Journal List > J Korean Soc Spine Surg > v.12(4) > 1035681

J Korean Soc Spine Surg. 2005 Dec;12(4):324-330. Korean.
Published online December 31, 2005.  https://doi.org/10.4184/jkss.2005.12.4.324
Copyright © 2005 Korean Society of Spine Surgery
Comparison of the Results of the Decompression Methods for Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Comparison of Posterior Element Saving Procedures
Jae-Won You, M.D., Hong-Moon Sohn, M.D., Ja-Yong Lee, M.D. and Kyung-Ho Yang, M.D.*
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, College of Medicine, Chosun University, Gwangju, Korea.
*Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Gwangju Veteran's Hospital, Gwangju, Korea.

Address reprint requests to Hong-Moon Sohn, M.D. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Chosun University Hospital, 588 Seosuk-Dong, Dong-Gu, Gwangju 501-717, Korea. Tel: 82-62-220-3147, Fax: 82-62-226-3379, Email: hmsohn@chosun.ac.kr
Abstract

Study Design

This is a prospective study.

Objectives

We wanted to analyze the radiographic and clinical results of the three posterior element saving decompression techniques for treating lumbar degenerative spinal stenosis.

Summary of the Literature Review

Minimal invasive decompression reduces patient morbidity and the hospital stay.

Materials and Methods

We evaluated 30 patients, who were treated with posterior element saving microscopic decompression for their lumbar spinal stenosis (without instability), during the period from March, 2002 and February, 2004. The procedures were bilateral laminotomy (10 cases), spinous process osteotomy (8 cases) and laminoplasty (12 cases). We evaluated the estimated blood loss, the amount of transfusion, the complications and the radiographic instability at the last follow-up. The clinical results were evaluated with using the Oswestry disability index (ODI) and the visual analogue scale (VAS) for buttock and leg pain both preoperatively and at postoperative 1, 3, 6 and 12 months, respectively.

Results

There was no radiographic instability noted for any of the patients at the last follow up. The mean ODI and VAS scores were substantially improved at postoperative 1 month and then they were marginally improved afterwards. However, there were no statistically significant differences among three procedures (p>0.05). The mean blood loss and the amount of transfusion for each spinal level were 290 ml and 0.5 U for bilateral laminotomy, 370 ml and 0.9 U for spinous process osteotomy and 180 ml and 0.1 U for laminoplasty, respectively.

Conclusion

There were no significant differences in the radiograhic and clinical results among bilateral laminotomy, spinous process osteotomy and laminoplasty. Yet in terms of blood loss and transfusion, laminoplasty was better than the other techniques. We believe that laminoplasty is a useful and safe technique for treating degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.

Keywords: Lumbar spinal stenosis; Bilateral laminotomy; Spinous process osteotomy; Laminoplasty

Figures


Fig. 1
Preoperative MRI image(A) and postoperativeCT image (B) of bilateral laminotomy patient.
Click for larger image


Fig. 2
Preoperative MRI image (A) and postoperative CT image (B) of spinous process osteotomy patient.
Click for larger image


Fig. 3
Preoperative MRI image (A) and postoperative CT image (B) of laminoplasty patient.
Click for larger image


Fig. 4
The serial changes of Oswestry disability index.
Click for larger image


Fig. 5
The serial changes of visual analogue scale for buttock and leg pain.
Click for larger image

References
1. Goel VK, Fromknecht SJ, Nishiyama K, Weinstein J, Liu YK. The role of lumbar spinal elements in flexion. Spine 1985;10:516–523.
2. Weiner BK, Fraser RD, Peterson M. Spinous process osteotomies to facilitate lumbar decompressive surgery. Spine 1999;24:62–66.
3. Abumi K, Panjabi MM, Kramer KM, Duranceau J, Oxland T, Crisco JJ. Biomechanical evaluation of lumbar spinal stability after graded facetectomies. Spine 1990;15:1142–1147.
4. Delamarter RB, McCulloch JA. Microdiscectomy and microsurgical spinal laminotomies. In: Frymoyer JW, editor. The adult spine. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven; 1997. pp. 1961-1988.
5. Bae HW, Fribourg DM, Delamarter RB. Decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis. In: Frymoyer JW, Wiesel SW, editors. The adult and pediatric spine. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2004. pp. 1107-1121.
6. McCulloch JA, Snook D, Kruse CF. Advantages of the operating microscope in lumbar spine surgery. Instr Course Lect 2002;51:243–245.
7. Spetzger U, Bertalanffy H, Naujokat C, von Keyserlingk DG, Gilsbach JM. Unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis. Part I: Anatomical and surgical considerations. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 1997;139(5):392–396.
8. Spetzger U, Bertalanffy H, Reinges MH, Gilsbach JM. Unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis. Part II: Clinical experiences. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 1997;139(5):397–403.
9. Aryanpur J, Ducker T. Multilevel lumbar laminotomies: an alternative to laminectomy in the treatment of lumbar stenosis. Neurosurgery 1990;26:429–433.
10. Lee CS, Chung SS, Chung KH, Oh SK. Bilateral microscopic laminotomy for lumbar spinal stenosis. J Korean Soc Spine Surg 2004;11:99–103.
11. Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB. The Oswestry Disability Index. Spine 2000;25:2940–2953.
12. Getty CJ. Lumbar spinal stenosis: the clinical spectrum and the results of operation. J Bone Joint Surg 1980;62-B:481–485.
13. Niggemeyer O, Strauss JM, Schulitz KP. Comparison of surgical procedures for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: a meta-analysis of the literature from 1975 to 1995. Eur Spine J 1997;6:423–429.
14. Deyo RA, Ciol MA, Cherkin DC, Loeser JD, Bigos SJ. Lumbar spinal fusion. A cohort study of complications, reoperations, and resource use in the Medicare population. Spine 1993;18:1463–1470.
15. Turner JA, Ersek M, Herron L, et al. Patient outcomes after lumbar spinal fusions. JAMA 1992;268:907–911.
16. Jaikumar S, Kim DH, Kam AC. History of minimally invasive spine surgery. Neurosurgery 2002;51:S1–S14.
17. Khoo LT, Fessler RG. Microendoscopic decompressive laminotomy for the treatment of lumbar stenosis. Neurosurgery 2002;51:S146–S154.
18. 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.
19. Johnsson KE, Willner S, Johnsson K. Postoperative instability after decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 1986;11:107–110.
20. Cho KJ, Moon KH, Kim MK, et al. Changes of clinical outcomes after decompression and fusion for spinal stenosis during 2-year follow-up periods. J Korean Soc Spine Surg 2003;10:113–118.
TOOLS
Similar articles

Result of Pedicle Screw Fixation in Lumbar Stenosis with: A Comparison of Degenerative Type Lumbar Stenosis with Spondylolisthetic type Lumbar Stenosis

Cotrel - Dubousset Pedicle Screw Fixation After Posterior Decompression of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

A Clinical Study on the Causes of the Nerve Entrapment in the Degenerative Spondylolisthesis

The Posterior Decompression and Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using a Mini-open Technique: New Suggestion of Minimally Invasive Technique A Preliminary Report

Biportal Percutaneous Endoscopic Spinal Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis