Outcome after Surgery of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: a Randomized Comparison of Bilateral Laminotomy, Trumpet Laminectomy, and Conventional Laminectomy

被引:28
|
作者
Haddadi, Kaveh [1 ]
Qazvini, Hamid Reza Ganjeh [2 ]
机构
[1] Mazandaran Univ Med Sci, Emam Hosp, Diabet Res Ctr, Dept Neurosurg, Sari, Iran
[2] Mazandaran Univ Med Sci, Fac Med, Dept Neurosurg, Sari, Iran
来源
FRONTIERS IN SURGERY | 2016年 / 3卷
关键词
lumbar stenosis; outcome; laminectomy; laminotomy; trumpet;
D O I
10.3389/fsurg.2016.00019
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: Laminectomy is the traditional operating method for the decompression of spinal canal stenosis. New partial decompression processes have been suggested in the treatment of lumbar stenosis. The benefit of a micro surgical approach is the chance of an extensive bilateral decompression of the spinal canal or foramen at one or numerous levels, through a minimal para-spinal muscular separation. Purpose: To match the safety and the clinical consequences after a bilateral laminotomy, laminectomy and trumpet laminectomy in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis who were randomized to one of three treatment groups. Study design: Prospective study. Methods: One hundred twenty consecutive patients with 227 levels of lumbar stenosis without significant herniated discs or instability were randomized to three treatment groups [bilateral laminotomy (Group 1), laminectomy (Group 2), and trumpet laminectomy (Group 3)]. Perioperative parameters and complications were documented. Symptoms and scores, such as a visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index, and patient satisfaction, were assessed preoperatively at 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. Adequate decompression was achieved in all patients on the basis of surgeon satisfaction. Results: The global complication rate was lowest in patients who had undertaken bilateral laminotomy (Group 1). The minimum follow-up of 12 months was achieved in 100% of patients. Matched with that experience in Group 1, but, with more remaining back and leg pain was found in Group 2, 3.85 +/- 0.28 and 1.60 +/- 0.44, respectively and 3.24 +/- 0.22 and 2.44 +/- 0.26 in Group 3, respectively compared with 1.84 +/- 0.28 and 1.25 +/- 0.12 (Group 1) at the 1-year follow-up assessment (p < 0.05). It was the same for the ODI scores, which reached 14 +/- 8% (Group 1), 28 +/- 12% (Group 2), and 26 +/- 16 after 12 months of surgery (Group 3) (significant, p < 0.01 compared with preoperative scores). Patient satisfaction was higher in Group 1, with 7.5, 20, and 25% of patients displeased (in Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively; p < 0.01). Conclusion: Bilateral Laminotomy is certified acceptable and harmless in decompression of lumbar stenosis, causing a highly significant decrease of symptoms and disability.
引用
收藏
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Open laminectomy vs. minimally invasive laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis: a review
    Dhar, Utpal K.
    Menzer, Emma Lilly
    Lin, Maohua
    O'Connor, Timothy
    Ghimire, Nischal
    Dakwar, Elias
    Papanastassiou, Ioannis D.
    Aghayev, Kamran
    Tsai, Chi-Tay
    Vrionis, Frank D.
    FRONTIERS IN SURGERY, 2024, 11
  • [32] Microsurgical decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis without laminectomy
    Nyström, B
    Weber, H
    Amundsen, T
    UPSALA JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, 1998, : 24 - 24
  • [33] Microsurgical decompression without laminectomy in lumbar spinal stenosis
    Nyström, B
    Weber, H
    Amundsen, T
    UPSALA JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, 2001, 106 (02) : 123 - 131
  • [34] Treatment of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis by Microscopic Unilateral Laminectomy for Bilateral Decompression: A Technical Note
    Phan, Kevin
    Teng, Ian
    Schultz, Konrad
    Mobbs, Ralph J.
    ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY, 2017, 9 (02) : 241 - 246
  • [35] Bilateral partial laminectomy: A treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis and midline disc herniation - Commentary
    Sypert, GW
    SURGICAL NEUROLOGY, 1999, 52 (04): : 337 - 337
  • [36] Motion Analysis in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis With Degenerative Spondylolisthesis A Feasibility Study of the 3DCT Technique Comparing Laminectomy Versus Bilateral Laminotomy
    Forsth, Peter
    Svedniark, Per
    Noz, Marilyn E.
    Maguire Jr, Gerald Q.
    Zeleznik, Mike P.
    Sanden, Bengt
    CLINICAL SPINE SURGERY, 2018, 31 (08): : E397 - E402
  • [37] Prognostic Factors of Surgical Outcome after Spinous Process-Splitting Laminectomy for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis
    Maruo, Keishi
    Tachibana, Toshiya
    Inoue, Shinichi
    Arizumi, Fumihiro
    Yoshiya, Shinichi
    ASIAN SPINE JOURNAL, 2015, 9 (05) : 705 - 712
  • [38] Comparison of interlaminar decompression and decompressive laminectomy in lumbar spinal stenosis - A retrospective analysis
    Kazmi, S.
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL RESEARCH, 2009, 14 : 155 - 156
  • [39] CLINICAL CORRELATES OF PATIENT SATISFACTION AFTER LAMINECTOMY FOR DEGENERATIVE LUMBAR SPINAL STENOSIS
    KATZ, JN
    LIPSON, SJ
    BRICK, GW
    GROBLER, LJ
    WEINSTEIN, JN
    FOSSEL, AH
    LEW, RA
    LIANG, MH
    SPINE, 1995, 20 (10) : 1155 - 1160
  • [40] THE SURGICAL-TREATMENT OF CENTRAL LUMBAR STENOSIS - MULTIPLE LAMINOTOMY COMPARED WITH TOTAL LAMINECTOMY
    POSTACCHINI, F
    CINOTTI, G
    PERUGIA, D
    GUMINA, S
    JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY-BRITISH VOLUME, 1993, 75 (03): : 386 - 392