Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Asian J Neurosurg 2020; 15(02): 293-301
DOI: 10.4103/ajns.AJNS_132_20
Original Article

Comparative study of minimally invasive lumbar decompression versus decompressive laminectomy with posterolateral transpedicular fixation for the treatment of degenerative lumbar canal stenosis

Ahmed Aldahshory
Department of Neurosurgery, Arab Contractors Medical Center, Nasr city, Cairo Governorate
,
Hazem Mashaly
1   Department of Neurosurgery, Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University, Nasr city, Cairo Governorate
,
Shafik El Molla
1   Department of Neurosurgery, Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University, Nasr city, Cairo Governorate
,
Ibrahim Ismaiel
1   Department of Neurosurgery, Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University, Nasr city, Cairo Governorate
,
Khaled Saoud
1   Department of Neurosurgery, Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University, Nasr city, Cairo Governorate
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Background: The classic laminectomy for spinal decompression was the treatment of choice of the degenerative lumbar canal stenosis (LCS). Many surgeons prefer to add instrumented lumbar fusion to avoid future instability after the removal of posterior elements. Adding fusion is associated with more bleeding and longer periods of hospitalization. Minimally invasive lumbar decompression (MILD) has been advocated for successful decompression with less bleeding loss and shorter hospitalization. Aim of the Work: To evaluate and compare the clinical outcomes of two different treatment modalities for degenerative LCS: the classic laminectomy with posterolateral transpedicular screw fixation and the MILD. Patients and Methods: Fifty patients with degenerative LCS were randomized from two institutions: Ain Shams University Hospital and Arab Contractors Medical Center, who underwent surgeries for degenerative LCS between 2016 and 2018 with 1-year follow-up. The study compared two cohorts: Group A – 25 patients underwent classic lumbar laminectomy with posterolateral transpedicular fixation, and Group B – 25 patients underwent MILD. Results: There were no statistically significant differences between both treatment modalities in the VAS for leg pain and back pain, the patient satisfaction index, and the Oswestry disability index after 1 year. The fusion operations were associated with higher estimates of blood loss, longer hospital stay, and more financial costs. Conclusion: MILD has the same satisfactory results as classic laminectomy with posterolateral fixation for the treatment of degenerative LCS with less bleeding loss and shorter hospitalization. Since the results are comparable, MILD is suggested in low-income countries as Egypt for economic reasons.

Key-words:

Canal stenosis - classic laminectomy - degenerative lumbar - minimally invasive lumbar decompression - posterolateral transpedicular fixation

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.




Publication History

Received: 02 April 2020

Accepted: 29 April 2020

Article published online:
16 August 2022

© 2020. Asian Congress of Neurological Surgeons. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Szpalski M, Gunzburg R. Lumbar spinal stenosis in the elderly: An overview. Eur Spine J 2003;12 Suppl 2:S170-5.
  • 2 Lee SY, Kim TH, Oh JK, Lee SJ, Park MS. Lumbar stenosis: A recent update by review of literature. Asian Spine J 2015;9:818-28.
  • 3 Allegri M, Montella S, Salici F, Valente A, Marchesini M, Compagnone C, et al. Mechanisms of low back pain: A guide for diagnosis and therapy. F1000Res 2016;5:F1000.
  • 4 Schroeder GD, Kurd MF, Vaccaro AR. Lumbar spinal stenosis: How is it classified? J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2016;24:843-52.
  • 5 Zaina F, Tomkins-Lane C, Carragee E, Negrini S. Surgical versus nonsurgical treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2016;41:E857-68.
  • 6 Kovacs FM, Urrútia G, Alarcón JD. Surgery versus conservative treatment for symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2011;36:E1335-51.
  • 7 Postacchini F. Surgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1999;24:1043-7.
  • 8 Bresnahan L, Ogden AT, Natarajan RN, Fessler RG. 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 (Phila Pa 1976) 2009;34:17-23.
  • 9 Deyo RA, Martin BI, Kreuter W, Jarvik JG, Angier H, Mirza SK. Revision surgery following operations for lumbar stenosis. J Bone Jt Surg 2011;93:1979.
  • 10 Shamji MF, Goldstein CL, Wang M, Uribe JS, Fehlings MG. Minimally invasive spinal surgery in the elderly: Does it make sense? Neurosurgery 2015;77 Suppl 4:S108-15.
  • 11 Sarasqueta C, Gabaldon O, Iza I, Béland F, Paz PM. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the NASS outcomes instrument in Spanish patients with low back pain. Eur Spine J 2005;14:586-94.
  • 12 Ammendolia C, Stuber KJ, Rok E, Rampersaud R, Kennedy CA, Pennick V, et al. Nonoperative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; Art. No.: CD010712.
  • 13 Phan K, Mobbs RJ. Minimally invasive versus open laminectomy for lumbar stenosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2016;41:E91-100.
  • 14 Ishimoto Y, Yoshimura N, Muraki S, Yamada H, Nagata K, Hashizume H, et al. Prevalence of symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis and its association with physical performance in a population-based cohort in Japan: The Wakayama Spine Study. Osteoarthr Cartil 2012;20:1103-8.
  • 15 Lee MJ, Bransford RJ, Bellabarba C, Chapman JR, Cohen AM, Harrington RM, et al. The effect of bilateral laminotomy versus laminectomy on the motion and stiffness of the human lumbar spine: A biomechanical comparison. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010;35:1789-93.
  • 16 Ho YH, Tu YK, Hsiao CK, Chang CH. Outcomes after minimally invasive lumbar decompression: A biomechanical comparison of unilateral and bilateral laminotomies. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2015;16:208.
  • 17 Alebshehy R, Shuaib NM, Mbako JD. Determinant analysis of obesity among adult females in Egypt. Egypt J Hosp Med 2016;65:662-9.
  • 18 Epstein NE, Maldonado VC, Cusick JF. Symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis. Surg Neurol 1998;50:3-10.
  • 19 Fairbank JCT, Pynsent PB. The oswestry disability index. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2000;25:2940-52.
  • 20 Forsth P, Ólafsson G, Carlsson T, Frost A, Borgstrm F, Fritzell P, et al. A randomized, controlled trial of fusion surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. New Engl J Med 2016;15:1413-23. [doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1513721].
  • 21 Munting E, Röder C, Sobottke R, Dietrich D, Aghayev E, Spine Tango Contributors. Patient outcomes after laminotomy, hemilaminectomy, laminectomy and laminectomy with instrumented fusion for spinal canal stenosis: A propensity score-based study from the Spine Tango registry. Eur Spine J 2015;24:358-68.
  • 22 Reeg SE. A review of comorbidities and spinal surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res® 2001;384:101-9.
  • 23 Thomé C, Zevgaridis D, Leheta O, Bäzner H, Pöckler-Schöniger C, Wöhrle J, et al. Outcome after less-invasive decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis: A randomized comparison of unilateral laminotomy, bilateral laminotomy, and laminectomy. J Neurosurg Spine 2005;3:129-41.
  • 24 Saxler G, Krämer J, Barden B, Kurt A, Pförtner J, Bernsmann K. The long-term clinical sequelae of incidental durotomy in lumbar disc surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005;30:2298-302.
  • 25 Than KD, Wang AC, Etame AB, La Marca F, Park P. Postoperative mangement of incidental durotomy in minimally invasive lumbar spinal surgery. Minim Invasive Neurosurg 2008;51:263-6.
  • 26 Yin D, Liu B, Chang Y, Gu H, Zheng X. Management of late-onset deep surgical site infection after instrumented spinal surgery. BMC Surg 2018;18:121.
  • 27 Lad SP, Babu R, Ugiliweneza B, Patil CG, Boakye M. Surgery for spinal stenosis: Long-term reoperation rates, health care cost, and impact of instrumentation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2014;39:978-87.
  • 28 Vertuani S, Nilsson J, Borgman B, Buseghin G, Leonard C, Assietti R, et al. A Cost-effectiveness analysis of minimally invasive versus open surgery techniques for lumbar spinal fusion in Italy and the United Kingdom. Value Heal 2015;18:810-6.
  • 29 Goel SA, Modi HN. Reoperations following lumbar spinal canal stenosis. Indian J Orthop 2018;52:578-83.
  • 30 Kim CH, Chung CK, Park CS, Choi B, Hahn S, Kim MJ, et al. Reoperation rate after surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis without spondylolisthesis: A nationwide cohort study. Spine J 2013;13:1230-7.