Turk Neurosurg 2019; 29 (02) 205-212
• 10 Lee MJ, Bransford RJ, Bellabarba C. et al. The effect of bilateral laminotomy versus laminectomy on the motion and stiffness of the human lumbar spine: a biomechanical comparison. Spine 2010; 35 (19) 1789-1793
• 11 Koc Z, Ozcakir S, Sivrioglu K, Gurbet A, Kucukoglu S. Effectiveness of physical therapy and epidural steroid injections in lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 2009; 34 (10) 985-989
• 12 Hamanishi C, Matukura N, Fujita M, Tomihara M, Tanaka S. Cross-sectional area of the stenotic lumbar dural tube measured from the transverse views of magnetic resonance imaging. J Spinal Disord 1994; 7 (05) 388-393
• 13 Strojnik T. Measurement of the lateral recess angle as a possible alternative for evaluation of the lateral recess stenosis on a CT scan. Wien Klin Wochenschr 2001; 113 (Suppl. 03) 53-58
• 14 Ciric I, Mikhael MA, Tarkington JA, Vick NA. The lateral recess syndrome. A variant of spinal stenosis. J Neurosurg 1980; 53 (04) 433-443
• 15 Mikhael MA, Ciric I, Tarkington JA, Vick NA. Neuroradiological evaluation of lateral recess syndrome. Radiology 1981; 140 (01) 97-107
• 16 Smith ZA, Vastardis GA, Carandang G. et al. Biomechanical effects of a unilateral approach to minimally invasive lumbar decompression. PLoS One 2014; 9 (03) e92611
• 17 Park BS, Kwon YJ, Won YS, Shin HC. Minimally invasive muscle sparing transmuscular microdiscectomy: technique and comparison with conventional subperiosteal microdiscectomy during the early postoperative period. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 2010; 48 (03) 225-229
• 18 Rauschning W. Normal and pathologic anatomy of the lumbar root canals. Spine 1987; 12 (10) 1008-1019
• 19 Mamisch N, Brumann M, Hodler J, Held U, Brunner F, Steurer J. Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Outcome Study Working Group Zurich. Radiologic criteria for the diagnosis of spinal stenosis: results of a Delphi survey. Radiology 2012; 264 (01) 174-179
• 20 Gibson JN, Waddell G. Surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylosis: updated Cochrane Review. Spine 2005; 30 (20) 2312-2320
• 21 Bove AM, Lynch AD, Ammendolia C, Schneider M. Surgical and nonsurgical treatments for lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine J 2018; 18: 639-647
• 22 Atlas SJ, Keller RB, Wu YA, Deyo RA, Singer DE. Long-term outcomes of surgical and nonsurgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis: 8 to 10 year results from the Maine lumbar spine study. Spine 2005; 30 (08) 936-943
• 23 Weinstein JN, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD. et al. Surgical versus nonoperative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis four-year results of the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial. Spine 2010; 35 (14) 1329-1338
• 24 Grob D, Humke T, Dvorak J. Direct pediculo-body fixation in cases of spondylolisthesis with advanced intervertebral disc degeneration. Eur Spine J 1996; 5 (04) 281-285
• 25 Fischgrund JS, Mackay M, Herkowitz HN, Brower R, Montgomery DM, Kurz LT. 1997 Volvo Award winner in clinical studies. Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis: a prospective, randomized study comparing decompressive laminectomy and arthrodesis with and without spinal instrumentation. Spine 1997; 22 (24) 2807-2812
• 26 Yagi M, Okada E, Ninomiya K, Kihara M. Postoperative outcome after modified unilateral-approach microendoscopic midline decompression for degenerative spinal stenosis. J Neurosurg Spine 2009; 10 (04) 293-299
• 27 Xu BS, Tan QS, Xia Q, Ji N, Hu YC. Bilateral decompression via unilateral fenestration using mobile microendoscopic discectomy technique for lumbar spinal stenosis. Orthop Surg 2010; 2 (02) 106-110
• 28 Rahman M, Summers LE, Richter B, Mimran RI, Jacob RP. Comparison of techniques for decompressive lumbar laminectomy: the minimally invasive versus the “classic” open approach. Minim Invasive Neurosurg 2008; 51 (02) 100-105