Comparison of Techniques for Decompressive Lumbar Laminectomy: the Minimally Invasive versus the “Classic” Open Approach

Abstract

Object: Decompressive laminectomy offers an effective surgical treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. The purpose of this study was to compare the elements of treatment commonly associated with successful outcomes in the assessment of laminectomies - operating room times, estimated blood loss, length of stay, and complications - of the minimally invasive and open approach laminectomies.

Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records and relevant imaging of 126 patients who underwent surgical decompression for lumbar stenosis. Thirty-eight patients underwent bilateral decompression via a unilateral minimally invasive technique, while 88 patients underwent bilateral decompression via a standard open technique. A chart review was performed to determine intraoperative blood loss, length of operative time, length of hospital stay, and number and nature of complications.

Results: The minimally invasive lumbar laminectomy (MID) patients had shorter operating room times, less estimated blood loss, shorter length of stay, and fewer complications.

Conclusions: Bilateral decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis via a unilateral approach involves shorter operating times and less blood loss, less muscle dissection, fewer and less severe complications, and better mobility in the immediate postoperative period than open decompressive techniques. In addition, this technique is very similar to the commonly performed microendoscopic discectomy and is easily mastered over time.

minimally invasive surgery - lumbar stenosis - decompressive lumbar laminectomy - surgical technique

References

• 1 Thongtrangan I, Le H, Park J, Kim D. Minimally invasive spinal surgery: a historical perspective.  Neurosurg Focus. 2004;  16 E13
• 2 Guiot BH, Khoo LT, Fessler RG. A minimally invasive technique for decompression of the lumbar spine.  Spine. 2002;  27 432-438
• 3 Ikuta K, Arima J, Tanaka T, Oga M, Nakano S, Sasaki K, Goshi K, Yo M, Fukagawa S. Short-term results of microendoscopic posterior decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis. Technical note.  J Neurosurg Spine. 2005;  2 624-633
• 4 Khoo LT, Fessler RG. Microendoscopic discectomy.  Techn Neurosurg. 1997;  3 301-307
• 5 Kalbarczyk A, Lukes A, Seiler RW. Surgical treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis in the elderly.  Acta Neurochir (Wien). 1998;  140 637-641
• 6 Szpalski M, Gunzburg R. Lumbar spinal stenosis in the elderly: an overview.  Eur Spine J. 2003;  12 S170-S175
• 7 Spratt KF, Keller TS, Szpalski M, Vandeputte K, Gunzburg R. A predictive model for outcome after conservative decompression surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis.  Eur Spine J. 2004;  13 14-21
• 8 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;  97 213-217
• 9 Airaksinen O, Herno A, Turunen V, Saari T, Suomlainen O. Surgical outcome of 438 patients treated surgically for lumbar spinal stenosis.  Spine. 1997;  22 2278-2282
• 10 Cirak B, Alptekin M, Palaoglu S, Ozcan OE, Ozgen T. Surgical therapy for lumbar spinal stenosis: evaluation of 300 cases.  Neurosurg Rev. 2001;  24 80-82
• 11 Galiano K, Obwegeser AA, Gabl M, Bauer R, Twerdy K. Long-term outcome of laminectomy for spinal stenosis in octogenarians.  Spine. 2005;  30 332-335
• 12 Rompe JD, Eysel P, Zollner J, Nafe B, Heine J. Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis - Long-term results after undercutting decompression compared with decompressive laminectomy alone or with instrumented fusion.  Neurosurg Rev. 1999;  22 102-106
• 13 Datta G, Gnanalingham KK, Peterson D, Mendoza N, O’Neill K, Dellen J Van, MacGregor A, Hughes SP. Back pain and disability after lumbar laminectomy: Is there a relationship to muscle retraction?.  Neurosurgery. 2004;  54 1413-1420
• 14 Gejo R, Matsui H, Kawaguchi Y, Ishihara H, Tsuji H. Serial changes in trunk muscle performance after posterior lumbar surgery.  Spine. 1999;  24 1023-1028
• 15 Sato N, Kikuchi S, Sato K. A comparison of surgical stress between endoscopic surgery and open surgery for lumbar disc herniations.  J Jpn Orthop Assoc. 2001;  75 S472
• 16 Gunzburg R, Keller TS, Szpalski M, Vandeputte K, Spratt KF. Clinical and psychofunctional measures of conservative decompression surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis: a prospective cohort study.  Eur Spine J. 2003;  12 197-204
• 17 Weiner BK, Fraser RD, Peterson M. Spinous process osteotomies to facilitate lumbar decompressive surgery.  Spine. 1999;  24 62-66
• 18 Hejazi N. Microsurgical infrapedicular paramedian approach for retrovertebral lumbar disc herniations - Technical note.  J Neurosurg Spine. 2005;  2 88-91
• 19 Sairyo K, Goel V, Masuda A, Biyani A, Ebraheim N, Mishiro T, Terai T. Biomechanical rationale of endoscopic decompression for lumbar spondylolysis as an effective minimally invasive procedure - a study based on the finite element analysis.  Minim Invas Neurosurg. 2005;  48 119-122
• 20 Iguchi T, Kurihara A, Nakayama J, Sato K, Kurosaka M, Yamasaki K. Minimum 10-year outcome of decompressive laminectomy for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.  Spine. 2000;  25 1754-1759
• 21 Katz JN, Stucki G, Lipson SJ, Fossel AH, Grobler LJ, Weinstein JN. Predictors of surgical outcome in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.  Spine. 1999;  24 2229-2233

Correspondence