Outcome of unilateral versus standard open midline approach for bilateral decompression in lumbar spinal stenosis: is “over the top” really better? A Swiss prospective multicenter cohort study

Restricted access

OBJECTIVE

In this retrospective analysis of a prospective multicenter cohort study, the authors assessed which surgical approach, 1) the unilateral laminotomy with bilateral spinal canal decompression (ULBD; also called “over the top”) or 2) the standard open bilateral decompression (SOBD), achieves better clinical outcomes in the long-term follow-up. The optimal surgical approach (ULBD vs SOBD) to treat lumbar spinal stenosis remains controversial.

METHODS

The main outcomes of this study were changes in a spinal stenosis measure (SSM) symptoms score, SSM function score, and quality of life (sum score of the 3-level version of the EQ-5D tool [EQ-5D-3L]) over time. These outcome parameters were measured at baseline and at 12-, 24-, and 36-month follow-ups. To obtain an unbiased result on the effect of ULBD compared to SOBD the authors used matching techniques relying on propensity scores. The latter were calculated based on a logistic regression model including relevant confounders. Additional outcomes of interest were raw changes in main outcomes and in the Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire from baseline to 12, 24, and 36 months.

RESULTS

For this study, 277 patients met the inclusion criteria. One hundred forty-nine patients were treated by ULBD, and 128 were treated by SOBD. After propensity score matching, 128 patients were left in each group. In the matched cohort, the mean (95% CI) estimated differences between ULBD and SOBD for change in SSM symptoms score from baseline to 12 months were −0.04 (−0.25 to 0.17), to 24 months −0.07 (−0.29 to 0.15), and to 36 months −0.04 (−0.28 to 0.21). For change in SSM function score, the estimated differences from baseline to 12 months were 0.06 (−0.08 to 0.21), to 24 months 0.08 (−0.07 to 0.22), and to 36 months 0.01 (−0.16 to 0.17). Differences in changes between groups in EQ-5D-3L sum scores were estimated to be −0.32 (−4.04 to 3.40), −0.89 (−4.76 to 2.98), and −2.71 (−7.16 to 1.74) from baseline to 12, 24, and 36 months, respectively. None of the group differences between ULBD and SOBD were statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Both surgical techniques, ULBD and SOBD, may provide effective treatment options for DLSS patients. The authors further determined that the patient outcome results for the technically more challenging ULBD seem not to be superior to those for the SOBD even after 3 years of follow-up.

ABBREVIATIONS CIRS = Cumulative Illness Rating Scale; DLSS = degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis; EQ-5D-3L = 3-level EQ-5D; HADS = Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; LSOS = Lumbar Stenosis Outcome Study; MCID = minimal clinically important difference; SMD = standardized mean difference; SOBD = standard open bilateral decompression; SSM = spinal stenosis measure; ULBD = unilateral laminotomy with bilateral spinal canal decompression.

Article Information

Correspondence Nils H. Ulrich: Horten Centre Zurich, University Hospital Zurich, Switzerland. nils.hb.ulrich@gmail.com.

INCLUDE WHEN CITING Published online April 26, 2019; DOI: 10.3171/2019.2.SPINE181309.

N.H.U. and J.M.B. contributed equally to this work.

Disclosures The authors report no conflict of interest concerning the materials or methods used in this study or the findings specified in this paper.

© AANS, except where prohibited by US copyright law.

Headings

Figures

References

  • 1

    Andreisek GDeyo RAJarvik JGPorchet FWinklhofer SFXSteurer J: Consensus conference on core radiological parameters to describe lumbar stenosis—an initiative for structured reporting. Eur Radiol 24:322432322014

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2

    Ang CLPhak-Boon Tow BFook SGuo CMChen JLYue WM: Minimally invasive compared with open lumbar laminotomy: no functional benefits at 6 or 24 months after surgery. Spine J 15:170517122015

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3

    Annertz MJönsson BStrömqvist BHoltås S: No relationship between epidural fibrosis and sciatica in the lumbar postdiscectomy syndrome. A study with contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 20:4494531995

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    Austin PCGrootendorst PAnderson GM: A comparison of the ability of different propensity score models to balance measured variables between treated and untreated subjects: a Monte Carlo study. Stat Med 26:7347532007

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5

    Bresnahan LOgden ATNatarajan RNFessler 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) 34:17232009

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6

    Chang HSFujisawa NTsuchiya TOya SMatsui T: Degenerative spondylolisthesis does not affect the outcome of unilateral laminotomy with bilateral decompression in patients with lumbar stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 39:4004082014

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7

    Costa FSassi MCardia AOrtolina ADe Santis ALuccarell G: Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: analysis of results in a series of 374 patients treated with unilateral laminotomy for bilateral microdecompression. J Neurosurg Spine 7:5795862007

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8

    den Boogert HFKeers JCMarinus Oterdoom DLKuijlen JM: Bilateral versus unilateral interlaminar approach for bilateral decompression in patients with single-level degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: a multicenter retrospective study of 175 patients on postoperative pain, functional disability, and patient satisfaction. J Neurosurg Spine 23:3263352015

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

    Deyo RACiol MACherkin DCLoeser JDBigos SJ: Lumbar spinal fusion. A cohort study of complications, reoperations, and resource use in the Medicare population. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 18:146314701993

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10

    Fokter SKYerby SA: Patient-based outcomes for the operative treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Eur Spine J 15:166116692006

  • 11

    Hansraj KKO’Leary PFCammisa FP JrHall JCFras CICohen MS: Decompression, fusion, and instrumentation surgery for complex lumbar spinal stenosis. Clin Orthop Relat Res (384):18252001

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12

    Hatta YShiraishi TSakamoto AYato YHarada TMikami Y: Muscle-preserving interlaminar decompression for the lumbar spine: a minimally invasive new procedure for lumbar spinal canal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:E276E2802009

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13

    Hemmila MRBirkmeyer NJArbabi SOsborne NHWahl WLDimick JB: Introduction to propensity scores: A case study on the comparative effectiveness of laparoscopic vs open appendectomy. Arch Surg 145:9399452010

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14

    Hermansen ERomild UKAustevoll IMSolberg TStorheim KBrox JI: Does surgical technique influence clinical outcome after lumbar spinal stenosis decompression? A comparative effectiveness study from the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery. Eur Spine J 26:4204272017

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15

    Hinz AKlaiberg ABrähler EKönig HH: [The Quality of Life Questionnaire EQ-5D: modelling and norm values for the general population.] Psychother Psychosom Med Psychol 56:42482006 (Ger)

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16

    Ho DEImai KKing GStuart EA: Matching as nonparametric preprocessing for reducing model dependence in parametric causal inference. Polit Anal 15:1992362007

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17

    Hopp ETsou PM: Postdecompression lumbar instability. Clin Orthop Relat Res 227:1431511988

  • 18

    Issack PSCunningham MEPumberger MHughes APCammisa FP Jr: Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: evaluation and management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 20:5275352012

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19

    Jang JWPark JHHyun SJRhim SC: Clinical outcomes and radiologic changes after microsurgical bilateral decompression by a unilateral approach in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis and grade I degenerative spondylolisthesis with a minimum 3-year follow-up. Clin Spine Surg 29:2682712016

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20

    Javalkar VCardenas RTawfik TAKhan IRBollam PBanerjee AD: Reoperations after surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. World Neurosurg 75:7377422011

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21

    Komp MHahn PMerk HGodolias GRuetten S: Bilateral operation of lumbar degenerative central spinal stenosis in full-endoscopic interlaminar technique with unilateral approach: prospective 2-year results of 74 patients. J Spinal Disord Tech 24:2812872011

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22

    Lee CWYoon KJJun JH: Percutaneous endoscopic laminotomy with flavectomy by uniportal, unilateral approach for the lumbar canal or lateral recess stenosis. World Neurosurg 113:e129e1372018

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23

    Lipson SJ: Spinal-fusion surgery—advances and concerns. N Engl J Med 350:6436442004

  • 24

    Martin BIMirza SKComstock BAGray DTKreuter WDeyo RA: Reoperation rates following lumbar spine surgery and the influence of spinal fusion procedures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32:3823872007

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25

    Mitra RReiter JP: A comparison of two methods of estimating propensity scores after multiple imputation. Stat Methods Med Res 25:1882042016

  • 26

    Mobbs RJLi JSivabalan PRaley DRao PJ: Outcomes after decompressive laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis: comparison between minimally invasive unilateral laminectomy for bilateral decompression and open laminectomy: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 21:1791862014

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27

    Moisi MFisahn CTkachenko LTubbs RSGinat DGrunert P: Unilateral laminotomy with bilateral spinal canal decompression for lumbar stenosis: a technical note. Cureus 8:e6232016

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28

    Nakai OOokawa AYamaura I: Long-term roentgenographic and functional changes in patients who were treated with wide fenestration for central lumbar stenosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 73:118411911991

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 29

    Nakanishi KTanaka NFujimoto YOkuda TKamei NNakamae T: Medium-term clinical results of microsurgical lumbar flavectomy that preserves facet joints in cases of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis: comparison of bilateral laminotomy with bilateral decompression by a unilateral approach. J Spinal Disord Tech 26:3513582013

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 30

    Niggemann PKuchta JGrosskurth DBeyer HKHoeffer JDelank KS: Spondylolysis and isthmic spondylolisthesis: impact of vertebral hypoplasia on the use of the Meyerding classification. Br J Radiol 85:3583622012

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 31

    Oertel MFRyang YMKorinth MCGilsbach JMRohde V: Long-term results of microsurgical treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis by unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression. Neurosurgery 59:126412702006

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 32

    Rubin DB: Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons2004Vol 81

  • 33

    Sasai KUmeda MMaruyama TWakabayashi EIida H: Microsurgical bilateral decompression via a unilateral approach for lumbar spinal canal stenosis including degenerative spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg Spine 9:5545592008

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 34

    Schoeggl AMaier HSaringer WReddy MMatula C: Outcome after chronic sciatica as the only reason for lumbar microdiscectomy. J Spinal Disord Tech 15:4154192002

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 35

    Stuart EA: Matching methods for causal inference: a review and a look forward. Stat Sci 25:1212010

  • 36

    Stucki GDaltroy LLiang MHLipson SJFossel AHKatz JN: Measurement properties of a self-administered outcome measure in lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 21:7968031996

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 37

    Stucki GLiang MHFossel AHKatz JN: Relative responsiveness of condition-specific and generic health status measures in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. J Clin Epidemiol 48:136913781995

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 38

    Thomé CZevgaridis DLeheta OBäzner HPöckler-Schöniger CWöhrle J: Outcome after less-invasive decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis: a randomized comparison of unilateral laminotomy, bilateral laminotomy, and laminectomy. J Neurosurg Spine 3:1291412005

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 39

    Tuli SKYerby SAKatz JN: Methodological approaches to developing criteria for improvement in lumbar spinal stenosis surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31:127612802006

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 40

    Ulrich NHGravestock IHeld USchawkat KPichierri GWertli MM: Does preoperative degenerative spondylolisthesis influence outcome in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis? Three-year results of a Swiss prospective multicenter cohort study. World Neurosurg 114:e1275e12832018

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 41

    van Buuren SGroothuis-Oudshoorn K: mice: Multivariate Imputation by Chained Equations in R. J Stat Softw 45:1672011

  • 42

    Weiner BKWalker MBrower RSMcCulloch JA: Microdecompression for lumbar spinal canal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 24:226822721999

  • 43

    Young SVeerapen RO’Laoire SA: Relief of lumbar canal stenosis using multilevel subarticular fenestrations as an alternative to wide laminectomy: preliminary report. Neurosurgery 23:6286331988

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 44

    Zucherman JFHsu KYHartjen CAMehalic TFImplicito DAMartin MJ: A multicenter, prospective, randomized trial evaluating the X STOP interspinous process decompression system for the treatment of neurogenic intermittent claudication: two-year follow-up results. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30:135113582005

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

TrendMD

Metrics

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 454 454 153
Full Text Views 66 66 25
PDF Downloads 62 62 23
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0

PubMed

Google Scholar